In a “60 Minutes” interview broadcast by CBS Sunday, Panetta reiterated that someone in the Pakistani government must have known where Osama bin Laden was hiding.

The Pentagon chief also admitted that a Pakistani doctor helped the CIA find bin Laden’s compound last year.

And he expressed concern about the doctor, who’s been arrested by Pakistani officials and charged with treason.

Leon Panetta was in charge of the CIA when Navy Seals staged their dramatic raid inside Pakistan, killing bin Laden.

Weeks later, a Pakistani doctor, Shakeel Afridi, was arrested.

Afridi may yet face treason charges after being accused of running a fake vaccination program as a way to gain access to bin Laden’s compound for the CIA. Panetta told “60 Minutes” he’s worried about how Afridi is being treated.

“This was an individual who in fact helped provide intelligence that was very helpful with regards to this operation,” Panetta said. “He was not in any way treasonous towards Pakistan, he was not in any way doing anything that would have undermined Pakistan. As a matter of fact Pakistan and the United States have a common cause here against terrorism. And for them to take this kind of action against someone who was helping to go after terrorism, I just think, it was a real mistake on their part.”

Pakistan was embarrassed by the raid and accused the US of violating its sovereignty.

Back then, anti-American sentiment was running high – one Gallup poll suggested 85 percent of Pakistanis disapproved of US leadership. It wasn’t always like that.

“I have been to America when I was a young officer. I did one of the training courses there and that was the F-16. I have some very fond memories of the people I interacted with,” said Retired Pakistani Air Force Marshall Shahad Latif.

Latif remembered the good old days when he worked side by side with American pilots, learning to fly US made warplanes. But Latif said all those years of teamwork doesn’t give Panetta a right to criticize Pakistan for how it treats Afridi – someone who Latif believes must face consequences for working for the CIA.

“What are Americans to think in a situation like this where a man who apparently helped the world get rid, helped the world get rid of Osama bin Laden is being held and accused of being a traitor in this country?” I asked him.

“This is a difficult proposition that you put up. But apparently the fact he passed information I think he does come in the bracket of a traitor,” Latif said.

Political analyst Imitaz Gul takes a similarly hard line. It doesn’t matter to Gul that Afridi’s apparent target was bin Laden – it matters that he was passing secrets to the US and withholding them from Pakistani authorities.

“You know, it’s really easy to argue against it or argue for it. But it depends who is arguing it. The Americans probably think they can probably get away with everything,” Gul said.

Gul knows American officials have lost faith in Pakistani intelligence – believing they actively cooperate with sections of the Taliban in Afghanistan. And in the “60 Minutes” interview, Panetta said that while he had no evidence, he believed that someone in the Pakistani government knew bin Laden was hiding in their country.

So, plenty of bad feelings on both sides, said Gul. And not made any better by a November cross border clash with US troops that left 24 Pakistani soldiers dead.

“These relations continue to suffer from mistrust. So as long as this perception stays, I think there will be enough reason for the Americans to be wary or suspicious of the Pakistani establishment and the Pakistani establishment on its part is suspicious of the American long term planning,” Gul said.

There have been some attempts to repair relations. US drones are reportedly flying over northern Pakistan again. And the parliament in Islamabad seems poised to reopen the border crossings for NATO supplies that were closed by Pakistan in an act of retaliation.

Still, the resentment toward America doesn’t appear to be dissipating. And that probably means the Pakistani doctor who helped the CIA bag bin Laden shouldn’t expect to get off lightly in his own country.

The observers are verifying compliance with an Arab League plan to end the government’s violent crackdown.

Tens of thousands protested in Homs as the monitors arrived. The Arab League said the first day was “very good”.

Tanks reportedly withdrew before the monitors arrived but activists say some were simply deployed out of sight.

The UN says more than 5,000 people have been killed in protests against President Bashar al-Assad’s rule since March.

Lisa Mullins talks with an activist inside the Syrian city of Homs, as unrest there continues.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World. Today, tens of thousands of anti-government protestors thronged the streets in the Syrian city of Homs. Unverified video showed a resident shouting, “We want an Arab army to enter Syria, we demand a no-fly zone.” The demonstrators were sending a message to observers from the Arab League. Those monitors arrived in Homs today. Clashes between government forces and the opposition caused at least 30 deaths in the city on the eve of the visit. We reached an activist in Homs, Abu Rami, although that’s not his real name. The telephone line into the city fell short of broadcast quality, so we’ve provided a voice over. Abu Rami told us that he does not believe that the Arab League observers are independent.

Abu Rami/Voiceover: They visited two or three areas, but they were under the control of the regime. Today, a big demonstration, the number of protestors was around 50,000 people. And more than that, the Arab observers, they didn’t come to this neighborhood and watch themselves. We called them many times, but unfortunately, sometimes there was no responding. Sometimes the line was busy and we didn’t contact them.

Mullins: If you could speak to them, the observers for the Arab League, what would you tell them?

Rami/Voiceover: I would tell them that look at these huge number of protestors. The Syrian media said that there is no crisis in Syria, that there is no protestors. Look with your eyes and see these protestors. I would take them to families who lost their children and tell them our suffering. And we would like to tell them that we need international protection. But to be honest with you, I am not optimistic for that so far from these observers.

