Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Protesters Subjected To 'Pretext Interviews'

washingtonpost.com
Protesters Subjected To 'Pretext Interviews'
FBI Memo Shows No Specific Threats

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 18, 2005; A04

New FBI documents to be released today show that anti-terrorism agents who questioned antiwar protesters last summer in Denver were conducting "pretext interviews" that did not lead to any information about criminal activity.

The memos were obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union as part of ongoing litigation and provide a glimpse of the FBI's controversial efforts to interview dozens of members of leftist protest groups before the party conventions last year in Boston and New York.

FBI officials and then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said at the time that the interviews were based on indications that radical protesters may be planning violent disruptions. Authorities said one specific threat involved plans to blow up a media van in Boston.

But the new memos provide no indication of specific threat information. Instead, one heavily censored memo from the FBI's Denver field office, dated Aug. 2, 2004, characterized the effort as "pretext interviews to gain general information concerning possible criminal activity at the upcoming political conventions and presidential election."

Another memo from December 2004 indicated that Sarah Bardwell, one of the Denver activists singled out for interviews, was targeted because she had helped organize an antiwar protest and was a member of a group called Food Not Bombs, which the memo characterized as having a "close association" with a radical anarchist group.

ACLU officials said yesterday that the documents show that investigators from the FBI and the local Joint Terrorism Task Force were on a fishing expedition.


"These documents confirm that the FBI's anti-terrorism force has been collecting information about peaceful protesters and dissenters and targeting people for attention on the basis of constitutionally protected association and advocacy," said Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU's Colorado chapter. "It lends credence to what a lot of critics have said: that the FBI is starting to regard some forms of dissent as potential terrorism."

FBI officials said the interviews stemmed from specific threat information, but they declined to provide details.

"The interviews reflected in these isolated documents were based on a specific and credible threat received by the FBI regarding potential violent criminal activity that could have caused death or serious bodily injury and was to occur during the Democratic National Convention," the bureau said in a statement. "It is the FBI's top priority to prevent any act of terrorism, which requires special agents of the FBI to thoroughly investigate every credible threat received."

Bardwell, 21, who helped organize antiwar protests on behalf of a local chapter of the American Friends Service Committee, said she had no plans to attend either of the political conventions and was troubled by the FBI's attempt to interview her and her friends. None of the activists consented to the interviews.

"It's very clear to me that the purpose of those interviews was to intimidate activists in the Denver area from exercising their First Amendment rights," she said.

Read More...

Media mum on Newsweek's Isikoff's role in Clinton scandals; Isikoff called for firings at CBS over Bush Guard scandal

mediamatters.org
Media mum on Newsweek's Isikoff's role in Clinton scandals; Isikoff called for firings at CBS over Bush Guard scandal

While the news media have devoted substantial coverage to Newsweek's retraction of an article that the White House says incited deadly riots in Afghanistan, one key part of the Newsweek story has largely escaped scrutiny: the checkered journalistic record of Newsweek investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff, who shares a byline on the story with John Barry. Isikoff's May 9 "Periscope" article cited "sources" who "tell Newsweek" to report that U.S. investigators found evidence that interrogators at Guantànamo Bay, Cuba, flushed a Quran down a toilet. Newsweek retracted the article, acknowledging that in fact, only one source actually reported the allegation, and that source backed away from it.

Isikoff's role as a leading reporter on the so-called "Clinton scandals" in the 1990s, including the Paula Jones, Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky cases, has gone virtually unnoticed in broadcast, cable TV and print reports so far on the Newsweek story.

Isikoff was so committed to one story detailing Paula Jones' sexual harassment allegations against then-President Bill Clinton (which formed the basis for a civil suit that was dismissed for a total lack of merit), that he got into an argument with his editor at The Washington Post -- an argument so heated that Isikoff was suspended and left the newspaper shortly afterwards. Meanwhile, conservatives praised Isikoff for his efforts. Fox News host Sean Hannity lauded Isikoff as a "respected journalist" for four straight days in 1998 for his role in the Clinton sex scandal, once the Jones case had set the stage for impeachment proceedings against Clinton [Hannity & Colmes, 6/15/98-6/19/98].

If the news organizations that are spending so much time on Newsweek bothered to look at Isikoff's background, they would find a reporter with a history of relying on unreliable sources -- in addition to Paula Jones, there are such discredited Clinton accusers as Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, and Lucianne Goldberg. As author and media critic Eric Alterman wrote on his blog, Altercation:

It's amazing to me that an organization like Newsweek would go to press with so crucial a story on the basis of so little. Think of all the people who had to read this item before it passed into print. Not one of them appears to have guessed at its import and asked the tough questions of Mike Isikoff, who, as we all know, has displayed an extremely unhealthy willingness to be guided by sources of a nefarious nature in the past.


In his book, The Clinton Wars (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003), author and former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal wrote: "[T]he reporter most indispensable to the advancement of the [Clinton sex] scandal from the moment Paula Jones appeared at the conservative conference in Washington in 1993 to the breaking of the Lewinsky story in 1998 was Michael Isikoff" [p. 94].

In his reporting on the Clinton sex scandal, Isikoff relied on sources whose stories were unverifiable, motivated by personal agendas, and often collapsed under later scrutiny. According to Blumenthal, "Isikoff never hesitated in plunging himself excitedly into a wilderness of sex rumors." Isikoff devoted a substantial amount of time in 1997 attempting to confirm what Blumenthal called the "wild-goose chase" story of Willey, who claimed Clinton sexually harassed her in 1993. After Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr granted Willey immunity, and she responded by repeatedly lying to his investigators and the FBI, the Office of the Independent Counsel indicated in its final report that she would not have been credible to a jury. Given that Starr was willing to base much of his Whitewater investigation on a witness, David Hale, who is a convict and an admitted liar, his lack of faith in Willey's credibility is telling -- and makes Isikoff's judgment in embracing her tale all the more questionable.

Isikoff's leading role in reporting sex stories relied heavily on his relationships with Tripp and Goldberg, who provided leads, testimony, and tapes of secretly recorded conversations. However, Tripp's and Goldberg's actions were motivated by their personal interests: specifically, animosity toward Clinton and financial windfall. As Blumenthal noted in The Clinton Wars, Goldberg had arranged to play for Isikoff taped conversations between Tripp and Lewinsky about Lewinsky's relationship with Clinton, hoping that "playing the tapes would get Isikoff to write something that would provide publicity so that she could sell Tripp's book." Isikoff declined to listen to the tapes during the period when Tripp was continuing to record conversations with Lewinsky, but eventually quoted from them after the conversations ceased.

Isikoff himself lamented his relationship with Tripp and Goldberg in his book Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter's Story (Crown, 1999), citing both the book deal and what he described as Tripp's "anger" and "disgust" with Clinton:

What happens when you become beholden to sources with an agenda? ... I was chagrined to discover, while reading the transcripts of the Tripp-Goldberg conversation on the evening of September 18, 1997, that they had been talking about a book deal from the start. [pp. 356-357]

[...]

The tapes show precisely how these two women created and then sought to manipulate the very situation Tripp claimed was "not of her own making." They also reveal a far more complicated and somewhat less flattering portrait of Tripp's motives. Tripp was moved, it appears, not so much by fear and a desire to protect herself as by anger, even disgust, at Bill Clinton. As a parent of college-age children, she thought the president's behavior with her young friend was "appalling," and she wanted it exposed to the world. "It's so sickening," she told Goldberg during the first few minutes of their conversation. "He has got to get his comeuppance," she added later. [pp. 190-191]

In his book A Vast Conspiracy (Random House, 2000), legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin criticized Isikoff for allowing himself to be used by Clinton's attackers. According to a January 2000 Salon.com article:

Toobin accuses Isikoff of being an uncritical water-carrier for the anti-Clinton forces. He reminds us that there were "three important moments in the case when Clinton's enemies used Isikoff to launch attacks about the president's purported sexual behavior: First, [Arkansas attorney] Cliff Jackson had given him the exclusive with Jones; second [Jones attorney] Joe Cammarata had set the reporter on the trail of Kathleen Willey; now, finally, Tripp and Goldberg were giving him the biggest story of all [Lewinsky]."

Toobin writes caustically that "Politically savvy journalists might have discounted the allegations, or, more likely, have exposed the motivations of those who had tried for so many years to use sex to bring down this president. But Jackson, Cammarata, Goldberg and Tripp had invested wisely in Michael Isikoff."

Isikoff's credulity in dealing with Clinton's accusers wasn't limited to allegations about Clinton's personal life; on at least one occasion, he bought into conservative claims that former White House counsel Vincent Foster's suicide was something more sinister: a January 16, 1996, Newsweek article co-written by Isikoff claimed that "it is Foster's suicide that lends Whitewater its aura of menace."

Isikoff also floated the claim, which later proved false, that the Clinton legal team had been involved in suborning perjury in the creation of a "talking points" document that Lewinsky gave Tripp in advance of her filing an affidavit in the Jones case. As journalist Joe Conason and political columnist Gene Lyons noted in their book, The Hunting of the President (Thomas Dunne Books, 2000), Isikoff later expressed regret at his role in advancing that story, claiming to have simply forgotten that the "talking points" closely mirrored a letter Tripp herself had written to Newsweek long before. [p. 356]

Despite Isikoff's own frequent reliance on questionable sources, he was blistering in his criticism of CBS' 2004 story about President Bush's National Guard record (or lack thereof). Appearing on the September 26, 2004, edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, Isikoff said: "I have to say, if you look at what happened here, this wasn't a mistake. This was a complete meltdown of basic, minimal journalistic standards." Isikoff went on to suggest to host Howard Kurtz that everyone involved in the story should have been fired:

KURTZ: Michael Isikoff, Time magazine poll, 43 percent say what CBS did was an honest mistake; 40 percent say CBS was deliberately trying to mislead the public. Not the greatest vote of confidence. How much of all this is Rather's fault?

