NYPD Reveals Details of London Attack

Yahoo! News
NYPD Reveals Details of London Attack

By TOM HAYS, Associated Press Writer

The London suicide bombers cooked up their explosives using mundane items like hydrogen peroxide, suggesting that "these terrorists went to a hardware store or some beauty supply store" for ingredients, according to New York City police.

Details from the July 7 London bombings emerged Wednesday at an unusually wide-ranging briefing given by the New York Police Department to city business leaders. A department spokesman later acknowledged that London officials had not authorized the briefing.

The briefing — based partly on information obtained by NYPD detectives who were dispatched to London to monitor the investigation — was part of a program designed to encourage more vigilance by private security at large hotels, Wall Street firms, storage facilities and other companies.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly warned the materials and methods used in the London attack were easily adaptable to New York.

"Initially it was thought that perhaps the materials were high-end military explosives that were smuggled, but it turns out not to be the case," Kelly said. "It's more like these terrorists went to a hardware store or some beauty supply store."


The NYPD officials said investigators believe the bombers used a peroxide-based explosive called HMDT, or hexamethylene triperoxide diamine. HMDT can be made using ordinary ingredients like hydrogen peroxide (hair bleach), citric acid (a common food preservative) and heat tablets (sometimes used by the military for cooking).

HMDT degrades at room temperature, so the bombers preserved it in way that offered an early warning sign, said Michael Sheehan, deputy commissioner of counterterrorism at the nation's largest police department.

"In the flophouse where this was built in Leeds, they had commercial grade refrigerators to keep the materials cool," Sheehan said, describing the setup as "an indicator of a problem."

Among the other details cited by NYPD officials:

• The bombers transported the explosives in beverage coolers tucked in the back of two cars to the outskirts of London.

• Investigators believe the three bombs that exploded in the subway were detonated by cell phones that had alarms set to 8:50 a.m.

• Similar "explosive compounds" were used in the attempted attack in London on July 21. However, the detonators were hand-activated, not timed.

Sheehan said the NYPD was troubled by information it had received about the bombers' links to "organizations," but he did not name any groups.

"We know those same types of organizations that they're affiliated with are very much present in New York City," he said. "That's something we're studying very, very carefully. ... This could happen here."

After the briefing, police spokesman Paul Browne claimed NYPD had clearance from British authorities to present the information about the July 7 attack, which killed 52 people. On Thursday, he said had been mistaken.

However, Browne insisted "all the information in the briefing was from open and unclassified sources."

The session at police headquarters in lower Manhattan was attended by officials from police departments and law enforcement agencies in Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and other jurisdictions. The officials were in the city discussing plans to beef up security along Amtrak's New York-Washington route.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush unswayed by Sen. Frist on stem cell research

Reuters

Bush unswayed by Sen. Frist on stem cell research

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush in remarks published on Wednesday reiterated his threat to veto any legislation that would use federal funds to destroy human embryos for stem cell research after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist broke with Bush on the subject.

"I'm confident that I have achieved the right balance between science and ethics," he told eight newspapers in a roundtable interview on Tuesday.

Frist, a Tennessee Republican and surgeon, last Friday endorsed legislation that would expand federally funded embryonic stem cell research, seen as possible cures to diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and others.


Bush allowed federal funding for stem cell research in 2001 but imposed limits on it. He has vowed to veto the pending legislation because embryos are destroyed when the stem cells are extracted.

The bill, approved in the House and likely to come up in the Senate after the August recess, would allow federally funded research on stem cells derived from leftover embryos in fertility clinics. There are currently about 400,000 such frozen embryos, many of which will otherwise be destroyed.

"They have the prerogative to pass laws. I have the prerogative to set limits on what I think is right," Bush said of congressional efforts to lift the restrictions he imposed.

The White House would not provide a transcript of Bush's remarks, in keeping with its policy that interviews are exclusive to the news organization.

But White House spokesman Trent Duffy said that in the interview "reiterated that he would veto any legislation that would use taxpayer dollars to destroy human embryos. That is the line he has drawn."

In the interview, Bush also said he was "troubled" by a recent ruling by the Supreme Court on eminent domain that curbed property rights.

By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that a city can take a person's home or business with just compensation for a development project designed to revitalize a depressed local economy.

Bush said he would give serious review to congressional efforts to ease its impact through legislation.

