Thursday, July 07, 2005

So, Mr. Bremer, where did all the money go?

guardian.co.uk
So, Mr Bremer, where did all the money go?

At the end of the Iraq war, vast sums of money were made available to the US-led provisional authorities, headed by Paul Bremer, to spend on rebuilding the country. By the time Bremer left the post eight months later, $8.8bn of that money had disappeared.

Ed Harriman on the extraordinary scandal of Iraq's missing billions"

When Paul Bremer, the American pro consul in Baghdad until June last year, arrived in Iraq soon after the official end of hostilities, there was $6bn left over from the UN Oil for Food Programme, as well as sequestered and frozen assets, and at least $10bn from resumed Iraqi oil exports. Under Security Council Resolution 1483, passed on May 22 2003, all these funds were transferred into a new account held at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, called the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), and intended to be spent by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) "in a transparent manner ... for the benefit of the Iraqi people".

The US Congress also voted to spend $18.4bn of US taxpayers' money on the redevelopment of Iraq. By June 28 last year, however, when Bremer left Baghdad two days early to avoid possible attack on the way to the airport, his CPA had spent up to $20bn of Iraqi money, compared with $300m of US funds. The "reconstruction" of Iraq is the largest American-led occupation programme since the Marshall Plan - but the US government funded the Marshall Plan. Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Bremer have made sure that the reconstruction of Iraq is paid for by the "liberated" country, by the Iraqis themselves.

The CPA maintained one fund of nearly $600m cash for which there is no paperwork: $200m of it was kept in a room in one of Saddam's former palaces. The US soldier in charge used to keep the key to the room in his backpack, which he left on his desk when he popped out for lunch. Again, this is Iraqi money, not US funds.

The "financial irregularities" described in audit reports carried out by agencies of the American government and auditors working for the international community collectively give a detailed insight into the mentality of the American occupation authorities and the way they operated. Truckloads of dollars were handed out for which neither they nor the recipients felt they had to be accountable.

The auditors have so far referred more than a hundred contracts, involving billions of dollars paid to American personnel and corporations, for investigation and possible criminal prosecution. They have also discovered that $8.8bn that passed through the new Iraqi government ministries in Baghdad while Bremer was in charge is unaccounted for, with little prospect of finding out where it has gone. A further $3.4bn appropriated by Congress for Iraqi development has since been siphoned off to finance "security".


Although Bremer was expected to manage Iraqi funds in a transparent manner, it was only in October 2003, six months after the fall of Saddam, that an International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) was established to provide independent, international financial oversight of CPA spending. (This board includes representatives from the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development.)

The IAMB first spent months trying to find auditors acceptable to the US. The Bahrain office of KPMG was finally appointed in April 2004. It was stonewalled.

"KPMG has encountered resistance from CPA staff regarding the submission of information required to complete our procedures," they wrote in an interim report. "Staff have indicated ... that cooperation with KPMG's undertakings is given a low priority." KPMG had one meeting at the Iraqi Ministry of Finance; meetings at all the other ministries were repeatedly postponed. The auditors even had trouble getting passes to enter the Green Zone.

There appears to have been good reason for the Americans to stall. At the end of June 2004, the CPA would be disbanded and Bremer would leave Iraq. There was no way the Bush administration would want independent auditors to publish a report into the financial propriety of its Iraqi administration while the CPA was still in existence and Bremer at its head still answerable to the press. So the report was published in July.

The auditors found that the CPA didn't keep accounts of the hundreds of millions of dollars of cash in its vault, had awarded contracts worth billions of dollars to American firms without tender, and had no idea what was happening to the money from the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), which was being spent by the interim Iraqi government ministries.

This lack of transparency has led to allegations of corruption. An Iraqi hospital administrator told me that when he came to sign a contract, the American army officer representing the CPA had crossed out the original price and doubled it. The Iraqi protested that the original price was enough. The American officer explained that the increase (more than $1m) was his retirement package.

When the Iraqi Governing Council asked Bremer why a contract to repair the Samarah cement factory was costing $60m rather than the agreed $20m, the American representative reportedly told them that they should be grateful the coalition had saved them from Saddam. Iraqis who were close to the Americans, had access to the Green Zone or held prominent posts in the new government ministries were also in a position personally to benefit enormously. Iraqi businessmen complain endlessly that they had to offer substantial bribes to Iraqi middlemen just to be able to bid for CPA contracts. Iraqi ministers' relatives got top jobs and fat contracts.

Further evidence of lack of transparency comes from a series of audits and reports carried out by the CPA's own inspector general's office (CPAIG). Set up in January 2004, it reports to Congress. Its auditors, accountants and criminal investigators often found themselves sitting alone at cafe tables in the Green Zone, shunned by their CPA compatriots. Their audit, published in July 2004, found that the American contracts officers in the CPA and Iraqi ministries "did not ensure that ... contract files contained all the required documents, a fair and reasonable price was paid for the services received, contractors were capable of meeting delivery schedules, or that contractors were paid in accordance with contract requirements".

Pilfering was rife. Millions of dollars in cash went missing from the Iraqi Central Bank. Between $11m and $26m worth of Iraqi property sequestered by the CPA was unaccounted for. The payroll was padded with hundreds of ghost employees. Millions of dollars were paid to contractors for phantom work. Some $3,379,505 was billed, for example, for "personnel not in the field performing work" and "other improper charges" on just one oil pipeline repair contract.

Most of the 69 criminal investigations the CPAIG instigated related to alleged theft, fraud, waste, assault and extortion. It also investigated "a number of other cases that, because of their sensitivity, cannot be included in this report". One such case may have arisen when 19 billion new Iraqi dinars, worth about £6.5m, was found on a plane in Lebanon that had been sent there by the American-appointed Iraqi interior minister.

At the same time, the IAMB discovered that Iraqi oil exports were unmetered. Neither the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organisation nor the American authorities could give a satisfactory explanation for this. "The only reason you wouldn't monitor them is if you don't want anyone else to know how much is going through," one petroleum executive told me.

Officially, Iraq exported $10bn worth of oil in the first year of the American occupation. Christian Aid has estimated that up to $4bn more may have been exported and is unaccounted for. If so, this would have created an off-the-books fund that both the Americans and their Iraqi allies could use with impunity to cover expenditures they would rather keep secret - among them the occupation costs, which were rising far beyond what the Bush administration could comfortably admit to Congress and the international community.

In the few weeks before Bremer left Iraq, the CPA handed out more than $3bn in new contracts to be paid for with Iraqi funds and managed by the US embassy in Baghdad. The CPA inspector general, now called the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (Sigir), has just released an audit report on the way the embassy has dealt with that responsibility. The auditors reviewed the files of 225 contracts totalling $327m to see if the embassy "could identify the current value of paid and unpaid contract obligations".

It couldn't. "Our review showed that financial records ... understated payments made by $108,255,875" and "overstated unpaid obligations by $119,361,286". The auditors also reviewed the paperwork of a further 300 contracts worth $332.9m: "Of 198 contract files reviewed, 154 did not contain evidence that goods and services were received, 169 did not contain invoices, and 14 did not contain evidence of payment."

Clearly, the Americans see no need to account for spending Iraqis' national income now any more than they did when Bremer was in charge. Neither the embassy chief of mission nor the US military commander replied to the auditors' invitation to comment. Instead, the US army contracting commander lamely pointed out that "the peaceful conditions envisioned in the early planning continue to elude the reconstruction efforts". This is a remarkable understatement. It's also an admission that Americans can't be expected to do their sums when they are spending other people's money to finance a war.

Lack of accountability does not stop with the Americans. In January this year, the Sigir issued a report detailing evidence of fraud, corruption and waste by the Iraqi Interim Government when Bremer was in charge. They found that $8.8bn - the entire Iraqi Interim Government spending from October 2003 through June 2004 - was not properly accounted for. The Iraqi Office of Budget and Management at one point had only six staff, all of them inexperienced, and most of the ministries had no budget departments. Iraq's newly appointed ministers and their senior officials were free to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars in cash as they pleased, while American "advisers" looked on.

"CPA personnel did not review and compare financial, budgetary and operational performance to planned or expected results," the auditors explained. One ministry gave out $430m in contracts without its CPA advisers seeing any of the paperwork. Another claimed to be paying 8,206 guards, but only 602 could be found. There is simply no way of knowing how much of the $8.8bn has gone to pay for private militias and into private pockets.

"It's remarkable that the inspector general's office could have produced even a draft report with so many misconceptions and inaccuracies," Bremer said in his reply to the Sigir report. "At liberation, the Iraqi economy was dead in the water. So CPA's top priority was to get the economy going."

The Sigir has responded by releasing another audit this April, an investigation into the way Bremer's CPA managed cash payments from Iraqi funds in just one part of Iraq, the region around Hillah: "During the course of the audit, we identified deficiencies in the control of cash ... of such magnitude as to require prompt attention. Those deficiencies were so significant that we were precluded from accomplishing our stated objectives." They found that CPA headquarters in Baghdad "did not maintain full control and accountability for approximately $119.9m", and that agents in the field "cannot properly account for or support over $96.6m in cash and receipts". The agents were mostly Americans in Iraq on short-term contracts. One agent's account balance was "overstated by $2,825,755, and the error went undetected". Another agent was given $25m cash for which Bremer's office "acknowledged not having any supporting documentation". Of more than $23m given to another agent, there are only records for $6,306,836 paid to contractors.

Many of the American agents submitted their paperwork only hours before they headed to the airport. Two left Iraq without accounting for $750,000 each, which has never been found. CPA head office cleared several agents' balances of between $250,000 and $12m without any receipts. One agent who did submit receipts, on being told that he still owed $1,878,870, turned up three days later with exactly that amount. The auditors thought that "this suggests that the agent had a reserve of cash", pointing out that if his original figures had been correct, he would have accounted to the CPA for approximately $3.8m more than he had been given in the first place, which "suggests that the receipt documents provided to the DFI account manager were unreliable".

So where did the money go? You can't see it in Hillah. The schools, hospitals, water supply and electricity, all of which were supposed to benefit from these funds, are in ruins. The inescapable conclusion is that many of the American paying agents grabbed large bundles of cash for themselves and made sweet deals with their Iraqi contacts.

And so it continues. The IAMB's most recent audit of Iraqi government spending talks of "incomplete accounting", "lack of documented justification for limited competition for contracts at the Iraqi ministries", "possible misappropriation of oil revenues", "significant difficulties in ensuring completeness and accuracy of Iraqi budgets and controls over expenditures" and "non-deposit of proceeds of export sales of petroleum products into the appropriate accounts in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1483".