ISIKOFF: Well, look, he is the managing editor of the CBS Evening News, and they -- they featured this on the Evening News. So, I mean, he has to take responsibility, clearly. He is the lead guy in charge.

KURTZ: And just to be fair, he has taken responsibility, and we saw his apology at the top of the show. He's not blaming it on the work of others, but it's a collaborative enterprise.

ISIKOFF: Well, right, but if somebody gets fired, can somebody else be fired without the top guy who is responsible for the broadcast not getting the axe? It's hard to imagine. If this had happened at a college newspaper, and they made -- published a story about fraudulent documents about the college president, and it turned out to be that the documents themselves were completely phony, it's hard to imagine that the entire college newspaper staff wouldn't be fired.

Articles in the May 17 Boston Globe and the May 16 Washington Post noted Isikoff's involvement in the Clinton sex scandal. A May 17 New York Times article titled "Reporter on Retracted Newsweek Article Put Monica on the Map" provided greater detail into Isikoff's role in reporting the scandal.

Read More...

The resignation of Scott McClellan

The resignation of Scott McClellan
by Keith Olbermann

SECAUCUS — I smell something — and it ain’t a copy of the Qu’ran sopping wet from being stuck in a toilet in Guantanamo Bay. It’s the ink drying on Scott McClellan’s resignation, and in an only partly imperfect world, it would be drifting out over Washington, and imminently.

Last Thursday, General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Donald Rumsfeld’s go-to guy whenever the situation calls for the kind of gravitas the Secretary himself can’t supply, told reporters at the Pentagon that rioting in Afghanistan was related more to the on-going political reconciliation process there, than it was to a controversial note buried in the pages of Newsweek claiming that the government was investigating whether or not some nitwit interrogator at Gitmo really had desecrated a Muslim holy book.

But Monday afternoon, while offering himself up to the networks for a series of rare, almost unprecedented sit-down interviews on the White House lawn, Press Secretary McClellan said, in effect, that General Myers, and the head of the after-action report following the disturbances in Jalalabad, Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, were dead wrong. The Newsweek story, McClellan said, “has done damage to our image abroad and it has done damage to the credibility of the media and Newsweek in particular. People have lost lives. This report has had serious consequences.”

Whenever I hear Scott McClellan talking about ‘media credibility,’ I strain to remember who it was who admitted Jeff Gannon to the White House press room and called on him all those times.

Whenever I hear this White House talking about ‘doing to damage to our image abroad’ and how ‘people have lost lives,’ I strain to remember who it was who went traipsing into Iraq looking for WMD that will apparently turn up just after the Holy Grail will — and at what human cost.


Newsweek’s version of this story has varied from the others over the last two years — ones in The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Washington Post, and British and Russian news organizations — only in that it quoted a government source who now says he didn’t have firsthand knowledge of whether or not the investigation took place (oops, sorry, shoulda mentioned that, buh-bye). All of its other government connections — the ones past which it ran the story — have gone from saying nothing like ‘don’t print this, it ain’t true’ or ‘don’t print this, it may be true but it’ll start riots,’ to looking slightly confused and symbolically saying ‘Newsweek? Newsweek who?’

Whatever I smell comes from this odd sequence of events: Newsweek gets blasted by the White House, apologizes over the weekend but doesn't retract its story. Then McClellan offers his Journalism 101 outdoor seminar and blasts the magazine further. Finally, just before 5 p.m. Monday, the Dan Rather drama replaying itself in its collective corporate mind, Newsweek retracts.

I’m always warning about the logical fallacy — the illusion that just because one event follows another, the latter must have necessarily caused the former. But when I wondered tonight on Countdown if it applied here, Craig Crawford reassured me. “The dots connect.”

The real point, of course, is that you’d have to be pretty dumb to think that making a threat at Gitmo akin to ‘Spill the beans or we’ll kill this Qu’ran’ would have any effect on the prisoners, other than to eventually leak out and inflame anti-American feelings somewhere. Of course, everybody in the prosecution of the so-called ‘war on terror’ has done something dumb, dating back to the President’s worst-possible-word-selection (“crusade”) on September 16, 2001. So why wouldn’t some mid-level interrogator stuck in Cuba think it would be a good idea to desecrate a holy book? Jack Rice, the former CIA special agent and now radio host, said on Countdown that it would be a “knuckleheaded” thing to do, but “plausible.”

One of the most under-publicized analyses of 9/11 concludes that Osama Bin Laden assumed that the attacks on the U.S. would galvanize Islamic anger towards this country, and they'd overthrow their secular governments and woo-hoo we've got an international religious war. Obviously it didn't happen. It didn't even happen when the West went into Iraq. But if stuff like the Newsweek version of a now two-year-old tale about toilets and Qu’rans is enough to set off rioting in the streets of countries whose nationals were not even the supposed recipients of the ‘abuse’, then weren’t those members of the military or the government with whom Newsweek vetted the plausibility of its item, honor-bound to say “you can’t print this”?

Or would somebody rather play politics with this? The way Craig Crawford reconstructed it, this one went similarly to the way the Killian Memos story evolved at the White House. The news organization turns to the administration for a denial. The administration says nothing. The news organization runs the story. The administration jumps on the necks of the news organization with both feet — or has its proxies do it for them.

That’s beyond shameful. It’s treasonous.

It’s also not very smart. While places like the Fox News Channel (which, only today, I finally recognized — it’s the newscast perpetually running on the giant video screens in the movie “1984”) ask how many heads should roll at Newsweek, it forgets in its fervor that both the story and the phony controversy around it are not so cut-and-dried this time.

Firstly, the principal reporter on the Gitmo story was Michael Isikoff — “Spikey” in a different lifetime; Linda Tripp’s favorite journalist, and one of the ten people most responsible (intentionally or otherwise) for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Spikey isn’t just a hero to the Right — the Right owes him.

And larger still, in terms of politics, this isn't well-defined, is it? I mean Conservatives might parrot McClellan and say ‘Newsweek put this country in a bad light.’ But they could just as easily thump their chests and say ‘See, this is what we do to those prisoners at Gitmo! You guys better watch your asses!’

Ultimately, though, the administration may have effected its biggest mistake over this saga, in making the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs look like a liar or naïf, just to draw a little blood out of Newsweek’s hide. Either way — and also for that tasteless, soul-less conclusion that deaths in Afghanistan should be lain at the magazine’s doorstep — Scott McClellan should resign. The expiration on his carton full of blank-eyed bully-collaborator act passed this afternoon as he sat reeling off those holier-than-thou remarks. Ah, that’s what I smelled.

E-mail: KOlbermann@msnbc.com

Watch Keith each weeknight at 8 p.m. ETas he Counts down the best, the worst, and the oddest news stories of the day.

Read More...

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Bills in U.S. Congress target ID theft

Infoworld.com
Bills in U.S. Congress target ID theft
Legislation creates new rules regulating the way companies handle customer data

By Grant Gross, IDG News Service
May 17, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Expect the U.S. Congress to pass new rules regulating the way companies handle customer data after recent leaks of personal information by data collectors ChoicePoint and LexisNexis, among other companies.

ChoicePoint announced in February that it had given personal information, including Social Security and driver's license numbers belonging to up to 145,000 U.S. residents, to ID thieves posing as legitimate business owners. In March, LexisNexis division Seisint lost personal data belonging to 310,000 U.S. residents, apparently when hackers compromised its database. Bank of America, Science Applications International and Boston College also lost customer data to thieves recently.

Both Republicans and Democrats complain about ID theft. "Anyone has a near-perfect right to package your personal information and do almost anything they want with it," says Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

But it's mainly Democrats who are pushing restrictions on how personal data can be used and mandates that companies tell people when that data is compromised.


Among the proposals:

Notify consumers: A bill by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) would require businesses to tell consumers when their data is stolen. The Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act went nowhere in 2004 and so far has no Senate cosponsors -- a barometer of support for the measure.

However, ChoicePoint and other businesses have said they prefer a national notification law to multiple state laws. Feinstein's bill is similar to a California data notification law that went into effect in July 2003 (see www.cio.com/051505). Meanwhile, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), along with other agencies, in March directed financial institutions to notify customers when their personal data is compromised.

Regulate information sharing: A bill by Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) would, among other provisions, subject businesses that sell personal data to regulation by the Federal Trade Commission and provide $60 million to the agency to help ID theft victims.

Extend financial privacy laws: FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras advocates extending the privacy and security obligations of financial institutions to data brokers. Under law, financial companies must have a security plan to protect personal consumer information.

Otherwise, Majoras thinks current law allows penalties for any company that deceptively promises data security.

Read More...

Nazi fund unfair to Yanks - att'y

NY Daily News
Nazi fund unfair to Yanks - att'y

About $735 million of a $1.25 billion settlement of a Holocaust lawsuit against Swiss banks has been paid out to victims, a lawyer said yesterday in Manhattan federal court, while another argued American Jews are losing out in the deal.

After Burt Neuborne updated the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the status of the settlement, Samuel Dubbin, an attorney for some Holocaust victims, urged the court to reject a lower court's decision to distribute money according to how badly victims need it.

That system, Dubbin said, sends too much money to those who live in countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, where 75% of the neediest victims reside.

He said the formula leaves about 4% of the funds for U.S. victims, even though the U.S. population has about 20% of the world's Holocaust survivors. Another 40% live in Israel, he said.


