Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Fight for the Filibuster

thenation.com

Fight for the Filibuster

John Nichols

04/26/2005

Never underestimate the determination of Washington Democrats to try and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Just as it was reported Tuesday that the American strongly support the Democratic campaign to preserve the judicial filibuster -- and with it their ability of responsible senators to prevent the most rabid extremists from joining the federal bench -- so it was also reported that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, was seeking a compromise on what ought to be a matter of principle. The compromise that Reid was advancing would have seen Republicans back off their push for a "nuclear option" to shut down filibusters in return for Democratic acquiescence to the GOP's demand that some of the White House's most objectionable judicial nominations be allowed to advance.

The good news is that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, rejected the compromise. Frist, who is desperate to get in bed with the religious right in order to promote his 2008 presidential campaign, recognized that his political ambitions would be thwarted if he was seen to be compromising with the demonized Democrats. He also heard the message loud and clear from the White House, where political (and now domestic policy) czar Karl Rove indicated in an interview with USA Today that there is no taste for deal making on judicial nominees.

Forced out his compromising position by the Republican right, Reid can now scramble back to the high ground, where the vast majority of Americans stand. Amazingly, considering the minority leader's missteps of the past few days, Reid and his fellow Democrats might yet win the fight to preserve the system of checks and balances that the founders of the republic established. But no one should forget that, at precisely the wrong moment, Reid wanted to surrender rather than fight. Nor should anyone miss the point here: Reid is not a bad man. He simply suffers from a bad condition: insideritis.

Reid has spent so much time inside the Capitol, and so little time in America, that he does not trust his own rhetoric. Even though he is absolutely right when he says that Frist and the religious right are attempting to force legally-inept judicial activists into positions where they do not belong, Reid succumbed to fears that the American people might not be with him on the question of whether the rule of law ought to prevail in America.

Reid's failure of faith was misguided. As it turns out, the American people overwhelmingly oppose changing the rules of the Senate to make it easier for the Republican majority in that chamber to confirm Bush's court nominees. According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, Americans disapprove of Frist's "nuclear option" by a 66-26 margin. While eight in 10 Democrats opposed the move to undermine one of the essential elements of the Senate's traditional "advice and consent" role, as did seven in 10 independents, the most interesting numbers were those from members of Frist's own party. Almost half of the Republicans who were surveyed said they opposed the majority leader's scheming to make it harder for Democratic senators to prevent final action on the president's most inept and ideologically-extreme judicial nominees.

Those numbers add up to a clear conclusion: Instead of seeking a compromise, Reid and the other Democrats should be going for a win. And the way to do so is by reaching out to the rational Republicans in the Senate. Two Republicans, John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, have indicated that they will side with the Democrats on any vote to eliminate the judicial filibuster. Another Republican, moderate Olympia Snowe of Maine, has said she has "deep concerns about this approach.," and Maine's other Republican senator, Susan Collins , is expected by many to join Snowe in voting with the Democrats.

That means that, to block the "nuclear option," Reid needs just two more Republicans. (Opponents must secure 51 votes in favor of maintaining the right to filibuster, as a 50-50 tie would be broken by Vice President Dick Cheney, who favors going nuclear.) Are there two more Republicans who might be convinced? Conservatives think so. Their blogs are buzzing with concern that John Warner of Virginian, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, among others, might vote reject Frist's "tyranny of the majority" strategy.

Far from being a time for compromise, this is a time for fighting -- not just to score partisan points, nor even to represent the clear will of the American people, but to preserve the system of legislative checks and balances that is so essential to the American experiment.

Read More...

Tone Deaf

thenation.com

Tone Deaf

Ari Berman

04/26/2005

It's a perfect snapshot of American foreign policy today: the Bush Administration's outreach program to the Muslim world has no Muslims on staff. Depending on your perspective, this is either a symptom or a cause of a much larger public diplomacy problem.

If that weren't enough, the new head of the public diplomacy effort is Bush's longtime spin-master Karen Hughes, the spokeswoman for many of the policies that have fueled worldwide resentment of America in the first place. Her new task is evidently none too urgent--Hughes won't start until the fall. What's a few months to a program that hasn't accomplished much of anything over the past four years?

Shortly after 9/11, the Administration turned to Charlotte Beers, a Madison Avenue executive famed as the "Steel Magnolia of Advertising," to re-brand America's image in the world. Armed with a $1 billion budget and fawning media coverage, Beers would pitch Uncle Sam the same way she sold Uncle Ben's rice in her 20s. Beers unveiled a radio ad encouraging Americans to spot fellow terrorists in their midst and a series of slick TV spots featuring American Muslims hyping the joys of freedom and tolerance. Public opinion experts panned the segments as simplistic and ineffective, while Muslim governments refused to run them. Beers resigned, for stated health reasons, days before the start of the Iraq War.

Her replacement, Margaret Tutwiler, boasted years of experience as a State Department spokeswoman for four different Republican administrations, plus a recent gig as the Ambassador to Morocco. Tutwiler promised to listen to overseas diplomats and "admit we do not necessarily have all the answers." A youth exchange program with the Middle East was to be her main initiative. Yet, once again, hard-line Administration policies overshadowed public diplomacy. After five months on the job, Tutwiler jumped to the New York Stock Exchange the same week the Abu Ghraib photos surfaced. It took eleven months to name her replacement.

At the beginning of the outreach effort, Beers speculated that a "30 percent conversion rate" for a skeptical Muslim audience would "represent a sales curve any corporation would envy." Today, trends are moving quickly in the opposite direction. A recent report by the Pew Center's Global Attitudes Project found that "anti-Americanism is deeper and broader now that at any time in modern history," and "most acute in the Muslim world." After the Iraq War, "it became clear that the US global image hadn't just slipped, it had plummeted."

Even Dick Cheney, hardly a defeatist, now admits that public diplomacy "has been a very weak part of our arsenal." The appointment of Hughes, Bush says, "signifies my personal commitment to international diplomacy." Apparently, so does John Bolton.

Read More...

Air passengers 'risking health'

BBC NEWS

Air passengers 'risking health'

More than half of air passengers are risking their health flying by being starved of oxygen, a study says.

A Belfast hospitals and university team found oxygen levels in the blood dropped so low in 54% of passengers that they would need extra supplies.

Oxygen levels dropped by 4% on average the study of 84 passengers found.

But the UK air regulator said people with heart and lung problems should consult their doctor before flying but healthy people need not be concerned.

Oxygen levels on the ground averaged 97%, but once their plane was in the air they fell to 93% on average, the study published in the Anaesthesia journal said.

Some physicians put hospital patients with blood levels below 94% on extra oxygen.

The researchers said the drop could increase the chance of breathing difficulties, headaches and angina attacks for those who suffered from them.

Anaesthetists took oxygen levels from 55 passengers on long-haul flights lasting more than two hours, with the remaining on short-haul flights.

The measurements were similar for both groups, which were made up of people aged between one and 78 years old.

Lead researcher Dr Susan Humphreys, an anaesthetic specialist registrar at the hospital, said: "We believe these falling oxygen levels, together with factors such as dehydration, immobility and low humidity, could contribute to illness during and after flights.

Problem

"This has become a greater problem in recent years as modern aeroplanes are able to cruise at much higher altitudes."

The study comes after House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee and Department of Transport reports called for more research to be carried out on the health impact of flying.

But a spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority, the UK air regulator, said healthy passengers need not worry.

"The oxygen levels would not be harmful to healthy passengers, we are only talking about people with health problems, such as lung and heart.

"The advice to those people is consult with your doctor before flying, and that still stands.

"We have always known oxygen levels fall when a plane is flying."

Read More...

Italian hostage blasts US report

BBC NEWS

Italian hostage blasts US report

An Italian journalist who was held hostage in Iraq has criticised a US military report into the killing of the agent who helped secure her release.

Secret agent Nicola Calipari was shot by US forces as he escorted Giuliana Sgrena to Baghdad's airport.

US investigators are said to have found that the troops were "not culpable", in a report which Italy has not endorsed.

PM Silvio Berlusconi refused to comment on the report because he said the inquiry was not complete.

Mr Berlusconi apologised in a speech in front of the Italian parliament for what he called "an unfortunate leak" suggesting that the investigation into the shooting of Mr Calipari was completed.

He said contacts were continuing with US officials to try to reach agreement on what happened.


DIFFERING ACCOUNTS
US military : Car approaches checkpoint at high speed
Troops attempt to tell driver to stop with arm signals, lights and warning shots
Soldiers shoot into engine
Italian government : Italy makes all necessary contacts with the US for safe
passage
The driver stops immediately when a light flashes 10m away
At the same time, shots are fired into car for 10-15 seconds

Ms Sgrena described the conclusion of the leaked report as a "slap in the face" and urged the Italian government to react.

"The greatest disappointment would be if our authorities were to accept this insult without reacting," Ms Sgrena wrote in a front page editorial in her newspaper, Il Manifesto.

"All the words said about Calipari would turn into hypocrisy... and Nicola would have been our government's hero, just for one day."

Although Mr Berlusconi has been a staunch US ally in the conflict in Iraq, the war is very unpopular with the Italian people.

A report exonerating the soldiers involved in the shooting could prove inflammatory in Italy, and damaging to Mr Berlusconi.