Mullins: Abu, is there anything else that you want to mention that you think we should know?

Rami/Voiceover: Yes, I want to add something very important, that the mayor of Homs city threatened the protestors to be calm nowadays and that if we didn’t be calm he is not responsible for what the security forces will do against us. For that reason we are calling many times and request through your media, we are appealing for the international community and United Nations, and the whole humanitarian organization to intervene in Syria and to stop this bloodshed that’s happening every day.

Mullins: Thank you, Abu Rami, in Homs, Syria.

Rami: Thank you.

Mullins: That was a Syrian activist speaking to us from Homs.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

The bombings are the worst in months – and follow within days of the withdrawal of US troops.

They come amid fears of rising sectarian tensions as the unity government faces internal divisions.

Host Lisa Mullins talks with reporter Sahar Issa in Baghdad.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World. A series of bomb attacks shook the city of Baghdad today. More than 60 people were killed, nearly 200 were injured. Iraq’s interior ministry says there were 14 blasts across the city in a period of two hours. The bombings are the worst in months and they come at a sensitive time. The last US troops just left Iraq on Sunday. Since then, tension with in the country’s unity government has escalated rapidly. And now there are fears of renewed sectarian violence. McClatchy journalist, Sahar Issa, lives in Baghdad. What did you hear today?

Sahar Issa: We woke up to the explosions. The house shook. One of the explosions was very close. It was not more than 100 meters down the road from where I live, and the other one was about 1/2 kilometer away. Iraqis have become quite skillful in determining whether the explosions are IEDs, roadside bombs, or car bombs from the way the vibrations are received. These vibrations we felt through the ground, telling us that these were car bombs, and so they were.

Mullins: In the aftermath of the explosions what happened?

Issa: We can hear the sirens, we can shootings, we can hear shouting, we can hear all sorts of sounds that were quite terrifying that we haven’t heard for quite a while. Roads were blocked, neighborhoods were shutdown, we couldn’t get to work.

Mullins: So when that happens and the roads are blocked, you say you can’t get to work, what do people do? What did you do?

Issa: People who have to go out will walk out. For me, I can work from my home, I have all the facilities, so I called into my boss and told him it is really too dangerous to go out, and the roads are blocked, especially our neighborhood.

Mullins: You’re lucky enough as a journalist to be able to do some of your work at home when it’s too dangerous to go out. What about some of your neighbors, those people who have children, can they go to school? Can people walk outside? Do they see this as possibly the start of more violence?

Issa: To tell you the truth it is difficult. Iraqis have been through so much, they have seen so much violence, it is difficult to say that this is the beginning of a new stage of violence like we once had in 2006 and 2007. People are hoping that this will be just a day of violence, a day where [inaudible 2:33] at each other, a day in which the other factions that you must know, Iraq is a battleground for power, regional powers from all Iraq, when they are fighting their own fight on Iraqi ground, just a day of violence. Iraqis hope that they can go to sleep today knowing the losses of today, hoping for a quick recovery for the injured, but nevertheless hoping that tomorrow will be just another day. And the people who did the violence today have had their fill.

Mullins: Sahar Issa is a reporter with McClatchy newspapers speaking to us from Baghdad. Thanks a lot.

Issa: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

More on the attacks from the BBC

That was the verdict Tuesday from the jury in the terrorism case of Tarek Mehanna.

The jury in Boston convicted him of conspiring to help al-Qaeda and plotting to kill US soldiers in Iraq.

After Tuesday’s verdict, the 29-year-old defendant could be sentenced to life in a prison.

Prosecutors in the case said that Mehanna was born and raised in a Boston suburb and traveled to Yemen to attend a training camp.

His defense lawyers said it was to study Islam.

Anchor Marco Werman talks to David Cole, professor of Law at the Georgetown University, about the verdict.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World. Guilty on all counts — that was the verdict today from a jury in the terrorism case of Tarek Mehanna. The jury in Boston convicted him of conspiring to help al-Qaeda and plotting to kill US soldiers in Iraq. After today’s verdict, the 29-year-old defendant could be sentenced to life in prison. As we reported yesterday, Tarek Mehanna was born in the US and raised in a Boston suburb. Prosecutors said he traveled to Yemen to attend a terrorist training camp. His defense lawyer said it was to study Islam. Both sides agree that after returning to the US Mehanna began translating al-Qaeda documents and distributing them on the internet. David Cole is a law professor at Georgetown University. So the verdict of guilty came in part as we said as a result of Mehanna’s translating documents, and the prosecution said that was material support of terrorism. What’s your reaction to that?

David Cole: Well, the statute under which he was prosecuted, the material support statute, is remarkably broad and defines material support to terrorist organizations to include not just the provision of arms and the provision of money, or the provision of any kind of tangible aid, but also through speech. So, under the statute you can be convicted and thrown in jail for merely engaging in speech that is provided to or done in coordination with a terrorist organization. It’s a very, very sweeping statute.

Werman: So legally what are the implications for free speech in this country if translating documents can be interpreted as support for terrorism?