"There are people living in Brooklyn who have to choose between food, shelter and medicine," he said.

Neuborne said there is no perfect system to distribute the funds. "Virtually everybody in Europe was looted in one way or another by the Nazis," he said.

The 1998 settlement only affects money that moved through Swiss banks. The survivors and their families accused the banks of stealing, concealing or sending to the Nazis hundreds of millions of dollars in Jewish holdings and destroying records to cover the paper trail.

The settlement involved the release of all claims against the banks. The appeals court did not immediately rule on the distributions.

Read More...

Tower warning in '04

New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Tower warning in '04
BY PAUL D. COLFORD
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, May 17th, 2005

Months before the Freedom Tower was waylaid by seemingly last-minute security concerns, top NYPD brass had warned the Port Authority that there were "risks and vulnerabilities" in the skyscraper's design.

Official NYPD correspondence makes it clear that police officials were troubled by the proposed Freedom Tower as early as last summer.

In a letter dated Aug. 31, 2004, NYPD Deputy Commissioner for Counterterrorism Michael Sheehan urged PA officials to discuss "these security and design issues before this construction proceeds any further."

In a followup letter dated Oct.1, Sheehan expressed dismay that the PA had postponed a meeting to assess potential "risks and vulnerabilities," noting that it would be easier to change things in "the design and construction phases, rather than making modifications after the fact."

Sheehan's letters to Joseph Seymour, then the executive director of the Port Authority, have taken on new significance two weeks after a litany of NYPD concerns finally sent plans for the tower back to the drawing board.

As a result, a new design won't be unveiled until the end of June, when Gov. Pataki also plans to announce what he called "an aggressive schedule for construction."

The letters offer a glimpse of bureaucratic foot-dragging - all the more striking given the fingerpointing that followed the decision early this month to come up with a redesign.


In a high-profile speech last Thursday, Pataki referred to "the new security standards we received just a few short weeks ago" - a remark that police officials considered an unfair swipe at them and Sheehan.

Sheehan served on the national security staffs of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton and spent two years as ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism in the State Department.

As spelled out in the 9/11 commission report, Sheehan was among those who pushed for - and got Clinton to issue - an executive order in 1999 that labeled the Taliban, which controlled Afghanistan and was cozy with Osama Bin Laden, a state sponsor of terrorism.

The PA, which owns the World Trade Center site, yesterday had no official reaction to Sheehan's letters.

However, officials of the bistate agency have said Sheehan's Aug. 31 letter never reached them and the meeting he mentioned was postponed because it fell on Rosh Hashanah.

Another possible complication was that Seymour had announced his decision to step down as the Port Authority's executive director on Aug. 4; he stayed on until Oct. 23, and was succeeded four days later by Kenneth Ringler.

PA officials also have insisted the NYPD did not specify its concerns, such as its worry that the Freedom Tower would rise a mere 25 feet from West St., until early last month.

Police officials, however, dispute that claim, saying their concerns had been expressed in other meetings.

The redesign will now incorporate what Pataki called "NYPD security concerns."

Sources said this means the setback from West St. will be more than doubled; glass in the tower will be thicker, and it will be built to withstand a blast of 10,000 pounds of explosives instead of 500 pounds.

Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday that the tower will be as fortified as any U.S. embassy.

"We are going to build a building to embassy construction standards, which nobody has ever built [into] a building this high before," Bloomberg said.

"You have got to do it and do it right - and that's a lot more important than doing it quickly," the mayor added.

With David Saltonstall

Aug. 31, 2004, letter from NYPD Deputy Commissioner for Counterterrorism Michael Sheehan to Port Authority Executive Director Joseph Seymour:
"Construction ... is proceeding quickly, with the cornerstone having been laid and ironwork underway. I believe it is important, therefore, that we expedite our discussions of these security and design issues before this construction proceeds any further."

Oct. 1, 2004, letter from Sheehan to Seymour, with copies to Freedom Tower developer Larry Silverstein and others:
"In the current environment of global terrorism, the mission [of the NYPD] entails much more than simply responding to events after they have occurred. ... The Freedom Tower represents a favorable scenario in which the vulnerabilities can be addressed in the design and construction phases, rather than making modifications after the fact. ... I urge you to enter into a dialogue with the New York Police Department as soon as possible."


Michael Sheehan at a glance

* Named NYPD's deputy commissioner for counterterrorism in 2003.
* Core responsibilities include prevention of terrorism in the city, and training and equipping all uniformed members of the NYPD for counterterrorism duties.
* Before his appointment, Sheehan was assistant secretary general in the peacekeeping operations department at the United Nations.
* Previously was U.S. ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism in the State Department.
* Served on national security staff in the administrations of President George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton.
* Retired from the Army as a lieutenant colonel in 1997.
* 1977 West Point graduate, with subsequent master's degrees from the Georgetown School of Foreign Service and the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Did Army stints in Panama, Korea and as a counterinsurgency adviser in El Salvador.

Read More...

Two Fronts in the War on Poverty

washingtonpost.com
Two Fronts in the War on Poverty
Bush Seeks More Aid for Church Groups; Others Face Uncertainty

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 17, 2005; A01

BALTIMORE -- Jacquelyn D. Cornish keeps several postcards on her desk at the Druid Heights Community Development Corp., which has marshaled millions in government money in a decades-long effort to renovate houses and rebuild a proud community ravaged by drug addiction, crime and poverty. The cards are from agents looking to buy homes, a small but promising sign that the organization's work is making a difference in this tough corner of west Baltimore.

Just a mile away at Sacred Zion Full Gospel Baptist Church, federal money is spent on, as President Bush might say, changing hearts. Here, the drug-addicted and the HIV-infected come in for quiet counseling sessions in a corner of the fluorescent-lighted sanctuary, or to let counselors know they have established some shred of normalcy in their chaotic lives by reconnecting with family, finding an apartment or joining a church.

Both Sacred Zion and the Druid Heights corporation are engaged in the type of "social entrepreneurship" encouraged by Bush, who says both faith-based and secular groups play a vital role in the difficult task of bringing relief to the distressed and impoverished. But the president's budget proposals say something else when it comes to the nation's fight against poverty.


Bush has pushed for increased funding for religion-based groups while proposing deep cuts for many traditional anti-poverty programs. The result is that many small church- and community-based social service programs are slowly assuming the lead role in the war on poverty once held by long-established community development organizations. Administration officials say that faith-based groups are often less expensive and more effective in helping the needy, a contention that traditional service providers challenge.

"By any account, the administration's initiative has made it easier for a broader range of faith-based programs to apply for federal funds, and we appreciate that," said Douglas Rice, director of housing and community development policy for Catholic Charities USA, whose local affiliates have benefited from the shift. "But if you don't substantially increase the resources that are available, this is going to increase the competition for available funds."

Bush's 2006 budget proposed slashing public housing subsidies, food stamps, energy assistance, community development, social services and community services block grants -- programs that for decades have constituted the federal anti-poverty fight. While congressional budget makers have promised to restore some of the funding, they also have agreed to the president's tax cuts and overall spending targets, meaning there will be stiff competition for a shrinking pot of money.

At the same time, Bush's budget proposal for next year contemplates adding $385 million in new religion-based programs to this year's eventual total. The federal government awarded more than $2 billion in such grants in 2004 -- nearly double the amount awarded in 2003. Funding under the president's faith- and community-based initiative has gone up despite Congress's refusal to enact legislation that would allow faith-based groups to discriminate by religion when hiring staff, something Bush says should be allowed as long as they offer their services to people of all faiths and do not use federal money to proselytize.

"That doesn't make any sense, to tell a faith-based provider that they cannot practice the religion that inspires them in the work of compassion," said Bush, a Methodist who credits his religious faith for helping him stop drinking and handle the demands of his job. "There's all kinds of ways to quit drinking," he added in remarks to a March conference of faith-based social service providers, "but one of the most effective ways to quit drinking is for a person to make a choice to go to a place that changes your heart."

Here in Baltimore, a city notable for its unpretentious charm but also its deep social problems, the federal shift away from traditional community development programs has generated widespread uncertainty. While the anti-poverty groups are confronted with an uncertain future, church-based organizations that often provide similar services but often have less experience are flourishing.

"It is almost as if we're being replaced," said Cornish, who started out with the Druid Heights organization as a volunteer when it was formed 31 years ago. She became director in 1989. "Potential cuts or talk of it wakes up everyone. It takes you off course. And it leaves you wondering, 'Why?' "

It certainly is not because Druid Heights does not need the help. In another era, the community was home to Baltimore's black elite. Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court justice, grew up nearby, as did Clarence M. Mitchell Jr., the legendary NAACP lobbyist, and his brother, Parren J. Mitchell, the first African American elected to Congress from Maryland. But the neighborhood has fallen on hard times. Along some of its narrow "alley streets," drug users line up to buy their hits as if heroin and cocaine were legal. Some liquor stores open at 6 a.m., and the addicted queue up there, too.

At the beginning of the month, haphazard piles of furniture dot the curbs, evidence of an eviction rate that is 50 percent higher than the citywide average, even though the median housing price -- which included many shells and vacant lots -- was $21,000 in 2004, according to a city-run database.

Amid the problems, there are flickering signs of hope, many of which are being fanned by the community development corporation. The organization runs a transition program for newly released inmates, financial literacy programs for first-time home buyers, an after-school homework program, a program to foster understanding between black residents and Korean merchants, and even a Boy Scout troop. It also rents some of its space to a day-care center.

