[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 501-504]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized 
for the remainder of the hour.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, more than 4 months have passed since the 
terrorist attacks in Benghazi, which killed four Americans, including 
our ambassador, injured many others, and destroyed two U.S. facilities. 
Yet, despite the months that have passed, we're hardly closer to 
bringing those responsible to justice than we were in the weeks 
immediately following the attack. Put bluntly, the lack of progress in 
identifying and hunting down the terrorists responsible is stunning.
  Consider the current state of the Obama administration's 
investigation and response to the attack:
  Four months later, the administration still cannot or will not name 
the terrorist groups responsible for the attacks or the names of these 
group leaders;
  Four months later, despite consulate video footage that many Members 
of Congress have seen and many eyewitnesses, not a single Benghazi 
terror suspect is in custody;
  Four months later, the FBI has had access to only one suspect, Ali 
Harzi, for just 3 hours, and the Tunisian Government kept the FBI team 
waiting for more than 5 weeks before finally granting access;
  Four months later, the administration still has not disclosed the 
serious connections between the groups behind the Benghazi attack and 
the leaders of the attack on the U.S. embassies in Cairo, Tunis, and 
Sana'a that same week of September 11;
  Four months later, following the release of the Pickering report on 
State Department failures leading up to the attack, not a single State 
Department employee has been fired and held responsible for their role 
in denying adequate security for the consulate in Benghazi;
  Four months later, despite Secretary Clinton's September 21 
declaration when she said, ``What happened was a terrorist attack, and 
we will not rest until we have tracked down and

[[Page 502]]

brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans,'' this 
administration seems to have not only rested, but to have moved on and 
apparently hopes that the Congress and the American people will too.
  Just today, the New York Times is reporting:

       Several Egyptian members of the squad of militants that lay 
     bloody siege to an Algerian gas complex last week also took 
     part in the deadly attack on the United States Mission in 
     Libya in September.

  Mr. Speaker, 4 months later, this is an unacceptable state of 
affairs. Quite frankly, the Obama administration has failed. They have 
failed to prioritize this investigation. They have failed to bring the 
necessary pressure to bear on the Libyan, Tunisian, and Egyptian 
Governments. But more fundamentally, the administration has failed to 
respond to a terrorist attack appropriately, treating it as a law 
enforcement and diplomatic issue, rather than the security issue that 
it is.
  At its core, this is yet another reflection of President Obama's 
schizophrenic counterterrorism policy, the same administration that 
unapologetically rains down lethal drone attacks on some al Qaeda 
affiliate terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia and will not use 
other counterterrorism resources to identify, locate, and detain the 
terrorists involved in the death of our ambassador and others in Libya.
  This inconsistent policy may stem from the President's hasty campaign 
promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay in Gitmo and prematurely transfer 
detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. In doing so, the 
President effectively ended America's ability to detain and interrogate 
terrorists, depriving the FBI, the CIA, and other agencies of critical 
opportunities to obtain information on al Qaeda networks.
  Today, as the case of Benghazi suspect Ali Harzi has demonstrated, 
the United States is completely reliant on the cooperation of host 
countries to detain on our behalf and selectively allow access to 
suspects. As in the case of Harzi, as demonstrated, this approach is 
fraught with diplomatic roadblocks, costing critical time in getting 
information from suspects to track terrorist networks. Perhaps that is 
why President Obama so often opts to use lethal drone strikes to kill 
terrorists, knowing that the U.S. would be unable to get access to 
interrogate these terror suspects by working through host governments 
or because he no longer has a way to detain them in U.S. custody short 
of providing them the full privileges of an article III court.