In the absence of any meaningful accountability, Iraqis have no way of knowing how much of the nation's wealth is being used for reconstruction and how much is being handed out to ministers' and civil servants' friends and families or funnelled into secret overseas bank accounts. Given that many Ba'athists are now back in government, some of that money may even be financing the insurgents.

Both Saddam and the US profited handsomely during his reign. He controlled Iraq's wealth while most of Iraq's oil went to Californian refineries to provide cheap petrol for American voters. US corporations, like those who enjoyed Saddam's favour, grew rich. Today, the system is much the same: the oil goes to California, and the new Iraqi government spends the national wealth with impunity.

· Bremer maintained one slush fund of nearly $600m in cash for which there is no paperwork: $200m of it was kept in a room in one of Saddam's former palaces

· 19 billion new Iraqi dinars, worth about £6.5m, was found on a plane in Lebanon that had been sent there by the new Iraqi interior minister

· One ministry claimed to be paying 8,206 guards, but only 602 could be found

· One American agent was given $23m to spend on restructuring; only $6m is accounted for

This is an edited version of an article that appears in the current issue of the London Review of Books (lrb).

Read More...

Karl Rove is a Busy Guy

huffingtonpost.com
Hilary Rosen
Karl Rove is a Busy Guy

If I were Karl Rove, I would worry about going to jail or at least start planning my public contrition for my role in a horrible assault on Valerie Plame and the subsequent events that have two reporters taking the brunt of the fall for my deceit.

But, I am not Karl Rove and the real one is busy. While we are hoping for some humane gestures or god forbid, the truth, on the above story, the real Karl Rove is working hard planting the seeds to secure the nomination of a Supreme Court judge by once again twisting gay and lesbian people's desire for stability and equality into a nasty, divisive political fight.


It is not by accident that the White House definition of an "activist" and therefore unacceptable judiciary revealed in Rove's recent meeting with the editors of the Washington Post centers around decisions that state courts have made to provide equal treatment in marriage rights for gay couples. The Post reported, "Rove said Bush seeks a nominee who will correct what the president sees as a widespread problem of judges who seek to make law rather than narrowly interpret it, citing as an example the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision last year permitting same-sex marriage."

The intensity of the debate will heat up around this issue you can be sure. They think this issue helped them in the election and it will help them once again. When all else fails to ignite the American people, gay marriage is still their bogeyman. Steven Fisher, the smart Communication Director of the Human Rights Campaign says that they are alreday getting calls from reporters prompted, he suspects, by a steady drumbeat from the radical right on the impact a new court will have on future decisions about marriage between same sex couples.

Activist judges making new law. That is their polled and tested line? Oh please. The double talk would be comical if real lives - like mine and my family's - weren't involved.

The President, Karl Rove and their friends on the right claim they need an amendment to the United States Constitution to stop same sex marriage. They failed in the Senate last year but they will renew their push again sometime soon. Doesn't that mean that these people believe that the Constitution currently protects the equal rights of same sex couples? Why else would they have to pass a new amendment? If President Bush nominates a jurist who will "strictly interpret the constitution" and not make new law, it is clear that any Bush nominee will determine that such Constitutional protection for gay and lesbian families exists today.

Yeah right.

Read More...

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Republicans want to speed up death penalty

Reuters
Republicans want to speed up death penalty
Wed Jul 6, 2005

By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans in Congress have launched a new effort to speed up executions in the United States by limiting the ability of those sentenced to death to appeal to federal courts.

The "Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005," introduced into the House of Representatives by California Rep. Dan Lungren and in the Senate by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, would limit the ability of defendants facing the death sentence to have their cases reviewed by federal courts in what are known as habeas corpus appeals.

"You see delays in death penalty cases where they are allowed to drag on for 15 or even 25 years. Defense attorneys have come to believe the longer they delay, the better it is for their clients," Lungren said in an interview.

"We're trying to ensure that habeas corpus is not used as a reason for interminable delays and that defendants get one bite of the apple and not multiple bites," he said.

Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee considering the bill, conceded there was little chance of blocking it in the House.

"The House has been very supportive of anything that would strip the innocent of a fair hearing. This bill will ensure that more innocent people will be put to death," he said in a telephone interview.


Death penalty opponents say the law would strip the ability of federal courts to review most claims in capital cases.

"It seeks a radical cutting and slashing of our existing process of habeas corpus reviews of state convictions," University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt said last week in a hearing before the House subcommittee reviewing the legislation. "This new bill would effectively gut habeas corpus review where states have imposed a sentence of death."

Habeas corpus -- the phrase in Latin for "you have the body" -- has been a centerpiece of Anglo-American jurisprudence since it was first developed over 300 years ago in Britain. It gave a defendant the right to have their imprisonment reviewed by a court.

In U.S. death penalty cases, defense lawyers consider the right to have federal courts oversee state court decisions as a vital weapon in their armory.

POORLY FUNDED LAWYERS

"It is critical. Often, the defendant's original lawyers are so poorly funded and so overworked that they cannot do the basic research that the case requires. That's why the error level is so high in death penalty cases," said one California defense lawyer, who asked not to be named.

A study headed by Columbia University statistician and political scientist Andrew Gelman of all 5,826 death sentences imposed in the United States between 1973 and 1995 found that 68 per cent were reversed on appeal.

The most common reasons were "egregiously incompetent lawyering, prosecutorial misconduct or suppression of evidence, misintruction of jurors or biased judges or jurors," said the study published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

Federal courts examining habeas corpus appeals overturned 40 percent of the cases that had previously been upheld by state appeals courts -- a fact the authors called worrisome.

The number of death sentences handed down in the United States has fallen to around 150 a year from around 300 a year in the late 1990s, according to figures compiled by the Death Penalty Information Center.

Last year, there were 58 executions in the United States and there have been 27 so far this year. The average time a person spends on death row before execution is 11-12 years.

Ronald Eisenberg, a deputy district attorney from Philadelphia, said federal judges often threw out death sentences for frivolous reasons. In Pennsylvania, they have overturned 19 of 20 habeas corpus cases litigated in the past 10 years.

"Whether or not they actually reverse a conviction, federal habeas corpus courts drag litigation out for years of utterly unjustifiable delay, creating exorbitant costs for the state and endless pain for the victims," he told the House subcommittee last week.

Read More...

So Who Are the Activists?

The New York Times
July 6, 2005
So Who Are the Activists?
By PAUL GEWIRTZ and CHAD GOLDER

New Haven

WHEN Democrats or Republicans seek to criticize judges or judicial nominees, they often resort to the same language. They say that the judge is "activist." But the word "activist" is rarely defined. Often it simply means that the judge makes decisions with which the critic disagrees.

In order to move beyond this labeling game, we've identified one reasonably objective and quantifiable measure of a judge's activism, and we've used it to assess the records of the justices on the current Supreme Court.

Here is the question we asked: How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?

Declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional is the boldest thing a judge can do. That's because Congress, as an elected legislative body representing the entire nation, makes decisions that can be presumed to possess a high degree of democratic legitimacy. In an 1867 decision, the Supreme Court itself described striking down Congressional legislation as an act "of great delicacy, and only to be performed where the repugnancy is clear." Until 1991, the court struck down an average of about one Congressional statute every two years. Between 1791 and 1858, only two such invalidations occurred.


Of course, calling Congressional legislation into question is not necessarily a bad thing. If a law is unconstitutional, the court has a responsibility to strike it down. But a marked pattern of invalidating Congressional laws certainly seems like one reasonable definition of judicial activism.

Since the Supreme Court assumed its current composition in 1994, by our count it has upheld or struck down 64 Congressional provisions. That legislation has concerned Social Security, church and state, and campaign finance, among many other issues. We examined the court's decisions in these cases and looked at how each justice voted, regardless of whether he or she concurred with the majority or dissented.

We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.

To say that a justice is activist under this definition is not itself negative. Because striking down Congressional legislation is sometimes justified, some activism is necessary and proper. We can decide whether a particular degree of activism is appropriate only by assessing the merits of a judge's particular decisions and the judge's underlying constitutional views, which may inspire more or fewer invalidations.

Our data no doubt reflects such differences among the justices' constitutional views. But it even more clearly illustrates the varying degrees to which justices would actually intervene in the democratic work of Congress. And in so doing, the data probably demonstrates differences in temperament regarding intervention or restraint.

These differences in the degree of intervention and in temperament tell us far more about "judicial activism" than we commonly understand from the term's use as a mere epithet. As the discussion of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement begins, we hope that debates about "activist judges" will include indicators like these.

Paul Gewirtz is a professor at Yale Law School. Chad Golder graduated from Yale Law School in May.

Read More...

Watergate-Era FBI Chief Gray Dies at 88

ABC News
Watergate-Era FBI Chief Gray Dies at 88
L. Patrick Gray, FBI Acting Director During Watergate Break-In and Ensuing Scandal, Dead at 88
By JOHN PAIN
The Associated Press

Jul. 6, 2005 - L. Patrick Gray, whose yearlong stint as acting FBI director was marked by the Watergate break-in and the ensuing scandal that led to President Nixon's resignation, has died. He was 88.

Gray died at his home in Atlantic Beach from complications from pancreatic cancer, said his son, Ed Gray, of Lyme, N.H.

Just last month, Gray ended 32 years of silence about his role in the Watergate scandal, telling ABC's "This Week" that he had reacted with "total shock, total disbelief" to the revelation that his former deputy, W. Mark Felt, was the secret Watergate source known as Deep Throat.

"He fooled me," said Gray. "It was like I was hit with a tremendous sledgehammer."

Nixon appointed Gray, a former Justice Department official and submarine commander, acting FBI director in May 1972 just weeks before the Watergate break-in after the death of J. Edgar Hoover. Gray was forced to step down in April 1973.

Critics alleged he tried to thwart the Watergate investigation a charge he denied even as Felt was secretly feeding information to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.


When Felt was unmasked as Woodward's source more than 30 years later, Gray said he believed the trusted deputy had been unhappy at being passed over for the top job and had talked to the Post in order to sabotage him.

"I think there was a sense of revenge in his heart, and a sense of dumping my candidacy, if you will," he told ABC.

Gray was never indicted for any Watergate-related misdeeds, but descriptions of him as a Nixon loyalist who helped thwart the investigation and as someone the White House thought could be pushed around dogged him in the years following the scandal. He vigorously disputed the depiction.

