Report: Ohio kidnapper called mother of victim

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Cleveland kidnapper Ariel Castro says he called the mother of one of his victims while she was in captivity and told her she was OK, according to a videotaped FBI interrogation.

Castro also told investigators that authorities missed opportunities for capturing him while he held the women he kidnapped.

Castro says in the video obtained by NBC's "Today" show and first reported Friday that he called the mother of Amanda Berry and told her that Berry was OK and that she was his wife now.

He said he hung up and they didn't have a conversation with her. Berry's mother died before Berry was freed in May.

Castro told investigators that video surveillance near the school of victim Gina DeJesus should have tipped police to him. And he said a girlfriend noticed a TV on in a room occupied by victim Michelle Knight and got him worrying he might be caught.

View gallery."

FILE - A 10-foot chain link fence surrounds the home of Ariel Castro in Cleveland in this May 14, 20 …

A message was left with representatives of the victims Friday morning.

Castro, 53, was a month into his life sentence for holding three women captive in his home for a decade when he committed suicide Tuesday night.

Two state reviews are underway, Ohio prisons spokeswoman JoEllen Smith said, one looking into the suicide itself, and the other is examining whether Castro received proper medical and mental health care leading up the suicide.

A representative of Castro's family was expected to claim his body Thursday, the Franklin County coroner said.

Castro was sentenced Aug. 1 to life in prison plus 1,000 years after pleading guilty to 937 counts, including kidnapping and rape, in a deal to avoid the death penalty. "I'm not a monster. I'm sick," he told the judge at sentencing.

View gallery."

A wrecking crew uses a hydraulic excavator to begin the demolition of the rundown house where three …

Castro's captives — Berry, DeJesus and Michelle Knight — disappeared separately between 2002 and 2004, when they were 14, 16 and 20. They were rescued from Castro's run-down house May 6 when Berry broke through a screen door.

Investigators said the women were bound, repeatedly raped and deprived of food and bathroom facilities.

___

Andrew Welsh-Huggins can be reached on Twitter at https://twitter.com/awhcolumbus.

Report: Ariel Castro called mother of victim

The Cleveland kidnapper told police he spoke to Amanda Berry's mother briefly before disconnecting the call.
What he said to her

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iranian-backed Shiite militias are threatening to retaliate against American interests inside Iraq if the United States goes ahead with strikes against the Tehran-allied government in neighboring Syria, according to Iraqi security officials and militants themselves.

Iraqi officials say they are taking the warnings seriously. The threats, which come as President Barack Obama's administration and Congress debate possible military action over the Syrian regime's alleged use of chemical weapons, risk exacerbating an increasingly deteriorating security environment inside Iraq.

Cleric Wathiq al-Batat, who leads the Mukhtar Army, a shadowy Iranian-backed militia, said his forces are preparing for a strong reaction against the interests of the U.S. and other countries that take part in any Syria strike. He claimed that militants have selected hundreds of potential targets, which could include both official American sites and companies "associated with the Americans."

"There is a good level of coordination with Iran on this issue and I cannot reveal more. But I can say that there will be a strong response," he told The Associated Press. "Each armed group will have duties to carry out."

Al-Batat was a senior official in Iraq's Hezbollah Brigades, which is believed to be funded and trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

He rose to greater prominence earlier this year when the group he claims to lead issued threats against Sunni residents in parts of Baghdad. He later claimed responsibility for deadly rocket attacks on a Baghdad-area camp housing Iranian dissidents opposed to the clerical regime in Tehran.

Iraq's government is officially neutral on the Syrian civil war and it has called for a negotiated political solution. Iraq's Shiite leadership has bolstered ties with Shiite heavyweight Iran in the years since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, and it is concerned about the threat posed by Sunni extremists, including Iraq's al-Qaida branch, fighting among the rebels

View gallery."

FILE - In this file photo taken on Friday, Aug. 2, 2013, Iraqi Hezbollah scouts parade with a portra …

Other Iraqi Shiite militias with ties to Tehran are talking tough, including the Hezbollah Brigades, which has claimed responsibility for previous attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. It said recently that American and allied interests "must be removed from the region."

Asaib Ahl al-Haq, an Iranian-backed hard-line faction that also carried out deadly attacks against U.S. troops before their withdrawal, said in a statement this week that action against Syria "will set the region on fire. The interests of the Western countries will not be saved from this fire."