                              {time}  1350

  In short, the President has tied his own hands, compromised U.S. 
national security and put the FBI in an impossible position. The FBI 
has been asked to treat the terrorist attack where four Americans died 
as if it's a law enforcement activity and has been put in a compromised 
and very difficult spot, and they have laid the groundwork for the 
administration's inept response in the wake of the terrorist attack in 
Benghazi.
  To make matters worse, the administration has not even seen any 
significant success from its diplomatic-focused response. When Tunisia 
refused to allow the FBI access to Harzi for more than 5 weeks, the 
administration took no public steps to use diplomatic tools, like U.S. 
foreign assistance, to pressure the Tunisians to make Harzi available. 
In fact, the FBI only gained access after Members of Congress 
threatened amendments to cut off or restrict Tunisia's foreign aid if 
they continued to obstruct the FBI investigation.
  I was among those Members of Congress along with Lindsey Graham and 
Senator McCain and others. In the interim, I urged the administration 
to act immediately to suspend foreign assistance if the Tunisian 
Government persisted in obstructing the investigation. On January 4, I 
received a tepid--and it was tepid--response from the Acting Deputy 
Assistant Administrator for Legislative and Public Affairs at USAID 
with a bland assurance that the Tunisian Government was cooperating. 
Was cooperating? Five weeks and the FBI had to wait? Then the FBI had 3 
hours to talk to him, and we gave this Tunisian Government, Mr. 
Speaker, $320 million last year? Days later, Ali Harzi was released.
  Today, I again wrote USAID, expressing my disappointment that the 
administrator himself could not respond directly to a Member of 
Congress who serves on a committee of jurisdiction and, further, 
pointed out what should be obvious--that the Tunisian Government did 
not cooperate. The Tunisian Government never seriously thought the 
aid--precious taxpayer money--was in jeopardy. The Tunisian Government 
has not faced a single consequence for undermining U.S. national 
security. I submit my letter for the Record.
  Sadly, the failure to respond forcefully and appropriately to the 
Benghazi attack will undoubtedly encourage our enemies and make the 
world a more dangerous place for Americans working in hostile 
environments around the world. This failure to respond has endangered 
future Embassy staffs and Ambassadors--the Federal employees who serve 
our country at great risk.
  Rather than demonstrating that there will be no quarter, no respite, 
no safe haven for terrorists who threaten American officials abroad, 
the message the administration has sent is that there is no apparent 
consequence for these actions. This will only embolden our enemy to 
plan the next Benghazi, knowing that under this administration there is 
less consequence even for their involvement in such an attack.
  In this context, perhaps it is not surprising that the al Qaeda-
affiliated terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia brazenly took pictures of 
the FBI agents interviewing Harzi and posted pictures on their Web 
sites; and when the Tunisian Government released Harzi, Ansar al- 
Sharia was there to welcome him and post a video of the celebration of 
his release. Again, these antagonistic actions have been met by silence 
from this administration.
  As Steve Hayes and Tom Joscelyn reported in The Weekly Standard this 
week:

       U.S. officials tell The Weekly Standard that the release of 
     the photos was a clear attempt to intimidate the Americans 
     and show that the FBI could not act with impunity.

  In its posting, Ansar al-Sharia Tunisia warned the Tunisian people 
that their government had allowed the FBI ``to begin investigating your 
sons under post-revolutionary protection.''
  Consider that, in the same week of the Benghazi attack, our Embassies 
in Cairo, Tunis and Sana were also overrun in an increasingly apparent 
coordinated plot. In each case, the American flag was ripped down and 
burned, and a black al Qaeda flag was flown in its place. We are 
fortunate and blessed that none of these incidents resulted in a loss 
of life. They were, nonetheless, an attack on America by hostile 
groups.
  As the administration's own State Department Web site states: ``Any 
attack on an Embassy is considered an attack on the country it 
represents.'' Each Embassy and consulate that was overrun the week of 
September 11 represents, in its own way, a public attack on America, 
and in the months that have followed, this administration has 
demonstrated that there are no consequences for breaching our Embassies 
or for killing our personnel.
  I fear that the latest hostage-taking and killing of Americans and 
other Westerners in Algeria is a manifestation of a newfound confidence 
by our enemy in knowing that they may face no serious consequences from 
this administration for their murderous acts. It is telling that 
neither President Obama nor any others in his administration have made 
a public statement on the recent terrorist activities in Algeria, 
whereas the head of France and the head of England have spoken out over 
and over and over.
  All the while, the Arab Spring, which was fanned by this 
administration to much fanfare, has become an Arab Winter, and for many 
of the people in the Middle East and North Africa, this Arab Winter--a 
new safe haven for al Qaeda-affiliated groups--is forming, 
ideologically fueled by the release of terrorists and extremists from 
prisons and flush with weapons provided to anti-Qadhafi rebels last 
year.
  We are witnessing the potential formation of the next front in the 
war on