Correspondents say attempts may be made to agree on a mutually acceptable version before the report is published.

Events unclear

Mr Calipari was hailed as a national hero after he was shot while trying to protect Ms Sgrena from gunfire.

Rome and Washington have differed over what led to the incident in March.

A US army official said on Monday that they still disagree over the speed at which the vehicle approached the checkpoint where the shooting occurred and how much communication there was between those in the car and the checkpoint guards.

"The United States is ready to release the report but Italy has more questions," the official said.

The US military said the car carrying Mr Calipari was speeding as it approached the temporary checkpoint in western Baghdad.

They said the soldiers used "hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and firing warning shots" to get the driver to stop.

However, Ms Sgrena, who was hurt in the incident, said the car had not been speeding and that there had been no warning before the troops opened fire.

'Feel terrible'

The US military said it had had no knowledge of the rescue mission, dismissing as "absurd" Ms Sgrena's suggestion the troops may have deliberately targeted her car.

Just after the incident, she said it was possible the soldiers had targeted her because Washington opposed the policy of negotiating with kidnappers.

"The soldiers were only complying with the standard operating procedures for those checkpoints, so therefore are not culpable to dereliction of duty [charges]," the US army official told Reuters news agency.

"Everybody feels terrible about it," he said.

The soldiers involved will reportedly face no disciplinary action.

Read More...

Filibuster and Cloture

For interesting facts on Filibuster and Cloture in the US Senate, one need look no further than the US Senate official website:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

Even fox news admits it has a long history:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102847,00.html


Take a look at the information at the above links.

(And if your name is Bill Frist or Dick Cheney or George W. Bush, consider this required reading!!)

Read More...

Justices to Review Loan Offsets

washingtonpost.com
Justices to Review Loan Offsets
Court to Decide Whether a 10-Year Limit Shields Student Debts

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 26, 2005; A02

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will decide whether the federal government may force debtors who have been delinquent on their student loans for more than a decade to repay them by forfeiting Social Security benefits.

The court said it will review a ruling last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, which said the government could deduct money from James Lockhart's monthly Social Security checks to offset the $80,000 in unpaid student debt he had accumulated as of March 2002.

Billions of dollars are at stake in a case that asks the justices to reconcile the key federal goals of keeping educational aid programs solvent and maintaining the incomes of the elderly and disabled.

According to the Treasury Department, $3.6 billion of the $7 billion in delinquent student debt is more than 10 years old. The government used deductions from government benefits to collect $400 million a year in delinquent student debt between 2000 and 2003.

The Bush administration told the court that, without the authority to go after Social Security benefits to pay decades-old student debts, it would lose "the most efficient (and, in many instances, the only) means of collecting delinquent debt to the United States."

The 9th Circuit ruled that, although a 1982 law barred withholding benefits to collect debts older than 10 years, two subsequent laws overrode it. Lockhart contends that the statute of limitations was never explicitly repealed.

He says he is disabled and relies on $874 a month in Social Security benefits. The government began deducting part of that in May 2002, for a total of $3,555 as of January 2005.

Both sides concur that the first $9,000 of a debtor's annual benefits is exempt from seizure, and that the debtor must be notified before withholdings begin.

The Bush administration agreed that the issue should be considered to resolve a conflict between the 9th Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, based in St. Louis, which ruled last year that a 10-year statute of limitations still applies to student loans.

But the justices rejected the administration's request to review the 8th Circuit case, putting the government at a slight disadvantage. Lockhart, as the petitioner, is allowed to write a rebuttal brief and may have time to rebut the government's case at oral argument.

The case is Lockhart v. U.S., No. 04-881. Oral argument will take place next fall, and a decision is expected by July 2006.

Separately, the court announced that it will decide a case about what kind of evidence capital crime defendants may introduce to save themselves from the death penalty.

Defendants who have been convicted of a death-penalty offense face a second hearing at which a jury must decide whether to impose death or a lesser penalty. At these sentencing hearings, the defense has a constitutional right to introduce mitigating evidence to persuade jurors to spare the defendant's life.

At issue in the case the court agreed to hear yesterday, Oregon v. Guzek, No. 04-928, is whether the Constitution requires a state to permit the defense to introduce claims that the defendant is innocent as mitigating evidence.

The court's ruling could have a significant impact at a time when death penalty opponents are seeking to heighten public doubts about capital punishment based on recent death row exonerations.

The prosecution's job at sentencing hearings might become more difficult if the court were to say that the defense has an absolute right to try to reinforce "residual doubts" among jurors who have already concluded that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt -- but not, perhaps, beyond any doubt.

In a fragmented 1988 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not require a trial judge to instruct a jury to consider such evidence. Most courts have interpreted that to mean that the defense has no right to introduce the evidence on its own.

But last year the Supreme Court of Oregon ruled 3 to 2 that convicted double-murderer Randy Lee Guzek must be allowed to present testimony at his sentencing hearing from his grandfather and mother, who placed him elsewhere at the time of the crimes.

In its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the state of Oregon asked the court to intervene "to establish a uniform interpretation of whether the Eighth Amendment creates a constitutional right to offer evidence and argument of residual doubt in a penalty-phase proceeding." The Eighth Amendment bans "cruel and unusual punishments."

Oral argument will take place in the fall, and a decision is likely by July 2006.

Read More...

Ex-Enron exec says he, others deliberately lied

MSNBC.com

Ex-Enron exec says he, others deliberately lied
Former head of Internet unit implicates himself, ex-CEO Skilling
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:42 p.m. ET April 25, 2005

HOUSTON - The former head of Enron Corp.'s failed Internet unit said Monday that he and others deliberately lied to analysts about the network's abilities in hopes of winning Wall Street's support.

"We chose to lie about the capabilities of the network so that would take away the credibility issue," former Enron Broadband Services CEO Kenneth Rice told jurors in the second week of the fraud and conspiracy trial of five former broadband executives.

Rice, a key government witness who pleaded guilty last year, began testifying late last week. He implicated himself, four of the defendants and former Enron Chief Executive Jeffrey Skilling in lying to Wall Street to inflate company stock.

He continued Monday in a less explosive vein as prosecutors methodically examined the unit in 1999 leading up to a January 2000 analyst conference where he, Skilling and four of the defendants presented it as a viable business.

"A lot of our presentation in the analyst conference was designed to convey we were credible in our ability to deliver network control software," he said, referring to software Enron touted as unmatched by competitors.

"Was that accurate?" prosecutor Ben Campbell asked.

"No, it was not," Rice said.

Of the five defendants, Joseph Hirko — who ran the broadband unit with Rice in its early days — and former vice presidents Scott Yeager and Rex Shelby are charged with fraud, conspiracy, insider trading and money laundering. They are accused of lying about the network to get rich from selling hype-inflated stock.

The other two defendants, former unit finance chief Kevin Howard and in-house accountant Michael Krautz, are accused of faking earnings for the unit in late 2000 and early 2001 to minimize publicly reported losses. The unit never made a profit and went bankrupt along with Enron in late 2001.

In a separate case that includes more than 30 pending charges, Skilling is accused of knowingly making similar false claims about the network to analysts in 2000 and 2001. Skilling's trial is to begin in January.

The broadband defendants and Skilling have pleaded innocent.

Rice testified Monday that he and Hirko met with Skilling in July 1999 to discuss the division's future. Skilling told them he was committed to broadband as a new Enron business with a potential valuation of $10 billion to $20 billion. A consultant's review finished in October that year projected broadband could be valued anywhere from $4 billion to $20 billion — the latter of which would add $25 to Enron's stock price.

"We gave each other a high-five," Rice said of himself and Hirko upon getting the consultant's report.

Rice said he knew the network didn't live up to claims made in an Enron news release issued in April 1999 that said the network was "lit, tested and ready," but his objective was to "get a big valuation" quickly for the broadband unit.

Rice pleaded guilty last year to securities fraud. As part of his plea deal, he forfeited nearly $14 million in cash and property to the government, including a Ferrari and a Colorado vacation home.

Read More...

Fla. Gun Law to Expand Leeway for Self-Defense

washingtonpost.com

Fla. Gun Law to Expand Leeway for Self-Defense

NRA to Promote Idea in Other States

By Manuel Roig-Franzia
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 26, 2005; A01

MIAMI -- It is either a Wild West revival, a return to the days of "shoot first and ask questions later," or a triumph for the "Castle Doctrine" -- the notion that enemies invade personal space at their peril.

Such dueling rhetoric marked the debate over a measure that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) could sign as early as Tuesday. The legislation passed so emphatically that National Rifle Association backers plan to take it to statehouses across the nation, including Virginia's, over the next year. The law will let Floridians "meet force with force," erasing the "duty to retreat" when they fear for their lives outside of their homes, in their cars or businesses, or on the street.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said in an interview that the Florida measure is the "first step of a multi-state strategy" that he hopes can capitalize on a political climate dominated by conservative opponents of gun control at the state and national levels.

"There's a big tailwind we have, moving from state legislature to state legislature," LaPierre said. "The South, the Midwest, everything they call 'flyover land' -- if John Kerry held a shotgun in that state, we can pass this law in that state."

The Florida measure says any person "has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm."

Florida law already lets residents defend themselves against attackers if they can prove they could not have escaped. The new law would allow them to use deadly force even if they could have fled and says that prosecutors must automatically presume that would-be victims feared for their lives if attacked.