A senior Asaib Ahl al-Haq official said multiple armed groups within Iraq are "fully prepared to respond to any strike on Syria by attacking the interests of the countries that participate in this strike, including the United States," although he declined to specify any potential targets.

The Asaib Ahl al-Haq official, who refused to be identified, fearing retribution, said the militias are awaiting instructions from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on the timing and method of any attacks.

U.S. Embassy spokesman Rodney Ford did not address the threats specifically, saying he can't comment on intelligence matters.

"We have long-standing concerns about Iran's destabilizing influence in the broader region and will continue to work with our partners to address these activities," he said, without elaborating.

Iranian officials in Tehran did not return calls seeking a response on Friday.

View gallery."

FILE - In this file photo taken on Sept. 12, 2012, photo, an Iraqi soldier stands guard next to a po …

The Wall Street Journal reported in its Friday edition that the U.S. has intercepted an order from Gen. Ghasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's elite Quds Force, telling Iraqi militias to prepare to strike American interests inside Iraq. The Journal report quoted unnamed American officials, who said the U.S. Embassy was one potential target.

The Quds Force oversees external operations of the Guard throughout the world.

One senior Iraqi intelligence official said authorities have indications that militants are planning responses against American interests and other targets, but he declined to provide details. Another top intelligence official said that Iranian-backed militants have the ability to target sites such as the U.S. Embassy with rockets. Both officials insisted on anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss intelligence matters.

Ali al-Moussawi, the spokesman for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, said Iraq remains concerned about a possible military strike on Syria and reactions to it might bring in Iraq and the wider region. He was unable to provide details about any threats against the U.S. Embassy but said the government takes seriously its responsibility to protect diplomatic missions and other American interests.

"Our reaction will be strong and firm. The Iraqi government will not tolerate any groups that might be involved in such attacks, which are considered an aggression on Iraq's sovereignty," he said.

John Drake, an Iraq specialist for the British-based AKE security consulting firm, said Iranian-backed militants could respond to a Syria strike by attacking consular facilities with roadside bombs or indirect fire such as rockets and mortar shells.

"Indirect fire is often used as a tactic against facilities which are otherwise well defended," he said. It can also be very inaccurate, hitting unintended targets, he noted.

View gallery."

FILE - In this file photo taken on Sept. 21, 2012, Iraqis chant slogans as they hold posters of Iran …

Western oil and gas facilities in Iraq's southern Shiite heartland might also be potential targets, although an attack on the lucrative energy sector "would harm the Iraqi government, which is something Tehran would want to avoid," he said.

The latest threats emerged as the U.S. State Department released an updated travel alert warning that Americans remain at high risk for kidnapping and terrorist attacks inside Iraq.

The alert did not specifically address the risks from Iranian-backed militants, although it noted that numerous insurgent groups are active and said "terrorist activity and sectarian violence persist in many areas of the country at levels unseen since 2008."

Violence in Iraq has been accelerating since April, with more than 4,000 killed in terrorist attacks over the past five months.

Sectarian tensions that are fueling the violence are being exacerbated by the civil war in Syria. Mainly Sunni rebels there are fighting to topple President Bashar Assad's Iranian-backed regime, which is dominated by Alawites, an offshoot of Shiite Islam.

___

Follow Adam Schreck on Twitter at www.twitter.com/adamschreck

Of the possible candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, not one potential 2016 hopeful has voiced support for President Barack Obama’s call for a U.S. military strike on Syria.

The hesitancy to authorize an attack against the Syrian government, which the Obama administration alleges was behind a chemical gas attack that killed more than 1,000 civilians in August, suggests that those eyeing possible bids for the White House see the Syria issue as a gamble not worth their bet.

The possible candidates — Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas; former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania; Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan; and Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin — have either said they oppose it or remained silent about their opinion.

It is often the case in politics that the safest place to be is on the losing side of a winning vote, especially if the bill is controversial. Regarding Syria, the political blowback could be great for those who supported a strike if it leads to a crisis. The opponents will be able to say they were correct. If the strike goes as planned, however, and the memory soon fades with time — remember when the U.S. launched more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles on Libya? — the political consequences of voting no are not nearly as severe.