Cole: Well, it’s very concerning. I mean there are many news organizations that have for example, put up links to some of Osama Bin Laden’s statements. Are they providing material support to al-Qaeda by doing so? We in this country have seen the dangers of government prosecuting people for speech. The history of the First Amendment is sort of built on a series of cases in which the government prosecuted people for advocating crime, but in fact what they did was criminalize descent. Prosecuted people who spoke out against WWI for example, prosecuted people in the McCarthy era for advocating communist ideas, and ultimately the Supreme Court recognized the danger of this sort of criminalization of descent by saying you’ve gotta prove when you’re prosecuting someone for their speech that their speech was intended and likely to produce eminent lawless action — very, very tough standard to meet. But the reason that that standard is tough is because of the danger of criminalizing descent. And in this case by using the material support statute the government avoided that test altogether. There’s no showing that any of his internet activity was intended or likely to produce any eminent action or ever lead to any illegal action whatsoever.

Werman: The jury in the case deliberated pretty quickly and came back with the verdict of guilty. What does the speed of the verdict indicate to you, if anything?

Cole: Well, I mean again, this is the danger. When you criminalize speech, that permits the government to put on all kinds of evidence about people’s political views and inclinations. And if those inclinations are ones that we the majority don’t like, there’s a real risk that juries will convict them not for engaging in or actually furthering any kind of violence, but for engaging in speech that we find profoundly troubling. And that’s what the First Amendment is designed to protect, but in this case doesn’t see to have done that work.

Werman: So, David Cole, how significant is this as a legal precedent?

Cole: As you may know, the Supreme Court took up a case involving the material support statute just a year and a half ago. In fact, I argued on behalf of a human rights group in the case. And the Supreme Court said there’s no First Amendment problem with prosecuting people for engaging in speech with or on behalf of a group that’s been labeled terrorists, even if that speech advocates nothing but peace and human rights. So…

Werman: What was their justification?

Cole: Their justification was that anything you say on behalf of a group might sort of burnish its legitimacy and it can then use that legitimacy to go out and raise other support. Then it could use that support to engage in criminal activity. I mean it’s a very attenuated chain of causation, not the kind of causation that the Supreme Court at least in the past has said is required when you make speech a crime. So we’ve now come to the point where we’re making pure speech a crime regardless of its actual connection to any concrete criminal conduct, and that’s a very, very dangerous place to be.

Werman: Law professor David Cole at Georgetown University, thank you very much.

Cole: Thanks for having me.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Over the weekend Kenya sent troops into Somalia upset by a rash of kidnappings of tourists and foreign aid workers. Kenya blames the Somali Islamist group, Al Shabaab, who has ties to al-Qaeda.

Host Lisa Mullins talks with the BBC’s Will Ross about the implications for the east African region and for the US.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World, a coproduction of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH in Boston. Somalia is arguably the most chaotic country in the world and it’s about to get more volatile. Kenya confirmed today that it has sent forces into neighboring Somalia. Kenyan officials say that they have the right to defend their country against the Somali Islamic group, Al Shabaab. They blame Al Shabaab for a spate of high profile kidnappings of foreigners. The BBC’s Will Ross is in Nairobi, Kenya. From a distance it sounds like a very provocative act. We also know that there are African Union forces from Uganda, forces from Burundi already there. Why suddenly have the Kenyans decided to go into Somalia as well?

Will Ross: The Kenyan government was in a predicament in that it couldn’t do nothing. There were big question marks over Kenyan security, how safe was the border, so something had to be done. The question is are they doing the right thing and how long is this operation gonna last, and what are the consequences gonna be for Kenya? We know all too well from past experience that foreign interventions in Somalia had pretty drastic ramifications. There was of course, the American involvement in the capital, Mogadishu, back in 1993 that ended in the Black Hawk Down incident that became a very well-known film. And ever since then interventions have taken place, but at a high cost. And of course, America in recent years has been very worried about the Al Shabaab Islamist insurgent group. So America has been pretty active in Somalia or at least above Somalia using drone aircraft, no troops that we know on the ground. But a lot of bombings have happened of Al Shabaab suspected positions by America. Now Kenya has got involved. As I say, the question is how long is it gonna go on, this operation, because some Kenyans are worried that this could lead to Kenya becoming more of a target for Al Shabaab attacks.

Mullins: You mean Al Shabaab attacks within Kenya itself, retaliatory attacks?

Ross: Exactly, and we’ve had a statement from Al Shabaab warning Kenyans not to let what it called flames of war spill over into their country.

Mullins: In terms of US foreign policy, you know, the United States as you said is staging drone attacks over Somalia. Is the Kenyan intervention, uncharacteristic by the way for Kenya, but is the intervention in Somalia something that would further complicate at least US efforts or maybe even act on behalf of the US?

Ross: Well, I’m sure that the US wouldn’t be angry that Kenya is going on the offensive against Al Shabaab. I’m not sure it necessarily complicates the relations with Somalia and the US. It’s more of a worry for the Kenyan population itself, some of whom feel that this might make feel Kenya a target. But it’s unlikely that the US is going to stop its activities which have mainly centered on drone attacks on suspected Al Shabaab positions.

Mullins: What’s the bigger picture here for the region as a result of this?