The overwhelming vote margins and bipartisan support for the Florida gun bill -- it passed unanimously in the state Senate and was approved 94 to 20 in the state House, with nearly a dozen Democratic co-sponsors -- have alarmed some national gun-control advocates, who say a measure that made headlines in Florida slipped beneath their radar.

"I am in absolute shock," Sarah Brady, chair of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said in an interview. "If I had known about it, I would have been down there."

The lessons of history do not bode well for gun-control groups and their leaders, such as Brady, who became a crusader after President Ronald Reagan and her husband, then-White House press secretary James S. Brady, were seriously wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt.

Florida has a track record as a gun-law trendsetter. In the mid-1980s, the NRA chose Florida to launch a push for "conceal carry" or "right-to-carry" laws, which allow states to issue permits for residents to carry firearms. Democrat Bob Graham, who was then governor, vetoed the measure, but it was resurrected after he left office and was signed in 1987 by Gov. Bob Martinez, a Republican.

At the time, fewer than a dozen states had right-to-carry laws. Now there are 38.

LaPierre thinks the new Florida measure -- nicknamed the "Castle Doctrine" by its conceiver, Florida lobbyist Marion P. Hammer, a former NRA president -- can create the same momentum.

Critics argue that the measure is so broad it will encourage fights between neighbors, parents at soccer games or drinking buddies to escalate into gunfights.

"It's almost like a duel clause," said state Rep. Dan Gelber, a Miami Beach Democrat and former federal prosecutor whose wife is a state prosecutor. "People ought to have to walk away if they can."

Gelber believes that Florida's major prosecutor groups, populated by state attorneys who must run for reelection, stayed out of the fight and many lawmakers supported the bill because they fear the NRA.

Law enforcement did not try to block the measure, siding with the NRA rather than opposing the group, as many sheriffs and police officials had done during the debate two decades earlier over right-to-carry.

Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist, a leading candidate for the Republican governor's nomination in 2006, was among those who wrote letters of support. With that kind of high-level backing, Rep. Dennis Baxley, a Republican from Ocala who sponsored the House measure, could ridicule critics as "hysterical."

"Disorder and chaos are always held in check by the law-abiding citizen," Baxley said.

As in the mid-1980s fights over the right-to-carry law, the state's big newspapers have almost unanimously lined up against Baxley's measure, although their outrage did little to stop its easy glide. South Florida Sun-Sentinel columnist Howard Goodman said the state was "getting in touch with its inner Dirty Harry." Martin Dyckman of the St. Petersburg Times told tourists, indisputably a bedrock of the state's economy, to stay away: "Lebanon might be safer."

Hammer, a 4-foot-11 dynamo with a national reputation for her persuasive powers, dismissed the papers as "liberal, anti-gunners" and "Chicken Littles." The current law unfairly forces Floridians to make split-second decisions about a criminal's intent, she said, and NRA lobbyists like to note that was deemed impossible generations ago by legendary Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. "Detached reflection," Holmes said in one of his most oft-quoted pronouncements, "cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."

Hammer stresses that violent-crime rates in Florida have dropped since the right-to-carry law was signed. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement reports that violent crimes dropped from 1,136 per 100,00 residents in 1989 -- two years after the law went into effect -- to 727.7 per 100,000 in 2003.

Her opponents counter that Florida's drop is not tied to the gun law and note that national violent-crime rates have been trending down. More important, Gelber and others say, is that Florida still ranked second in the nation, behind only South Carolina, in violent crime in 2003, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics.

Brady's best hope, as a national fight appears inevitable, is that there will be a backlash -- much like the bounce that gun control got in Florida in the 1980s when the loss on the right-to-carry law was followed by victories on waiting periods and background checks.

"This," Brady says of the new Florida measure, "will be the thing that will awaken the sleeping great number of Middle Americans who will think this is so absurd."

But, for now, it is the thoughts of another group that really matter, the ones with guns. In this state of 17 million people, permits to carry guns have been issued more than 1 million times in the past 18 years.

Read More...

Rove: Bolton will be confirmed; judges deserve vote

USA TODAY

Rove: Bolton will be confirmed; judges deserve vote

By Judy Keen, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Karl Rove rejected a compromise with Senate Democrats Monday on long-stalled nominations for the federal judiciary and strongly defended President Bush's choice of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. (Audio: Rove speaks out)
Deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove has kown U.N. nominee John Bolton for more than 30 years.
Tim Dillon, USA TODAY

In an hour-long interview with USA TODAY and Gannett News Service reporters and editors, Rove, deputy White House chief of staff, dismissed suggestions from Democrats that they might drop threats to use filibusters to prevent votes on Bush's judicial nominees if the president would withdraw a few of the most controversial names.

"I think that would be a worthwhile compromise," Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said Monday. "We're willing to talk about a way of ending this impasse," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Bush wants votes on seven federal judge nominees who were blocked in the last session of Congress. The filibuster allows 41 senators to block action on the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has said he's prepared to change the rules to ban filibusters against judicial nominees. Such a tactic would alter Senate tradition and could bring Senate business to a halt. Reid and other Democrats have threatened to retaliate by slowing or blocking all but the most vital legislation.

"We believe that every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote," Rove said. "The process is not well served by these political games."

Rove said Bush tried to end the stalemate when he renominated just seven of the 10 nominees who had been blocked last year. But "I saw no change in tone" among Democrats, he said. "The flamethrowers ... came out within moments."

'ARCHITECT' OVERSEES STRATEGIES

Karl Rove added the title deputy White House chief of staff for policy to his job
description in February after four years as senior adviser to President Bush. He
has long been Bush's top political adviser and Bush called him "the architect" of
his re-election.

Rove, 54, oversees strategy for most domestic issues and coordinates the
development of policy in the Domestic Policy Council, the National Economic
Council, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council. His job
is to "make sure that we have an open and fair process ... and to make sure that
policy is complementary and consistent," says White House spokesman Scott
McClellan.

Rove also is in charge of intergovernmental affairs, political affairs and
strategic initiatives.

Rove passionately defended Bolton, whom he said he has known for more than 30 years, and said his critics oppose reforming the United Nations. "I'm absolutely confident he'll be confirmed," he said.

Two U.S. intelligence analysts, Christian Westerman and Fulton Armstrong, have alleged that when Bolton was undersecretary of State for arms control, he tried to have them fired when they disagreed with his assertions about a Cuban biological weapons program.

Rove said the Sept. 11 attacks proved that officials should "be contesting, not simply supinely receiving, information from security analysts." He suggested that other critics are motivated by politics.

A Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote on Bolton's nomination was postponed last week after Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said he had concerns. The vote is now scheduled for May 12.

Rove also said:

•Despite polls showing that Bush's push for reshaping Social Security is not gaining public support, "people understand there's a problem" and the administration is open to all ideas for ensuring the retirement system's solvency. An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday found that 64% of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of Social Security, his lowest rating ever on that topic. The telephone poll of 1,007 adults Thursday-Sunday had an error margin of +/—3 percentage points.

•He expects House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, to keep his job despite ethics questions. DeLay took trips that may have been paid for by a lobbyist. House rules forbid such trips.

"He's going to continue to be an effective and strong leader," Rove said. If the ethics committee would take up the matter, he said, it would "be quickly resolved" and clear his name. The ethics panel is not currently functioning because of a dispute over its rules.

•There was "general knowledge within the White House" of an Education Department contract to promote Bush's No Child Left Behind education law, but officials there had no knowledge of the specifics of a subcontract with television and radio commentator Armstrong Williams to personally promote it.

"I'm pretty confident there was not any knowledge of the details of the contract being with Armstrong Williams," Rove said. On Jan. 26, Bush said, "We didn't know about this in the White House."

Contributing: Kathy Kiely, Barbara Slavin and Greg Toppo

Read More...

Court declines to revive POWs' suit against Iraq

USA TODAY

Court declines to revive POWs' suit against Iraq

By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to revive a lawsuit brought against Iraq by 17 Americans who were tortured by Saddam Hussein's regime when they were POWs during the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Without comment, the justices let stand a 2004 ruling by an appeals court that threw out the case and an award of $959 million that the former POWs had won against Iraq in a lower federal court.

The Bush administration had stepped into the dispute to argue for Iraq. The administration said that after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam's regime two years ago, Iraq no longer could be sued as a terrorist state under federal law. It also said the money that had been awarded to the former POWs was needed to help rebuild Iraq.

"I'm in utter disbelief," former Marine colonel Clifford Acree said after Monday's action by the Supreme Court. Acree spent 48 days in captivity during the Gulf War and led the group that filed the lawsuit. "This decision essentially tells Iraq or any other nation that could be our adversary there will be no consequences for torture."

The lawsuit brought by the former POWs and 37 members of their families said the POWs had endured "severe beatings, electric shock, burns, whipping, starvation, subjection to severe cold and filth, genital inspections (to identify Jews), mock executions, and threatened castration and dismemberment."

They sued Iraq, the Iraqi Intelligence Service and Saddam in April 2002 under a 1996 federal law that allows claims for money damages against terrorist states that engage in torture. In July 2003, the group won the nearly $1 billion verdict in a federal trial court in Washington.