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrats celebrate narrow U.S. House loss in Ohio

Reuters
Democrats celebrate narrow U.S. House loss in Ohio

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats on Wednesday celebrated a closer-than-expected loss in a special House of Representatives race in Ohio and called it a warning sign for Republicans entering the 2006 congressional elections.

But Republicans cautioned against reading too much into Jean Schmidt's narrow win over Democrat and Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, saying low turnout and local issues made the race unique and kept it from being a bellwether on Republican leadership or President Bush.

Schmidt, a former state representative, beat Hackett by 3,500 votes out of more than 112,000 cast in the conservative and heavily Republican district, where no Democrat in decades had won or even managed 40 percent of the vote.

Hackett's criticism of the Iraq war and tough attacks on Bush energized the contest to replace Rob Portman, who resigned to become U.S. trade representative after regularly rolling up 70 percent of the vote in the district.

"Every Republican in Congress should consider himself put on notice," Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said of Tuesday's results.

Hackett tried to tie Schmidt to ethics allegations against unpopular Ohio Republican Gov. Bob Taft, and Democrats hope to make ethics scandals surrounding Texas Rep. Tom DeLay and other Republicans a centerpiece of their 2006 campaign.

Democrats said the close race was a sign that scandals and dissatisfaction with the country's direction were taking a toll on Republicans.

"Americans will no longer tolerate the Republicans' continued abuses of power and catering to corporate special interests," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said.


But Republicans said the low turnout, well below the nearly 300,000 votes cast in 2004, and the races run by the two candidates skewed the results.

"Special elections are unique, they don't always reflect the district's usual results," said Carl Forti, a spokesman for the House Republican campaign committee. He said Hackett's two television advertisements featured Bush and made no mention of the fact Hackett was a Democrat.

"Hackett ran as a Republican, he never called himself a Democrat," Forti said, adding Democrats had "a long way to go" to make ethics a national issue for 2006.

Amy Walter, a House analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Report, said Hackett ran a much better campaign than Schmidt and was a stronger candidate. The result, however, should give Democrats hope and make some Republicans nervous, she said.

"Republicans in Ohio should definitely be very concerned about this," Walter said, noting several incumbent Ohio Republicans, most notably Rep. Bob Ney, face potentially tough re-election races next year.

Hackett said the result should encourage Democrats nationwide.

"We have the power to win back Congress. Yesterday proved it," he said in an e-mail fund-raising pitch for Democracy for America, the group started by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

"Yesterday, one of the reddest regions in America turned a whole lot bluer," Hackett said.

Read More...

Summary only...

None dare call it stolen - Ohio, the election, and America's servile press

freepress.org
None dare call it stolen - Ohio, the election, and America's servile press
by Mark Crispin Miller, summarized by Mary Anne Saucier, Columbus, Ohio


While commentators, prompted by Republicans, claimed Bush won the 2004 election through the votes of a silent majority concerned with “family values,” Mark Crispin Miller writes that when voters were asked to state, “in their own words the most important factor in their vote,”only 14 percent named “moral values.” He details how the press (except for Keith Olbermann on MSNBC) ignored “the strange details of the election—except, that is, to ridicule all efforts to discuss them…It was as if they were reporting from inside a forest fire without acknowledging the fire, except to keep insisting that there was no fire.”

Then he lists the copious evidence pointing to a stolen election, easily available on the web or in paperback, from Michigan Representative John Conyers’ report, Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio. More than dirty tricks, it covers “the run-up to the election, the election itself, and the post-election cover-up,” listing “specific violations of the U.S. and Ohio constitutions, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act.”

The Conyers report details the disenfranchisement of Democrats through “intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.”