But its stock in trade is using government money to leverage other financing to renovate buildings for low- and moderate-income housing. Recently, the corporation bought an entire block of run-down alley homes, demolished them and built more than 50 townhouses with garages. They sold for $37,000 to $57,000, although the construction cost more than double that. "It is a short-term loss, but a long-term investment," Cornish said.

For years, those kinds of projects were not enough to hold back the tide of decline. But with housing prices spiraling across the region and crime slowly headed down in Druid Heights, there are signs of interest in the community. Recently, a two-family home in the neighborhood sold for $212,000 -- a once unheard-of sum.

Just as things are looking up, the federal money that is the lifeblood of the development corporation's work is in jeopardy. This year, $278,000 -- close to half of its already shrinking budget -- came from the imperiled community block grant program. Bush administration officials have said they targeted for cuts programs deemed ineffective. With Republicans controlling Congress and the White House, it also does not help that in many urban areas, community development corporations such as Druid Heights are identified with Democratic politics. Cornish is a former member of the Maryland Democratic State Central Committee. But she said her political affiliation is irrelevant to her work.

All she knows is that without federal money, the corporation would have to lay off some of its 10 staff members and stop much of its work. "You tell me," she said, "what is their measuring stick for effectiveness?"

Not far from Druid Heights, in a woebegone commercial strip, Sacred Zion does what it can to defeat some of the demons set loose by the city's enormous drug problem. An estimated 40,000 Baltimoreans -- nearly one in 15 residents -- are drug addicts, and the Rev. Bertha Greene has seen the fallout firsthand. Her son, Phillip L. Solomon, who was gay and a heroin addict, found out he was HIV-positive in 1989. He died in 2000 at age 40, but not before he had become a minister and Greene started her church, carving out a niche working with those with HIV or at high risk of getting the disease.

"I got to know some of my son's friends, and I became a person they could call on," Greene said. "They helped me realize that there are some great needs going unaddressed by the body of Christ." That insight led Greene to start Project ARISE -- Abstinence, Remembering, Instilling Pride, Self-worth and Education -- in 1999.

The program has received a big boost with the expansion of federal religion-based funding. This year, its budget includes a $249,000 federal grant, up from $105,000 last year. Outreach workers scour the streets to tell drug users about the project's HIV testing program and its counseling services that connect addicts with transitional housing, needle exchange and other resources. The program also teaches clients about safe sex, which leaves Greene conflicted because it requires her to sanction behavior she preaches against from the pulpit.

"Being a faith-based organization, it was an awkward place for us to be. We believe in abstinence," she said, explaining that the program has to meet clients "where they are."

Still, religious faith comes into play at Project ARISE. Staff members do not hesitate to pray for clients who request it. "I will say to my clients if they are feeling despair, 'God loves you, God made you special,' " said Edna Reynolds, the program's director.

Reynolds said she is hard pressed to say just how effective the program is. "I don't often get to see their success," she said of the clients. "But I feel we have to be here for them. When they leave here, I have to feel that we planted a seed with them."

The clients, who are saddled with AIDS, drug addiction, and their accompanying guilt and shame, describe the program as a godsend. Wanda A. Floyd, 38, fell victim to heroin in her early twenties. Her smooth, dark skin and straight, white teeth are still striking, despite the years of drug abuse and a decade of living with HIV.

She first stumbled into Sacred Zion with her husband more than a year ago in search of food. Since then, her husband has been murdered, leaving her alone to cope with the sad reality of her life: four children, HIV, no job and no friends outside the drug world. Now, she is looking to Sacred Zion for a residential drug treatment program.

"I only come here when I really, really need the assistance," she said. "They've been there for me spiritually. They are always telling me God loves me."

Read More...

Nixon son-in-law may challenge Sen. Clinton

USA Today
Nixon son-in-law may challenge Sen. Clinton

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Republican Edward Cox, a son-in-law of President Nixon, will soon form an exploratory committee for an expected run against Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a top adviser said Tuesday.

Lynn Mueller, an Albany-based consultant, said the budding campaign has already hired fundraisers and a pollster.

Asked about the chances that Cox will challenge Clinton for re-election in 2006, Mueller said: "It's as close to 100% as you can get unless something bizarre happens, which we don't expect."


Mueller said a federal campaign committee will probably be operating by the end of June and a formal announcement will probably come this fall.

GOP leaders have been looking for a strong challenger to beat or at least bloody Clinton in 2006 and make a 2008 presidential bid by her more difficult. Polls show the former first lady is the Democratic front-runner for the White House nomination.

Cox, 58, married Tricia Nixon in a Rose Garden ceremony in 1971. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he worked with consumer advocate Ralph Nader and is a partner in the law firm of Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler.

Clinton, as a young lawyer, worked in Washington on the impeachment proceedings against Nixon.

Read More...

Cellphones can now get AMBER Alerts

USA Today
Cellphones can now get AMBER Alerts
By Donna Leinwand, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — AMBER Alert, the public notification system that has helped return 201 abducted children safely since 1997, will be expanded today so that most people with a cell phone or other wireless device can get alerts in their area.

"The best way to find children who are at the greatest risk is to mobilize the eyes and ears of the public," says Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children in Alexandria, Va., which worked with the wireless telephone industry to expand alerts to wireless customers.

More than 182 million people use cell phones or other wireless devices, such as BlackBerrys. About 90% of the users in the country, those who subscribe to big carriers, can get an alert on an abducted child free by signing up at www.wirelessamberalerts.org. They can select the areas for which they want notification.

Subscribers to smaller phone services will be able to sign up in about two months, says Steve Largent, president of CTIA-The Wireless Association.


The cell phone alert builds on the existing AMBER Alert system that broadcasts descriptions of the missing children and the suspects who may have taken them in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Under the system, law enforcement officials work with local radio and television broadcasters to issue emergency messages when a child is missing and thought to be in danger. Some states issue the alerts on electronic highway signs.

The highway text messages are similar to what cell phone users would receive. The missing child center will issue text messages when notified by law enforcement. The messages will be routed to participating carriers, such as Verizon or Sprint. The companies then send the messages to subscribers. The process can be completed in minutes, Allen says.

"Time is the enemy in the search for a missing child," Allen says. "You have to move fast." In 74% of abduction cases, Allen says, the child is killed within the first three hours.

AMBER stands for America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response. The alert system was created after Amber Hagerman, 9, was abducted in 1996 from her neighborhood in Arlington, Texas, and killed. Allen credits the system with the rescue of 201 children. Last year, the center tracked 252 alerts.

Last week, police issued a nationwide AMBER Alert for a New Mexico toddler reported missing on Mother's Day. The child was found unharmed Friday in Mexico.

Read More...

First PBS, Now NPR

thenation.com
First PBS, Now NPR
Ari Berman

The conservative coup underway at PBS is spilling over to NPR.

The changes sought by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's (CPB) conservative chairman, Ken Tomlinson, and his majority Republican board include redirecting money away from news and toward music programming, the appointment of two ombudsman with conservative ties and an examination of NPR's Middle East coverage for evidence of bias.

Why the need for such a shake-up? Maybe because CPB board member Cheryl Halpern is a former chairwoman of the Republican Jewish Coalition whose family has business interests in Israel. Another board member, Gay Hart Gaines--who once ran Newt Gingrich's political action committee and together with Halpern raised $800,000 for the Republican Party since 1995--"talked about the need to change programming in light of a conversation she had with a taxi driver about his listening habits," the New York Times reported yesterday.

Apparently, her driver wasn't aware of the CPB's own internal polling, which found an 80 percent favorability rating for PBS and public radio. A similar number dubbed NPR "fair and balanced," with listener demographics split equally between conservatives, liberals and moderates. (See Scott Sherman's "Good, Gray NPR" and Bill Moyers speech at the National Conference on Media Reform.)

Of all the charges leveled by the CPB, the accusation of bias in Middle East coverage is the most long-standing and disingenuous. Only ten percent of listeners find NPR's Israel-Palestine reporting to be either too pro-Israel or pro-Arab. "NPR goes to great lengths to make sure that its Mideast reports are accurate and balanced," the American Journalism Review wrote last year. NPR's own ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorskin writes frequently on the subject and every three months President and CEO Kevin Klose distributes an in-depth content assessment on NPR's Middle East reporting.


In 2002, NPR won an Overseas Press Award for its seven-part series, "The Mideast: A Century of Conflict," which, predictably, drew fierce criticism from the right-wing pro-Israel lobby. "It made me wonder what kind of world we want, what kind of media we want, if news organizations become afraid to do a series like this because the ground is so treacherous politically," Bruce Drake, NPR's vice president for news and information, told AJR.

If the CPB--which provides just 1 percent of funding to NPR but 12.7 percent to member stations--has its way, specials on politically-charged regions like the Mideast may get diluted or disappear at the very time they are most needed. The music of Creed will presumably take their place.

Read More...

Senate Defies Bush, Approves Highway Bill

Yahoo! News
Senate Defies Bush, Approves Highway Bill

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

The Republican-controlled Senate brushed aside a presidential veto threat Tuesday and passed a $295 billion highway bill, arguing that massive spending on bigger and better roads was necessary to fight congestion and unsafe roadways.

The administration, while pressing Congress to pass a new highway bill, said the Senate version was too expensive in a time of war and debt and could result in the first veto of the Bush presidency.

The vote was 89-11 with a majority of Republicans joining Democrats in approving the six-year package that the administration said was $11 billion above what it would accept.


Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, described himself as one of the most conservative members of Congress but said he was at odds with the administration because "there are two areas where we need to spend money. One is national defense and the other is infrastructure."

In addition to granting money to states to repair and build roads and bridges, the bill provides more than $50 billion for public transit, funds recreational road programs and promotes highway safety.