Born in St. Louis in 1916, Gray left Rice University in 1936 to enter the U.S. Naval Academy. He graduated from the academy in 1940 and was commissioned as a line officer.

Gray served aboard submarines in World War II and the Korean War during a 20-year career in the Navy. He earned a law degree in 1949 from George Washington University.

He retired from the Navy in 1960 with the rank of captain. Before entering private practice in Connecticut, he worked for then-Vice President Nixon in his failed bid for president in 1960.

Gray returned to government service after Nixon was elected president in 1968, serving as executive assistant to the secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and on the president's Cabinet committee on desegregation. In 1970 he was appointed assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil division.

After he left the FBI, Gray returned to private law practice in New London and Groton, Conn.

He is survived by his wife, Beatrice Kirk Gray, and four sons.

Read More...

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

KARL ROVE: WORSE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN

KARL ROVE: WORSE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN

By Ted Rall
Mon Jul 4, 7:00 PM ET



NEW YORK--In war collaborators are more dangerous than enemy forces,
for they betray with intimate knowledge in painful detail and
demoralize by their cynical example. This explains why, at the end of
occupations, the newly liberated exact vengeance upon their treasonous
countrymen even they allow foreign troops to conduct an orderly
withdrawal.

If, as state-controlled media insists, there is such a creature as a
Global War on Terrorism, our enemies are underground Islamist
organizations allied with or ideologically similar to those that
attacked us on 9/11. But who are the collaborators?

The right points to critics like Michael Moore, yours truly, and Ward
Churchill, the Colorado professor who points out the gaping chasm
between America's high-falooting rhetoric and its historical record.
But these bête noires are guilty only of the all-American actions of
criticism and dissent, not to mention speaking uncomfortable truths to
liars and deniers. As far as we know, no one on what passes for the
"left" (which would be the center-right anywhere else) has betrayed
the United States in the GWOT. No anti-Bush progressive has made
common cause with Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
or any other officially designated "terrorist" group. No American
liberal has handed over classified information or worked to undermine
the CIA.

But it now appears that Karl Rove, GOP golden boy, has done exactly
that.

Last week Time magazine turned over its reporter's notes to a special
prosecutor assigned to learn who told Republican columnist Bob Novak
that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. The revelation, which effectively
ended Plame's CIA career and may have endangered her life, followed
her husband Joe Wilson's publication of a New York Times op-ed piece
that embarrassed the Bush Administration by debunking its claims that
Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger. Time's cowardly
decision to break its promise to a confidential source has had one
beneficial side effect: according to Newsweek, it indicates that Karl
Rove himself made the call to Novak.


One might have expected Rove, the master White House political
strategist who engineered Bush's 2000 coup d'état and post-9/11
permanent war public relations campaign, to have ordered a flunky
underling to carry out this act of high treason. But as the Arab
saying goes, arrogance diminishes wisdom.

Rove, whose gaping maw recently vomited forth that Democrats didn't
care about 9/11, is atypically silent. He did talk to the Time
reporter but "never knowingly disclosed classified information,"
claims his attorney. But there's circumstantial evidence to go along
with Time's leaked notes. Ari Fleischer abruptly resigned as Bush's
press secretary on May 16, 2003, about the same time the White House
became aware of Ambassador Wilson's plans to go public. (Wilson's
article appeared July 6.) Did Fleischer quit because he didn't want to
act as spokesman for Rove's plan to betray CIA agent Plame? Another
interesting coincidence: Novak published his Plame column on July 14,
Fleischer's last day on the job.

If Newsweek's report is accurate, Karl Rove is more morally repugnant
and more anti-American than Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, after all, has
no affiliation with, and therefore no presumed loyalty to, the United
States. Rove, on the other hand, is a U.S. citizen and, as deputy
White House chief of staff, a high-ranking official of the U.S.
government sworn to uphold and defend our nation, its laws and its
interests. Yet he sold out America just to get even with Joe Wilson.

Osama bin Laden, conversely, is loyal to his cause. He has never
exposed an Al Qaeda agent's identity to the media.

"[Knowingly revealing Plame's name and undercover status to the
media]...is a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
and is punishable by as much as ten years in prison," notes the
Washington Post. Unmasking an intelligent agent during a time of war,
however, surely rises to giving aid and comfort to America's
enemies--treason. Treason is punishable by execution under the United
States Code.

How far up the White House food chain does the rot of treason go?
"Bush has always known how to keep Rove in his place," wrote Time in
2002 about a "symbiotic relationship" that dates to 1973. This isn't
some rogue "plumbers" operation. Rove would never go it alone on a
high-stakes action like Valerie Plame. It's a safe bet that other,
higher-ranking figures in the Bush cabal--almost certainly Dick Cheney
and possibly Bush himself--signed off before Rove called Novak. For
the sake of national security, those involved should be removed from
office at once.

Rove and his collaborators should quickly resign and face prosecution
for betraying their country, but given their sense of personal
entitlement impeachment is probably the best we can hope for.
Congress, and all Americans, should place patriotism ahead of party
loyalty.

Read More...

Morphing the Gestapo

Morphing the Gestapo
By Doris Colmes

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=21803&mode=nested&order=0

There I was -- a bratty, independent kid, with a twisted sense of
humor who enjoyed doing illegal things: Entrance into anyplace at all
displaying the "No Dogs or Jews Allowed" signs was fun, even though it
was clearly understood that -- if discovered -- neither dog nor Jew
would ever be seen again, regardless of age. The best game of all,
though, was diving into the Berlin Olympic Pool, and, hiding behind my
Teutonic looks, smiling innocently at the guards. But those men were
just ordinary cops. When it came to the Gestapo, it was best to
quickly and quietly disappear. Oh yes. The Gestapo meant business.

When Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential
liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty
nor safety," he was right on!

In 1930's Germany, "safety" meant "power." The popular sentiment was:
"Power will keep us safe. After all, we are the good people, the ones
who want to clear the planet earth of all who hinder progress, of all
who stand in the way of our good intentions -- and the more power our
Empire has, the safer we will be, the safer we will make the world."
The national slogan, shouted joyfully in the streets, was, after all,
"Heute Deutschland, Morgen Die Welt" (translation: Today Germany,
tomorrow the World).

The Germans, then, willingly gave up essential liberty to purchase
that safety of power, and the Nazis did an excellent job of
facilitating that. They invented the Gestapo, which was an acronym for
Geheime Staats Polizei (Translation: Secret State Police). And the
Gestapo was formidable, indeed.

Black, form-fitting uniform jackets, complete with epaulets; black
breeches tucked into jack-boots polished to such perfection that they
gleamed in all weather; Back hats with visors so glossy, they shone in
the dark. Oh, yes, these men were quite rightfully feared.

In 1930's Germany, it was completely proper, fitting and expected for
persons to turn in to the authorities anyone even remotely suspected
of in some way subverting the government. Neither a suspicion nor an
informant was too small: Children over the age of eight, all of whom
were members of the Hitler Jugend if they were boys and Bund Deutscher
Maedchen if they were girls, were expected to turn in family members
-- including parents -- if they were overheard speaking
disrespectfully or seditiously of Hitler or any members of his
administration. These kids were trained and propagandized to simply
put the "safety" of their great country over the "liberty" of their
families. Thus, if even one's own kids were gleeful informants, can
you imagine what the neighbors were?

When someone was turned in, the Gestapo showed up to do the honors; No
warrant was needed. Time of day or night was irrelevant. Folks simply
got hauled off, and, once taken away, never returned. Gestapo
interrogation methods were simple: Torture them till they talk. Most
of the time -- even if these prisoners had absolutely nothing of value
to report -- they eventually broke under the torture and simply
blurted out whatever they thought the inquisitors wanted to hear. Once
they had spoken, off they went to their deaths at the local
extermination camp, and if they chose not to speak, well, then the
torture continued till they died in the interrogation chamber.

Now, here we are in 2005, in the United States of America, busily
trading essential liberties for the safety of power...We, too,
understand that "safety" means "power." In today's America, the
administration has taught us carefully and clearly that: "Power will
keep us safe. After all, we are the good people, the ones who want to
clear the planet earth of all who hinder progress, of all who stand in
the way of our good intentions -- and the more power our Empire has,
the safer we will be, the safer we will make the world."

We do not have a Gestapo, of course. Intimidating black uniforms with
jack boots and shiny hat visors to match are as out-dated as 33 1/3
RPM music albums. And, after all, the Gestapo wasn't very secret. Our
current fascist government is so much smoother, sophisticated, slicker
than the Nazis ever were. We just have organizations called FBI
(acronym for Federal Bureau of Investigation) and CIA (acronym for
Central Intelligence Agency.)

And, as reported by the Associated Press (June, 2005), we also have an
expanded, broader version of the Patriot Act, which gives the
government more liberties with our liberties than ever before. The
purpose of this expansion "Has, as its significant purpose, the
collection of intelligence."

On June 29, 2005, CNN TV, along with the LA Times-Washington Post News
Service, announced that, In June, 2002, President Bush directed the
creation of a new National Security Service within the FBI. This
little gem specializes in intelligence and other "national security
matters" under the grim direction of John Negroponte, who -- given his
background of association with South American terrorists -- is pretty
savvy when it comes to such matters.

The new service combines counterterrorism, intelligence and espionage
units, and has been mandated to operate in secrecy as needed. "It will
give control of all human intelligence operations to the CIA."

This new department is enthusiastically endorsed by FBI Director
Robert Mueller, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, CIA Director Porter
Goss, and Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff. What a great
new way to prevent terrorism. Now, we not only have secret agents who
can conduct all business in secret, but can also use torture.


"Torture?" You ask, "Now where did you get that from?"

Our current administration clearly understands the value of torture.
After all, when the populace found out about the torture in Abu Ghraib
and at Guantanamo -- amongst other places -- there was no public
outcry. Those inquisitors were -- and continue to -- simply keep us
all safe from terrorists. Good job. Not only that, but, now, torture
is an officially sanctioned governmental procedure.

The very purpose of the international Geneva Conventions, formulated
in 1949 by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human rights, was created to prevent -- ever again -- the kind of
insane torture and ruthless extermination perpetrated by Nazi Germany.
When interrogated, "No physical or mental torture, nor any form of
coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from then
information of any kind whatsoever." The Geneva Conventions, as a
matter of fact, were updated in 1977 to provide greater protections
for victims of armed conflict. To wit: "The presence within the
civilian population of individuals who do not come within the
definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its
civilian character." (Article 50)

But, just this spring, Alberto Gonzales, our own Attorney General,
opened the door to torture when he stated, "The Geneva Conventions are
quaint: They are obsolete."