The first possible Republican presidential hopefuls who had an opportunity to cast an official vote on the resolution, Rubio and Paul, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, rejected it when the committee took up the measure earlier this week.

Rubio, who has been vocal about the need for the U.S. to offer aid to the Syrian rebels but has come short of supporting the type of strike Obama has suggested, said in a statement after the committee vote that he remains “unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work.”

Paul also voted against the Syria resolution, but he has been more vocal about his opposition. Unlike Rubio, who has advocated for an aggressive foreign policy and developed close relationships in the Senate with hawks like Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Paul is perhaps one of the most prominent advocates for nonintervention in the Senate.

“War should occur only when America is attacked, when it is threatened or when American interests are attacked or threatened,” Paul wrote in an op-ed for Time magazine this week. “I don’t think the situation in Syria passes that test.”

Other lawmakers testing the presidential waters, such as Cruz and Santorum, have already voiced their opposition, and Cruz is likely to vote against the resolution when the Senate takes it up next week.

Of those two, Santorum’s decision to throw his lot in with the opposition is the most surprising. Ever since violence broke out in Syria two years ago, the former presidential candidate has called for U.S. military action, and he has a long history of encouraging aggressive use of force abroad. But on Thursday,Santorum announced he had reversed his position, saying the situation on the ground in Syria has changed.

“When these atrocities in Syria came to light last year, I advocated for military intervention to take out the Assad regime, a strong supporter of Iran. Had President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acted then in support of pro-democracy forces, we could have removed Assad and helped usher in stability for that country. But we have a very different situation today,” Santorum wrote in a letter to supporters. “A military strike would no longer be in our national security interest.”

In the House, Ryan issued a statement on Tuesday that did not signify how he planned to vote on the resolution.

"The president has some work to do to recover from his grave missteps in Syria. He needs to clearly demonstrate that the use of military force would strengthen America's security,” Ryan said. “I want to hear his case to Congress and to the American people."

A look at Ryan’s past comments about the situation in Syria, however, could offer clues on how he will vote. As the Republican vice presidential candidate in 2012, Ryan said he agreed with the Obama administration that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government would represent “the red line” that would justify some kind of U.S. response.

"We agree with the same red line actually they do on chemical weapons,” Ryan said during a debate with Vice President Joe Biden in October 2012.

It is unclear whether Ryan’s thinking has changed on Syria since that debate. When reached by Yahoo News on Friday, a spokesman for Ryan reiterated the congressman’s remarks from earlier in the week.

With the exception of Santorum, all of the D.C. lawmakers listed above will be asked to go on the record in the House or the Senate when it comes time to vote. But members of Congress are not the only politicians considering presidential runs. Several Republican governors are also looking into the possibility, and among them—Walker, Christie and Jindal—none has publicly announced support for the president’s plan. Instead, all have declined to offer an opinion.

“I’m going to leave that to the people who represent us in Congress,” Christie said this week when asked about his opinion on the strike, according to a report in the Bergen Record. “I empathize with those folks who have relatives back in Syria, but I’m going to let the policy-making be done by the people who are getting the bulk of the briefing on this, which is our federal representatives.”

In Louisiana, Jindal said he was waiting to hear more information before making a decision.

"There are a lot of unanswered questions,” Jindal said, according to NOLA.com. “The president has already said regime change is not the objective. So I'd like to see what the objective is. I think Congress needs to hear that."

Walker was equally vague when he spoke to WKOW, a Madison television station, last week.

"The president, working with other leaders on a global basis, can try and put some pressure on to get things under control in the Middle East and provide stability there, because that will help our economy and if they don't it has an impact," Walker said. "We can do all the good possible. We can get the state back on the right track, but if there's instability around the world it will inevitably have an impact."

There are reasons why a governor would be hesitant to speak out about Syria: Foreign policy issues are not something they deal with regularly as state executives, and they do not have access to the same intelligence briefings provided to lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

But that doesn’t mean they will ultimately be able to avoid it should they choose to seek the White House.

The federal government’s response to Syria in the coming weeks or months might be remembered as a defining foreign policy moment in Obama’s tenure, and those seeking to replace him will be required to describe in detail what they would have done in the same difficult situation.

For now, most in the Republican Party are betting against his judgment.

Putin, Obama fail to ease Syria rift at G20

Obama said that the world could not "stand idly by" after the Syria chemical attack, but Putin warned that it would be "outside the law" to attack without the UN's blessing.