"This bill will have an impact on every city and every town and every state." said Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt., the minority leader on the Environment Committee. "I urge President Bush to reconsider his veto threat against this legislation."

The Senate vote was in some ways a repeat of last year, when the senators approved a bill well above what the White House deemed affordable. In the end no compromise was reached with Congress, and lawmakers have had to pass six temporary extensions of the old six-year act, which expired on Sept. 30, 2003.

The House in March passed a $284 billion bill, the maximum amount the White House says it will accept without a veto. The Senate, in adding $11 billion, said it had come up with new revenues for the highway trust fund — the principal source of money for federal highway grants to the states — without adding to the deficit.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan repeated the veto threat Tuesday, saying the president was "very serious" about following a fiscally responsible budget.

Before the final vote, the Senate rejected, by 84-16, a proposed amendment by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., that would have shrunk the bill back to $284 billion.

With 20 months gone since the last highway bill, there is growing pressure to come up with a compromise. The latest extension runs out on May 31.

"We've already lost one spring construction season in Michigan and we certainly don't want to lose another one," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich.

"We are going to get a bill," House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska, said.

Senate leaders sought to pass the highway bill before entering debate over the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations, an issue that could seriously disrupt the legislative agenda.

There was no dispute over the need for a new highway program: Poor road conditions are a factor in one-third of the 42,000 traffic fatalities every year, and road congestion costs the nation billions in productivity and wasted fuel, studies indicate.

The legislation funds many relatively small programs — bike routes to schools, covered bridges, ferry terminals — as well as programs to promote fuel-efficient vehicles and authorize tolls to finance new interstate lanes.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., won approval of an amendment that would require the Environmental Protection Agency to update fuel economy testing to reflect real-life driving conditions. Gas mileage stickers on new cars now inflate true fuel economy performance by 10 percent to 30 percent.

The Senate also confirmed, in a vote Tuesday, a provision that would increase grants for safety programs to states that allow police to stop motorists who don't wear seat belts even when there is no other traffic violation.

The House bill, unlike the Senate version, includes some 4,000 specific projects, worth some $12 billion, that were requested by lawmakers for their districts.

These projects, cited by fiscal conservatives as "pork," will be one sticking point as House and Senate negotiators try to work out a compromise.

Another difference that must be resolved is the formula by which the federal government divides up money from the highway trust fund for the states. The trust fund comes from the 18.4 cents a gallon federal gas tax, and about half the states, mainly from fast-growing or heavily traveled areas, complain that they pay more into the fund than they get back from Washington.

___

The bill is H.R. 3

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/

Read More...

Monday, May 16, 2005

Counterfeit Capital

Read More...

Retirement Insecurity

americanprogressaction.org

Retirement Insecurity

Americans today face a growing uncertainty about their retirement security. Economists and financial planners have long compared retirement security to a three-legged stool comprised of Social Security, employee pensions and personal savings. Under the current administration all three are under attack or in jeopardy. Whether it's the president's plan to privatize Social Security, the decreasing reliability of pensions or the growing middle-class squeeze, now more than ever, Americans are facing retirement insecurity.


* Leg One - Social Security is under attack. President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security will cut benefits for millions of Americans, including those who can least afford it. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, under Bush's plan, by 2055 middle-class workers would see their benefits cut by 87 percent. Medium earners would see their benefits cut by 66 percent.

* Leg Two - Guaranteed pensions are no longer guaranteed. It used to be that pension plans offered workers guaranteed security in their retirement. In many cases, employees deferred raises in favor of their pension plans. But today, the nation's private pension system is falling apart. More and more companies are defaulting on their pension plans, putting millions of Americans at risk. And the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp, the government insurer that is supposed to guarantee workers some benefits if their company goes under, is facing a deficit of nearly $30 billion.

* Leg Three - Personal savings decrease as the cost of living rises. Rising health care costs, rising gas prices and stagnant wages are forcing American families to reduce the amount they save. The average saving rate for Americans was below 1 percent this year, compared to the 12.3 personal savings rate in the 1950s. The value of the minimum wage is down; unemployment is up; and more Americans have fallen into poverty.

Read More...

Disparate Coalitions Now Make Up Two Parties, Study Finds

washingtonpost.com
Disparate Coalitions Now Make Up Two Parties, Study Finds

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 16, 2005; A15

Four times in the past two decades, beginning in 1987, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has mapped the U.S. electorate. These studies have provided a guide to the changing shape of American politics, the strength of the major political parties, the stability -- or fragility -- of their coalitions and how issues unite or divide the country.

The latest effort was released last week, a thick booklet of data, charts and analysis from a Pew team led by director Andrew Kohut that describes the post-Sept. 11, 2001, political landscape.

In describing the new shape of the electorate, the study shows how far the country has moved from the days when income and education were the most useful barometers in predicting a person's party identification. Both parties now are coalitions of the wealthy and not-so-wealthy, and of well-educated and less-educated voters.

Taken together, the findings show why neither party can take its coalition for granted in future campaigns.

Pew divided the electorate into nine groups. Three are Republican-leaning: Enterprisers, Social Conservatives and Pro-Government Conservatives -- the one GOP group with significant numbers of lower-income people. Three are Democratic-leaning: Liberals, Disadvantaged Democrats and Conservative Democrats. Two are neither clearly Republican nor clearly Democrat: Upbeats and Disaffecteds. Finally there are the Bystanders, so named because they play little active role in politics.

The study makes clear that Republicans are no longer the party just of the wealthy, nor are Democrats the party purely of the working class. As recent presidential elections made clear, Democrats have their own economic elite as part of their core constituency, and Republicans have their own cadre of down-scale supporters.


The Pew study found that, in terms of personal income, the Republican Enterprisers and the Democratic Liberals look almost identical. About four in 10 in each group said they have household incomes of $75,000 or more. The same held for one of the groups in the middle, the Upbeats. Enterprisers are the most likely to own or trade stocks (53 percent), followed by the Upbeats (42 percent), Liberals (38 percent) and Social Conservatives (35 percent).

Looked at from the other end of the income scale, nearly half of Pro-Government Conservatives have incomes of $30,000 or below, about the same as the Disadvantaged Democrats.

A similar pattern occurs when the groups are measured by years of educational achievement. Enterprisers and Liberals look very much alike: 49 percent of Liberals and 46 percent of Enterprisers are college graduates.

At the other end, 13 percent of Disadvantaged Democrats graduated from college, while in the Republican coalition, 15 percent of Pro-Government Conservatives graduated from college. In the cluster of groups that form the middle of the electorate, 11 percent of Disaffecteds finished college, while 37 percent of Upbeats are college graduates.

For all their similarities on income and education, Enterprisers on the right and Liberals on the left diverge on religious habits and cultural attitudes. For example, almost half of Enterprisers attend religious services at least weekly, while just a fifth of Liberals go to religious services that often. A fifth of Liberals are classified in the Pew study as secular -- defined as atheists, agnostics or those who say they have no religious affiliation -- compared with about one in 20 of the Enterprisers.

Four-fifths of Enterprisers have a favorable opinion of the National Rifle Association, while three-fourths of Liberals have an unfavorable view of the pro-gun rights group. Three in five Enterprisers say they own a gun, while three-fourths of Liberals say they do not. Three-fourths of Enterprisers say they display the American flag at home, on their car or at work; just 41 percent of Liberals do the same.

The most striking differences between lower-income Republicans and lower-income Democrats come in their perceptions of the power of the individual. Both Pro-Government Conservatives and Disadvantaged Democrats include a substantial number of people who consider themselves to be struggling financially. Overwhelming majorities in both groups say they often cannot make ends meet.

But where they part company is in their overall sense of optimism, with the Republican group expressing much greater faith in personal empowerment. Three-fourths of the Pro-Government Conservatives agreed that people can get ahead by working hard, and four-fifths agreed that everyone has the power to succeed. Just 14 percent of Disadvantaged Democrats agreed with the first statement, and only 44 percent agreed with the second.

Despite similarities in income and education, there are major differences between the Enterprisers and Liberals on issues. More than four in five Enterprisers say military force is the best way to defeat terrorism, while nine in 10 Liberals say that relying too much on force creates hatred and more terrorism. Nine in 10 Enterprisers oppose same-sex marriage, while eight in 10 Liberals favor such unions. Nine in 10 Liberals favor government health insurance for all Americans, while three-fourths of Enterprisers oppose it.

But with both Republicans and Democrats now disparate coalitions, there are significant intraparty differences on many issues as well.

A bare majority of Enterprisers favor cutting taxes over reducing the budget deficit, while the other two groups in the GOP coalition say budget-cutting should be a higher priority. Four in five Pro-Government Conservatives say the government should do more to help the needy, even if that increases the government debt, while two in three Enterprisers say the government cannot afford to do more.

The Pew study -- based on two polls, one in December of 2,000 people and a follow-up in March with 1,090 people from the original sample -- explains why Republicans have emerged from the 2004 elections with an advantage over the Democrats. Although both parties enjoy strong support among their core voters, the Pew study concluded that Republicans have done a more effective job in attracting support among voters with less allegiance to either party as well as capitalizing on favorable personal opinions of President Bush and support for military action.

Read More...

Report Critical of Rumsfeld Is Pulled After DOD Protest

washingtonpost.com
Report Critical of Rumsfeld Is Pulled After DOD Protest

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 16, 2005; A05

A government commission studying overseas military bases sent Congress a report that included criticism of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's strategy, then removed the document from the commission Web site after the Pentagon complained that it divulged classified information.