# There was unequal placement of voting machines.
# County boards of elections were ordered to reject all Ohio voter-registration forms not printed on white, uncoated paper of not less than 80 lb. text weight.
# Access was limited to provisional ballots.
# “Caging”was used to challenge 35,000 individuals who did not sign for registered letters sent to new voters.
# There was restriction of media from covering the election and conducting exit polls.
# There was a prearranged FBI terrorist attack warning in Warren County which kept reporters from observing a post-election ballot-counting.
# There was restriction of foreign monitors from “watching the opening of the polling places, the counting of the ballots, and, in some cases, the election itself.
# Numerous statistical anomalies all deducted votes from Kerry.
# In Cuyahoga and Franklin Counties, “the arrows on the absentee ballots were not properly aligned with their respective punch holes, so that countless votes were miscast.”
# In Mercer County, 4000 votes were mysteriously not in the final count.
# In Lucas County a polling place never opened because no one had the key.
# In Hamilton County, many absentee voters could not vote for Kerry because his name was not on the ballot.
# In Mahoning County 25 electronic machines changed Kerry votes to Bush.
# Dirty tricks told voters to go to false polling places; that Democrats were to vote on November 3; volunteers offered to take absentee ballots to the election office; voters were challenged to prove eligibility to vote. The “Texas Strike Force” (25 people registered at a Franklin County Holiday Inn, paid by the Republican Party) threatened targeted people from a pay phone, if they voted.
# Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell created rules for the Ohio recount (requested by the Green and Libertarian Parties) which would prevent “countywide hand recounts by any means necessary.” The end result was “the Ohio vote was never properly recounted, as required by Ohio law.”
# On December 13, 2004, it was reported by Deputy Director of Hocking County Elections Sherole Eaton, that a Triad GSI employee had changed the computer that operated the tabulating machine, and had “advised election officials how to manipulate voting machinery to ensure that [the] preliminary hand recount matched the machine count.” This same Triad employee said he worked on machines in Lorain, Muskingum, Clark, Harrison, and Guernsey counties.

“Based on the above, including actual admissions and statements by Triad employees, it strongly appears that Triad and its employees engaged in a course of behavior to provide “cheat sheets” to those counting the ballots. The cheat sheets told them how many votes they should find for each candidate, and how many over and under votes they should calculate to match the machine count. In that way, they could avoid doing a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state law. If true, this would frustrate the entire purpose of the recount law—to randomly ascertain if the vote counting apparatus is operating fairly and effectively, and if not to conduct a full hand recount.”


# In Union County, Triad replaced the hard drive on one tabulator.
# In Monroe County, “after the 3 percent hand count had twice failed to match the machine count, a Triad employee brought in a new machine and took away the old one. (That machine’s count matched the hand count.)”
# Green and Libertarian volunteers reported that in Allen, Clermont, Cuyahoga, Morrow, Hocking, Vinton, Summit, and Medina counties, “the precincts for the 3 percent hand recount were preselected, not picked at random, as the law requires.”
# Even though the 3 percent hand recount in Fairfield County was different than the machine count, there was no hand count as required.
# “In Washington and Lucas counties, ballots were marked or altered, apparently to ensure that the hand recount would equal the machine count.”
# “In Ashland, Portage, and Coshocton counties, ballots were improperly unsealed or stored.”
# At great cost, Belmont County had an independent programmer change the counting machines so they would only count votes for President.
# “..Democratic and/or Green observers were denied access to absentee, and /or provisional ballots, or were not allowed to monitor the recount process, in Summit, Huron, Putnam, Allen, Holmes, Mahoning, Licking, Stark, Medina, Warren, and Morgan counties.

Miller writes about the January 6, 2005 Electoral challenge from Ohio Representative Stephonie Tubbs-Jones and California Senator Barbara Boxer. He decries its rejection by the Congress and the press, with the Republicans calling the Democrats “troublemakers and cynical manipulators”, etc., etc.

According to Miller, “all this commentary was simply wrong” and “went unnoticed and/or unreported;” and with Bush’s re-inauguration “all inquiries were apparently concluded, and the story was officially kaput.” Miller emphasizes that, even after the National Election Data Archive Project, on March 31, 2005, “released its study demonstrating that the exit polls had probably been right, it made news only in the Akron Beacon-Journal,” while “the thesis that the exit polls were flawed had been reported by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, USA Today, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Columbus Dispatch, CNN.com, MSNBC, and ABC..”

In conclusion, Mark Crispin Miller does not expect to reverse the 2004 election, but to make it possible for us to move on, and achieve real electoral reform.

…The point of our revisiting the last election.. is to see exactly what the damage was so that the people can demand appropriate reforms… for there has never been a great reform that was not driven by some major scandal.

...In this nation’s epic struggle on behalf of freedom, reason, and democracy, the press has unilaterally disarmed—and therefore many good Americans, both liberal and conservative, have lost faith in the promise of self-government. That vast surrender is demoralizing, certainly, but if we face it, and endeavor to reverse it, it will not prove fatal. This democracy can survive a plot to hijack an election. What it cannot survive is our indifference to, or unawareness of, the evidence that such a plot has succeeded.