Ross: Well, I think the region in general is worried you know, all the way around east Africa, what Al Shabaab might become. I mean it has been very weakened over the last few months. It was pushed out of the capital, Mogadishu, but the fact that it said it was behind the bomb attacks in Ugandan capital, Kampala, last year was a kind of warning to the whole region that you know, the insecurity in Somalia will not necessarily stay within that country. And I think for the region it emphasizes the need for Somalia to be sorted out, for there to be a policy which will bring peace to the country. Yes, there have been so many efforts talking peace to try and get the politicians, and the clan leaders and all the different rival clans in Somalia to agree. Those have failed for now more than 20 years, but this intervention will once again focus minds on you know, what is the solution for Somalia?

Mullins: Okay, speaking to us from Nairobi, Kenya, the BBC’s Will Ross. Thank you, Will.

Ross: My pleasure.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Many of the victims were students who had gathered near a government building to register for scholarships to study in Turkey.

The al-Qaeda affiliated group al-Shabab claimed responsibility.

It is always difficult to imagine what could motivate an individual, whether in Somalia or Afghanistan or anywhere to carry out such a horrific attack.

Author Ken Ballen has tried to grapple with the logic.

He interviewed more than a hundred extremists for his new book “Terrorists in Love: The Real Lives of Islamic Radicals.”

Among those he profiles is a star-crossed couple.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World. The bomb that exploded today on a busy street in Mogadishu was huge even by Somali standards. It was hidden in a truck containing piles of scrap metal. The blast killed at least 70 people and left scores injured. Afterward, shocked emergency workers combed the smoldering scene to help the wounded. Many of the victims were students. They’d gathered near a government building to register for scholarships to study in Turkey. The al-Qaeda affiliated Islamist group, al-Shabab, claimed responsibility. Al-Shabab has long been at war with Somalia’s struggling transitional government. But on a personal level, it’s always difficult to imagine what could motivate an individual whether in Somalia or Afghanistan or anywhere to carry out such a horrific attack. Author Ken Ballen has tried to grapple with the logic. He interviewed nearly 100 extremists for his new book, Terrorists In Love: The Real Lives of Islamic Radicals. Among those he profiles in a star-crossed couple.

Ken Ballen: In Saudi Arabia one young man fell in love with a young woman. They were like a Jihadi Romeo and Juliet if you will, and he wasn’t allowed to marry his sweetheart because he didn’t have the $30,000 dowry. So he went to Iraq to fight in noble Jihad because if he died he could go to heaven and in heaven he could marry his sweetheart.

Werman: I mean sexual oppression among young people like the young man in the first chapter and the Romeo and Juliet couple, it’s one of the themes that runs through these profiles. What role does it play in these people becoming Jihadists?

Ballen: I think it plays a large role. There was another fellow in Pakistan who when he was 11 years old, he came from a very wealthy family. His father was a colonel who guards that country’s nuclear weapons, so he came from a very wealthy family, very privileged. He was raped in school at 11 years old. Several years later he too fell in love with a young woman and he was beaten because of the love He turned to God for solace. You see this pattern over and over and over again. One fellow, Ahmad, blew him self up in Iraq and when he met an American army nurse it was the first time he had ever met a woman outside his own family, and he was transformed by that experience.

Werman: I mean Ahmad is an interesting case. You found him, if you read between the lines, rather endearing.

Ballen: I did. He went to fight in Iraq. As I said, he blew himself up in an attack, but in many ways he was duped. And when he met the Americans and saw what the Americans were like he said to me, al-Qaeda tried to use me as a piece of rotten meat. The Americans treated me with dignity and respect. He’s a very pro-American person right now and you can feel that when you talk to him from his hear. He’s still a strong Muslim, he’s still very much believes in the faith, but he also saw a totally different world when he was exposed to Americans who treated him kindly at Abu Ghraib of all places, which has a very different reputation.

Werman: I was going to say, it’s fascinating. I mean here you actually in a way, you followed those infamous photos taken by US GIs in Abu Grhaib, and Ahmad sees those and that’s what prompts him to become a suicide bomber.

Ballen: There was a whole array of religious and psychological factors. He had a difficult relationship with his father. He joined a gang. He felt tremendous guilt over the gang. And seeing those photos of the prisoners being abused was the prompt that lead him to feel that Jihad could be the answer in going off to Iraq to fight.

Werman: Remind us what happens to Ahmad, because you said he was duped. Just how badly was he duped?

Ballen: He was duped fairly…I mean he knew he was fighting, he knew he wanted to kill Americans because he felt that that was God’s calling, but he didn’t know he was going into a suicide attack. And some people say to me, well, how come he didn’t know that? Well, I interviewed scores and scores of Jihadi and I found this pattern of al-Qaeda duping a lot of young men who didn’t want to die, they wanted to fight, but they didn’t want to die. And if you recall, even bin Laden himself on that famous December 2001 tape where he’s talking about the 9/11 attacks, laughs at how he duped some of the hijackers who didn’t know they were gonna die.

Werman: Tell us the story of Ahmad. I mean essentially he was getting very anxious to do something, to fight Jihad and what his bosses then set him up for?

Ballen: He tells a very interesting story about arriving in Iraq with 45 other Jihadis from all over the Muslim world. And they arrived there and the leader of al-Qaeda tells them all of you young men are on a noble mission, you will die for God, this is the highest calling there is, who wants to volunteer to join the suicide attack right now so they can meet their maker in heaven? And nobody volunteered.

