The Justice Department is asking Internet companies to keep records on the Web-surfing activities of their customers to aid law enforcement, and may propose legislation to force them to do so.

The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales held a meeting in Washington last Friday where they offered a general proposal on record-keeping to a group of senior executives from Internet companies, said Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the department. The meeting included representatives from America Online, Microsoft, Google, Verizon and Comcast.

The attorney general has appointed a task force of department officials to explore the issue, and that group is holding another meeting with a broader group of Internet executives today, Mr. Roehrkasse said. The department also met yesterday with a group of privacy experts.

The Justice Department is not asking the Internet companies to give it data about users, but rather to retain information that could be subpoenaed through existing laws and procedures, Mr. Roehrkasse said.

While initial proposals were vague, executives from companies that attended the meeting said they gathered that the department was interested in records that would allow them to identify which individuals visited certain Web sites and possibly conducted searches using certain terms.

It also wants the Internet companies to retain records about whom their users exchange e-mail with, but not the contents of e-mail messages, the executives said. The executives spoke on the condition that they not be identified because they did not want to offend the Justice Department.

As executive pay packages have rocketed in recent years, their defenders have contended that because most are tied to company performance, they are both earned and deserved. But as the Las Vegas Sands example shows, investors who plow through company filings often find that executive compensation exceeds the amounts allowed under the performance targets set by the directors.

Executives of companies as varied as Halliburton, the military contractor and oil services concern; Assurant, an insurance company; and Big Lots, a discount retailer, all received bonuses and other pay outside the performance parameters set by the boards of those companies.

It is the equivalent of moving the goalposts to shorten the field, compensation experts say.

"Lowering the hurdles is especially disconcerting because very often the goals are not set all that high to begin with," said Lucian Bebchuk, professor at Harvard Law School and author with Jesse Fried of "Pay Without Performance." Mr. Bebchuk said shareholders should be especially alert to increases in bonuses because more companies were shifting away from stock options and into cash incentives.

Some employment agreements actually stipulate that they will provide bonuses even if company performance declines. The agreement struck in 2004 by Peter Chernin, president and chief operating officer of the News Corporation, entitles him to a bonus even if earnings per share fall at the company. If earnings rise by 15 percent in any given year, Mr. Chernin's bonus is $12.5 million. But if they fall 6.25 percent, Mr. Chernin's bonus is $4.5 million, and an earnings decline of 14 percent translates to a $3.52 million bonus.

Last year, Mr. Chernin received $8.3 million in salary and $18.9 million in bonus pay. A company spokesman declined to comment on the bonus structure. He confirmed that the company's chief executive, Rupert Murdoch, has a similar bonus arrangement. Company filings show that Mr. Murdoch received a bonus of $18.9 million last year.

While bonus and other incentive pay figures are included in company filings, shareholders hoping to calculate precisely what performance objectives executives must meet to receive such pay can be confounded.

U.S. forces killed two Iraqi women — one of them about to give birth — when the troops shot at a car that failed to stop at an observation post in a city north of Baghdad, Iraqi officials and relatives said Wednesday.

Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, 35, was being raced to the maternity hospital in Samarra by her brother when the shooting occurred Tuesday.

Jassim, the mother of two children, and her 57-year-old cousin, Saliha Mohammed Hassan, were killed by the U.S. forces, according to police Capt. Laith Mohammed and witnesses.

The U.S. military said coalition troops fired at a car after it entered a clearly marked prohibited area near an observation post but failed to stop despite repeated visual and auditory warnings.

"Shots were fired to disable the vehicle," the military said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press. "Coalition forces later received reports from Iraqi police that two women had died from gunshot wounds ... and one of the females may have been pregnant."

Jassim's brother, who was wounded by broken glass, said he did not see any warnings as he sped his sister to the hospital. Her husband was waiting for her there.

"I was driving my car at full speed because I did not see any sign or warning from the Americans. It was not until they shot the two bullets that killed my sister and cousin that I stopped," he said. "God take revenge on the Americans and those who brought them here. They have no regard for our lives."

He said doctors tried but failed to save the baby after his sister was brought to the hospital.

Exclusive: Love Letter from Jeb Bush to Swift Boat Liars - "As someone who truly understands the risk of standing up for something, I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry. Their efforts, like their service to their country, speak volumes about what matters most." - Jeb Bush, January 19, 2005....So let's get this straight: the value of "standing up to" (i.e. smearing) a man who volunteered to risk his life for America "cannot be expressed in words" because, like service to the nation, it "speaks volumes about what matters most." Yes it does, in the twisted view of America's far right, where vilifying war heroes like Murtha, Cleland, and Kerry is a noble cause. And slandering those who are disgusted by Abu Ghraib and Haditha is laudable. And sitting behind a computer cheering on and "supporting the troops" while they lie dead and dying in the streets of Baghdad is respectable. And impugning the integrity of the majority of Americans who want the troops to come home is commendable. Yes, it's a great mission to slime a decorated veteran.... in the twisted view of people whom Al Gore calls "renegade rightwing extremists."

No one, the president included, is suggesting that the younger Bush will run in 2008, and Governor Bush, whose second term is up in January, has adamantly ruled it out.

But Republican Party leaders continue to talk seriously about a continuation of the dynasty, a Bush III administration, with Jeb as a candidate in 2012 or 2016, when the memory of the current president's dismal poll ratings will be less of a factor. That, at least, is what happened the last time around: President George Bush's unpopularity at the end of his term in 1992 did not hurt his eldest son when he ran for president eight years later.

Probably '08 is a little bit tricky, but " '12 or '16 isn't. And he's a young enough guy (53) that he has a great future," Gingrich said on the Political Connections television show airing today on Bay News 9. "I just think his natural, personal ability is so great that people are going to realize he is not his father and he's not his brother. He's a very unique, charismatic leader with extraordinary capabilities. ... Jeb Bush may well be the most innovative (governor) in the entire country."