The piece on which this summary is based was originally published in Harper's (http://harpers.org). Mark Crispin Miller is a professor at New York University, a political/media commentator, and author of his latest book, Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the Election of 2004, and Why They Will Keep Doing It Unless We StopThem, which will be published by Basic Books this October.

Read More...

Summary only...

When They Knew

time.com

When They Knew
By MASSIMO CALABRESI

As the investigation tightens into the leak of the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, sources tell TIME some White House officials may have learned she was married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson weeks before his July 6, 2003, Op-Ed piece criticizing the Administration. That prospect increases the chances that White House official Karl Rove and others learned about Plame from within the Administration rather than from media contacts. Rove has told investigators he believes he learned of her directly or indirectly from reporters, according to his lawyer.

The previously undisclosed fact gathering began in the first week of June 2003 at the CIA, when its public-affairs office received an inquiry about Wilson's trip to Africa from veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus. That office then contacted Plame's unit, which had sent Wilson to Niger, but stopped short of drafting an internal report. The same week, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman asked for and received a memo on the Wilson trip from Carl Ford, head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Sources familiar with the memo, which disclosed Plame's relationship to Wilson, say Secretary of State Colin Powell read it in mid-June. Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage may have received a copy then too.



When Pincus' article ran on June 12, the circle of senior officials who knew about the identity of Wilson's wife expanded. "After Pincus," a former intelligence officer says, "there was general discussion with the National Security Council and the White House and State Department and others" about Wilson's trip and its origins. A source familiar with the memo says neither Powell nor Armitage spoke to the White House about it until after July 6. John McLaughlin, then deputy head of the CIA, confirms that the White House asked about the Wilson trip, but can't remember exactly when. One thing he's sure of, says McLaughlin, who has been interviewed by prosecutors, is that "we looked into it and found the facts of it, and passed it on."

--By Massimo Calabresi. With reporting by Timothy J. Burger, Michael Duffy and Viveca Novak

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Surpasses 1,800

Yahoo! News
U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Surpasses 1,800

By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer

Seven U.S. Marines were killed in two separate attacks west of Baghdad, where American forces are trying to seal a major border infiltration route for foreign fighters, the military said Tuesday. The deaths pushed the U.S. military death toll in Iraq past 1,800.

One of the Marines died Monday in a suicide car bombing in Hit, 85 miles northwest of Baghdad. The other six were killed Monday in Haditha, 50 miles from Hit — all of them attached to the same suburban Cleveland unit.

"Every single one of them is a hero," said Lt. Col. Kevin Rush of the Headquarters and Service Co. 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines based in Brook Park, Ohio.

At least 25 American service members have been killed in Iraq in the past 10 days — all but two in combat. The Iraqi Defense Ministry said that since the beginning of April, more than 2,700 Iraqis — about half of them civilians — had been killed in insurgency-related incidents.


Fighting has intensified in recent weeks in Haditha, Hit and other dusty towns along the Euphrates River northwest of Baghdad as American forces step up efforts to seal off the approaches to the Syrian border and prevent foreign fighters from entering the country.

The Marines launched a series of operations in the region in May and June in hopes of pacifying the area so that Iraqi military and civilian forces could assume effective control. But the insurgents have proven resilient.

The U.S. command said the six Marines were "engaged by terrorists and killed by small-arms fire" in Haditha, which U.S. and Iraqi officials have identified as a major route for insurgents entering Iraq.

After the attack, residents of Haditha said several masked gunmen identifying themselves as members of the Ansar al-Sunnah Army, a major Sunni Arab insurgent group, appeared in the market carrying helmets, flak jackets and automatic rifles they said belonged to U.S. troops.

They distributed fliers claiming they had killed 10 American service members.

"They were on a mountain near the town so we went up, surrounded them and asked them to surrender," the statement said. "They did not surrender so we killed them."

A similar claim in the name of Ansar al-Sunnah was posted on an Islamic Web site.

In Baghdad, a roadside bomb exploded at the entrance to a highway tunnel in central Baghdad as a U.S. military convoy was passing, damaging two Humvees. At least 29 Iraqis were wounded, officials said. But there was no report of any American casualties.

At least 1,801 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. At least 1,382 died as a result of hostile action. The figures include five military civilians.

The toll among Iraqis, however, has been much higher.

On Tuesday, the Defense Ministry said that since April 1, a total of 2,709 Iraqis have died in violent attacks, including 1,413 civilians. The rest were soldiers, police and insurgents.