[[Page 503]]

terror, but we increasingly have an administration that no longer 
considers it a war worth fighting no matter the cost to American power 
or to the safety of our people abroad. While some have described the 
Obama doctrine as leading from behind, it is increasingly clear that 
the Obama doctrine means not leading at all. While most of the 
responsibility falls on the President and his administration, the 
Congress--the House and the Senate--and the media share some blame for 
failing to adequately investigate and bring attention to the many 
questions surrounding the administration's response to Benghazi.
  Aside from a handful of reporters who have stayed with this story and 
have continued to raise questions about the administration's words and 
deeds, I can't help but wonder: Where are the New York Times, the 
Washington Post, or the network news programs? Why in the wake of last 
week's deadly terrorist attack in Algeria are no reporters 
investigating the serious links between al Qaeda's affiliates in North 
Africa and the connection between the groups?
  Equally important, where has the Congress been in investigating both 
the circumstances of the attack and the administration's response over 
the last 4 months? Despite a handful of hearings, many in classified 
settings and done by very capable and good people, the American people 
have not been provided with anything close to an adequate answer to the 
following questions. It is not only important for the Congress to find 
out; it is important for the American people to find out. Have they 
been given answers to these questions?
  Secretary Panetta, Attorney General Holder and DNI Clapper still have 
not testified publicly before Congress as to what steps they took 
during the attack and in the days that followed.
  What were the President's activities during the 7-hour period of 
attack?
  Why wasn't the U.S. military deployed to assist?
  On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history 
and after multiple attacks this year on U.S. and Western interests, why 
were U.S. military units and assets in the region not ready, alert, and 
in a position to respond? After all, two of the four people killed were 
murdered 7 hours after the fighting began.
  Why do we still not have the clear answers on the internal process 
that produced the inaccurate and, frankly, misleading talking points on 
which Ambassador Rice relied several days after the attack?
  Why were the testimonies of the U.S. personnel who were evacuated 
from Benghazi on September 12--eyewitnesses who knew there was never a 
demonstration outside the consulate--not immediately factored into the 
judgments of our intelligence community?
  Have the witnesses who were there on the scene, government employees, 
good people--all risking their lives--been called to come up and been 
given the opportunity to talk to Members on both sides of the aisle? 
The answer to date is ``no.''
  Why hasn't Secretary Clinton been interviewed by the Pickering 
Commission?
  Was the White House aware of the FBI investigation of General 
Petraeus? If not, why not?
  To date, Congress has failed to get these answers, and it has not 
developed a coordinated or substantial investigative plan to fully 
explore this critical matter, which has a direct bearing on U.S. 
national security. In the absence of serious oversight, the media has 
moved on. In the absence of this, the administration, which has so much 
to account for to the American people, receives a carte blanche from 
the legislative branch to continue its questionable policies.
  These matters are too serious to be brushed aside. There are critical 
legislative decisions the next Congress will have to make based on 
answers to these questions; but, more importantly, the American people 
deserve the answers to these questions, including open hearings and an 
unclassified report.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I remain convinced that a House select 
committee on the terrorist attack in Benghazi is needed more than ever. 
That is why last week I introduced my resolution, H. Res. 36, with 20 
of our colleagues joining as cosponsors.
  A select committee is essential to combine the myriad existing 
investigations into a single, comprehensive, and exhaustive review. I 
believe such a combined effort will yield even more information 
regarding the true nature of these terrorist attacks and the 