But the Bush administration, which began the war in Iraq on March 19, 2003, pushed for the verdict to be thrown out. Among other things, the administration cited an appropriations bill passed by Congress in April 2003 that allowed Bush to suspend sanctions against Iraq and remove it from the U.S. list of terrorist states.

The federal appeals court in Washington did not fully agree with the administration's arguments, but it dismissed the case and said there was no basis for imposing liability on Iraq. The POWs appealed to the Supreme Court. They said they still had a cause of action under federal law and international anti-torture rules.

Also Monday, the high court agreed to hear the following cases in the annual term that begins in October:

•A dispute from Washington state that tests whether the U.S. government may withhold a person's Social Security benefits to collect on student loan debt that has been outstanding at least 10 years. An appeals court said seizing the benefits was allowed. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of James Lockhart, 66, who has not been able to work regularly since 1981 and had been drawing Social Security disability benefits.

•An Oregon dispute over whether a murder defendant who has been found guilty has a right during the sentencing phase of his trial to present alibi evidence that casts doubt on his guilt. The state of Oregon is appealing a ruling that said Randy Lee Guzek may present evidence that he was not at the scene of the crime for which he was found guilty. He was convicted of murdering a couple during a robbery at their home in rural Oregon in 1987.

Read More...

Democrats won't stop drivers license verification bill

USA TODAY

Democrats won't stop drivers license verification bill, Reid says

By Sergio Bustos and Doug Abrahms, Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON — A controversial bill that would require states to verify the citizenship or legal status of anyone applying for a drivers license will likely become law because Senate Democrats don't have the votes to stop it, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Monday.

Aimed at illegal immigrants, the so-called Real ID Act is expected to be included in a final version of an $81 billion spending bill to fund the war in Iraq, according to Reid, D-Nev. House and Senate lawmakers begin negotiating a final version of the spending bill this week.

Reid and most Democrats had fought for months against the Real ID measure and succeeded in keeping it out of the Senate version of the spending bill. But Reid said Democrats have decided they would not hold up passage of the Iraq war spending bill solely because it includes the Real ID Act.

Republicans "are going to keep the Real ID (Act) on the supplemental," said Reid, who opposes the measure. "They did it on purpose. They put it on the supplemental, which we couldn't stop" because both parties support the additional funds for U.S. troops.

President Bush has pledged to sign the bill into law if the House and Senate can work out their differences.

Forty-one states already require drivers license applicants to document their legal status, but the bill would require states to perform a more extensive verification.

In addition, there would be a uniform license in all states, and states would pay to redesign their licenses.

In the addition to the drivers license provision, the Real ID Act would:

•Make it tougher for foreigners to win political asylum by giving immigration judges more authority to decide the merits of the asylum applications.

•Waive local environmental laws to allow the federal government to complete a 14-mile a fence near San Diego that separates the United States and Mexico.

A diverse collection of more than 600 groups, including immigration advocates, environmentalists, Christian groups and state motor vehicle officials, had rallied in a furious lobbying effort in the Senate to kill the measure.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., the bill's main sponsor, has repeatedly argued that critics of his bill have misconstrued its intent. He said it would combat terror, strengthen national security and improve public safety.

"The goal of the Real ID Act is straightforward," he said. "It seeks to prevent another 9/11-type terrorist attack by disrupting terrorist travel."

Sensenbrenner said potential terrorists today could easily obtain drivers licenses and manipulate the U.S. asylum system to gain legal entry into the United States.

On Tuesday, Sensenbrenner will take part in a news conference with other supporters in Congress and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that advocates stricter immigration laws.

Immigration advocates say the bill is mean-spirited and targets millions of legal immigrants. They said it would prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining a drivers license, forcing them to drive unlicensed and uninsured.

"The real solution is to create incentives (for immigrants) to play by the rules ... and create disincentives to coming illegally," said Christina DeConcini, policy director of the National Immigration Forum.

State officials argue the bill would cost millions of dollars to put into effect and turn state motor vehicle clerks into immigration agents.

Cheye Calvo, an analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures, said the bill would force states to verify the authenticity of passports, green cards, birth certificates and other documents presented by drivers license applicants.

"The requirements are just unworkable," Calvo said.

Nonsense, countered Sensenbrenner, whose bill has 115 co-sponsors in the House.

"American citizens have the right to know who is in their country, that people are who they say they are, and that the name on the drivers license is the real holder's name, not some alias," he said.

Calvo noted that states and federal officials already are working together to create uniform standards for issuing drivers licenses, as recommended by the independent commission that studied the circumstances leading up to the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Read More...

Travel by Congress often paid privately

USA TODAY

Travel by Congress often paid privately

By Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress have taken $16 million in privately financed trips since 2000, and more than half were sponsored by non-profit groups that don't have to disclose who is providing the money, a study out today says.

The issue of who pays for lawmakers' travel is under increased scrutiny because of an ethics controversy involving House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who took trips that may have been paid for by prohibited sources. Privately paid travel is permitted under the rules, but expenses cannot be paid for by a lobbyist or by a representative of a foreign interest.

The new analysis of 5,410 trips in the past five years by about 600 members of the House and Senate was conducted by PoliticalMoneyLine, an online service that provides campaign-finance and lobbying data.

It found that $8.8 million of the travel expenses were paid for by tax-exempt and other groups whose funding sources aren't public. DeLay is under fire in part because one such group, the National Center for Public Policy Research, paid for a trip to Britain in 2000 that may have been at least partly paid for by a lobbyist, which is against House rules.

While ethics rules require lawmakers to try to find out and disclose who is paying for their trips, they often fail to do so, said Larry Noble of the Center for Responsive Politics, an ethics watchdog group. "It has become a 'don't ask, don't tell' system," Noble said.

He said it is curious that the rules don't allow lobbyists to pay for trips but permit their employers to do so. "The fiction is that the same conflict doesn't exist when the lobbyist's employer, a corporation or a trade association, pays for the travel and the lobbyist goes along," Noble said.

An additional $4.4 million in travel was paid for by trade associations and $2 million by corporations. Interest groups frequently take lawmakers to conferences, plant sites or other places to educate them on issues. Among other findings:

•The leading travel sponsor was the educational Aspen Institute, which spent nearly $2.9 million on seminars for lawmakers. Institute spokesman Jim Spiegelman said the money comes from foundations, and the trips educate lawmakers without pushing a point of view. Other top spenders: the Ripon Society, an organization of Republican moderates, and the American Israel Education Foundation, an arm of the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC.

•Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, rolled up the largest tab over the five-year period. He took 19 trips valued at nearly $168,000, most to overseas destinations that included Asia, the Persian Gulf and Europe.

•Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., took the most trips: 63. All were domestic speeches and therefore less expensive. His total tab was $61,000.

•DeLay took 14 trips valued at $94,568. He ranked 28th for value of trips, and 114th in the number taken.

•Democrats took 3,025 trips; Republicans, 2,375; independents, 10.

Read More...

Chemical plants' vulnerability at issue

USA TODAY

Chemical plants' vulnerability at issue

By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Chemical plants in the USA are vulnerable targets for terrorists and represent a grave risk to Americans because of weak governmental regulation, a former top Homeland Security adviser to President Bush said Monday.

Richard Falkenrath, who left the White House in May, said in a written statement he expects to deliver to Congress on Wednesday that he bears some responsibility for the Bush administration's policy on chemical plant security.

"Regretfully, some portion of this responsibility clearly belongs to me," Falkenrath says in the written testimony, which he gave to USA TODAY.

The government estimates that there are more than 15,000 chemical facilities nationwide, including more than 100 in heavily populated areas. Such plants can store enough deadly chemicals to kill or injure hundreds of thousands of people.

Falkenrath is among a growing number of officials who are rethinking the government's policy to count on chemical plants to voluntarily beef up their own security.

More than three years after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Falkenrath will tell the Senate Homeland Security committee that chemical plants and rail cars that transport deadly chemicals are easy, unprotected targets for terrorists.

He is scheduled to be joined at the hearing by the Bush-appointed head of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, which probes deadly accidents.

Carolyn Merritt, who has never before spoken publicly about chemical security, said she will tell the committee that the federal government needs to do more to protect the public from the intentional or accidental release of deadly chemicals. She cited the January rail car crash in remote Graniteville, S.C., that killed 10 people after 60 tons of chlorine was released.

Merritt's testimony, which she provided to USA TODAY, says there are "serious gaps in the preparations for major chemical releases by companies, emergency responders, government authorities and the public."

In his testimony, Falkenrath says, "I am aware of no other category of potential terrorist targets that presents as great a danger."

He urges Congress to require the Homeland Security Department to maintain an inventory of chemical plants, develop safety standards, verify that plants have met those requirements and impose civil and criminal penalties on those that fail.

Senate Homeland Security committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said that many plants are in heavily-populated urban areas and "have little more to secure them than a fence around the perimeter."

"Chemical facilities are attractive both as a source of chemicals that could be stolen to build bombs, and for the release of toxic fumes into the surrounding communities," she said.

Homeland Security Department spokeswoman Michelle Petrovich says inspectors have reviewed security at more than 160 of the 300 plants "of immediate concern."

The department encourages plants to follow voluntary security guidelines put forth by the American Chemistry Council, which represents companies accounting for 90% of the nation's industrial chemical production. But Homeland Security officials have no legal authority to force plants to tighten security.