The death toll for July was 656, the ministry said. That was the second deadliest month since the Shiite-dominated government was installed — surpassed only by May's figure of 967 deaths.

However, records-keeping in Iraq is irregular, especially in areas where the insurgents are strong, and the real figure is probably higher.

Violence has accelerated as the Iraqis struggle to finish a new constitution — which the United States sees as crucial toward maintaining political momentum and undermining the insurgency.

An Iraqi committee is racing to finish the charter in time for an Aug. 15 deadline for parliamentary approval. After that, voters will decide whether to ratify the document in a referendum in mid-October, followed by a new election in December.

If all goes well, the United States and its partners hope to start bringing their troops home next year. On Tuesday, a joint commission formed to coordinate the handover of cities to Iraqi security forces held its first meeting.

Progress on the constitution has been slowed, however, due to broad differences on the role of Islam, federalism and the distribution of national wealth. Iraqi women activists fear designating Islam as the main source of legislation will curb their rights.

On Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad urged the framers to protect women's rights as a "fundamental requirement for Iraq's progress."

"My focus is to help get a constitution that does this," Khalilzad told reporters. "Of course, the Iraqis will decide but we will help in any way that we can."

Khalilzad said his government would encourage Iraqi politicians to exclude any constitutional articles that discriminate or limit opportunities for any Iraqi citizens.

In other developments Tuesday:

_A suicide car bomber struck a police checkpoint in Mosul, killing four people, three of them police, Brig. Gen. Wathiq Mohammed said.

_An explosion damaged a pipeline used for shipping fuel to a Baghdad power station, raising fears of further power cutbacks in the capital.

• U.S. troops clashed with insurgents in Ramadi, 70 miles west of Baghdad. There were no reports of U.S. casualties.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fired CIA agent seeks FBI probe of WMD intelligence

Reuters

Fired CIA agent seeks FBI probe of WMD intelligence

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A fired CIA agent, who a newspaper says told superiors in 2001 that Iraq had abandoned part of its nuclear program, is asking the FBI to investigate allegations that the spy agency dismissed him for refusing to falsify intelligence.

A July 11 letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller from the former agent's attorney suggests CIA officials may be guilty of criminal violations involving intelligence he produced on weapons of mass destruction in 2000 that contradicted an official agency position.

The former agent's attorney, Roy Krieger, said his client initially asked the CIA's inspector general to investigate charges that CIA officials had pressured him to alter the intelligence and retaliated when he refused. But the inspector general rebuffed his request.

"If the CIA is telling him to falsify information, that's potentially a crime. This merits an investigation, and if the CIA's not going to do it, the only other place is the FBI," Krieger said.


An FBI spokesman declined to comment.

The letter to Mueller, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters on Monday, reiterates charges in a lawsuit which the former agent filed last December in Washington federal court.

Identified only by the alias "Doe," the former agent who worked as a Near Eastern specialist on counter-proliferation issues accuses the CIA of improper action on two separate pieces of intelligence.

One was the WMD intelligence the former agent says he was asked to change in 2000. The other was intelligence uncovered in 2001 that the New York Times described on Monday as dealing with Iraq's nuclear program.

The newspaper, citing people it said had knowledge of the case, said the second piece of intelligence came from a credible source and said that Baghdad had dropped a major segment of its nuclear program years before 2001.

But CIA officials refused to distribute the finding to other intelligence agencies, the Times said.

ADMINISTRATION THINKING

The case could shed new light on Bush administration thinking ahead of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, which the White House largely justified by charging that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and was actively pursuing nuclear arms.

No such weapons have been found in Iraq, and U.S. arms investigators have concluded that Baghdad abandoned its nuclear-development program soon after the 1991 Gulf War.

The former CIA agent was not available for comment. Krieger declined to discuss details of the case.

A CIA spokeswoman also declined to comment.

Krieger's letter to the FBI states that CIA officials accused the former agent of sexual and financial misconduct in an attempt to discredit him and retaliate for his refusal to falsify intelligence.

The former agent was fired for unspecified reasons in September 2004, the letter says.

The former CIA agent learned in 2001 that Iraq's uranium-enrichment program had ended years before and that centrifuge components were available for examination and even purchase, the New York Times reported.

The intelligence surfaced around the time when a presidential commission on WMD intelligence says the CIA came to believe Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program because Baghdad had sought high-strength aluminum tubes that the agency believed could be used to enrich uranium.