We all know that torture techniques such as "water boarding,"
electroshock, the use of attack dogs on naked prisoners were/are
commonplace at Guantanamo. In an article by Robert Zeller (06/24/05
"The Triangle") the USA torture system is made even clearer: The USA,
now, routinely sends persons for interrogation to nations that openly
condone torture. "Flogging, anal rape, fingernail extraction,
amputation, submersion in boiling water and mock executions are
standard procedure, often under the eye of American agents" Agents --
from the FBI and CIA -- are sent as escorts with these prisoners, in
order to note all information resulting from these techniques.
According to Robert Zeller, "In so doing, the officials who direct
these agents are in direct violation of the federal War Crimes Act, a
1996 statute that carries the death penalty."

America, on June 28, 2005, officially refused to back a United Nations
protocol against torture, because of fears that this could allow
international monitors to visit terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay.
But, is the secrecy of our "new" FBI/CIA actually new? On June 6,
2002, the Portland Oregonian reported that former University of South
Florida professor, Sami Al-Arian, had his phones bugged, microphones
planted in his office, and faxes as well as computer conversations
recorded. And, all this took place well before the official conversion
of the FBI to "Secrecy." Matter of fact, it was done for nine years,
and no evidence was ever discovered making him in any way less than a
good US Citizen.

On July 1, 2002, FBI agents searched the San Diego home of Rep. Randy
"Duke" Cunningham. No reason was given. No reason HAD to be given. No
one is exempt from these new secret agents and what they choose to do.
Ordinary citizen or legislator -- it doesn't matter. In they come, and
away we go.

And who gets hauled off in the night? France Sénécal, who hosts a
weekly interview program at Radio Station KDVS 90.3 FM at University
of California, Davis, www.kdvs.org reports the horrifying family
experience of "Sitara," a long-time member of "Critical Resistance"
who has often been interviewed on France's program.

With no advance notice, with no warning whatsoever, Sitara's aunt and
uncle were taken away by government agents during the week of June 22,
2005. They have since been locked away in a detention prison in West
Virginia. Sitara states, "They came from Afghanistan about ten years
ago, and have since been involved in a long asylum attempt."

"Aunt, uncle and 19 year-old cousin were home after cousin's
graduation from High School on June 22. Suddenly, on graduation day,
the doorbell rang, and there stood the government officials and
police, saying, "We need to take you for questioning about an
investigation we are doing at Dulles airport (where my aunt worked,
and my uncle also, until his work permit expired and wasn't renewed.).
They told my 19 year-old cousin that his folks would be back that
evening, but, instead, they simply disappeared."

In their West Virginian detention camp, the story they are told
regarding the reason for their detention keeps changing, and no one
knows what's going to happen to them. Will they be deported? And, is
the young cousin also in danger? No one knows.

So, how far are we removed from the Gestapo of Nazi Germany? As Robert
Zeller states, "It (fascism) comes through creating legal non-persons
of citizens and non-citizens alike. It comes through violating human
rights standards, sanitizing torture and condoning murder."

Hermann Goering stated at the Nuremberg trials: "Voice or no voice,
the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders; that
is easy, all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the
country to greater danger."

On June 14, 2005, Senator Dick Durbin, D-Ill compared US interrogators
at Guantanamo with Nazis and other historically infamous figures. By
June 21, 2005, he had been pressured by the administration to the
point that he issued the following: "Some may believe that my remarks
crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies." In this
regard, Durbin represents the entire nation: All of us see what sits
in front of us. All of us are aware of what is going on. All of us
understand that our endorsement of the Patriot Act, the new FBI/CIA
does away with our essential freedoms. But, none of us want to "cross
the line." Are we that close to the mentality of the German citizenry
of the Nazi era? Seems that way, doesn't it.... Heil Hitler.

--
Doris Colmes escaped Nazi Germany in 1938 with her parents, she was 11
at the time. Doris is the author of "The Iron Butterfly" and an
independent writer. She can be reached by email at dhcolmes@msn.com or
via her website at: www.doriscolmes.com.

Read More...

Why Newspapers Are Betting on Audience Participation

The New York Times

Why Newspapers Are Betting on Audience Participation
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

GREENSBORO, N.C. - "Get me rewrite!"

For years those words evoked the romanticism of the newspaper business, back when swashbuckling reporters landed scoops with derring-do. Today they mean something else entirely, at least here where the people at The News & Record, the local daily, are toiling to reinvent their newspaper.

In this world, "Get me rewrite" will in effect be a menu option, a way for unhappy readers to go online and offer their own versions of articles they do not like. Their hope is to convert the paper, through its Web site, www.news-record.com, into a virtual town square, where citizens have a say in the news and where every reader is a reporter.

This feature, part of a planned overhaul of The News & Record's Web site that is to begin next week, is a potent symbol of a transformation taking place across the country, where top-down, voice-of-God journalism is being challenged by what is called participatory journalism, or civic or citizen journalism.

Under this model, readers contribute to the newspaper. And they are doing so in many forms, including blogs, photos, audio, video and podcasts.

Whether such efforts can revive revenue for newspaper publishers is an open question. But with gloomy financial forecasts and declines in circulation, some papers are starting to see participatory journalism as their hope for reconnecting with their audiences.

In some cases, like Backfence.com, in suburban Virginia, citizens are the only contributors, and the "newspaper" is an unedited Web site. In Bluffton, S.C., Blufftontoday.com is made up largely of reader contributions, but some of the content is also published in a colorful tabloid newspaper and distributed free to residents. In Colorado, The Rocky Mountain News is creating 39 local Web sites under the umbrella of YourHub.com, with most of the material intended to come from readers.

The Commercial Appeal in Memphis has community sections on its Web site written by readers but edited by the newspaper. The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Wash., has set up a blog for readers to hash over the paper's daily coverage.

Recently, The Los Angeles Times briefly opened its editorial page so readers could go online and insert their own thoughts in editorials. The approach was patterned after Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia made up of contributions from anyone with something to say. But as the newspaper discovered, there are perils in being so open. Its experiment lasted only two days, before obscene pictures were posted on the Web site, prompting the paper to shut it down.


Nearly all newspapers have been troubled by a range of substantially similar worries: the loss of 18-to-34-year-old readers; the loss of trust in conventional news media; and the emergence of technology, especially blogs, that make it easy for ordinary people to barge into the old media's one-way conversation.

Lex Alexander, an investigative reporter and editor who is overseeing The News & Record's transition, said all the long-term trends for the newspaper were troubling unless it did something different.

The paper, with a circulation around 100,000 that has not increased significantly for almost two decades, has been open about its audience-participation plans, discussing them with readers and seeking direction from them along the way.

Greensboro, a city of 229,000 in the gently rolling hills of central North Carolina with seven colleges nearby, was fertile territory for the town square idea. "Greensboro had a pretty strong blogosphere before we came on the scene, and we were trying to understand it and fit in," said John Robinson, the paper's 52-year-old editor, who has been the engine behind the transformation here.

"They were commenting on civic affairs and what the city council did and all the dumb things The News & Record did, and that annoyed me because they were misinformed," he said. "But they were scooping us. They knew things that were going on that we didn't, in the schools and other places. There was power in what they were doing."

The city has always had its subversive aspects. It was a stop on the Underground Railroad in the 1800's, and it is where black students in 1960 staged the first sit-in at a Woolworth's lunch counter to protest segregation, a movement that spread across the South.

Now, a popular site called www.Greensboro101.com provides residents with what it calls an alternative media hub. Mr. Robinson is considering joining forces with Greensboro101 to pursue an investigation on local water quality that the Web site has begun.

Yet there is fierce competition with bloggers. Several local politicians blog, including Sandy Carmany, a member of the City Council, who blogs in near-real time, and who scooped The News & Record recently on the city budget. Last week, when a News & Record reporter called Tom Phillips, another councilman, for comment on the paper's exclusive information that Wal-Mart was coming to town, Mr. Phillips turned around and broke the news on his own blog.

Greensboro is also home to Ed Cone, a well-known blogger (www.EdCone.com) who writes a column for The News & Record and who is widely credited with encouraging Mr. Robinson to join in the fun.

"They link off-site to other bloggers and they recognize amateurs and independents," Mr. Cone said. "That's the fascinating thing they're doing - they're participating on the Web rather than just using the Web."

Mr. Alexander has proposed several ways for the paper to become interactive, including blogs for all staff members; blogs of daily meetings where articles are planned for the next day's paper; venues for readers to participate, from writing articles to adding comments to obituaries; links from news stories to original sources; letters to the editor online to enable reader discussion about them; and a permanent free archive.

"We're being friendly as opposed to bureaucratic," said Dick Barron, 48, a business reporter.

At this stage, though, enthusiasm in the newsroom for the town square initiative has outstripped the online reality. Charles Stafford, the strategic development manager, said developing the Web site turned out to be a bigger job than the editors had imagined. And management has not yet thrown in more money or staff members.

The unveiling of the new site was bumped back throughout the spring and is now planned on July 11. The site's participatory aspects will not be available until a few months later.

Robin Saul, president and publisher of The News & Record, said the paper was waiting for more marks of success before putting money into the online project and was likely to put it into the sales staff first. "You don't invest resources until you're sure there will be a return," he said. Ann Morris, the managing editor, acknowledged that the business model is "what we lose sleep over."

"Advertisers are very conservative," Ms. Morris said. "And the idea that we're going to be able to bridge this gap from traditional department store retail advertising to all sorts of different ways of generating revenue online - through e-mail, through selling databases, through things we haven't even thought of yet - that's a big bridge."

Steve Outing, who has chronicled the online news industry for Editor & Publisher and is a senior editor at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, said he was not troubled by what he called the Greensboro paper's "unimpressive" start.

"I don't think we're anywhere near figuring this citizen journalism/grass-roots media thing out," he said in an e-mail message. "I do think that if news organizations think that they're going to have everybody be amateur (nonpaid) 'journalists,' they need to think again."

He said people were generally intimidated by the idea of writing news articles but, as the reaction to the Asian tsunami demonstrated, they were comfortable sharing their experiences, particularly photographs.