administration's response will not allow administration officials to 
offer up siloed accounts to various committees.
  The select committee I am proposing should draw from the existing 
congressional investigations by including the chairman and ranking 
member of each committee of jurisdiction--the Intelligence Committee, 
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Ruppersberger have done a great job; the Foreign 
Affairs Committee, Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel do a great job; the 
Judiciary Committee, the same way; the Armed Services Committee; the 
Homeland Security Committee; the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee; as well as five additional Republican Members appointed by 
the Speaker and two additional Democrats appointed by the minority 
leader so it is truly bipartisan.
  I appreciate the support I've received for this resolution from the 
original cosponsors, as well as the Heritage Foundation; former Senator 
from Tennessee, Fred Thompson, who was counsel on the Watergate Select 
Committee; former Ambassador John Bolton; and General Jerry Boykin, a 
former special operations officer and CIA operative who is widely 
respected in the intelligence community.
  Mr. Speaker and Members of this body, we owe it to the families of 
the victims and the American people to fully investigate this terrorist 
attack. I urge my colleagues to support my resolution to create a House 
select committee.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                                 January 23, 2013.
     Dr. Rajiv Shah,
     Administrator, Agency For International Development, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Dr. Shah: Ms. Barbara Bennett, acting deputy assistant 
     administrator for legislative and public affairs at USAID 
     recently sent a response to my December 11, 2012 letter to 
     you. I was disappointed you did not respond directly to a 
     Member of Congress who serves on a committee of jurisdiction, 
     especially given that my concern was budgetary in nature.
       Just days after I received your response, Tunisian 
     authorities released Ali Harzi, a key suspect in the 
     September 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate and annex 
     in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, 
     including the U.S. ambassador, and resulted in the 
     destruction of two U.S. facilities. This development is 
     completely at odds with USAID's assurances in the response 
     letter that ``. . . Tunisian authorities are cooperating with 
     the Department [State] through normal law enforcement 
     channels.'' Respectfully, I would also like to remind you 
     that I chair the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations 
     subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation (FBI). Consequently, while Ms. Bennett 
     indicated that USAID ``could not provide further detail,'' I 
     am well-versed on the investigation and can say with 
     confidence that releasing Ali Harzi is an affront to U.S. 
     national security and rule of law, given the evidence of his 
     alleged involvement.
       Furthermore, your assertion that U.S. assistance is 
     critical to ``Tunisia's successful democratic transition'' is 
     misguided. Tunisia is not transitioning successfully. I have 
     enclosed for your review a recent piece which ran in 
     Bloomberg Businessweek, ``Revolution and Entropy,'' which 
     paints a bleak picture of progress in Tunisia. A January 14 
     Reuters piece described large street protests in the capital 
     city during which protestors chanted, ``Where is the 
     constitution? Where is democracy?'' Democratic transition 
     aside, the Tunisian government, as evidenced by this most 
     recent development with Ali Harzi, is working at cross-
     purposes with U.S. national interests.
       During these tight budgetary times, when worthy programs 
     face constraints and cuts, our national priorities should 
     undergird our foreign assistance. The administration 
     continues to claim that bringing the perpetrators to justice 
     for the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate is a priority. 
     And yet its actions are inconsistent with such sentiments, 
     particularly in the case of Tunisia.
       We must send a clear and unequivocal message to the 
     Tunisian government. U.S. aid must not be taken for granted. 
     U.S. national