The Department of Energy and the International Atomic Energy Agency later concluded that the tubes were suited not for nuclear applications but for conventional rocketry.

Read More...

Summary only...

Stem cell sponsor sees veto-proof Senate backing

Reuters

Stem cell sponsor sees veto-proof Senate backing

By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An expansion of federally funded embryonic stem cell research could pass the U.S. Senate with a veto-proof margin now that the chamber's leader backs the idea, a leading sponsor of the effort said on Sunday.

But it may be harder getting the super-majority needed to override a possible presidential veto in the House of Representatives, Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter said.

Specter said the decision last week by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to defy President Bush and support legislation liberalizing the administration's policy on stem cell research had given the effort a "big boost" in Congress.

"I think we're on our way," Specter, co-sponsor of a bill to expand the research, told CBS's "Face the Nation."


Bush, a Republican, has said he will veto any bill that extends embryonic stem cell research beyond the limits he imposed in 2001. The president is opposed because embryos are destroyed when the stem cells are extracted.

Frist, a Tennessee Republican and heart surgeon who may seek his party's presidential nomination in 2008, broke with Bush on Friday by endorsing a bill already passed by the House -- though not with a veto-proof margin -- that would overturn the limits Bush imposed four years ago.

Specter said the change of heart on stem cells by the anti-abortion Frist gave political cover to lawmakers in both houses of Congress who were considering the issue.

"My analysis is that we have 62 votes at the present time, and we've got about 15 more people who are thinking it over. I believe that by the time the vote comes up we'll have 67," Specter said, referring to the two-thirds Senate majority needed to override a presidential veto.

"I think our problem ... is going to be to get it in the House," Specter added.

Separately, conservative Republican Sen. Rick Santorum said he was convinced Bush would still veto the legislation, despite the shifting politics on Capitol Hill.

"Without question the president will veto this," Santorum, the Senate's third-ranking Republican, told ABC's "This Week."

"Obviously the majority of the House and majority of the Senate disagree with him, but I'm hopeful the House will continue to have the votes necessary to sustain this veto," said Santorum, who like Specter is from Pennsylvania.

The stem cell bill, likely to be brought up in the Senate after the August recess, would allow federally funded research on cells derived from leftover embryos in fertility clinics. There are about 400,000 such frozen embryos, many of which will otherwise be destroyed.

Patients suffering from diabetes, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries and other life-threatening disorders have been clamoring for more federal dollars for cell research.

Santorum warned that Frist's decision could create problems for him with the Republicans' conservative base.

But Specter, a moderate Republican and cancer patient, disagreed, adding that he didn't think a presidential candidate opposed to expanding stem cell research could be elected.

"I believe it will be helpful to him (Frist). You have an enormous constituency out there -- 110 million Americans, directly or indirectly, are affected by Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease, etc," Specter said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Gonzales balks at release of Roberts documents

Reuters

Gonzales balks at release of Roberts documents

By Deborah Charles

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Monday he would have "very serious concerns" about sharing internal documents requested by Senate Democrats in the debate over John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court.

In an interview with Reuters, Gonzales also said the Justice Department does not routinely respond to such requests unless they come from the full Senate Judiciary Committee, which will begin confirmation hearings on Roberts on Sept. 6.

"There's been no formal request by the committee. We normally respond to a formal request by the committee and not by one senator or a group of senators," Gonzales said in the interview as he headed to New Orleans to give a speech.

The documents in question, requested Friday by eight Democrats on the panel in a letter to Gonzales, related to 16 cases Roberts was involved in while deputy solicitor general in the early 1990s in the first Bush administration.

They touch on a host of divisive issues including school desegregation, the death penalty, civil rights and a case in which Roberts echoed the administration position that the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion should be overturned.

"The eight Democratic senators view it as an official request," a spokeswoman for Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel's top Democrat, said in response to Gonzales' comments.


The spokeswoman said committee Democrats had invited Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, to sign on to the letter, but he declined.

President Bush nominated Roberts, a 50-year-old conservative, to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

In an interview with Texas newspapers, Bush said he did not ask Roberts about Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

Bush said he did not want to put Roberts in the position of predetermining a potential case or having to one day recuse himself, The Dallas Morning News reported.

"I said there's no litmus test, and I meant it," Bush said.