The congressionally appointed panel contends that the 262-page report is based only on public sources, and several commission officials say they believe the Defense Department was annoyed because their conclusions include harsh criticism of some elements of Rumsfeld's plan for streamlining the military.

An official involved in the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Pentagon's primary complaint appeared to be that the report specified Bulgaria and Romania as countries U.S. forces would rotate through for training, rather than using a more vague regional identification such as Eastern Europe.

The Overseas Basing Commission released a partial version of the report at a news conference on May 9, but now the panel has removed that version from its Web site because of the Pentagon's complaints.


The controversy was first reported yesterday by Newsweek.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Defense Department's objections are not about the panel's views but about release of classified information. "The commission was informed and agreed to the requirement to submit their report for a security review in advance of releasing it," Whitman said. "Their failure to do so appears to have resulted in unauthorized disclosure of classified information. When the department raised concerns over its premature posting to the Internet, the commission removed the report. The department has initiated appropriate procedures for security breaches of this nature and also notified the congressional sponsors of this commission."

The commission chairman, Al Cornella, a Republican, said in an interview that he was trying to cooperate but that he had not agreed to have the Pentagon clear the report in advance. "The commission is confident that everything in our report was obtained from unclassified sources or settings," he said.

According to e-mails that an official involved in the dispute read to The Washington Post, Barry Pavel, the Defense Department's director of strategy on global posture, wrote to Cornella on May 7 to warn of "the potential need to conduct an investigation regarding violation of security classification procedures, including the IT-related aspects (eg, possibly having to clean your servers, etc)."

Commission officials said they took that as a threat to revoke their security clearances and to bring military police or information technology agents to their Arlington offices.

The officials said Pavel raised the concerns with Cornella on May 6 in an e-mail with the subject line, "Re: report." "I'll be frank," Pavel wrote, according to the e-mail read to The Post. "I found it professionally disappointing; riddled with errors of fact, misperceptions, and misunderstandings; and divulging classified information that will damage our foreign relations and national security."

The officials said that after the complaint, they removed the original report from their Web site, collected the printed copies that they could retract, removed some appendixes and had the reports rebound before the news conference.

Cornella asked Pavel to mark up a report with his objections. Another Pentagon official replied, according to the official who read the e-mail, which was casually punctuated, "Al A proper security review cannot be done on the fly."

Pavel did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment.

The commission, asked to provide recommendations on Rumsfeld's plan to return 70,000 troops from overseas and to reposition many of the remaining forces, urged that "the pace of events be slowed and re-ordered." The commission found "no evidence of an overwhelming strategic or operational imperative" to handle the redeployment with the speed the Pentagon had planned.


Read More...

Air travelers stripped bare with X-ray machine

USA Today
Air travelers stripped bare with X-ray machine
By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY

The agency in charge of the nation's air security expects later this year to begin using a controversial X-ray machine that will show airport screeners a clear picture of what's under passengers' clothes — whether weapons or just bare skin.

Screeners plan to test the "backscatter" machines at several U.S. airports, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) says. The refrigerator-sized machines are considered a breakthrough in scanning technology but have been labeled "a virtual strip search" by the American Civil Liberties Union. (Related story: Airports test 'futureworld' devices)

Security workers using the machines can see through clothes and peer at whatever may be hidden in undergarments, shirts or pants. The images also paint a revealing picture of a person's nude body.


The devices can potentially be used to screen hundreds of millions of air travelers each year, although TSA says more study is needed to determine how the devices may be used at U.S. airports. The agency declined to say when and where it expects to test the machines.

Backscatter technology has been waiting on the sidelines for nearly four years but seems poised now to move to the forefront of aviation security. The machines are already used by U.S. Customs agents at 12 airports to screen passengers suspected of carrying drugs. They're also getting a test run at a terminal in London Heathrow Airport, the first major airport to use them.

The ACLU says the scanners invade personal privacy. "This leads directly to a surveillance society," says Barry Steinhardt, who runs the group's technology program.

But Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate subcommittee last month that he wants to employ the technology and doesn't want an "endless debate" over privacy issues.

Security consultant Douglas Laird says the machines are essential to spot explosives, which aren't detected by metal detectors.

The $100,000 machines bounce low-radiation X-rays off a person's skin to produce photo-like computer images of metal, plastic and organic materials hidden under clothes, says American Science and Engineering. The TSA is testing its BodySearch machine.

Read More...

Bill Moyers Fights Back

thenation.com
Bill Moyers Fights Back
John Nichols

Bill Moyers is not taking attacks by Bush administration allies on public broadcasting in general and his journalism in particular sitting down.

"I should put my detractors on notice," declared the veteran journalist who stepped down in January as the host of PBS's Now with Bill Moyers, who recently turned 70. "They might compel me out of the rocking chair and into the anchor chair."

Moyers closed the National Conference on Media Reform in St. Louis on Sunday with his first public response to the revelation that White House allies on the board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have secretly been holding PBS in general -- and his show in particular -- to a partisan litmus test.

Recalling former President Richard Nixon's failed attempt to cut the funding for public broadcasting in the early 1970s, Moyers said, "I always knew that Nixon would be back -- again and again. I just didn't know that this time he would ask to be the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.


That was a pointed reference to CPB chair Kenneth Tomlinson, a Republican party stalwart, who contracted with an outside consultant to monitor Moyers's weekly news program for signs of what Tomlinson and his allies perceived to be liberal bias. Moyers ridiculed the initiative first by reading off a long list of conservatives who had appeared on NOW, then by reading a letter from conservative U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, praising the show, and finally by noting that Tomlinson had paid a former Bush White House aide $10,000 to do the monitoring.

"Gee, Ken, for $2 a week you can pick up a copy of TV Guide," he joked, before suggesting that the CPB chair could have "watched the show."

"Hell, Ken," Moyers finally said. "you could have called me collect and I would have told you."

Moyers said he wasn't buying Tomlinson's claim that the results of the monitoring were not being released to protect PBS's image. "Where I come from in Texas, we shovel that stuff every day," said the man who came to Washington as a press aide to former President Lyndon Johnson and was present when the Public Broadcasting Act was written in the 1960s.

Moyers revealed to the crowd of 2,000 media reform activists that he had written Tomlinson on Friday, suggesting that the pair appear on a PBS program to discuss the controversy. He also revealed that he had tried three times to meet with the full CPB board but had been refused. Expressing his sense that the board had "crossed the line from resisting White House pressure to carrying it out," Moyers said, "I would like to give Mr. Tomlinson the benefit of the doubt, but I can't."

The man who has won 30 Emmy Awards for his hosting of various PBS programs was blunt about his critics. "They've been after me for years now and I am sure they will be stomping on my grave after I'm dead," he said. As the laughter from the crowd of 2,300 media reform activists quieted, however, he added, "I should remind them that one of our boys made it out 2,000 years ago."

Moyers was even blunter about why he thought Tomlinson and other allies of the administration were so determined to knock his groundbreaking news program off the air and to replace it with more conservative fare such as a weekly roundtable discussion featuring Wall Street Journal editorial page staffers. Joking that, "I thought public television was supposed to be an alternative to commercial media, not a funder of it," Moyers spoke of the investigative reporting NOW did on everything from the war in Iraq to offshore tax havens and ownership of the media and said, "Our reporting was giving the radical right fits because it wasn't the party line."

In short, Moyers said, "We were getting it right, but not right wing." And that, he explained, was too much for Trent Lott, Ann Coulter and other ideologues who he said want media to feed the American people "the junk food of propaganda."

Moyers was greeted with cheers when he declared that "the quality of our media and the quality of our democracy are intertwined. But the loudest applause of the day came in response to his invitation to the crowd to join him in the fight to "take public broadcasting back from threats, from interference."

"It is," Moyers said, "a worthy goal."

Read More...

U.S. Is Warning North Koreans on Nuclear Test

The New York Times
May 16, 2005
U.S. Is Warning North Koreans on Nuclear Test
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, May 15 - The Bush administration on Sunday warned North Korea for the first time that if it conducted a nuclear test, the United States and several Pacific powers would take punitive action, but officials stopped short of saying what kind of sanctions would result.

"Action would have to be taken," Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush's national security adviser, said on the CNN program "Late Edition." Asked earlier on "Fox News Sunday" about recent reports that intelligence agencies have warned that North Korea could conduct its first test, Mr. Hadley added: "We've seen some evidence that says that they may be preparing for a nuclear test. We have talked to our allies about that."

But he cautioned that North Korea was "a hard target" and that correctly assessing its intentions was nearly impossible.

Mr. Hadley's warnings represented the first time anyone in the Bush administration had approached drawing a "red line" that North Korea could not cross without prompting a reaction. The term red line was often used during the cold war to set the boundaries in confrontations, with perhaps the most extreme example President Kennedy's action in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis to curb a nuclear risk.


In the case of North Korea, the threat has risen incrementally over 15 years. Mr. Bush's aides have said in interviews over the past year that if they drew a clear line, they believed that the North Koreans would see it as a challenge and walk right up to it.

On Sunday afternoon, senior administration officials said that concerns about baiting North Korea helped to explain why Mr. Hadley did not specify what kind of penalty was possible. Instead, Mr. Hadley noted that "the Japanese are out today already saying that those steps would need to include going to the Security Council and, potentially, sanctions."

He appeared to be referring to comments by Shinzo Abe, the secretary general of Japan's governing Liberal Democratic Party. Returning to Japan from a recent trip to Washington - where he met Mr. Hadley, Vice President Dick Cheney and others - Mr. Abe said Japan faced the most direct threat if North Korea proved that it could detonate a nuclear weapon.