Putin also said Russia would "help Syria" if the US were to strike, pointing to existing military, economic and humanitarian cooperation.

"We spoke sitting down... it was a constructive, meaningful, cordial conversation," Putin said after his previously unscheduled talks with Obama.

"Each of us kept with our own opinion," said Putin, who has emerged as one of the most implacable critics of military intervention against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for an alleged chemical weapons attack on August 21.

Asked what Moscow would do if military action began against Syria, Putin said: "Will we help Syria? We will."

The split among leaders of the world's top emerging and developed countries over the issue was symbolised in a statement supported by 11 states at the G20 calling for a "strong international response" to the chemical attack.

Without specifying military action, it said the response would "send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated".

View gallery."

US President Barack Obama (L) walks into Konstantin Palace after shaking hands with Russia's Preside …

The signatories included US allies Britain, France and Saudi Arabia but conspicuously missing were Russia, China and also key EU member Germany.

Washington prepared the ground for possible strikes, evacuating non-essential embassy staff from Beirut and urging Americans to avoid all travel to Lebanon and southern Turkey.

--- 'I disagree with his arguments' ---

Putin and Obama spoke for about half an hour on the sidelines of the summit, but neither managed to change the other's mind on Syria.

"He (Obama) disagrees with my arguments, I disagree with his arguments, but we do hear, and we try to analyse," said Putin.

Obama also called the discussion "candid and constructive", adding that it "characterises my relationship with him".

On Friday, the United States said it has come to terms with the fact that no deal could emerge despite repeated attempts at persuading Syria's key ally Russia, and signalled that it would take punitive action against Assad's regime without the UN Security Council's backing.

Obama expressed appreciation for France, saying that he very much valued President Francois Hollande's "commitment to a strong international response for these grievous acts".

View gallery."

US UN Ambassador Samantha Power delivers a speech on Syria September 6, 2013 in Washington. (AFP Pho …

He said he would prefer to have an international mandate for the strikes, but that Washington should not be paralysed by a refusal on the part of some countries to act.

"If we're not acting, what does that say?"

Obama, who will address the US nation on Tuesday, is now seeking support from Congress for military action, a process he admitted he always knew was going to be a "heavy lift".

He declined to speculate on what he would do if Congress failed to back intervention, saying he refused to "engage in parlour games now".

Washington's ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said ahead of the debate that a US strike would aim to stop a campaign by the Assad regime "to kill their way to victory".

Russia and China -- both veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council -- have on three occasions voted down resolutions that would have put pressure on Assad, and on Friday the Russian foreign ministry warned the United States against targeting Syria's chemical arsenal in any attacks.

During a dinner on Thursday, leaders including Obama presented their positions on the Syria crisis, confirming the extent of global divisions on the issue.

Putin said a majority of countries at the G20 appeared to be supporting his position.

View gallery."

Demonstrators hold placards during a rally against a US intervention in Syria outside the US embassy …

"You said views divided 50-50, that is not quite right," Putin said in answer to a journalist's question, listing only the United States, Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France as countries supporting an intervention.

The UN said it had drawn up emergency plans for a military strike but was determined to keep delivering aid.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon warned that military strikes could spark further sectarian violence in the country, which was suffering from a humanitarian crisis "unprecedented" in recent history.

Hollande said Paris would await the UN inspectors' report on the chemical attack before any Syria strike -- a move welcomed by Germany, which urged the release to be sped up.

The Syria crisis and prospect of military intervention has overshadowed the official agenda of the two-day summit of leaders of the world's top economies and emerging markets to stimulate growth and battle tax avoidance.

Several Western states share Putin's opposition to military action and after the British parliament voted against strikes, France is the only power to have vowed it will join American intervention.

The US president met Friday with President Xi Jinping of China, which like Russia vehemently opposes military action against Syria.

According to US intelligence, more than 1,400 people living in rebel-held suburbs of Damascus were killed in the chemical weapons attack, which involved the use of sarin nerve gas.

With the clock ticking down to strikes, Russia said Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Muallem would travel to Moscow for talks on Monday.

Obama, Putin still disagree on Syria

Amid tensions about a possible military action in Syria, the U.S. and Russian leaders have a tête-à-tête.
Putin vows to help Syria