"I think when we figure out a better way to entice people, to make it worth their while to contribute, then citizen media will start to show promise," he said. "And I think we'll eventually see some business models come out of this that work."

In the Greensboro newsroom, more than a dozen reporters and editors are writing blogs, and many others are participating in video and audio feeds. Jennifer Fernandez and Bruce Buchanan, the two education reporters, began one of the first blogs, called Chalkboard. They said they got so many requests for information that the task of keeping the blog current sometimes meant they did not write articles they might otherwise produce for the paper.

Mr. Buchanan said he was positive about the blog. "It's gotten people excited about the paper and made them feel they have a stake in it."

In May, the blogs received more than 332,000 page views, up from 295,000 in April. But reader comments are still sparse. More lively is the paper's online message board, where readers, who can post items anonymously, offer short spurts of unedited opinion on local topics ranging from jobs with Federal Express to treatment for crack addicts.

While the reader contribution section of the Web site is not yet in full operation, readers can make submissions under a "sneak peek" preview section - even if few have yet.

One, T. W. Caudle, who wrote about his grandson's grand slam home run at a local baseball game, had submitted his article to the print newspaper, but it ran only online. His wife, Shelby, said the family was disappointed that the story did not appear in print because more people might have read it.

"I didn't even know you could see the paper on the computer," Mrs. Caudle said. She said she subscribed to the paper because she liked reading the obituaries and editorials.

Many submissions are oriented toward community service, like a recent announcement seeking families to play host to students from abroad. The announcement was submitted by Virgil Renfroe, who teaches writing to college students and who, at 28, is in the demographic heart of the paper's target audience. When the announcement ran in the print paper, he did not get any responses. Then he put it online and got five replies.

"So there are people online who are looking," he said, but added that he was not one of them. Nor, ominously for The News & Record, does he read the print version either, explaining, "I'm not that interested in local stuff."

While the outreach to readers raises questions about the fundamental role of newspapers, and whether they should be leading readers or following them, Mr. Alexander, who is overseeing the online project, said The News & Record was by no means ceding control. "If we came across a story that needed to be done but would make a lot of people unhappy, we'd still do it," he said. "And we'd still take the heat."

Mr. Cone, the blogger, said that a paper's authority came from "accuracy, authenticity and trust," not from how it was produced. "They haven't given up authority," he said of The News & Record. "They've gained it."

Read More...

Monday, July 04, 2005

High Court's junior member a power broker

ocregister.com
High Court's junior member a power broker

By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The power broker at the Supreme Court this term was the "junior justice," Stephen Breyer. He was on the winning side in the 10 biggest cases of the year, covering capital punishment, medical marijuana, property rights and Ten Commandments displays.

By contrast, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was in the majority only three times as his conservative bloc splintered again and again.

Of course, the top news from the court was the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. She announced on Friday that she would leave as soon as President Bush's nominee is confirmed.

It is the first vacancy on the court since 1994, the longest stretch since the early 1800s.

Bush could have a second seat to fill should the 80-year-old Rehnquist, who has thyroid cancer, decide to step down, too. The widower announced his illness in October and his future on the court is very much in doubt.

O'Connor's pending departure means Breyer finally will shed the "junior justice" title he has held for 11 years. As the newest member of the court, he is saddled with such menial duties as answering the door when justices hold weekly private meetings.

But there was nothing back bench about the performance by the Clinton appointee this session.

The 66-year-old former college professor and congressional lawyer was a pivotal vote in two cases that set a new standard for religious displays in government buildings.

Breyer, known for his amiable style, also is credited with working out a compromise that salvaged federal sentencing guidelines. It was an important decision because about 64,000 people are sentenced in federal courts each year.

"He has such a well-developed sense of diplomacy that it's not surprising to see his long-term moderate vision is now being embraced by the court," said Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal, a former Breyer law clerk.

Among Breyer's surprises this term was his critical role in two Ten Commandments cases decided on the final day of the term. Together, the rulings made clear that overtly religious displays are unconstitutional, but historic ones are allowed. Breyer was the only justice in the majority on both.

"He has become the most pragmatic person on the court. He has a way of taking the temperature of society," said Marci Hamilton, a former O'Connor clerk whose new book is "God vs. The Gavel," about courts and religion.


Overall this session, the court ruled in about 80 cases; one-third of them were resolved on 5-4 votes.

Usually the five conservatives, sometimes known as the "Rehnquist five," vote together in about half of the 5-4 decisions. This year they were together in just five such rulings.

O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, both appointed by President Reagan, were not the swing voters they usually are on sharply divided issues.

"Almost all of the court's members found themselves in unusual alignments as novel questions came before them," said Thomas Goldstein, a lawyer who argues before the court and tracks voting trends.

Rehnquist disagreed with rulings that made it unconstitutional to execute juvenile murderers; said federal drug agents did not have to honor state medical marijuana laws; barred a Ten Commandments display in Kentucky; and empowered local governments to seize people's homes for use for projects that will generate tax revenue.

"This term confirms that Chief Justice Rehnquist's legacy on the court is more in the nature of a correction than a revolution," said Richard Garnett, a Notre Dame law professor and former Rehnquist clerk.

Breyer filed 11 dissents, although none in major cases. He read a dissent from the bench in one case, to demonstrate his dissatisfaction when the court ruled against a Tennessee death row inmate who wanted to pursue more appeals.

Overall, however, the court was sympathetic to claims that inmates had been treated unfairly. The court overturned the death sentences of four inmates. In a fifth case, the justices ruled that states cannot put to death killers who were not at least 18-years-old at the time of the crime.

Playing a pivotal role in the capital punishment cases, and others, was the court's oldest member, 85-year-old John Paul Stevens. Stevens presided on the bench while Rehnquist was receiving radiation and chemotherapy treatments. Rehnquist was off the bench for five months. He voted in most of the cases, however.

Stevens, on the court since 1975, had taken the unusual step of calling for an end to juvenile executions in 2002, but he did not have the votes to accomplish it. He called the executions a "relic of the past" and "inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society." This time, Stevens prevailed with the vote of Kennedy.

"People forget that Justice Stevens has also been on the court a long time, building a legacy of his own," Garnett said.

---

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

Read More...

Presidents not always happy with justices

ocregister.com
Presidents not always happy with justices

By HOPE YEN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Dwight D. Eisenhower called his Supreme Court appointments the "biggest damn fool mistake I ever made." Richard Nixon unwittingly named the future liberal author of Roe v. Wade. George H.W. Bush's choice now evokes a GOP grumble, "No more Souters!"

As President Bush mulls his first high court decision, he knows well that the notion of picking a Supreme Court justice is indeed risky business. He has to get the justice confirmed and then hope that his choice doesn't disappoint him. Already, he's being buffeted by all kinds of advice - not just the institutional "advice and consent" role that the Founding Fathers carved out for the Senate.

Liberal groups are preparing to take aim at any staunchly conservative jurist. Conservative groups remember, with trepidation, that some of the court's most liberal justices were picked by Republican presidents. The lesson is that justices are people and people can be unpredictable.

"There is a long history of those who didn't turn out as expected," said Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who frequently argues before the high court. "It has something to do with their independence - justices, once they're appointed, answering to nobody but themselves."


Bush plans to take material about Supreme Court prospects with him when he goes to Europe on Tuesday. "The legal team has been working on preparing material," Dana Perino, the White House deputy press secretary, said Monday.

Both sides are drawing battle lines after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor - a pivotal vote on abortion, the death penalty and affirmative action - announced last week that she would retire upon Senate confirmation of her successor.

Liberal groups vow to fiercely contest nominees who seek to overturn the 1973 Roe decision affirming abortion rights, while some congressional Republicans were cautioning against any selection of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a close friend of Bush whom they believe isn't steadfastly conservative.

Noting the first President Bush's choice of David H. Souter, who has since become a consistent vote in the court's liberal bloc, some conservatives have said "Gonzales is Spanish for Souter." Gonzales has dismissed the criticism, saying it is the president's opinion that matters.

Justices hold lifetime appointments and are charged with upholding the Constitution, a duty of political independence that requires them to strike down unlawful acts of Congress or the president. Still, there are legal gray areas that can bring cries of dismay from interest groups if justices don't rule as anticipated.

Legal historians said several reasons explain why some nominees disappoint. Many were named despite a clear record of judicial philosophy or views on issues, perhaps because they were prized for factors such as gender, religious affiliation or political background.

The court's internal dynamics also play a factor. Justices craft their opinions with an eye toward attracting at least a five-vote majority. If they adopt a hard-line position on principle, justices risk alienating colleagues and writing lonely dissents for years.

"Generally speaking, nominees who have evolved in unanticipated ways did not have federal court backgrounds," said David Garrow, a Supreme Court historian at Emory University. "It's a response to the pressures of Washington, with the Supreme Court presenting legal questions they did not have to confront before."

They include Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan, two Eisenhower appointees who from the 1950s to the 1970s led the court in assaulting racial segregation and expanding individual rights against the government. Warren was a former Republican governor of California; Brennan, a New Jersey state court judge, was coveted partly as a Catholic.

Eisenhower later said the two were among his biggest presidential mistakes.

Other "disappointments," according to historians, were Harry Blackmun, Nixon's law-and-order choice who penned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision making abortion a constitutional right. He later opposed the death penalty. Souter's primary previous experience was on state courts.

The Supreme Court currently splits 5-4 on polarizing social issues such as the death penalty, even though seven of the nine justices were named by Republican presidents. That's because two of them - Souter and John Paul Stevens, who was chosen by President Gerald Ford - typically vote with the two Democratic appointees.

O'Connor, the first female justice, and Anthony Kennedy, President Reagan's compromise choice after the doomed bid of strong conservative Robert Bork, also have drifted left in recent years, making the conservative majority a fragile one.

Arthur Hellman, a constitutional law expert at the University of Pittsburgh, said he believes O'Connor might have been partly pushed away by the fiery conservative rhetoric of Justice Antonin Scalia, whom the president has cited as the justice he most admires.

A new justice in the strident Scalia mold might have the same moderating effect on Kennedy that Scalia had on O'Connor, Hellman said.

"I think you have a number of justices who, after serving some time on the court, say, 'I like to be in the middle. I like to be in the balance,'" he said. "If you see an extreme on one side, you might recoil and it pushes you into the other camp."

For Bush, the lessons of judicial nominees might mean he chooses a conservative with an extensive paper trail in federal court who won't alienate his or her colleagues and who could also avoid a bruising confirmation battle.