The White House has declared the documents the Democrats want off-limits, but Democratic lawmakers said the committee would need them to properly scrutinize Roberts, who has spent the past two years as a federal appeals court judge.

Gonzales also cited a 2002 letter signed by seven former solicitor generals who said "the sharing of this kind of information would be detrimental to the operation of the office of the solicitor general."

"I would have very serious concerns about the sharing of these kinds of documents because I do believe that they would hurt the operation of the solicitor general's office and would weaken the effectiveness of that office," Gonzales said.

Senate Democrats argue that there is plenty of precedent of sensitive materials from other Supreme Court nominees being turned over to the committee.

No Senate Democrat has announced plans to oppose Roberts, but virtually all say they will withhold final judgment until the confirmation hearings.

At the White House on Monday, spokesman Scott McClellan said Roberts would continue paying courtesy calls to senators and had already met with 43, including 23 Democrats and all 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

McClellan also said the White House was pleased with Friday's agreement with Democrats that set the start of the hearings and "will enable the committee and the Senate to move forward in a timely manner to have an up-or-down vote on Judge Roberts by the end of September." (Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro and Adam Entous)

Read More...

Summary only...

Controversy persists as Bolton heads for U.N.

Reuters

Controversy persists as Bolton heads for U.N.

By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Once dubbed the State Department's "most dangerous man," U.S. ambassador John Bolton will bring an aggressive, sometimes-abrasive style to the United Nations that appears at odds with President Bush's new focus on cooperation and diplomacy.

Bush bypassed the Senate and appointed Bolton to the U.N. post on Monday, after the nomination was stalled by Democratic opposition. Under the so-called "recess appointment," Bolton will be able to serve until January 2007.

Bolton has a long history of criticizing the United Nations, has sometimes doubted that European and Asian allies could be counted on to back U.S. positions and has often spoken out so bluntly he was considered political dynamite.


But he is a favorite of conservatives who value his committed hard-line ideology, incisive legal mind and the single-minded passion with which he seeks to turn those views into U.S. policy, often with great effect.

While he revels in a fight, Bolton's controversial demeanor and record deprived him of endorsement by the U.S. Senate. Unable to win Bolton's confirmation by the normal Senate process, Bush bypassed lawmakers and made a recess appointment that only lasts 17 months.

Bolton clearly has Bush's support and is expected to make his time in office count, especially in pursuing the key Republican goal of U.N. reform.

Since Bush's re-election last year, the president and his aides have emphasized a renewed focus on diplomacy and shoring up relations with allies after strains over the Iraq war.

Some officials say Bolton may be more closely scripted working for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice than when he was undersecretary for nonproliferation under her predecessor, Colin Powell.

Bolton, a 56-year-old lawyer, is an unapologetic advocate of assertive American global leadership. Some analysts said appointing him U.N. envoy may be the best way to ensure that U.N. reform takes place and is credible to U.S. conservatives.

Critics accuse him of provoking confrontations over Iran and North Korea. With Rice now heading State and Bolton replaced as nonproliferation adviser, the administration has shifted from some of his harder positions by endorsing European negotiations with Iran, showing flexibility in talks with Pyongyang and agreeing to broad nuclear cooperation with India.

NEW ENERGY

But some experts credit Bolton with infusing new energy into efforts to curb nuclear-weapons proliferation, including rigorous use of sanctions to penalize Chinese and other entities doing nuclear and missile business with Iran.

He is also associated with a security initiative under which more than 60 countries agreed to interdict illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and their components.

Bolton, top nonproliferation official in 2001-2005, hoped for a promotion in Bush's second term and was disappointed when Rice chose Trade Representative Robert Zoellick as her deputy. For months, his political future seemed in limbo.

Apart from policy contributions, Bolton helped ensure Bush's first presidential victory. He was on the team former Secretary of State James Baker took to Florida in 2000 to represent the Bush campaign in a disputed vote count ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Former Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Jesse Helms, a conservative Republican from North Carolina, once called Bolton "the man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon" and another admirer described him in the Wall Street Journal as "the most dangerous man at State."

During Bolton's unsuccessful Senate confirmation fight, one former U.S. official who had tangled with him described him as a "quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy."

But Bolton himself enjoys throwing rhetorical hand grenades and keeps a defused real one in his office, along with a copy of the "most dangerous man at State" article.

INFIGHTER

A fierce infighter with an independent streak, he has insisted on holding Iran and North Korea to strict account for their nuclear activities and has voiced an interest in seeing both governments overturned.