Werman: Right, because they didn’t know that was what it was about. They ust went to fight.

Ballen: They went to fight. Now, if they died they’d have the notion of going to heaven, which was a powerful incentive, but that didn’t mean they wanted to kill themselves. As Ahmad said to me, didn’t mean I wanted to kill myself right away, I mean I kind of want to fight and do some good on earth before I get to heaven.

Werman: So he’s outside Baghdad. His bosses say we’re gonna get in this fuel truck and drive into town. Tell us what happens then.

Ballen: He’s in the fuel truck and it’s the first time in months that he’s been in Iraq that he’s actually having a normal conversation with two of the Jihadis. They’re joking around in the way that young men between the ages of 18 and 24 like to joke…about bodily functions and all of that. And for the first time he’s in Iraq he actually feels happy. He feels like he’s with other people, he feels like he’s doing some good. And then they’re driving along in Baghdad. He doesn’t even know how to drive the tanker truck. And about 1,000 feet before a concrete barrier the other two Iraqi Jihadi jump out of the truck. This is a big tractor trailer truck filled with liquid propane, and within a matter of seconds it blew up.

Werman: Right, you’re an American Mr. Ballen and acting kind of as a psychoanalyst for these people. How do you know they’re not just telling you what they think you want to hear or what might gain them favor?

Ballen: Well, one fellow, Malik, who’s a Taliban fighter, he was holding my hand as a sign of friendship. And he said to me and he began to tear because he began to incite a saying of the prophet Muhammad, and he said, the day of judgement will not come until the Muslims kill every single Jew; if the Jew is hiding behind a stone, the stone will cry out ‘oh, Muslim, kill the Jew.’ This was while he was holding my hand knowing I was a Jew. So, I don’t think they were telling me everything I wanted to hear.

Werman: So you think the fact as well that you’re Jewish affected your interaction with these people?

Ballen: Deeply, there was another instance where I was with Shahid who was once part of a cell. He didn’t participate in it, he got out of it, but his colleagues were involved in the bombing of the Marriott hotel. And I told him a dream that I had, which he interpreted as some kind of a religious vision. And he was so moved by that, that a Jew, that an American, that a so-called infidel could actually have this kind of religious vision that it overcame him. So I never hid it from people that I talked to. I brought it out because it was a way to provoke their inner thoughts and their feelings.

Werman: So let me ask you, Mr. Ballen, how should this unique understanding of who these people are now change how the US approaches a policy from militant Islam.

Ballen: I think of the story of Kamal. His father, one of the highest religious officials in Saudi Arabia, perhaps even in the Muslim world, his world view is that every Christian, every infidel, every Jew is headed for hell. That’s not Kamal’s world view. His world view is that there’s a place in heaven for everyone. So, within the faith there is movement and I think the United States must give respect to that, must engage in dialogue, and must understand that this is something that has to come from Muslims themselves, these changed attitudes, not from the United States trying to impose its will or its vision on other people.

Werman: Author Ken Ballen spent five years interviewing more than 100 extremists throughout the Muslim world. His new book is called Terrorists in Love. Ken Ballen, thank you so much.

Ballen: Thank you, it’s been a pleasure to be on.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Peter Bergen interviews Ken Ballen about “Terrorists In Love: The Real Lives of Islamic Radicals”

He was one of two American citizens killed in a drone attack on their convoy in Yemen.

Host Marco Werman talks to New York Times reporter Laura Kasinof in Yemen and terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman in Washington DC about today’s events.

Read tweets about Anwar Al-Awlaki

Anwar al-Awlaki (Photo: Wiki Commons)

US-born radical Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a key al-Qaeda leader, has been killed in Yemen, the country’s defense ministry said.

US President Barack Obama said his death was a major blow to al-Qaeda.

Awlaki, of Yemeni descent, has been on the run in Yemen since December 2007.

The US named him a “global terrorist” and said he had played a “significant role” in plots to blow up US airliners and use poison to kill US citizens.

Obama is said to have personally ordered his killing last year.

Yemen’s defense ministry statement said only that Awlaki had died in Khashef in Jawf province, about 87 miles east of the capital, Sanaa, “along with some of his companions”.

US and Yemeni officials later named one of those as Samir Khan, also a US citizen but of Pakistani origin, who produced an online magazine promoting al-Qaeda’s ideology.

But bringing peace to the war torn country has been a much more difficult challenge.

In some parts of Kabul, water is a luxury for people who have learned to live with so little.

On a hill in southeastern Kabul, children fill plastic jugs from a hose connected to an underground water supply. From here, they face a short hike up a steep, rocky hillside to carry the water to a unique community.

A Community of Widows

“There aren’t any advantages to living here, but I have to,” said 25-year-old Fawzia. She’s one of the newest residents. “I can’t afford to live downtown. And this house doesn’t have windows or doors. It’s not a proper home.”

Her home is a concrete block, perhaps six feet by four feet, overlooking a cemetery. The stench of raw sewage hangs in the air. There is no furniture, just some mattresses on the floor and a tattered old scenic photo of Kabul stuck to one wall.