Even the chemistry council favors government regulation to "level the playing field" by requiring all plants to pay for security upgrades, spokeswoman Kate McGloon says.

Rick Hind of Greenpeace says he welcomes Falkenrath's candor. "The biggest threat we face," he says, "is inaction from the federal government."

Read More...

Too Much Christ

thenation.como

Too Much Christ
by Ari Berman

We hoped to never write these words: John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are cosponsoring a bill with Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum. Its name is deceptively harmless--The Workplace Religious Freedom Act. But the practical effect could be an enormous boost for an emboldened religious right.

Take the current debate over so-called "Pharmacists for Life" who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills or emergency contraception. Over 180 refusal complaints were filed over a six-month period last year, while "conscience clause" bills have been introduced in at least 12 states, in addition to four where the law is already on the books. Kerry and Santorum say their bill offers a compromise--a pharmacist could refuse to dispense certain medicines provided that another pharmacist in the same area will. Such an approach, in the face of fierce evangelical efforts to "Christianize the workplace," is rife with dangerous loopholes and unforeseen exceptions.

As a New York Times editorial points out, pharmacists can "berate, belittle or lecture their customers," refuse to guide them to alternative supplies of medicine and pressure other pharmacies to do the same when large megastores like Wal-Mart already refuse to stock the morning-after pill. The last thing a rape victim searching for emergency contraception in a rural area needs is some overzealous preacher-cum-pharmacist telling her to take her business, and her body, elsewhere.

The consequences of the Act may be felt far beyond your local drugstore. "Employers would have serious difficulty resolving instances where an employee posts a sign reading 'God hates fags' in his office or cubicle; where workers proselytize on the 'sins of the homosexual lifestyle' over lunch," the Human Rights Campaign wrote in a letter to members of Congress. Bullying minorities under the guise of religion happens all too often these days. The House recently exempted government funded faith-based organizations from following state and local laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Air Force is responding to allegations that its Christian cadets bullied and taunted Jews and other religious minorities.

So what's Kerry's excuse? Instead of pandering to the get-right-with-God crowd, he could instead follow the lead of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, who recently vetoed conscience clause legislation, and Illinois Governor Rob Blagoyevich, who ordered pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill. Similar efforts to ensure access to all legal prescriptions have been introduced by Senators Barbara Boxer and Frank Lautenberg, and Reps. Carolyn Maloney, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Chris Shays in the House. This is the gang Kerry should be running with.

Read More...

'Bad Religion, Bad Politics'

thenation.com

'Bad Religion, Bad Politics'

Katrina vanden Heuvel

I'm writing this on the eve of "Justice Sunday"--a telecast being promoted by evangelical Christian conservatives who charge that Democrats opposing President Bush's judicial nominees are acting "against people of faith."

The Senate Republican's Defender of the Faith, Bill Frist, who supports a "culture of life" but not lively debate, is scheduled to join in this televised show--designed to smear those who have honest differences over policy issues as religious bigots. As the Boston Globe asked in a tough editorial attacking Frist's intolerance: "Will every political difference now open opponents to such accusations? And whose definition of 'faith' is in use here?"

These are scary times. The nation is in the control of extremists who want to merge church and state. A line is crossed when religion demonizes politicians of certain religion--or no religion--and when the church-state separation is breached by people believing that their God is better than another God.

Extremists are attacking an independent judiciary and checks and balances, both fundamental elements of a democracy. Earlier this month, as Max Blumenthal reported for The Nation online, conservative activists and top GOP staffers are likening judges to communists, terrorists, and murderers. One so-called scholar invoked one of Stalin's favorite sayings, "No person, no problem," suggesting this was the preferred way of dealing with out-of-control courts. (By the way, according to the Alliance for Justice, 55 percent of the Circuit Court judges are GOP appointees. Republicans advocating killing Republicans?)

Will we allow Republican mullahs to create a country where religion dictates policy in a democratic country? As Sidney Blumenthal recently wrote in Salon, "The election of 2004 marks the rise of a quasi-clerical party for the first time in the US....Ecclesiastical organizations have become transformed into the sinew and muscle of the Republican party."

With debates raging about issues that mix religion and politics, it's worth paying heed to the words of a scholar who has written eloquently on the relationship between Americans' religious beliefs and political actions.

Princeton Professor of Religion Jeffrey Stout, in "Democracy and Tradition," has some sharp observations about a public political discourse that embraces rather than stigmatizes a variety of religious viewpoints.

In an interview last year, Stout argued that "political officials should refrain from presuming to speak for the whole nation on religious questions. Kings and queens used to make a mockery of religion by presuming to be its caretakers. What most of them really wanted was a kind of religion that would justify their rule while pacifying the populace. Our elected representatives are prone to the same temptations. The religion that our politicians practice in public often smells of sanctimony, manipulation and self-idolatry. Its symbolic gestures make for bad religion and bad politics...Neither will it help to scapegoat secularists, nor to imply that atheists and agnostics, let alone Muslims, are something less than full-fledged citizens.

A country that has preachers, prophets, poets, houses of worship and open air does not need politicians expressing its piety collectively in public places. Individual citizens can be trusted to find their own appropriate ways to express their own religious convictions and train the young in virtue. What the people need from political leaders are the virtues of truthfulness, justice, practical wisdom, courage, vision and a kind of compassion whose effects can actually be discerned in the lives of the poor and the elderly."

Think of these words as Frist and other Republican extremists join evangelical leaders to smear people of good faith. And stand with people of good faith who believe that we need to save our democracy.

Read More...

Brain stem cells to cure diabetes

BBC NEWS
Brain stem cells to cure diabetes

US scientists believe they could use brain stem cells to cure diabetes.

Although the work is not yet ready to be tested on human patients, results in animals have been promising, say the Stanford University researchers.

They were able to coax the immature brain cells to develop into the insulin-producing islet cells that are lacking in diabetes.

Eventually, these could be used for curative transplants, the scientists told the journal PLoS Medicine.

Stem cells

Scientists have already been looking at using stem cells taken from embryos to treat diabetes.

These are primitive "master" cells that can be programmed to become many kinds of tissue.

However, there have been concerns that these cells can turn cancerous, are difficult to work with in the laboratory and raise ethical dilemmas.

Dr Seung Kim and colleagues looked at whether adult stem cells taken from the brain might work just as well and avoid some of these issues.

Dr Kim said: "When you look at islet cells you realise that they resemble neurons."

In some insects, such as fruit flies, the cells that produce insulin and regulate blood sugar are also neurons.

Chemical cocktail

Dr Kim's team found that when they added a cocktail of chemicals to brain stem cells, the cells changed and, although they were not identical to islet cells, they were able to produce insulin in response to blood sugar levels.

To find out whether these cells would work, they transplanted them into a cavity in the kidney in mice where other types of insulin-producing cells have been found to survive before.

When the blood sugar went up in these mice, the transplanted "mature" brain stem cells again released insulin.

Four weeks later, the cells were still alive and producing insulin and none had turned cancerous.

Dr Kim said, although it was early days, the work suggested that stem cells could be used to replace islet cells and free people with type 1 diabetes daily insulin injections.

Some patients have already received transplants using islet cells taken from living relatives or dead donors.

However, the stem cell route would mean the patient themselves could potentially be their own donor.

Dr Angela Wilson, director of research at Diabetes UK said: "This is an interesting result and may provide another avenue to explore in our search for a cure for diabetes.

"However, the work is in the very early stages of development and has yet to be reproduced in humans.

"We'll certainly be following the progress of this research with interest."

Read More...

US closes book on Iraq WMD hunt

BBC NEWS
US closes book on Iraq WMD hunt

The US chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has said inquiries into weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have "gone as far as feasible".

Mr Duelfer also said an official transfer of WMDs to Syria ahead of the Iraq war was not likely.

The CIA adviser reported last year that neither expected stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, nor evidence of recent production had been found.

However, he did say Saddam Hussein had wanted to restart WMD programmes.

Terror risk

"After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted," Mr Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), wrote in a 92-page addendum to the report issued in October.

IRAQ SURVEY GROUP
Set up in May 2003
First leader, David Kay, quit in Jan 2004 stating WMD would not be found in Iraq
New head, Charles Duelfer appointed by CIA
1,200 experts from the US, Britain and Australia
HQ in Washington, offices in Baghdad and Qatar

However, Mr Duelfer warned that Iraq's original weapons programme had created a pool of experts whose skills could be sought by other countries or terrorist groups, and that while this risk was presently very small, it should not be ignored.

"The use of a single even an ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives," the supplementary report warned.

Mr Duelfer said that while the ISG believed that it was unlikely that WMD material had been officially moved to Syria in the run up to the war, it was "unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials".

The US and Britain used allegations that Iraq possessed WMDs as the primary justification for invading Iraq in 2003.

Read More...

US troops cleared over shooting

BBC NEWS
US troops cleared over shooting

US military investigators have cleared American soldiers of any wrongdoing over the death of an Italian agent, who was shot at a checkpoint in Baghdad.

Nicola Calipari was killed by US forces as he travelled in a car near Baghdad airport after securing the release of Italian hostage Giuliana Sgrena.