[[Page 504]]

     security considerations are a cornerstone of our foreign 
     policy. When those interests are undermined, there are 
     consequences.
       I look forward to a personal response to this letter and 
     any future correspondence. Best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____


            [From Bloomberg Businessweek, Jan. 14-20, 2013]

                         Revolution and Entropy

              (By Norman Pearlstine and Tarek el-Tablawy)

       In Tunisia, where the Arab Spring began, the transition to 
     democracy is sputtering.
       Two years after he set himself on fire, Mohamed Bouazizi 
     remains history's most famous fruit vendor. Like many 
     enterprising Tunisians, Bouazizi, 26, was subject to constant 
     fines of as much as 10 times his daily earnings as he tried 
     to make a living on the streets of Sidi Bouzid. After his 
     scale and cart were seized on Dec. 17, 2010, he doused 
     himself with a liter of paint solvent while standing in front 
     of the provincial governor's office. A flick of a lighter and 
     . . .
       What then? Tunisia's revolution and the Arab Spring that 
     followed created a list of dead, imprisoned, or exiled 
     autocrats--including Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Libya's Muammar 
     Qaddafi, and Tunisia's own Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. (Syria's 
     Bashar Assad hangs on, brutally.) But hope and vengeance are 
     very different from progress, as Ben Ali's successor as 
     president, the physician and ex-opposition leader Moncef 
     Marzouki, has discovered.
       On Dec. 17, 2012, Marzouki went to Sidi Bouzid to 
     commemorate the man and the moment that began all the changes 
     in the region, only to be greeted by angry chants of ``Leave! 
     Leave!'' When he told the crowd he lacked a ``magic wand'' to 
     cure Tunisia's ills, the response was a hailstorm of rocks 
     and tomatoes. Marzouki had to be hustled into a car and sped 
     away from the stage.
       ``Nothing has changed, and that's the sad reality,'' says 
     Mohamad Amri, a close friend of the Bouazizi family. 
     Unemployment is officially 18 percent, but a September study 
     published by the Middle East Economic Association says about 
     50 percent of young Tunisians with higher education are 
     without work. At 33, Amri is unemployed and relies on an 
     allowance from his father to cover soaring food and living 
     costs, ``I feel like I need to be optimistic, but in the end, 
     I'm pessimistic.''
       On Dec. 12, Fitch Ratings downgraded Tunisia's sovereign 
     ratings, citing the slow transition to a free economy and 
     ``large twin budget and current-account deficits.'' Standard 
     & Poor's has downgraded the country to junk status, too. Meji 
     Djelloul, a professor of Islamic history at Manouba 
     University in Tunis, the capital, says 80 percent of his 
     students are eager to leave after graduating. ``In 25 years 
     of teaching I have never encountered such a sense of 
     helplessness,'' he says.
       It need not be this bleak. The revolution lifted restraints 
     on expression that had existed for decades, and Tunisians 
     seem to agree that even without a functioning constitution, 
     they feel more free--a significant accomplishment. The 
     country has close social and economic ties to Europe, a 
     highly educated populace, and infrastructure that's among the 
     best in the Arab world, with good roads and nine commercial 
     airports serving a country the size of Florida.
       Tunisia has the further comfort of knowing it's not alone. 
     In its political and economic struggles, Egypt is Tunisia's 
     larger, perhaps more troubled mirror. Both saw Islamists take 
     top government positions while Salafis, who embrace the 
     strictest, most puritanical interpretation of Islam, have 
     pressed for an even greater role for religion in the reborn 
     nations. (Egyptian secularists are angered by a constitution 
     they say was forced upon them, while Tunisia's latest 
     constitutional draft was stripped of references to sharia, or 
     Islamic law.) Both countries also saw their economies 
     contract sharply in reaction to change. Egypt's net 
     international reserves tell almost 60 percent, to $15 
     billion, over the past two years. Tunisia's economy 
     contracted 1.8 percent in 2011. Last year growth was likely 
     2.7 percent and could rise to 3.3 percent this year, says the 
     International Monetary Fund. ``We are going through a 
     complicated transition, not unlike what Eastern Europe went 
     through,'' says Tunisian Foreign Minister Rafik Abdessalem, a 
     former professor of politics in Britain who returned to 
     Tunisia after the revolution. ``We need to prove that it is 
     possible to have democracy in the Arab world.''
       Weaker, economies in Europe have hurt tourism and exports, 
     two of Tunisia's chief sources of revenue. That's left 
     officials appealing to the U.S., the United Arab Emirates, 
     and Qatar, for investment. So far Tunisia hasn't received the 
     support it sought, let alone the aid it was promised. At its 
     May 2011 summit in Deauville, France, the Group of Eight 
     pledged more than $30 billion to assist new Arab governments. 
     ``When we spoke about intentions, it was $30 billion,'' jokes 