Fawzia’s husband died in a car accident two years ago and his family refused to take care of her four children. She moved here two months ago. Like the other thousand or so widows who live here, Fawzia may not have much. But it’s more than they might have had in a country where widows are often abused or ignored if their late husband’s family refuses to take them in.

A few steps away, Zarmina Faima slapped mud onto the bricks of a house in progress. She was covered in grey muck from head to toe and smiling.

Zarmina is building a new house after living here for four years in a smaller home. She said her husband died in a suicide attack. For a time, she tried to live with her husband’s family. But Zarmina said the abuse she suffered drove her away and onto this hill.

“This is better,” she said, “because my father in law and brother in law are not here to beat my children or me. I am happy to be able to stand on my own two feet and be able to feed my children.”

Afghanistan’s wars and violence have claimed thousands and thousands of victims over the years. The United Nations estimates nearly half the children in Kabul have lost a parent.

Estimating the number of widows is guesswork, but it could be up to two million. Selay Ghaffar who heads up an organization providing assistance to women and children, says there are few options for widows who are rejected by their husband’s relatives.

“The widow’s life ended up to the begging, prostitution, trafficking and to being a laborer working somewhere, to be always exploited by their owner,” she said.

In other words, slavery.

Coming Together to Build Homes

And so in the last 10 years, widows like Zarmina have gathered here, building illegal homes. In the early days, the police would destroy the homes. The widows would rebuild.
Zarmina says now, the officers have a new tactic.

“The police have come here several times,” Zarmina said. “They stop the trucks carrying the bricks. They asked for bribes and if we pay the bribes then they allow us to build our houses. Otherwise, they’ll keep coming back.”

Zarmina takes a trowel to smooth the mud over the bricks, sealing any holes to try to keep the coming winter chill out. Her mother, Gulsom watches from just outside the narrow room. Gulsom has lived here for eight years, after her husband and four of her children were killed when a rocket hit their home in Kabul. She still bears the physical scars and the painful memories of that day and the life it has led her to here on the hill.

“I don’t have enough money to pay rent. Since I can’t even earn enough money to buy food then how can I pay rent?” Gulsom asked. “When my children died I didn’t have enough money to buy coffins for them. I will never forget that moment.

The widows have formed an association but in reality, there’s little solidarity as they all struggle to survive. Just last week, Afghanistan honored one of its former warlords with a majestic burial on a hilltop above the capital. The colony of widows on the other side of town offers another glimpse of the country’s living legacy of war.

A solitary fire fighter stands amidst the rubble and smoke in New York City. Days after a Sept. 11 terrorist attack, fires still burn at the site of the World Trade Center. (Photo: US Navy)

And in many of those classrooms, the students are increasingly too young to have many actual memories of their own of that day’s events.

I visited two high school classes in the San Francisco Bay Area to see how teachers are approaching the topic, what the students know and don’t know, and how they feel about the events surrounding that day.

History teacher Kent Holubar at Crystal Springs Uplands School in Hillsborough, Calif. (Photo: Jason Margolis)

Pakistan could not confirm it Monday.

The US says the death of Atiyah Abd al-Rahman was a major victory against the terrorist group.

The Americans have stepped-up drone attacks along Pakistan’s border area.

But Adam Entous writes in Monday’s Wall Street Journal that the drone strikes are damaging not only Al-Qaeda, but also US relations with Pakistan.

Anchor Marco Werman speaks with Entous to get more information on the issue.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World, a coproduction of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston.  Pakistan could not confirm it today, but American officials say the deputy chief of al-Qaeda was killed in a drone strike last week with Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. The US says the death of Atiyah Abd al-Rahman was a major victory against the terrorist group.  The Americans have stepped up drone attacks along Pakistan’s border area, but Adam Entous writes in today’s Wall Street Journal that the drone strikes are damaging not only al-Qaeda, but US relations with Pakistan. Mr. Entous is in Washington.  Now, we’ve long heard that Pakistani leaders publicly criticize these US drone attacks inside Pakistan’s tribal areas, while privately supporting them.  Is that still the case or has something fundamentally shifted here?

Adam Entous: There’s definitely been a shift in Pakistan’s views.  Publicly it’s incredibly unpopular these drone strikes among the public, and the leadership is beginning to express this opposition more forcefully in their encounters with American officials and this has taken the Americans slightly by surprise.

Werman: Pakistan apparently has proposed moving to a dual key approach when it comes to these drone strikes with Islamabad having kind of a say over who gets targeted and when they get targeted.  How feasible is that though?

Entous: Something like that was tried in the Bush administration.  It was secretly done where you had the Pakistanis would need to sign off on the strikes.  It was abandoned by the Americans because they felt that the Pakistanis were too slow to approve of strikes or were dragging their feet on adding names to the target lists.  So that was abandoned and the US decided to go with a more unilateral approach.

Werman: And some people say that Pakistan’s military also tips off militants.  What evidence is there of that?