Ms Sgrena, who had been held by Iraqi kidnappers, was hurt in the incident.

The US soldiers were "not culpable" according to the US military report, which Italy has refused to endorse.

Differing accounts

A US army official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Italian and US authorities still disagree over the speed at which the vehicle approached the checkpoint and how much communication there was between those in the car and the checkpoint guards.

"The United States is ready to release the report but Italy has more questions," the official said.

The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says that although Italy's government, led by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, has been a staunch American ally in the conflict in Iraq, the war is deeply unpopular with the Italian people.

As such, our correspondent says that a report completely exonerating the soldiers involved in the shooting could present Mr Berlusconi with a problem and be "highly politically inflammatory inside Italy".

The US military said the car carrying Mr Calipari was speeding as it approached the temporary checkpoint in western Baghdad.

They claimed the soldiers used "hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and firing warning shots" to get the driver to stop.

However, Ms Sgrena, who had been held captive for more than a month, disputed this version of events, saying that the car had not been speeding and that there had been no warning before the troops opened fire.

Hailed as hero

The US military had also said they had no knowledge of the rescue mission, dismissing as "absurd" Ms Sgrena's suggestion that their troops may have deliberately targeted her car.

Just after the incident, in an interview with Sky Italia TV, she said it was possible the soldiers had targeted her because Washington opposed the policy of negotiating with kidnappers.

"The soldiers were only complying with the standard operating procedures for those checkpoints, so therefore are not culpable to dereliction of duty [charges]," the US army official told Reuters news agency.

"Everybody feels terrible about it. But given the climate and the security atmosphere, the security procedures at the checkpoint operations have to be run by the letter," he added.

The soldiers involved will face no disciplinary action.

Mr Calipari was fatally shot as he threw himself over Ms Sgrena to protect her from a hail of bullets.

As a result of his action Mr Calipari became a national hero and Italy's leaders joined hundreds of fellow citizens at his funeral.

Read More...

Monday, April 25, 2005

Freedom, a Blessing and a Curse

Arab News
The Middle East's Leading English Language Daily

Freedom, a Blessing and a Curse
Ibtissam Al-Bassam, Arab News —

Freedom is not a 21st century discovery nor is it a fashion that lasts one season and fades away the next.

People everywhere cherish freedom and want to be free. This is true of Arabs, Americans, Asians and Europeans. It is true of nations whose history is fraught with wars against colonization and who have made hefty sacrifices to gain independence. It is certainly true of people who give up their lives, wealth, and comfort to free their land from occupation and to resist invasions.

No sane person hates freedom and places obstacles in its way. No person in his or her right mind prefers the fire of slavery and servitude to a rising flame of freedom and liberation. No nation resents or hates leaders, who place freedom at the top of their political agenda and show determination to promote it around the globe.

But the world has learned from experience that freedom is similar to cholesterol and to diamond. Just as there is good cholesterol and bad cholesterol, there is good freedom and bad freedom, and just as there is real diamond and fake diamond, there is real freedom and fake freedom.

Good, real freedom is a rare blessing. It makes people masters in their own lands and gives them the right to choose and nourish the democracy that befits their culture, suits their nature and can grow and blossom in their society. It prevents divisions in societies and shuts the door against invasion and hateful occupation. It protects lives, preserves world cultures and respects world religions.

Good, real freedom condemns the use of force against unarmed civilians. It prevents collateral punishment and the demolition of homes and livelihood. It forbids sale or shipment of sophisticated weapons to places where they are used to destroy the innocent masses of civilians.

Good, real freedom respects faith and exposes lies that promote hatred, hostility and suspicion. It reinforces solidarity, protects social cohesion and national unity. It extinguishes conflicts before they flare up into full-fledged civil or regional wars. It respects the sovereignty of nations, opens the door to sustainable development and economic prosperity. It allows citizens to reform their national systems in ways that serve the interests of their countries and does not fly in the face of cherished traditions and values.

Bad, fake freedom is dangerous. It is a Trojan horse that creates chaos, destroys cultures, undermines self-confidence and eliminates national and cultural identities. It creates dangerous rifts in peaceful societies and allows outsiders to meddle in one’s internal affairs with impunity. It promotes alien values, gives rise to social unrest, threatens cultural heritage and destroys family structures. It sets men against women and women against men. It enlarges the gap between generations and kills the feelings of respect and gratitude that children should have for parents. It is a tsunami that wipes away love, respect and understanding, which are the fundamental basis for sound relationships.

Bad, fake freedom is a curse. It stifles honest voices and gives the floor to the dishonest. It supports prejudiced reporters, praises biased reports and, intentionally or unintentionally, overlooks objective, accurate conclusions.

Bad, fake freedom crushes the weak, condones attacks on world religions, does not respect world cultures and has a strange tendency to paint all Muslims with the hated brush of terrorism. It is fertile ground for selfishness, poverty, exploitation, discrimination and harassment. It sanctions the arrest of the innocent and the indefinite imprisonment and torture of “suspects”. It allows deviation from ratified conventions, encourages violation of international laws, and paves the way to money laundering, theft of national wealth, looting and drug trafficking.

Bad, fake freedom promotes suspicion and hatred among people of different faiths and different cultures. It turns the developing world into laboratories for testing lethal arms and deadly conventional and unconventional weapons.

Good, real freedom is the faithful companion of true democracy.

May we all be blessed with real freedom and May Allah spare us the woes, pain and misery that fake freedom is capable of inflicting on its victims.

originally published 24 April 2005

Read More...

Who Made Iraq the Duty-Free Shop of Suicide Bombers?

Arab News
The Middle East's Leading English Language Daily

Who Made Iraq the Duty-Free Shop of Suicide Bombers?
Haifa Zangana, The Guardian —


LONDON, 23 April 2005 — Like so many others in this country I recently received a letter and a card from the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair. It read: “Enclosed is a summary of our pledges for you to review. We fulfilled every pledge in 1997 and 2001. If re-elected we will do so again.” I was shocked. The letter, and the “six pledges to ensure a better life for British people”, were Iraq-free zones.

Whatever happened to the war on Iraq? On the eve of the invasion Blair said: “The question most often posed is not ‘Why does it matter?’ but ‘Why does it matter so much?’ Here we are: The government with its most serious test, its majority at risk, the first Cabinet resignation over an issue of policy.” And yet in his current election campaign, the prime minister has sidestepped the issue. Why?

Is it because Iraq has become a bleeding wound too painful to look at, or a mess that should be avoided at elections? Or is it that Blair genuinely believes that he has honored his pledge to the Iraqi people? On the eve of the war Blair made the Iraqis three promises: That he would get rid of Saddam’s WMD, defeat terrorism, and establish democracy and a respect for human rights in Iraq.

Two years on, it has been proved beyond doubt that there were no WMD. Iraq, which previously had no links to “terrorism”, is now the duty-free shop of suicide bombers. As for democracy, the election, when it eventually came, was designed to placate international opinion rather than give Iraqi people what they wanted: Peace, security, and an end to occupation.

And what of human rights? In an attempt to justify the war before the invasion, Blair spoke passionately in Parliament about the suffering of Iraqis: “Today (Iraq) is impoverished: 60 percent of its population are dependent on food aid; thousands of children die needlessly every year from a lack of food and medicine; 4 million people out of a population of just over 20 million are in exile.” He asked MPs to remember “the brutality of the repression — the death and torture camps, the barbaric prisons for political opponents”.

The irony is that these are the very problems that the majority of Iraqis are still facing today, two years after “liberation”. An estimated 60 percent of Iraqi families still depend completely on the monthly food ration. A recent UN Human Rights Commission report says that malnutrition among Iraqi children under the age of five nearly doubled last year to 7.7 percent, and blamed the war for this deterioration. More than a quarter of Iraqi children do not get enough food to eat.

Four million Iraqis are still in exile, and more are joining their ranks. Many academics, scientists and consultants are leaving for the fear of assassination or kidnapping. According to the Interior Ministry, 5,000 Iraqis were kidnapped in the last 15 months. Roadside bombs, mortar assaults, shootings by US troops and suicide attacks are all part of daily life.

There are 17,000 prisoners, mostly under US control. Two new prisons have been built by US contractors to accommodate 4,000 new prisoners in the south. A recently published Human Rights Watch report documents the torture and ill-treatment of members of political and armed groups, the arbitrary arrest and torture of criminal suspects, and the torture of children held in adult facilities.

There are reports, too, of women being taken as hostages by US soldiers to persuade fugitive male relatives to surrender. Amnesty International has condemned this, reminding governments that “it is against international law to take civilians and use them as bargaining chips”. The blockade of food and destruction of water reservoirs during the siege of Fallujah was “used as a weapon of war”, a UN expert said in a report to the organization’s human rights commission.

Banned weapons have been used in Iraq too, as the US military has been forced to admit, including the MK-77 incendiary bomb, a modern form of napalm. Britain is party to an international convention banning such weapons where they may cause harm to civilians and yet, during the assault on Fallujah, British soldiers were placed under the command of a US military that has no such qualms. Reports have emerged of melted bodies in the city, a crime that has been met with silence not just by Tony Blair but also by Ann Clwyd, his human rights envoy to Iraq.