It could also mean that Bush might have to balance the benefits of a historical first, such as the groundbreaking selection of a Hispanic justice, against a firm conservative ideology.

Still, that might not be enough. Speaking three months ago at a university in Towson, Md., O'Connor said perhaps only time could tell how a prospective justice turns out.

"I frankly do not know how anyone going on the court would be able to predict the thousands of issues that come before the court," she said. "I myself couldn't have told President Reagan what I would do on all these issues, because I hadn't faced them."

---

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

Read More...

Rev. Al sets march for bat victim

New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Rev. Al sets march for bat victim
BY NANCY DILLON
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Monday, July 4th, 2005

The Rev. Al Sharpton plans today to retrace the path of a black man savagely beaten in Howard Beach last week - allegedly by white thugs who thought he didn't belong in their neighborhood.

Glenn Moore, 22, who actually lived blocks away from the scene of Wednesday's attack in Queens, remained at Jamaica Hospital in serious but stable condition with a skull fracture.

Police say Nicholas Minucci, a 19-year-old pal of the late crime boss John Gotti's grandsons, led the beating after spotting Moore and two friends on a neighborhood street at 3:30 a.m.

"We want to make it clear he lived in the neighborhood," Sharpton said.

"People who say he shouldn't have been out there at that time of night are wrong. He was 10 blocks from his own apartment," added Sharpton, who is expected to take part in a noon vigil at the hospital, then lead a walk from Moore's home to the scene of the crime.

The trip will come nearly 19 years after Sharpton headed a march through Howard Beach after a white mob chased Michael Griffith, a 23-year-old black man, to his death on the Belt Parkway.


Minucci, a high school dropout, has claimed Moore and two other young black men planned to steal a gold chain. He said Moore threatened him with a screwdriver, though cops dispute that.

Police said Moore and his two friends came to Howard Beach after a failed bid to steal a Chrysler 300 from a street in nearby Lindenwood.

But Moore's relatives noted no robbery occurred, and said the vicious assault was not connected to any crime plans.

"Glenn is in a lot of pain, so we're letting him rest and not asking any questions right now," Moore's stepfather, Thomas Eison, said yesterday. "But either way, he lived in the neighborhood and had a right to be there without being attacked."

Cops say Minucci and Anthony Ench, 21, used racial epithets during the attack, with Ench yelling, "This is what you get when you rob white boys, n----r!"

Both have been charged with hate crimes and were denied bail.

Another Minucci pal, 19-year-old Frank Agostini, has not been charged and is cooperating with the police. Agostini - who Moore told cops punched him in the shoulder, sources said - is the son of an NYPD detective.

"With the state of evidence as it exists now, it doesn't look likely he'll be charged," a law enforcement source said.

Read More...

G8 summit battle lines are drawn

BBC NEWS
G8 summit battle lines are drawn
Leaders and protesters from around the world are drawing out their battle lines ahead of the G8 summit.

In Scotland, where the G8 leaders will meet from Wednesday, hundreds of demonstrators clashed with police as they called for fairer global trade.

Police said they had arrested about 30 protesters in Edinburgh.

African leaders, meanwhile, met in Libya to discuss how to capitalise on a high-profile poverty campaign that was boosted by pop concerts at the weekend.

Africa and global poverty are set to dominate the three-day meeting in Gleneagles, which will be chaired by British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Doubling aid to poor nations and cutting debt are among the summit's declared goals.

Another key topic will be climate change, though US President George W Bush seemed to rule out any new climate control treaty.

Leaders also are likely to take in the impact of both high oil prices and exchange rates on economic stability.


'We're anti-capitalists'

In Edinburgh, police in riot gear and on horseback clashed with several hundred black-clad anarchists and anti-capitalist protesters.

Protesters threw stones, sticks, clumps of grass and drink cans.

Small skirmishes were still going on Monday evening, the BBC's home affairs correspondent Andy Tighe said.

"The agenda in Edinburgh today simply seems to be to disrupt the life of the community," said Chief Superintendent Charles Michie of Lothian and Borders police.

"It's certainly not clear that they are genuine protesters, that they have legitimate concerns."

Demonstrators have hit back, saying the police were heavy-handed and pushed and punched people.

Amid the violence there also were peaceful protests with demonstrators dressed as clowns and some even stripping naked.

"We're anti-capitalists, we're for trade justice," said one woman in a clown costume calling herself General Lovely.

On the west coast of Scotland, about 700 protesters gathered outside the Faslane nuclear submarine base to highlight the fact that wealthy nations are still selling weapons to developing countries.

'Lose hope'


WHAT IS THE G8?
Name
Group of eight major industrialised states, inc Russia
Members
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK, US
Aims
Originally set up to discuss trade and economic issues
Now leaders discuss global issues of the day
2005 Summit agenda
Africa
Climate change

In Libya, leaders of the 53-member African Union, joined by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, have been calling for real change, not hollow words.

"Africa will lose hope" if rich nations break their promises to the continent, said Rene N'Guettia Kouassi, the AU's economic director.

UK Chancellor Gordon Brown said on Sunday that G8 leaders had already made "a great deal of progress" on "one or two of the major issues" of poverty reduction.

He said that:

# G8 nations have already reached agreement on a doubling of aid for poor countries and on 100% debt relief.

# European aid for poorer states was also set to double, with 13 European countries accepting a timetable to increase aid to 0.7% of their annual income.

The US also has been taking steps to address the poverty issue.


President Bush has proposed doubling US aid to Africa over the next five years, lifting it to $8.6bn by 2010, as long as African leaders tackled corruption.

The UK has said it will promote ideas put forward by the Commission for Africa, established by Mr Blair.

The commission recommended 100% debt cancellation for the poorest nations; the doubling of aid to Africa; the removal of barriers to trade with African nations, and improved governance.

Global warming

US resistance to curbs on greenhouse gas emissions means a breakthrough on climate change is unlikely.

President Bush said the fact that the G8 meeting was being chaired by the UK, his close ally in Iraq, would not in itself bring concessions.

"I really don't view our relationship as one of quid pro quo," he told broadcaster ITV.

He ruled out US backing for any Kyoto-style deal on climate change involving legally-binding reductions of carbon emissions, while defending US efforts to tackle climate change.

"The Kyoto treaty would have wrecked our economy if I can be blunt," he said.

Read More...

Sunday, July 03, 2005

The Sacrifice





The Sacrifice

Read More...

How To Predict The End of the Iraq War





How To Predict The End of the Iraq War

Read More...

Eminent Domain





Eminent Domani

Read More...

anysoldier.com






anysoldier.com

Read More...

Drilling our way to energy independence





Drilling our way to energy independence

Read More...

Coming Soon





Coming Soon

Read More...

The Two Wars of the Worlds

The New York Times
July 3, 2005
The Two Wars of the Worlds
By FRANK RICH

ON the morning after George W. Bush spoke to the nation from Fort Bragg, Americans started marching off to Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds." Both halves of this double feature invoked 9/11, perfectly timed for this particular holiday. Ever since "Jaws," a movie set on the July Fourth weekend, broke box office records 30 summers ago, Independence Day has come to stand for terror as much as for freedom.

Decide for yourself if "War of the Worlds" is more terrifying than "Jaws." Either way, it's scarier than the president's speech. Yet the discrepancy between Mr. Spielberg's ability to whip up fear and Mr. Bush's inability isn't merely a matter of aesthetics. On Independence Day 2005, this terror gap is an ideal barometer for gauging the waning political power of a lame-duck president waging what increasingly looks like a lame-duck war.

As we saw on Tuesday night, doomsday isn't the surefire hit it used to be for Mr. Bush. Now that the rhetorical arsenal of W.M.D.'s and mushroom clouds is bare, he had little choice but to bring back that oldie but goodie, 9/11, as the specter of the doom that awaits us if we don't stay the course - his course - in Iraq. By the fifth time he did so, it was hard not to think of that legendary National Lampoon cover: "If you don't buy this magazine, we'll kill this dog."

Planned or not, the sepulchral silence of Mr. Bush's military audience was the perfect dazed response to what was literally a summer rerun. The president gave almost the identical televised address, albeit with four fewer 9/11 references, at the Army War College in Pennsylvania in May 2004. It's so tired that this time around even the normally sympathetic Drudge site gave higher billing to reviews of "War of the Worlds." Fewer TV viewers tuned in than for any prime-time speech in Mr. Bush's presidency. A good thing too, since so much of what he said was, as usual, at odds with reality. The president pledged to "prevent Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban" a full week after Newsweek and The New York Times reported on a new C.I.A. assessment that the war may be turning Iraq into an even more effective magnet and training ground for Islamic militants than Afghanistan was for Al Qaeda in the 1980's and 90's.


"War of the Worlds" makes as many references to 9/11 as Mr. Bush did. The alien attack on America is the work of sleeper cells; the garments of the dead rain down on those fleeing urban apocalypse; poignant fliers are posted for The Missing. There is also a sterling American military that rides to the rescue. Deep in the credits for "War of the Worlds" is a thank-you to the Department of Defense and some half-dozen actual units that participated in the movie, from the Virginia Army National Guard to a Marine battalion from Camp Pendleton, Calif. Indeed, Mr. Spielberg seems to have had markedly more success in recruiting extras for his film than the Pentagon has had of late in drumming up troops for Iraq.

That's not the only way that "War of the Worlds" shows up Mr. Bush. In not terribly coded dialogue, the film makes clear that its Americans know very well how to distinguish a war of choice like that in Iraq from a war of necessity, like that prompted by Al Qaeda's attack on America. Tim Robbins - who else? - pops up to declare that when aliens occupy a country, the "occupations always fail." Even Tom Cruise's doltish teenage screen son is writing a school report on "the French occupation of Algeria."

Mr. Spielberg's movie illuminates, too, how Mr. Bush has flubbed the basic storytelling essential to sustain public support for his Iraq adventure. The president has made a tic of hammering in melodramatic movie tropes: good vs. evil, you're with us or you're with the terrorists, "wanted dead or alive," "bring 'em on," "mission accomplished." When you relay a narrative in that style, the audience expects you to stick to the conventions of the genre; the story can end only with the cavalry charging in to win the big final battle. That's how Mr. Spielberg deploys his platoons, "Saving Private Ryan"-style, in "War of the Worlds." By contrast, Mr. Bush never marshaled the number of troops needed to guarantee Iraq's security and protect its borders; he has now defined "mission accomplished" down from concrete victory to the inchoate spreading of democracy. To start off sounding like Patton and end up parroting Woodrow Wilson is tantamount to ambushing an audience at a John Wayne movie with a final reel by Frank Capra.