"If North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons becomes definite," Mr. Abe said on Asahi TV, and North Korea "conducts nuclear testing, for instance, Japan will naturally bring the issue to the U.N. and call for sanctions against North Korea."

Mr. Abe also told Asahi TV that it was "unthinkable not to impose any sanctions in case of a nuclear testing."

In an interview with The New York Times during his visit to Washington, Mr. Abe acknowledged that making sanctions work would "depend on the cooperation of China," though he noted that Japan would be capable of cutting off a considerable flow of money into North Korea sent by ethnic Koreans living in Japan.

North Korea has repeatedly declared that it would consider any sanctions imposed through the United Nations as an act of war.

Mr. Hadley, known for his caution, appeared somewhat more tentative Sunday than Mr. Abe did in discussing sanctions. He offered no specifics. Nor did he mention the extensive studies under way at the State Department, and in his own National Security Council to come up with a range of options, either in the event of a nuclear test or North Korea's continued refusal to rejoin negotiations that it has boycotted for nearly a year with South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States.

For the Bush administration, devising meaningful sanctions is difficult because the United States has prohibited almost all interchanges with North Korea, except for some emergency food aid, since the Korean War ended five decades ago.

Any effective sanctions would require the full cooperation of North Korea's neighbors, South Korea and China, at a time when they are going in the opposite direction. South Korea is expanding economic ties with the North, and trade between China and North Korea has significantly increased in the past year.

The sanction options could range from establishing a quarantine of North Korea - searching shipments in and out of the country for weapons, drugs and counterfeit currency, the country's main sources of foreign cash - to cutting off its oil supplies. But all of those depend on the cooperation of China, and Chinese officials have insisted, at least publicly, that they do not believe that it is time to pressure North Korea economically.

A senior Chinese official, Yang Xiyu, told The Times in an interview published last week that it was true that "we do not yet have tangible achievements" in ending North Korea's nuclear weapons program. "But a basic reason for the unsuccessful effort lies in the lack of cooperation from the U.S. side." He cited Mr. Bush's references to Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, as a "tyrant" who keeps dissidents in concentration camps.

Mr. Hadley played down the differences with China, saying that "we're comfortable that we are all on the same page."

Other administration officials contended last week that the Chinese, in private, have said they are trying to pressure North Korea not to take provocative action. Yet in recent days, North Korea has seemed to ignore such caution, boasting that it had already removed 8,000 spent fuel rods from a nuclear reactor to make more bomb-grade plutonium.

At the same time, administration officials and outside experts have said the Chinese fear instability in North Korea and are opposing sanctions that may destabilize the government and send millions of North Koreans over the Chinese border.

Mr. Hadley, on CNN, also appeared to increase the official American estimate of the number of nuclear weapons the North Koreans possess. Officially, the Central Intelligence Agency has said one or two, though most government analysts say the number is higher.

On Sunday, Mr. Hadley said: "Estimates range from two to six. We just really don't know." At issue are estimates about how much plutonium North Korea has harvested from its nuclear reactor, a subject of disagreement among the C.I.A., the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Japanese and the South Koreans.

While the Bush administration has been criticized by Democrats for letting North Korea's program expand in 2003 when the United States was tied up in Iraq, conservatives have also been critical of the White House for not speaking more clearly.

Asked about Mr. Hadley's comments on Sunday, Nicholas Eberstadt, a North Korea expert at the American Enterprise Institute who has urged the United States to draw clear red lines, said, "My impression is that until now there has been a muscular effort to change the topic" when administration officials were asked how they would react to a test.

Read More...

Sunday, May 15, 2005

Leave No Tree Behind

Read More...

Pataki Leadership

Read More...

Cessnaphobia

Read More...

A Contract Is Made To Be Broken

Read More...

Pastor Frist

Read More...

Thank Goodness . . .

Read More...

"The Whore Lived Like a German"

spiegel.de

The Death of a Muslim Woman

"The Whore Lived Like a German"

By Jody K. Biehl in Berlin

In the past four months, six Muslim women living in Berlin have been brutally murdered by family members. Their crime? Trying to break free and live Western lifestyles. Within their communities, the killers are revered as heroes for preserving their family dignity. How can such a horrific and shockingly archaic practice be flourishing in the heart of Europe? The deaths have sparked momentary outrage, but will they change the grim reality for Muslim women?

The shots came from nowhere and within minutes the young Turkish mother standing at the Berlin bus stop was dead. A telephone call from a relative had brought her to this cold, unforgiving place. She thought she would only be gone for a few minutes and wore a light jacket in the freezing February wind. She had left her five-year-old son asleep in his bed. He awoke looking for his mother, who, like many Turkish women in Germany, harbored a secret life of fear, courage and, ultimately, grief. Now her little boy has his own tragedy to bear: His mother, Hatin Surucu, was not the victim of random violence, but likely died at the hands of her own family in what is known as an "honor killing."

Hatin's crime, it appears, was the desire to lead a normal life in her family's adopted land. The vivacious 23-year-old beauty, who was raised in Berlin, divorced the Turkish cousin she was forced to marry at age 16. She also discarded her Islamic head scarf, enrolled in a technical school where she was training to become an electrician and began dating German men. For her family, such behavior represented the ultimate shame -- the embrace of "corrupt" Western ways. Days after the crime, police arrested her three brothers, ages 25, 24 and 18. The youngest of the three allegedly bragged to his girlfriend about the Feb. 7 killing. At her funeral, Hakin's Turkish-Kurdish parents draped their only daughter's casket in verses from the Koran and buried her according to Muslim tradition. Absent of course, were the brothers, who were in jail.


The crime might be easier to digest if it had been an archaic anomaly, but five other Muslim women have been murdered in Berlin during the past four months by their husbands or partners for besmirching the family's Muslim honor. Two of them were stabbed to death in front of their young children, one was shot, one strangled and a fifth drowned. It seems hard to fathom, but in the middle of democratic Western Europe -- in Germany, a nation where pacifism is almost a universal mantra -- murderous macho patriotism not only exists but also appears to be thriving. It may even be Germany's liberalism -- and its post World War II fear of criticizing minority cultures -- that has encouraged ultra-religious families to settle here.

The problem is that much of this insular and ultra-religious world is out of public view, often hidden in inner-city apartments where the most influential links to the outside world are satellite dishes that receive Turkish and Arabic television and the local mosque. Tens of thousands of Turkish women live behind these walls of silence, in homes run by husbands many met on their wedding day and ruled by the ever-present verses of the Koran. In these families, loyalty and honor are elevated virtues and women are treated little better than slaves, unseen by society and often unnoticed or ignored by their German neighbors. To get what they want, these women have to run. They have to change their names, their passports, even their hair color and break with the families they often love, but simply can no longer obey.

Precise statistics on how many women die every year in such honor killings are hard to come by, as many crimes are never reported, said Myria Boehmecke of the Tuebingen-based women's group Terre des Femmes which, among other things, tries to protect Muslim girls and women from oppressive families. The Turkish women's organization Papatya has documented 40 instances of honor killings in Germany since 1996. Examples include a Darmstadt girl whose two brothers pummelled her to death with a hockey stick in April 2004 after they learned she had slept with her boyfriend. In Augsburg in April, a man stabbed his wife and 7-year-old daughter because the wife was having an affair. In December 2003, a Tuebingen father strangled his 16-year-old daughter and threw her body into a lake because she had a boyfriend. Bullets, knives, even axes and gasoline are the weapons of choice. The crime list compiled by Papatya is an exercise in horror. And the sad part, said Boehmecke, is that it is far from complete. "We'll never really know how many victims there are. Too often these crimes go unreported."

In many cases, fathers -- and sometimes even mothers -- single out their youngest son to do the killing, Boehmecke said, "because they know minors will get lighter sentences from German judges." In some cases, these boys are revered by their community and fellow inmates as "honor heroes" -- a dementedly skewed status they carry with them for the rest of their lives. Currently, six boys are serving time in Berlin's juvenile prison for honor killings. "In a way, these boys are victims, too," she said. Sometimes they are forced to kill their favorite sister.

One of the unsettling truths about Hatin's death and the plight of many Muslim women is that it took the comments of three Turkish boys and the outrage of a male school director to get people to notice. When the murder first happened, it sent no shock waves through the mainstream German press. It only became big news when a group of 14-year-old Turkish boys mocked Hatin during a class discussion at a school near the crime scene. One boy said, "She only had herself to blame," while another insisted, "She deserved what she got. The whore lived like a German." The enraged school director not only sent a letter home to parents, but also to teachers across Germany. The letter ignited a media fury. Less known, however, is that the letter also hit a nerve among educators. "Teachers from across the country wrote back saying they had had similar experiences," Boehmecke said. They reported Turkish boys taunting Turkish girls who don't wear headscarves as "German sluts." "That's the part no one has written about. Clearly there is huge potential for similar violence across Germany," Boehmecke said. "Not just in the big cities, but all over. It's a problem many politicians haven't been willing to face."

But that is not entirely true. Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the revelation that several of the 9-11 plotters lived hidden lives in the up-scale German city of Hamburg, politicians and everyday Germans have more closely scrutinized the private lives of their friendly Turkish grocers, housecleaners, taxi drivers and even colleagues. At the same time, religious Muslims tightened their ranks, becoming more protective of each other in a world increasingly fearful of and hostile toward Islam.

German legislators, for their part, began rethinking the traditional delicacy with which the nation has handled its immigrants. For decades, German legislators lived under the shadow of the country's Third Reich past and the fear of appearing racist if it singled out a particular community or religion for scrutiny or special treatment.