On the second anniversary of the invasion, 300,000 Iraqis demonstrated in Baghdad to demand the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops and the release of detainees. Three effigies of Bush, Blair and Saddam were burned. The message was clear: Bush and Blair, like Saddam before them, are legally and morally responsible for the destruction of Iraq and the daily killing of its people.

— Haifa Zangana is an Iraqi-born novelist and former prisoner of Saddam’s regime.

haifa_zangana@yahoo.co.uk

originally published 23 April 2005

Read More...

Experts Call Spy Agency Practice an Eye-Opener

latimes.com

Experts Call Spy Agency Practice an Eye-Opener

If a U.S. official asks, the NSA is in the habit of disclosing the identities of Americans it records in routine snooping, intelligence sources say.

By Greg Miller
Times Staff Writer

April 25, 2005

WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency, which eavesdrops on electronic communications around the world, receives thousands of requests each year from U.S. government officials seeking the names of Americans who show up in intercepted calls or e-mails — and complies in the vast majority of cases without challenging the basis for the requests, current and former intelligence officials said.

The volume of requests and the NSA's almost reflexive practice of disclosing Americans' identities — which under federal law are shielded unless there is a compelling intelligence reason for releasing a name — have come as a surprise even to some members of Congress and government officials deeply involved in intelligence matters.

Officials from the NSA and other agencies say that the disclosures are proper and that there are significant protections against abuse. But the practice is coming under new scrutiny because of the recent disclosure that John R. Bolton, President Bush's nominee for ambassador to the U.N., submitted numerous requests for the identities of U.S. officials whose conversations were recorded by the NSA while monitoring overseas targets.

During his confirmation hearings, Bolton — the undersecretary of State for arms control and international security — initially said he had made such requests "on a couple of occasions, maybe a few more." His reason, he said, was that in evaluating intelligence reports, sometimes "it's important to find out who is saying what to whom."

The State Department subsequently revealed that Bolton had sought the names of Americans in at least 10 cases since 2001, and that the department as a whole had submitted about 400 requests during that period.

Those 400 inquiries represented only a "small percentage" of the total number fielded by the NSA, according to a government official with access to NSA data who spoke on condition of anonymity. Since January 2004, the NSA has received more than 3,000 requests, the official said, adding that "the magnitude is surprising" even to some intelligence experts.

"Significantly more than half" of the requests come from the CIA and other agencies in the U.S. intelligence community, the official said. The FBI and law enforcement agencies account for a tiny fraction of the total, while the rest come from policymakers such as Bolton and officials in other agencies.

The NSA declined to answer questions about the scope of the practice, refusing to say how many requests it fields, what percentage are granted or which agencies account for the largest number.

An official familiar with the NSA's role defended its procedures, saying the agency is committed to protecting Americans' privacy and that it does not reveal names unless doing so is necessary "to understand the foreign intelligence information [contained in an intercept] or to assess its significance."

Still, the number of requests and apparent absence of external checks has alarmed some experts.

"It doesn't mean that whenever somebody requests names that they are abusing the system," said Steven Aftergood, an intelligence analyst at the independent Federation of American Scientists. "But if they were abusing the system, there might be no way to find out about it."

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, ranking Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, last week asked the NSA to provide a statistical breakdown on its handling of requests.

"The senator wants a briefing on the whole process," said Wendy Morigi, a spokeswoman for Rockefeller. She said Rockefeller also had "asked the NSA to provide additional information to help better understand the nature of the requests made by Bolton."

The NSA is the largest — and in some ways most secretive — member of the U.S. intelligence community. Its eavesdropping operations are tightly governed by laws established to protect U.S. citizens from abuses that were exposed by congressional investigations in the 1970s. In general, the agency is barred from monitoring the conversations of U.S. citizens, even when they are overseas, without demonstrating to a special court that the individual is a foreign agent or suspected terrorist.

Even so, Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the outgoing director of the NSA, recently testified that "it is not uncommon for us to come across information to, from or about what we would call a protected person, a U.S. person" in the routine monitoring of foreign targets.

In those cases, Hayden said, the agency abides by "minimization procedures" in which the names of U.S. individuals are deleted from published intelligence reports — typically replaced by a generic reference to "named U.S. person" or "named U.S. official." Hayden was confirmed last week as deputy director for national intelligence, a new position overseeing all 15 U.S. spy agencies.

But government officials who have access to transcripts of the intercept reports — including policymakers who do not work in intelligence agencies — can ask for the names. And the agency has tended to comply on an almost automatic basis, a former NSA official said, typically scrutinizing requests only if a troubling pattern emerges.

"We typically would ask why it was necessary [to release a name], but we wouldn't try to second-guess that," said Stewart Baker, who served as the NSA's general counsel from 1992 to 1994. "This is intelligence and it might be something you have to act on in 24 hours. You don't say, 'We're going to adjudicate this.' "

Baker said that the volume of reports and requests probably has soared since Sept. 11, 2001, because combating terrorism was so dependent on tracking individuals.

But the system discourages abuse, he said, because government officials have to attach their names to each request and know that records of their inquiries could subsequently be scrutinized. "The most likely way in which a concern would be raised," Baker said, "is if the NSA people who deal with a particular official start to say, 'These requests are funny.' "

At the State Department, officials said that its requests for the disclosure of names had to be approved in advance by the intelligence and research bureau — a branch that frequently sparred with Bolton over his hard-line estimates of the weapons capabilities of Cuba and other countries. If a request "passes the smell test," one official said, the bureau forwards it to the NSA.

Given the volume of requests, even Bolton's opponents acknowledge that the 10 he submitted does not appear to be an inordinate number. But after a scheduled Senate committee confirmation vote was derailed last week, Bolton's record of NSA requests faces continued examination by Democrats who have called him a poor choice for the U.N. job.

One issue is whether Bolton, who had access to highly classified intelligence, had legitimate reasons for requesting names or was seeking information on Bush administration rivals.

The NSA routinely monitors the communications of foreign leaders and members of the diplomatic corps — legitimate espionage targets who engage in frequent talks with American officials. U.S. intelligence officials stressed that intercepts of such conversations represent a minority. "In most cases, the protected U.S. identity is the subject of the conversation, [not] the communicant," said the intelligence official familiar with NSA procedures.

Sometimes an American's identity is revealed for his or her own protection. In testimony before Congress several years ago, Hayden cited a hypothetical example of two terrorists discussing a U.S. citizen they planned to harm. In such a case, Hayden said, "the name of the U.S. person would be retained and disseminated to appropriate law enforcement officials."

Read More...

Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry

observer.guardian.co.uk

Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry

Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret
Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
Sunday April 24, 2005

Observer

Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.

The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.

It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.

Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.

The letter, 'concerning very grave sins', was sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that once presided over the Inquisition and was overseen by Ratzinger.

It spells out to bishops the church's position on a number of matters ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric 'with a minor below the age of 18 years'. Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.

The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.

It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.

'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.

The letter is referred to in documents relating to a lawsuit filed earlier this year against a church in Texas and Ratzinger on behalf of two alleged abuse victims. By sending the letter, lawyers acting for the alleged victims claim the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice.

Daniel Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the letter, said: 'It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It's an obstruction of justice.'

Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church's jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes.

The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church's opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims.

'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,' Bertone said.

Shea criticised the order that abuse allegations should be investigated only in secret tribunals. 'They are imposing procedures and secrecy on these cases. If law enforcement agencies find out about the case, they can deal with it. But you can't investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10 the priest will get away with it,' Shea added.

A spokeswoman in the Vatican press office declined to comment when told about the contents of the letter. 'This is not a public document, so we would not talk about it,' she said.

Read More...

Sexual Abuse Allegations Against a Top Catholic Re-examined

ABC News

Sexual Abuse Allegations Against a Top Catholic Re-examined

Seven Years of Silence May Come to an End

Apr. 21, 2005 - An investigation into the sexual abuse allegations against a high-ranking priest of the Roman Catholic Church has been reopened, seven years after the formal complaint was first filed with then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, according to people familiar with the case.

Ratzinger's office ordered the case against the Rev. Marcial Maciel reopened in December, around the time there was growing speculation Ratzinger was a leading candidate to be the next pope. In fact, a Vatican investigator began taking sworn statements from the alleged victims just two weeks ago in New York, the day Pope John Paul II died, according to sources close to the case.

The men who brought the allegations against Maciel had thought their case was dead, having heard nothing but silence in the seven years since they brought the allegations to the attention of Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

"They knelt and kissed his ring, filing these charges in his tribunal, and after that it was simply stuffed, it was shelved," said Jason Berry, co-author with Gerald Renner of a book on the case, "Vows of Silence."

"This pope is at a crossroads. He has to resolve the Maciel case or it will stalk him like a shadow in the sun."

The charges against Maciel, the founder of a well-connected and well-financed order called the Legion of Christ, a conservative sect of the Catholic Church, date back to the 1950s. Eight men allege that Maciel sexually abused them as young seminarians in Rome, something Maciel has always strongly denied.

Unspoken Truths?

Juan Vaca, now a college professor in New York, told ABC News in 2002 that he reluctantly brought the charges as a way to get over the trauma he says he suffered.

"I was the one who called them from their bedrooms to go to see Maciel," he said. "In some instances, two were together with him, myself and another one."

The men making the allegations have been told they cannot talk about the case now that it has been reopened.