Both Mr. Bush's critics and loyalists at times misunderstand where his failure leaves America now. The left frets too much that the public just doesn't get it - that it is bamboozled by the administration and won't see the light until it digests the Downing Street memo. But even if they couldn't bring themselves to vote for John Kerry, most Americans do get it. A majority of the country view the Iraq war as "not worth it" and going badly. They intuitively sense that as USA Today calculated on Friday, there have been more U.S. military deaths (roughly a third more) in the year since Iraq got its sovereignty than in the year before. Last week an ABC News/Washington Post survey also found that a majority now believe that the administration "intentionally misled" us into a war - or, in the words of the Downing Street memo, that the Bush administration "fixed" the intelligence to gin up the mission.

Meanwhile, the war's die-hard supporters, now in the minority, keep clinging to the hope that some speech or Rovian stunt or happy political development in the furtherance of democratic Iraqi self-government can turn public opinion around. Dream on. The most illuminating of all the recent poll numbers was released by the Pew Research Center on June 13: the number of Americans who say that "people they know are becoming less involved emotionally" with news of the war has risen from 26 percent in May 2004 to 44 percent now. Like the war or not, Americans who do not have a relative or neighbor in the fight are simply tuning Iraq out.

The president has no one to blame but himself. The color-coded terror alerts, the repeated John Ashcroft press conferences announcing imminent Armageddon during election season, the endless exploitation of 9/11 have all taken their numbing toll. Fear itself is the emotional card Mr. Bush chose to overplay, and when he plays it now, he is the boy who cried wolf. That's why a film director engaging in utter fantasy can arouse more anxiety about a possible attack on America than our actual commander in chief hitting us with the supposed truth.

If anything, we're back where we were in the lazy summer of 2001, when the president was busy in Crawford ignoring an intelligence report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" and the news media were more preoccupied with a rash of "Jaws"-like shark attacks than with Al Qaeda. The sharks are back, and the "missing girl" drama of Natalee Holloway has echoed the Chandra Levy ur-text. Even the World Trade Center is making a comeback, if we are to believe that the new Freedom Bunker unveiled for ground zero might ever be built.

AS those on all sides of the Iraq argument have said, the only way for Mr. Bush to break through this torpor is to tell Americans the truth. Donald Rumsfeld did exactly that when he said a week ago that the insurgency in Iraq might last as long as 12 years. If that's so, then what? Go ahead and argue that pulling out precipitously or setting a precise exit timetable is each a bad option, guaranteeing that Iraq will become even more of a jihad central than this ill-conceived war has already made it. But what is Plan C?

Mr. Bush could have addressed that question honestly on Tuesday night. Instead of once more cooking the books - exaggerating the number of coalition partners, the number of battle-ready Iraqi troops, the amount of non-American dollars in the Iraq kitty - he could have laid out the long haul in hard facts, explaining the future costs in manpower, money and time, and what sacrifices he proposes for meeting them. He could have been, as he is fond of calling himself, a leader.

It was a blown opportunity, and it's hard to see that there will be another chance. Iraq may not be Vietnam, but The Wall Street Journal reports that the current war's unpopularity now matches the Gallup findings during the Vietnam tipping point, the summer of 1968. As the prospect of midterm elections pumps more and more genuine fear into the hearts of Republicans up for re-election, it's the Bush presidency, not the insurgency, that will be in its last throes. Is the commander in chief so isolated in his bubble that he does not realize this? G.W.B., phone home.

Read More...

Feds Increasingly Classify Documents

The New York Times
July 3, 2005
Increase in the Number of Documents Classified by the Government
By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, - Driven in part by fears of terrorism, government secrecy has reached a historic high by several measures, with federal departments classifying documents at the rate of 125 a minute as they create new categories of semi-secrets bearing vague labels like "sensitive security information."

A record 15.6 million documents were classified last year, nearly double the number in 2001, according to the federal Information Security Oversight Office. Meanwhile, the declassification process, which made millions of historical documents available annually in the 1990's, has slowed to a relative crawl, from a high of 204 million pages in 1997 to just 28 million pages last year.

The increasing secrecy - and its rising cost to taxpayers, estimated by the office at $7.2 billion last year - is drawing protests from a growing array of politicians and activists, including Republican members of Congress, leaders of the independent commission that studied the Sept. 11 attacks and even the top federal official who oversees classification.

The acceleration of secrecy began after the 2001 attacks, as officials sought to curtail access to information that might tip off Al Qaeda about America's vulnerabilities. Such worries have not faded; just this week the Department of Health and Human Services sought unsuccessfully to prevent publication of a scientific paper about the threat of a poisoned milk supply on the ground that it was "a road map for terrorists."

But across the political spectrum there is concern that the hoarding of information could backfire. Thomas H. Kean, chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a former Republican governor of New Jersey, said the failure to prevent the 2001 attacks was rooted not in leaks of sensitive information but in the barriers to sharing information between agencies and with the public.

"You'd just be amazed at the kind of information that's classified - everyday information, things we all know from the newspaper," Mr. Kean said. "We're better off with openness. The best ally we have in protecting ourselves against terrorism is an informed public."

Mr. Kean said he could not legally disclose examples he discovered of unnecessary classification. But others cite cases of what they call secrecy running amok: the Central Intelligence Agency's court fight this year to withhold its budgets from the 1950's and 60's; the Defense Intelligence Agency's deletion of the fact that the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was interested in "fencing, boxing and horseback riding"; and the Justice Department's insistence on blacking out a four-line quotation of a published Supreme Court decision.


Secrecy has long been denounced by liberal watchdog groups like the American Civil Liberties Union. But more conservatives are emerging as skeptics, including Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, whose bill to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act passed the Senate last week. The bill, cosponsored by Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, requires that any legislation creating new exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act explicitly disclose them. It is only part of overhaul efforts proposed by the two.

Mr. Cornyn, a former state attorney general, said he had been trying to persuade his colleagues that freedom of information was not just a concern of the news media. "The people should get the information they need to see if government is doing what they want," he said.

He gets no argument from J. William Leonard, who in his three years as director of the Information Security Oversight Office has waged a lonely battle against overclassification. "I've seen information that was classified that I've also seen published in third-grade textbooks," Mr. Leonard said.

Such missteps may come in part from inexperience. Since 2001, President Bush has extended the power to classify documents to the heads of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. At the Agriculture Department, where officials are concerned about agroterrorism, employees can visit the agency's Web site and easily print out a bright-yellow "sensitive security information" cover sheet.

Such labels for unclassified information deemed sensitive have multiplied in recent years, going beyond the traditional "for official use only" to "law enforcement sensitive," "homeland security sensitive" and other vague tags.

"We find there's such a proliferation of these bogus categories," which lack clear rules or definitions, said Lawrence J. Halloran, an aide to Representative Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican who held a hearing on excessive secrecy in March.

The secrecy wave has reached obscure outposts of federal power. Wes Addington, a lawyer in Prestonsburg, Ky., who represents mine workers filing safety complaints, said the Mine Safety and Health Administration now denied him documents under the Freedom of Information Act that a few years ago were routinely provided.

"Honestly, I don't understand the reason," Mr. Addington said. "I don't see how releasing this stuff would hurt the government."

A spokeswoman for the safety agency, Suzanne Bohnert, said it began withholding inspectors' notes because their release could "harm ongoing enforcement matters."

Some opponents of secrecy say the Bush administration has created an atmosphere that discourages disclosure. Vice President Dick Cheney won a court battle to keep secret the records of his energy task force. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum in October 2001 urging officials to be careful to protect sensitive information.

Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, said the administration viewed public access to information as encroaching on executive power.

But a spokesman for the National Security Council, Frederick L. Jones II, said the effect of the Ashcroft memorandum had been "greatly exaggerated" by critics. Mr. Jones blamed the increasing use of e-mail for the rapid rise in classified documents. He added that the president had nominated members for a planned Public Interest Declassification Board that would guard against excessive secrecy.

"The administration is proud of its record of openness," Mr. Jones said.

Mr. Blanton's group, which files hundreds of Freedom of Information requests each year, occasionally gets a glimpse of the arbitrariness of bureaucrats' decisions. In 1999, the Defense Intelligence Agency released its two-page Pinochet biography without deletions. Three years later, it released the same document with half the text deleted, including such comments as "Gen. Pinochet is conservative in his political thinking."

In a recent battle, Steven Aftergood, who directs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, sought C.I.A. budgets for 1947 to 1970. A judge gave him only the 1963 budget, because it had already been released.

"I don't know any intelligence professional who says, 'I'll stake my integrity on the need to protect the 1962 intelligence budget,' " Mr. Aftergood said.

But a C.I.A. spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, said that releasing even old budgets could prove a slippery slope. "The budget remains classified to prevent America's adversaries from piecing together the national security priorities set for the C.I.A.," he said. "This is not secrecy for secrecy's sake."

On the Net:

Report at:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/2004rpt.pdf

Read More...

Bush Administration Has Failed Vets

ABC News
Bush Administration Has Failed Vets
In Dems' Address, Senator Says Veterans Affairs Shortfall Another Failure for Bush Administration
The Associated Press

Jul. 2, 2005 - President Bush's recent denials concerning the financial straits of the Veterans Affairs Department represented another administration failure to level with Americans about the costs of the Iraq war, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said Saturday.

"Due to their failures, we saw troops using scrap metal to armor their Humvees," Murray said in the weekly Democratic radio address.

"Due to their failures, we saw families raising funds to buy bulletproof vests for soldiers fighting in Iraq. And now, due to their failures, we see that the VA doesn't have the money to provide the needed medical care when our troops return home."


Murray and other Democrats had long questioned whether the department would have enough money to pay medical costs for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration repeatedly denied it, but the VA acknowledged last week it was short at least $1 billion this year.

On Wednesday, the Senate voted 96-0 to spend an extra $1.5 billion to cover the politically sensitive shortfall.

"We're still working to find out the exact size of the shortfall, but one thing is clear: It results from either deliberate misdirection or gross incompetence," Murray said.

"The president has an obligation to our troops, their families and to the American people to tell the truth about the costs and sacrifices necessary to win the war in Iraq," she said. "There's no better time than now, as we celebrate our country's independence and all that is great about this nation, for the president to give us the facts and lay out a plan."