     Alaya Bettaieb, secretary of state to the minister of 
     investment and international cooperation. ``When we spoke 
     about action, it was $250 million'' that was delivered.
       Tunisia's transition from dictatorship to democracy would 
     have been easier had the collapse of the Ben Ali regime not 
     been so sudden. Amri, Bouazizi's friend, suggests the man who 
     started it all didn't even know how flammable the paint 
     thinner he poured on himself was, let-alone the impact of his 
     act of martyrdom. Other protesters, in Tunisia and across the 
     Arab world, decided to set themselves afire in the weeks and 
     months that followed. Hernando de Soto, the Peruvian 
     economist best known for his work seeking property rights for 
     peasants, has studied the underclass in Tunisia, Egypt, and 
     elsewhere. He documented 164 deaths by self-immolation in the 
     six months following Bouazizi's act. ``The ground was fertile 
     socially, economically, and politically for this kind of 
     statement,'' says Ali Bouazizi, a cousin who played a key 
     role in the revolution by filming and uploading to his 
     Facebook page a video of the protest after the fruit seller's 
     death.
       The embers of unrest remain hot. Tunisia's first truly free 
     elections in 2011 yielded a Constituent Assembly charged with 
     drafting the country's new charter and also serving as its 
     parliament. Ennahda, the moderate Islamist party whose name 
     translates to Renaissance, won 41 percent of the seats and 
     together with two smaller secular parties formed a ruling 
     coalition.
       The constitution is still a source of great uncertainty, as 
     are Ennahda's broader intentions. Critics on the right 
     maintain that the party has stressed its commitment to 
     Tunisia's secular tradition in public, while urging Salafis 
     to be patient for the realization of their goals behind 
     closed doors. Salafis, including Mouldi Mojahed, who heads 
     the Salafi-controlled al-Asala Party, says Ennahda ``has 
     backed away from its principles.''
       Neither side has been pacified. Salafis have been blamed 
     for the serial arson of stores selling alcohol as well as the 
     September attack on the U.S. embassy amid outrage over a 
     YouTube clip denigrating Islam's prophet. Ahmed Nejib Chebbi, 
     an Official in the opposition Jumhuri, or Republican, Party 
     says, ``The Islamists don't know how to govern,'' and the win 
     by Ennahda in October 2011 was ``not very reassuring to the 
     economic stakeholders in the country.''
       Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali has tried to walk the middle 
     ground. ``The Tunisian people have their own identity, and 
     they agreed on this identity,'' says Jebali in an interview, 
     affirming the country's commitment to secularism. Jebali, who 
     spent 10 years in solitary confinement while Ben Ali 
     controlled the country, says the new constitution won't 
     impose Islamic law and will respect women's rights. He and 
     Ennahda have also pledged to support a market economy, if not 
     a workers' paradise; he rages at those he suggests have riled 
     up. labor unions and ``who live with the idea of the 
     proletariat revolution, and who believe that the revolution 
     in Tunisia was led by the proletariat.''
       Sorting out how to improve the lives of ordinary Tunisians, 
     regardless of their politics, is complicated by a lack of 
     economic facts. At a conference organized by Utica, a group 
     representing Tunisia's largest employers, De Soto, the 
     economist, estimated that the black market economy is more 
     than 10 times the size of all companies on the country's 
     stock exchange. Others have suggested off- the-books trade 
     represents as much as 30 percent of Tunisia's GDP. The 
     divisions between the corporate and informal sectors run 
     deeper than matters of accounting. Wided Bouchmaorii, Utica's 
     president and head of one of Tunisia's largest business 
     enterprises, says the informal economy condones violence. 
     ``It is disastrous for legitimate businesses serving 
     consumers,'' she says.
       Prime Minister Jebali acknowledges the size of the informal 
     economy and continued problems with corruption. (The nation 
     saw its corruption ranking, issued by Transparency 
     International, slide from 59th in 2010 to 75th in 2012.) He 
     pledges that Tunisia will do more to address these problems 
     as democratic institutions take hold and the economy 
     strengthens. In the meantime, he says priorities include 
     addressing the ``heavy taxation of the formal economy'' and 
     the inability of a ``young economy to absorb unemployed 
     youth.''
       For those who have been waiting, patience is running short. 
     Habib Kasdalli set himself afire shortly after Bouazizi when 
     a civil servant denied him government benefits for a mental 
     disability. Seated in a Tunis hotel, Kasdalli describes his 
     nervous condition as his burn-scarred hands twitch. When he 
     pulls off a blue knit cap, his scalp is grotesquely scarred. 
     ``I felt oppressed, and I felt hopelessness,'' Kasdalli says. 
     The revolution offered a respite. Relief remains a long way 
     off.

                          ____________________