Entous: Well, there’s been a couple high profile cases recently where the US provided intelligence to the Pakistani military and the intelligence services, telling them there was a weapons factory.  In a few cases the Americans say that some elements within the Pakistani intelligence or military did tip them off and that caused problems for the Americans in carrying out these operations.  So, this is something that they kept in mind obviously with the Bin Laden raid, and again with this drone strike that was announced or disclosed over the weekend.  We see again the Americans largely deciding to keep the Pakistani side in the dark about these operations because they’re afraid of compromising operational security.

Werman: And Adam Entous, when you speak with officials in Washington, do you get the sense that they are concerned about offending the Pakistanis when it comes to these stepped up strikes?

Entous: Well, what’s happened is we’re seeing a bit of a split within the US administration on this, where you have certain high profile members of the military and members of the diplomatic core, they’re the ones who are sort of raising these concerns and started doing so earlier this year after a series of very big strikes that the CIA conducted.  The Pakistanis said afterward that there were a lot of civilians killed.  That’s what sort of put this issue on the table.

Werman: What are the consequences if the US ignores Pakistan’s public concerns about these drone strikes?

Entous: I mean I think the issue for the Americans is obviously they have a national security interest right now and trying to deal what they see as a death blow to al-Qaeda after Bin Laden’s death.  At the same time they’re realizing there’s a risk when you push the envelope you’re going to end up pushing this issue in Pakistan potentially to a point where it’s going to be harder and harder for the Pakistani leadership to ignore the opinion of the Pakistani people, which are overwhelmingly against these strikes.  So, it’s a difficult balancing act that the Americans are working under, where they’re trying obviously to keep up the pressure on al-Qaeda, but they don’t want to push so hard that the Pakistanis end up curtailing the strikes.

Werman: Adam Entous is national security correspondent for The Wall Street Journal.  He and Siobhan Gorman wrote about the CIA drone strikes in Pakistan in today’s edition of the paper.  Adam, thanks a lot.

Entous: Thank you very much.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: As we talk about the wind down in Afghanistan we’re revisiting what happened in the early days of the war.  The BBC’s security correspondent, Gordon Corera made a two-part documentary on the long hunt for Osama Bin Laden.  Back in 2001 US special forces were close to capturing Bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora.

Gordon Corera: His trail had been followed through Jalalabad into the White Mountains, and then to this cave complex in Tora Bora.  A very small team of US special forces,  British special forces, CIA accompanied by a large number of Afghan Mujahideen, had followed him up there and effectively were close to him, at one point within two kilometers or so they thought.  And they were really convinced he was there. They thought they could get him, but the fear at the time was that this battle should be fought without a heavy American footprint.  They requested reinforcements.  They requested people to be dropped around the back of the mountains to prevent him from escaping.  They requested mines to be dropped to close the escape routes.  None of those things happened.  And despite a massive aerial bombardment Bin Laden was able to slip away.  And there’s still anger about that.  There’s still a sort of blame game with people saying well, it’s military incompetence, one White House official said to us.  The militaries say they’d do the same thing again, it wasn’t realistic to get troops there in time…still a lot of anger from people who were involved about what happened in that period particularly, because it then took so long to find him.  After that you really get the lost years when there’s very little intelligence about where he was.

Mullins: And why was that the case that after Tora Bora there was so little intelligence?

Corera: Well, people say basically he slipped into Pakistan.  And the US at first couldn’t operate directly in Pakistan, so someone describes trying to get the intelligence was like trying to get a 400-mile long screwdriver to try and take the puzzle apart because it was so hard to get anything. Eventually, some bases were opened in Pakistan, but there was suspicion with Pakistan’s ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence agency who watched what the CIA was doing and there were suspicions between the two.  And really the trail went pretty cold for a long time until eventually through looking for the couriers the US was able to get the breakthrough which lead them eventually to the raid in May of this year.

Mullins: And that breakthrough was what and to what extent was that the product of intelligence sharing?

Corera: Well, the key issue really is how far was it a product of enhanced interrogation, for example, water boarding, that’s one of the interesting subjects because I don’t think there was much cooperation that lead to it from the Pakistanis.  This was an American show all the way through. And we spoke to people involved, and some of them are adamant that yes, that the enhanced interrogation procedures which were just so controversial were instrumental in getting hold of the intelligence.  Others dispute that.  Eric Holder for instance, the Attorney General, said well it was a mosaic of information; you can’t simply say that water boarding was vital in getting that intelligence. But eventually, without any really Pakistani knowledge of it they managed to locate the compound and then put the surveillance on it.  But still, you know, the confidence in May of this year that Osama Bin Laden was definitely there, you know, 50%-60%.

Mullins: That’s the BBC’s security consultant, Gordon Corera.  You can find a link to Part I of his radio documentary, The Hunt for Bin Laden, at theworld.org.  While you’re there you can also get the latest on what’s happening now in Afghanistan from our partners at the BBC.  Again, it’s all at theworld.org.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Listen to Part I of ‘The Hunt for Bin Laden’

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: A raid in Afghanistan’s southern neighbor, Pakistan, killed Osama Bin Laden in May. The CIA suspected that the al-Qaeda chief was hiding in Abbottabad. Today the British newspaper, The Guardian, reported on one way the agency was trying to prove Bin Laden was there. The strategy involved a phony vaccination program to obtain DNA evidence from members of Bin Laden’s family. It sounds like a clever idea, but Heidi Larson at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine says it could have unfortunate consequences. She studies the issue of public confidence in vaccination programs. Um, now this happened in Pakistan. Will this kind of operation undermine wider confidence in real vaccination program elsewhere, do you think?