Read More...

High Court's Next Term Full of Big Cases

ABC News
High Court's Next Term Full of Big Cases
Supreme Court's Next Term Loaded With Contentious Issues As Justice O'Connor Leaves the Bench
By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press

Jul. 3, 2005 - Abortion, assisted suicide, gay rights, the death penalty. Some of the toughest issues in the land confront the Supreme Court in its new term in the fall.

A new lineup of justices assuming the successor to influential Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is on the bench makes the outcome of these cases more unpredictable than usual.

The high court has not had a new member since 1994, a modern-era record. That stability has made it easier to gauge what issues the court will take on and how they will be decided.

On major ones, the court frequently splits 5-4. O'Connor, a moderate put on the court by President Reagan, has been a key vote in death penalty, religion and abortion cases. Her view often became the final word.

Her retirement, announced Friday, shook up the world of Supreme Court lawyers who prepared cases with O'Connor in mind.

"She was widely viewed as the key by experienced and successful litigators. They'll have to figure some other way to win their cases," said Nelson Lund, a George Mason University law professor and former clerk to O'Connor.

O'Connor said that she will remain on the court until her successor is confirmed. Depending on President Bush's choice, there could be a lengthy fight that stretches into the fall.

If O'Connor is not able to continue serving, many major cases could leave the court split 4-4.

Also in doubt is the future of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who has cancer and could step down this summer, too. The last time there were two vacancies was 1971.

Justices already have a full lineup of cases for the nine-month term that begins the first Monday in October. The court has agreed to hear about 40 appeals, including four death penalty cases and two abortion-related cases. About 40 more appeals will be added later.

Whoever the president names to the court will immediately face cases involving the Bush administration.


In one, the court will decide if law schools may restrict military recruiters as a way of protesting the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy excluding openly gay people from military service.

Schools argue that their nondiscrimination policies apply to all recruiters that base hiring on race, gender or sexual orientation.

Justices will take up the administration's challenge to Oregon's law allowing physician-assisted suicide. In addition, there is a fight that tests freedom of religion, over a church's use of hallucinogenic tea in its religious services.

The abortion cases involve a parental notification law from New Hampshire and a long-running fight over the liability of people who protest outside clinics.

O'Connor's successor probably will be quizzed during Senate confirmation hearings about those subjects.

"I'd expect any of the nominees to duck answering," said Paul Schiff Berman, a law professor at the University of Connecticut.

Berman said that a major question is whether the new justice will be a pragmatist like O'Connor.

The 75-year-old former Arizona state senator and mother of three sons approached cases with a practical view.

"She always chose the least extreme solution, the compromise solution," Berman said. "She's kept the court very close to the American popular consensus on most issues."

Unlike the court's other conservatives, she believes that affirmative action has a place in government institutions, although limited. She believes that abortion should be legal. While she supports the death penalty, she has talked openly about concerns that it is being fairly imposed.

Among the death penalty cases in the next term is a potentially significant issue of allowing inmates to get a new chance to prove their innocence with DNA evidence.

"In many cases, Justice O'Connor's votes were to protect the rights of defendants," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the anti-capital punishment Death Penalty Information Center.

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

Read More...

Bush pressured on Supreme Court

BBC NEWS
Bush pressured on Supreme Court

US President George W Bush is facing growing calls to appoint a centrist to replace Sandra Day O'Connor - the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

Democratic senators said they would oppose a conservative nominee.

Mr Bush has said he will select a replacement that the nation deserves and "Americans can be proud of".

Ms O'Connor, 75, has often cast the deciding vote on the nine-member court, leading some US commentators to call her the most powerful woman in America.

She announced her wish to retire on Friday - becoming the first Supreme Court justice to do so since 1994.

'Reagan standard'

Speculation has mounted that Mr Bush will nominate a conservative to the court in an effort to tilt the balance of opinion on the bench.

Ms O'Connor - a former Arizona politician - was nominated by President Ronald Reagan and took up her seat in 1981.

Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd urged Mr Bush to follow Reagan's example in making his choice.

"Ronald Reagan was arguably the most conservative president of our time and he chose someone who was confirmed with a vote of 99-nothing," Mr Dodd said.

"That's the standard."

Senator Edward Kennedy said Mr Bush could expect opposition if he chose a conservative.

"If the president nominates someone who threatens to roll back the rights and freedom of the American people, the American people will insist we oppose that nominee, and we will do so," Mr Kennedy said.


The White House said Mr Bush was studying the possible candidates.

The president said he would be "deliberate and thorough" in this process.

"The nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court justice that Americans can be proud of," Mr Bush said.

"The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate, characterised by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote," said the president in a reference to possible clashes in the upper house.

According to reports, both camps have amassed record sums to spend on adverts promoting or attacking candidates for the vacancy.

Brian McCabe, president of the conservative pressure group Progress for America, said Mr Bush's choice "deserves genuine consideration - not instant attacks".

Ralph Neas, of the liberal organisation People for the American Way, described the nomination process as "a crucial test" for Mr Bush.

Read More...

Live 8 success hailed by Geldof

BBC NEWS
Live 8 success hailed by Geldof

Live 8 organiser Bob Geldof says he is confident world leaders at next week's G8 summit will listen to the call for more action to tackle global poverty.

He said that the Live 8 day concerts and protests had been "full of hope and possibility and life".

Chancellor Gordon Brown said it was proof "people can have power if they make their views felt".

Shows were held in 10 cities, including London, Philadelphia, Paris, Berlin, Johannesburg, Rome and Moscow.

They were designed to put pressure on the G8 leaders who are meeting next week in Gleneagles in Scotland.


Mr Brown compared the spectacular to the 1985 Live Aid concert, also organised by Geldof, to raise funds for famine relief in Ethiopia.

"In 1985 it was about charity, raising money for charity, when it was Live Aid," he said.

"Today it's about a campaign for justice and empowerment for millions of people round the world..."

Peter Mandelson, the European Union's Trade Commissioner, said the pressure had to be maintained.

"They can't ignore it," he told BBC Television. "We need to see ... that energy channeled into continuing pressure and interest and attention not just to the issues of humanitarian aid and debt relief, but trade."

Geldof said: "Mahatma Gandhi freed a continent, Martin Luther King freed a people, Nelson Mandela freed a country. It does work. They will listen."

In London, the concert was watched by 205,000 music fans who came to hear acts including Madonna, U2, Coldplay, Sir Elton John and Sting and Sir Paul McCartney and Bono.

As the 10-hour marathon concert drew to a close, Sir Paul thanked the crowd for their support to the anti-poverty campaign.

"Everybody who's come along today has come for the right reason. We hope that the people, the heads of G8 are listening hard," he said.

"They can't avoid this, they cannot have missed it and all you people who've come along for this message - we love you."

United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan was also a guest at the London gig. He told the crowd: "This is really a united nations."

He said: "The whole world has come together in solidarity with the poor. On behalf of the poor, the voiceless and the weak, I say thank you. "

'Genocide'

In Johannesburg, the concert was attended by 8,000 people who were entertained by mainly African acts.

The former South African President, Nelson Mandela, also appeared on stage. He said that if the G8 leaders failed to act they would be committing a crime against humanity.

"History and the generations to come will judge our leaders by the decisions they make in the coming weeks.

"I say to all those leaders: Do not look the other way, do not hesitate ... It is within your power to prevent a genocide."

Africans who knew about the global concerts thought they were a good idea but some questioned why their own musicians had been sidelined.

"What do participating musicians know about Africa?" asked Susan Outa, a student in Nairobi. "How do we know whether half of them have even visited a single African country?"

In Philadelphia, Destiny's Child, Jay Z and Bon Jovi were among the big performers, watched by a crowd of nearly one million people. And in Berlin, the Beach Boys co-founder Brian Wilson and American rockers Green Day fired up a crowd of 150,000 in Tiergarten park.

The Canadian concert in Barrie, Ontario attracted 35,000, with performers including Bryan Adams and Neil Young.

In Tokyo the concert drew around 10,000 people, all of whom were selected in a lottery.

Disappointing turn-out

In Rome, Faith Hill, Duran Duran and a host of Italian stars took to the stage in Rome's Circus Maximus.

The number of people watching grew to around 50,000 by the evening, although organisers had been hoping for up to one million people.

The Italian media said a combination of the summer heat, annual holidays, plus the draw of watching the other worldwide events at home on television, might have caused the lower turn-out.

Some of the artists also said the mainly home-grown line-up for the Rome concert was less attractive than the global stars, such as the Pink Floyd, who were playing in London.

"I'm sure they all went to see Pink Floyd in London," said Cesare Cremonini, one of the stars at the Rome concert.

"I, too, would probably have wondered whether it was better to go to Rome to see Cremonini or to London to see Pink Floyd."

Elsewhere, the Paris concert attracted 100,000 and a concert of African artists at the Eden Project on the UK's south west coast drew more than 5,000.

Read More...

TAXES -- THE RICH GET RICHER AND OFF SCOT-FREE

progressreport.org
TAXES -- THE RICH GET RICHER AND OFF SCOT-FREE

The Internal Revenue Service's annual report on wealthy Americans found that the "number of affluent individuals and married couples who paid no federal income
taxes
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/national/01tax.html?ei=5090&en=4d9723bfe4c417f2&ex=1277870400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)
jumped more than 15 percent in 2002." Additionally, the "chances of
having a large income but not paying taxes on any of it are growing."


The report also found that thousands of people from this group lived
completely free of income tax to any government whatsoever and almost 83,000
of the high-income earners paid less in taxes for every dollar of
income than the national average for all Americans.

Read More...

LINCOLN MEMORIAL GONE WILD

progressreport.org
LINCOLN MEMORIAL GONE WILD

The National Park Service "has been out buying video footage of conservative rallies"
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050701/ap_on_go_ot/lincoln_memorial_video;_ylt=AjXwYX5YOjbyKSoNUHNYdpxI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
to make an 8 minute video shown at the Lincoln memorial more
acceptable for conservative activists. Internal Park Service documents show
that "the service bought footage of President Bush, pro-gun demonstrations
and pro-Iraq war rallies and even considered cutting out a section
showing former President Clinton."



Right-wing activists, like the Traditional Values Coaltion's Rev. Louis Sheldon, say the current video -- which shows glimpses of several rallies held at the monument -- gives "the impression that Lincoln would have supported abortion and homosexuality."
So far, the Park Service has spent $20,000 on the project.

Read More...