Maciel, now 84, resigned as head of the legion in January. But as recently as late last year, he was praised by Pope John Paul II for his "intense, generous and fruitful priestly ministry" during the 60th anniversary celebration of Maciel's ordination.

Ratzinger repeatedly refused to discuss what happened to the Maciel case, and when ABC News attempted to ask him about the allegations outside the Vatican three years ago, he became upset and slapped the hand of the ABC News correspondent on scene.

"You come to me when the moment is given," Ratzinger said. "Not yet."

'Temptation Is Natural, Even for the Priest'

As head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger was put in charge of dealing with the church's worldwide sexual abuse scandal. But he was at first slow to act and downplayed the scandal as part of a campaign to discredit the church.

"In the United States, there is constant news on this topic, but less than 1 percent of priests are guilty of acts of this type," Ratzinger said in a rare interview in 2002. "The constant presence of these news items does not correspond to the objectivity of the information nor to the statistical objectivity of the facts. Therefore, one comes to the conclusion that it is intentional, manipulated, that there is a desire to discredit the church."

Ratzinger was also surprisingly forgiving of priests guilty of sexual abuse.

"Never will it end," he said. "Temptation is natural, even for the priest. So we have to accept that."

Berry said that Ratzinger made grave mistakes in his treatment of the Catholic church's sexual abuse scandal.

"He made a series of terrible blunders in the 1990s and well into 2002," Berry said. "He made statements that were inaccurate and terribly misleading."

But some, including Berry, see the reopened Maciel case as a hopeful sign. "If he removes Maciel, he makes a statement that he is serious about a crackdown on this world abuse scandal," Berry said of Ratzinger. "If he doesn't remove Maciel, then the pope himself is part of the problem."

Rhonda Schwartz, Avni Patel, and Jessica Wang contributed to this report.

Read More...

The Pope, the letter and the child sex claim

observer.guardian.co.uk

The Pope, the letter and the child sex claim

A series of paedophile allegations against a senior papal confidant are haunting Benedict XVI. How he deals with them will be his first major test, writes Jamie Doward

Jamie Doward
Sunday April 24, 2005

Observer

Of all the matters lurking in the overflowing in-tray of the new Pope Benedict XVI, the long-running and emotive issue of paedophile priests is the most damaging - not just to the church, but to his own personal standing.

The new pontiff has been accused of failing to investigate a series of abuse claims made against one of his predecessor's closest supporters - a failure which has come to be seen as typical of the Catholic Church's determination to keep a lid on the scandal of priests who breach their position of trust.

The story goes back to the Nineties when the new Pope - then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office responsible for investigating abuse claims.

One of the most high-profile of such claims was made by Professor José Barba Martin, a 68-year-old professor of humanities at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México. He is one of nine former members of the Rome-based Legion of Christ who allege they were abused by the religious order's powerful founder, Marcial Maciel.

Maciel, 84, set up the ultra-conservative order in 1941. Today it has around 500 priests and 2,500 seminarians in 20 countries. It may be small, but its influence is significant. Maciel, who stood down as the order's head in January because of his age, was a confidant of Pope John Paul II, who praised him as an 'efficacious guide to youth'. For decades, Barba Martin kept silent about the abuse claims which are strenuously denied by Maciel and the Legion of Christ. It says the accusers are 'attempting to tar the Vatican... with the stain of these false allegations.'

But, in December 1994, Barba Martin saw an advertisement in a newspaper in Mexico City celebrating Maciel's half a century as a priest and picturing him with John Paul II, and decided to act. At first Barba Martin and other former members of the Legion attempted to raise their allegations with the Vatican, their case becoming a cause célèbre among groups trying to expose abuse within the church, and what they saw as the efforts of its senior hierarchy to cover it up.

'We are modest instruments of history. We have to play our own part to produce a possible change,' Barba Martin told The Observer. 'The problem of sexual abuse within the church has been "cloned" to second and third generations. It has become an epidemic situation.'

The nine filed their case before the Vatican's courts, and persuaded intermediaries to carry a letter to Ratzinger outlining abuse allegations against Maciel. According to one of the intermediaries, Father Alberto Athie, when confronted with the allegations Ratzinger simply said Maciel had brought many 'benefits' to the church and that it was a 'touchy problem'. The Vatican denies Athie's claim.

On 24 December 1999, Ratzinger's secretary, Father Gianfranco Girotti, wrote to the men saying that their claims - many allegedly corroborated by each other's detailed testimonies - had been examined but, for the time being, the Vatican considered the matter closed. In a last-ditch attempt to persuade Ratzinger to change his mind, another letter was despatched to him in 2002 through an intermediary. It went unanswered.

For support groups campaigning on behalf of abuse victims, Ratzinger's apparent reluctance to investigate the claims against Maciel was a crushing blow, but one that did not surprise critics of the new Pope.

Ratzinger's role in protecting the church against scandal became apparent four years ago. In May 2001, he sent a confidential letter to every bishop in the Catholic church reminding them of the strict penalties facing those who referred allegations of sexual abuse against priests to outside authorities.

The letter referred to a confidential Vatican document drawn up in 1962 instructing bishops on how to deal with allegations of sexual abuse between a priest and a child arising out of a confessional.

It urged them to investigate such allegations 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.

'What really bothers me about this document is the way it suggests that what happens in the confessional should stay in the confessional,' said Carmen Durso, a Boston lawyer who has represented scores of American victims abused by priests.

'In the cases I've dealt with, the paedophiles frequently use the confessional to try and initiate contact with youngsters.' Ratzinger also oversaw the creation of Essential Norms, a 2002 document that reaffirmed the church's right to retain its authority over abuse allegations.

Ratzinger went as far as to slap the wrist of a reporter who dared to ask him about the Maciel investigations. 'One can't put on trial such a close friend of the Pope as Marcial Maciel,' Ratzinger said on another occasion.

Campaigners say Ratzinger's actions show he was prepared to use every means possible to ensure that abuse allegations were not investigated by authorities outside the church.

'We know that in the past few decades the church has tried to keep the abuse issue hidden,' said Mary Grant, a director of a support group of men and women called Snap: the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

The organisation is now seeking an urgent meeting between alleged victims and the new pontiff. 'Ratzinger himself has preferred to dismiss the allegations as a media creation rather than address them,' added Grant.

But a report by the Catholic Church itself estimated that some 4,450 of the Roman Catholic clergy who served between 1950 and 2002 have faced credible accusations of abuse.

Another study, produced last year by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, reported that there had been 10,667 victims of abuse over the last 50 years in the US alone. Campaign groups say the true figure may be significantly higher, especially in developing countries, where priests known to have committed abuse in the west were quietly despatched by bishops desperate to avoid scandal. In addition, abuse claims in developing countries are more likely to have gone unreported, while deference to priests is such that their actions can go unchecked.

Inevitably, lawyers have had a field day as a trickle of early abuse claims that surfaced in the Eighties became a flood in the Nineties. Already it is estimated the church has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars globally to settle claims. Snap estimates that anything between $400 million and $1.3 billion has been paid to victims, and that the final estimate could be as high as $5bn.

The Catholic church's reputation has been damaged worldwide. In the US a 16-month investigation by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office concluded in 2003 that Roman Catholic priests and church staff in the Boston archdiocese molested more than 1,000 children over six decades.

Last February, Dr Kathleen McChesney of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops warned that many more cases were yet to come to light in the US. 'In 2004 at least 1,092 allegations of sexual abuse were made against at least 756 Catholic priests and deacons in the United States,' McChesney said.

Two years ago the Irish government revealed that the bill to compensate victims of sexual abuse by clergy could total €1bn.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, leader of the Catholic church in England and Wales, was forced to appoint child protection representatives in every parish in a bid to quash criticism that it had ignored abuse claims. Between 1995 and 2001, 21 Catholic priests were convicted of sexually abusing children in England and Wales. Murphy O'Connor himself was attacked for failing to report allegations against Michael Hill, a priest in his charge when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. Hill was convicted of abusing nine children.

Now, with a new Pope in the Vatican, the hope for the abuse victims is that the church will start to investigate their allegations. 'I have mixed feelings about Cardinal Ratzinger becoming Pope,' said Barbara Blaine, founder and president of Snap. 'He has been so slow to deal with the Maciel case, but then if he brings the qualities that earned him his reputation as a papal enforcer to addressing the sex abuse scandal, that will be a good thing.'

In what is likely to be seen in some quarters as a clear sign that the Vatican believes it must now confront the abuse scandal, The Observer has learnt that, earlier this month, shortly before he was elected Pope, Ratzinger despatched special envoys to several cities across the globe to take testimonies from Maciel's alleged victims in confidence.

His reasons for revisiting the case, though, remain unclear. One theory is that Ratzinger learnt that confidential evidence will soon spill into the public domain and that he has decided to act ahead of this. Others suggest that he initiated the investigation for political reasons, to help boost his chances of being elected Pope.

What is irrefutable though is that, shortly after he was elected the spiritual head of more than one billion Catholics last week, Ratzinger approached Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago. The last time the two men talked, George raised the abuse crisis with Ratzinger and pressed him to intervene.

In perfect English, the new Pope assured George that he remembered their last conversation and would 'attend' to the matter. The reign of Benedict XVI may well be judged on whether he holds true to his word.

Read More...