"People were afraid they would be called Nazis if they dared to bring up issues of human rights in the Turkish community," said Serap Cileli, a Turkish author and filmmaker who at 15 was forced into an arranged marriage.

When Cileli fell in love with another Turkish man and threatened to break free, her mother came to Turkey, kidnapped her two children and took them to Germany. She then gave Cileli an ultimatum: give up the lover or never see the kids again. At first Cileli chose the kids and a life in Germany. But unlike many other stories, hers has a happy ending -- the lover later followed her to Germany and, after an enormous struggle with her family, the pair married and now live together with her children. She has written prodigiously about her experiences and now helps Turkish women escape oppressive families.

For the greater part of a decade, however, Cileli was unable to find a publisher for her work. "Everything I wrote from 1994 to 1999 was rejected, even by newspapers," she said. "They told me I was writing about a minority issue and they were afraid of appearing racist." That changed following Sept. 11, she said, when suddenly the hidden lives of Muslims became a hot topic and her writing and views are now widely published and even translated into her native Turkish.

Last year, a virtual tectonic shift occurred when Germany -- long considered a Mecca of religious tolerance by Muslims -- took its first step toward enforced secularism. Five of the nation's 16 states voted to ban teachers and other public officials from wearing headscarves to work. In October, after much lobbying, Turkish women's groups scored a coup when the government passed a law making it illegal for parents to force their children to marry. Turkey, a secular Muslim state, has long had such a law.

The November murder in neighboring Holland of filmmaker Theo van Gogh -- who was shot and stabbed to death by an Islamic extremist angry over his depiction of the violence inflicted on Muslim women in forced marriages -- galvanized the Netherlands and sent shock waves across Europe. As a result, Germans, too, began to take a second look at the 3.2 million immigrants -- 2.5 million of whom are Turkish -- living among them and to talk about the serious flaws of the nation's 1960's immigration policies. The program brought thousands of Turkish workers to Germany, but provided no real means of integrating the Muslim Turks or helping them understand Western concepts like individualism, human rights and equality. Now, Cileli said, perhaps, honor killings and other horrors experienced by Muslim women will finally be given the scrutiny they have long deserved.

Frightened for their lives

The new laws are a vital step toward empowerment, said Cileli, but unfortunately, the corpses of disobedient women offer a more compelling reason for many young women to stay put. Plus, she said, laws don't take into account the psychological terror under which the women live. "These girls are frightened for their lives," she said. "If they do manage to get away, it would be an illusion to say the girls would run to the police." Besides, laws only cover civil marriages -- not religious ones. In many cases, families force their young daughters into Muslim weddings at very young ages (sometimes as early as 12 years old) and then only unite the couple civilly when the girls turn 18.

Though subtle, evidence of the seclusion in which religious Muslim women live in Germany abounds. Turkish tea rooms are often packed with men, while women are often at home caring for children. They rarely can be seen on the streets alone after dark. At a memorial vigil held a few weeks after Hatin's death, a mere 120 people showed up. Almost none were Turkish. In fact, most were from a lesbian and gay organization that -- outraged by the crime -- organized the make-shift ceremony.

The ceremony underscored another disturbing reality: It is often not the Muslim community that first expresses outrage over how its women live, but those on the outside. "It's often very frustrating for us that more doesn't come from within," Boehmecke said. "We've been trying to bring attention to the plight of women for years, but with little success." Cileli sees it in harsher terms. "It not only took the death of a white man" for people to prick up their ears, she said, but of a "white European" man (van Gogh). "A European was killed because he defended us -- and the world press stood up to listen. But how many women died before him?"

A statistical black hole

Astonishingly, the first extensive data the German government collected about the lives of Turkish women was published last summer, as part of a study done by the Ministry for Family Affairs. The study showed that 49 percent of Turkish women said they had experienced physical or sexual violence in their marriage. One fourth of those married to Turkish husbands said they met their grooms on their wedding day. Half said they were pressured to marry partners selected by relatives and 17 percent felt forced into such partnerships.

So far, the Turkish community has been sluggish in its response to such data and even to the question of honor killings. But last week -- about three weeks after Hatin's death and under heavy pressure from activists -- the Turkish Association of Berlin and Brandenburg held a round table discussion about the plight of Muslim women. At the talks, the group issued a 10-point plan calling for a "zero tolerance" stance on violence against women and encouraged other Turkish and Islamic organizations to "actively recognize" and address the problem.

Will it help? Because the group is secular, it will likely have little sway with deeply religious Turks. "The truth is, we can't reach those who aren't interested," the group's spokesman, Cumali Kangal, conceded.

The response among Germany's devout Muslims is equally tough to gauge as there is no single organization the community looks to for leadership. Instead, the community is divided into about three dozen groups, each with its own leadership. Ali Kizilkaya, the chairman of the Council of Islam, one of the largest umbrella organizations, has decried Hatin's murder as "an abuse and affront to the Muslim religion." He insists Islam does not condone honor killings.

But try telling that, said Boehmecke, to the hoards of young boys who taunt Turkish girls in schools and their families who tacitly encourage such behavior. Educators at the grassroots say their numbers are rising, she says. Indeed, the German weekly Die Zeit reports that the percent of schoolgirls wearing headscarves in the Berlin district where Hatin was killed has gone from virtually none to about 40 percent in the past three years. Which one of today's smiling schoolgirls, Boehmecke wonders, will be next year's victim of honor?

originally published March 2, 2005

Read More...

7 GOP Senators Key in Filibuster Fight

7 GOP Senators Key in Filibuster Fight

By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Seven Republican senators will determine the outcome of a showdown this week between the president and Congress - and a minority within it - over who is going to shape the federal courts.

Barring any unforeseen developments, these are the lawmakers in the make-or-break position when it comes to deciding whether to allow a Senate minority to block a president's nominees for the federal bench.

The senators are Susan Collins of Maine, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John Warner of Virginia, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Sununu of New Hampshire.

At issue is an effort by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to ban judicial filibusters. The Senate's Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, wants the ability to block nominees for the Supreme Court and lower courts whom his party views as outside the legal mainstream.

The seven Republicans have not committed publicly to supporting either Senate leader.


All 44 Senate Democrats, joined by independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont and three Republicans, have said they oppose curtailing a Senate minority's ability to block the president's judicial nominees with just 41 votes in the 100-member Senate.

Frist, R-Tenn., has 45 of the Senate's 55 Republicans on his side.

During President Bush's first term, Democrats succeeding in blocking 10 of his judicial picks. Both Bush and First are making the case now that it should take only a simple majority - 51 votes, rather than 60 now - for a nominee to win confirmation for a lifetime appointment to a federal appeals court or the Supreme Court.

For Democrats to prevail, they need the support of three of the seven undecided Republicans. Frist needs five votes from five of those Republicans so Vice President Dick Cheney could have the chance to break a tie in favor of Bush's position.

Frist said Friday he will bring up the first of the blocked nominees - Texas judge Priscilla Owen and California judge Janice Rogers Brown - this week.

Some of the seven Republicans, including Collins, have made up their mind but are not saying how they will vote. Warner and others say they have yet to decide - and hope they will not have to.

"I'm always working on the issue," Warner said last week. "I'm hopeful the leaders can reach a compromise. I'm optimistic we can reach a compromise."

So far, only Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island have broken party ranks, expressing concern about a change that could permanently reduce minority rights in the Senate. Vote counters in each party say Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine also is likely to side with Democrats.

Democrats insist there are other Republicans who support the Democratic position but do not want to say so publicly. Republicans note that all the other GOP senators who started out publicly uncommitted - Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Ted Stevens of Alaska and Richard Lugar of Indiana, for example - now side with Frist.

Warner is the last of the powerful GOP "old bulls" in the Senate not to say he will join with Frist. Warner has said repeatedly that he worries that ending the judicial filibuster will weaken the Senate.

"I tend to be a traditionalist, and the right of unlimited debate has been a hallmark of the Senate since its inception," Warner said. "Without question, though, I am strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations."

Liberals and conservatives are focusing on Warner and other undecided Republicans through telephone calls, Internet campaigns and television advertisements.

Conservative groups such as Progress for America and Focus on the Family have spent millions of dollars on ads since mid-April in Alaska and elsewhere trying to persuade undecided Republican senators to support Frist.

Murkowski said those efforts have backfired with her.

"I was very offended at the tone," Murkowski said. "But they've continued, and it's been kind of interesting. I've probably gotten more positive feedback for my position, which Alaskans consider to be very thoughtful, very deliberate, about what is happening here in the Senate."

The liberal group People for the American Way says Murkowski is "the last defense against an attack on our Constitutional checks and balances."

"Alaska counts on Senator Murkowski to do the right thing. Now, the whole country is counting on her," according to an ad that the group plans to run this week. The $1 million television campaign also will mention Snowe and Collins in Maine and Specter in Pennsylvania.

DeWine sees power in not having committed to either side.

"I've decided. I just haven't announced it yet because I think that it's a good chance that we can get it worked out," DeWine said. "I'm hopeful that by not announcing it, I can help keep these negotiations going."

One option for the undecided senators could mean joining with Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. He is trying to convince 12 Republicans and Democrats that they should block Frist from banning judicial filibusters and also stop Reid from filibustering all of Bush's contentious nominees.

In the end, Murkowski said, the question has to be about the Senate, not politics, the president or the party.

"We have to remember that our decision has to be in the best interest of the institution as a whole," Murkowski said. "Not in the best interest of the Republicans, not in the best interest of the Democrats, but in the best interest of we as senators and the institution itself. I think that's what we should keep in mind."

---

On the Net:

Senate: http://www.senate.gov

Read More...