Heidi Larson: If indeed a public health program was faked and something so essential that saves lives like vaccines was used as an entry point for this effort as important as it was it really was not, is not an appropriate way. It has huge ethical implications. It has huge, um, public trust implications. Just put yourself in the shoes of a family with very young children in some parts of the world and think about the next time someone knocks on the door and says I’m here to vaccinate your children. I don’t think it takes, um, any kind of extensive research to understand that it would definitely create a thinking twice and concern.

Werman: Elaborate for me what the most serious ethical implication is of this kind of operation.

Larson: I think it raises a huge amount of questions. The fundamental issue is about public trust and the relationship between the person getting a vaccine and the provider and the person who’s making the policies. So many of the issues around vaccine trust are about the specifics of the safety of the vaccine, but frankly, the bigger issue is about the contract, the social contract, between the government and the provider of health intervention that is saving people’s lives.

Werman: How do vaccination campaigns’ impact typically unfold? And if this story is true, would a vaccination campaign have been an obvious ruse for the CIA to grab hold of?

Larson: Normally, vaccination campaigns or vaccination programs are managed through the Ministry of Health. Vaccines can also be procured privately if they’ve passed their regulations and you can have private doctors that have them available. When it comes to a nation wide vaccination program, it’s government that regulates, manages, and often provides.

Werman: What do you expect is going to happen with vaccination campaigns in Pakistan over the coming year? Do you think there will be an immediate kind of discouraging effect from this incident?

Larson: For people going to a local clinic and going through the more normal approach to taking your child, or even if it’s for an adult, to go to their clinic and get their vaccination. When they decide to do it, it may raise concerns there, but I think the more likely context where it might have some negative impact will be on the house to house campaigns. I think in a more macro level it’s exacerbating an already difficult relationship between Pakistan and the US, but also with international vaccination programs. And I think we’ll have some potential implications there.

Werman: Heidi Larson is a senior lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Dr. Larson leads a team studying issues around public trust in vaccines. Thanks very much for your time.

Larson: Thanks.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I am Marco Werman, this is The World. The killing of Osama Bin Laden last month was a triumph for U.S. counter terrorism, but fallout from the incident continues to strain relations between the U.S. and Pakistan where Bin Laden was killed. Today it’s reported that five Pakistanis who helped the CIA plan the Bin Laden operation have been detained by Pakistan’s military. That’s the same institution that failed to apprehend the al-Qaeda leader or to detect the U.S. raid on his hiding place. The BBC’s Aleem Maqbool is in the town where Bin Laden was killed, Abbottabad. Aleem, who has been taken in for questioning and why?

Aleem Maqbool: Well most of the information we’re getting about the actual people who have been detained is coming from Western officials who have been briefing here. Now they say, among these five people who have been arrested in the last few days includes one man who owned the building from which the CIA observed the Bin Laden compound. And the second  they say an army major, a Pakistani army major who apparently kept records of who was coming and going to the compound and past that information on to the CIA. Now, the Pakistani army has acknowledged that there have been arrests of people suspected of informing the CIA, but they say there have been many arrests, dozens of arrests across the country over the last six weeks. But they strongly deny that anyone from within their own ranks has been detained.

Werman: And, are these individuals being accused of any crime?

Maqbool: Well, of informing a foreign spy agency, even though that spy agency, the CIA, is one which the Pakistanis are committed to working with. But this time round, certainly the Army says that the CIA went too far, the Americans went too far. They should have informed them of this operation, and that’s why they’re so angry. But there is another side to this as well, and that of course is the humiliation that that operation caused. The public here, the politicians here, the media have really had it out for the leaders of the Pakistan military. Even within the military, a lot of people have called for heads to roll.

Werman: So do Pakistanis interpret these arrests as kind of an anti-humiliation campaign?

Maqbool: Yes, I mean it’s something that they were asking for. Really, I mean it is curious Marco, that since this operation took place on the 2nd of May here in Abbottabad, that most of the discussion has not been focused on why Osama Bin Laden was here, who was supporting him; although, apparently there are investigations going on. But much more, the debate has been focused on how the Americans could have carried out this operation without Pakistani knowledge. And really lots of Pakistanis asking, because of it, for a reassessment of the relationship between Pakistan and the United States.

Werman: Now, these people who were rounded up helped make the Bin Laden operation possible. What is the U.S. doing to help those arrested?

Maqbool: Well Leon Panetta, of course, was here just a few days ago; the Director of the CIA, he was here. Apparently in those meetings, we just can’t verify it, but there are sources who say that he raised the issue. The Pakistanis apparently gave some assurances. We really don’t know, these are sources that can’t be verified. But apparently they have raised the case. And more so, they also want some answers on the other side as to why Bin Laden was here. There are, at the last count, four different official investigations to that end, here in Pakistan, but nothing is reported back so far. And we aren’t hearing really of many arrests when it comes to those who aided and abetted Osama Bin Laden.

Werman: The BBC’s Aleem Maqbool in Abbottabad. Thank you.

Maqbool: No problem.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.