He has fought repeated administration battles aimed at bringing both countries to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions and at countering other officials who wanted to pursue dialogue.

Bolton "has overseen this administration's flawed proliferation policy that has seen North Korea quadruple its nuclear arsenal and seen Iran take dangerous steps toward the development of nuclear weapons," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Attempting to defuse opposition, Rice has extolled Bolton's previous service as the assistant secretary of state who dealt with the United Nations and his successful 1991 campaign to persuade the international body to repeal a resolution that equated Zionism with racism.

But Bolton also led the U.S. withdrawal from International Criminal Court jurisdiction and encouraged U.S. opposition to Europe's decision to lift its arms embargo on China, two initiatives that fanned tensions with allies.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush: Rove has 'my compete confidence' despite leak

Reuters

Bush: Rove has 'my compete confidence' despite leak

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Monday declared "complete confidence" in his top political adviser, Karl Rove, despite his alleged role in leaking a covert CIA operative's identity, according to an interview.

Federal investigators are trying to determine who outed covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose name first appeared in a column by newspaper journalist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.

"Karl's got my complete confidence. He's a valuable member of my team," Bush said in his strongest defense yet of Rove, the architect of his presidential campaigns.

Bush made his comments in a roundtable interview with several Texas newspapers, portions of which were posted online by Knight Ridder Newspapers.

Plame's husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, said the leak was meant to discredit him for criticizing Bush's Iraq policy in 2003 after a CIA-funded trip to investigate whether Niger helped supply nuclear materials to Baghdad.


Rove was the first person to tell a Time magazine reporter that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, but did not disclose her name, according to the reporter.

NOVAK BREAKS SILENCE

Novak broke his silence on the case on Monday to challenge a former CIA spokesman who said that he had warned Novak not to publish the agent's name.

Bill Harlow, the former CIA spokesman cited by Novak, told the Washington Post last week that he had testified before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published.

Harlow said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the trip to Niger and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed, the Post reported.

Novak, in his column on Monday, brushed aside Harlow's comments about warning him.

"That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as 'Valerie Plame' by reading her husband's entry in 'Who's Who in America,"' Novak wrote, referring to a publication that compiles information about prominent people.

Novak wrote that he "never would have written those sentences (in July 2003) if Bill Harlow, then-CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger her or anybody else."

The White House has refused in recent weeks to comment on the case after initially denying that Rove involved.

"Why don't you wait and see what the true facts are?" Bush said on Monday in the roundtable interview.

Democrats have urged Bush to fire Rove or revoke his access to classified information. It is against the law in some cases to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA officer.

The special prosecutor investigating the case could also be considering charges of obstruction of justice or perjury.

Bush said last month that he would fire anyone found to have acted illegally in the case, but critics accused him of lowering the "ethics bar." Bush and his aides have at times in the past been broader in saying that those involved in the leak would face consequences.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush thumbs nose at Senate, US Citizens - appoints Bolton

Once again, President George W. Bush proves himself to be a divider, not a uniter. Not wasting a moment, he appointed John Bolton as the US representative to the UN just as soon as Congress went into recess, thereby circumventing the process.



The hopes for cooperation from the rest of the world on matters of national and international security and other pressing issues, has just diminished even further. And, if the Democratic Party is smart, they will take this opportunity to unite and make those in this country that still don't get it, understand what it is that this President has done and is doing to this country.

Read More...

Summary only...

Thinking Inside The Brain

Thinking Inside The Brain

Read More...

Summary only...

All Loaded Up

All Loaded Up

Read More...

Summary only...

Trojan Judge

Trojan Judge

Read More...

Summary only...

Armchair Warrior

Armchair Warrior

Read More...

Summary only...

Energy Bill

Energy Bill

Read More...

Summary only...

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Read More...

Summary only...

Guantanamo Detentions Disgraceful

ABC News
Carter: Guantanamo Detentions Disgraceful
Jimmy Carter Says Detention of Terror Suspects at Guantanamo Bay 'Is a Disgrace to the U.S.'
By CASSANDRA VINOGRAD
The Associated Press

Jul. 30, 2005 - Former President Carter said Saturday the detention of terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Naval base was an embarrassment and had given extremists an excuse to attack the United States.

Carter also criticized the U.S.-led war in Iraq as "unnecessary and unjust."

"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," he told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England. "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."

Carter said, however, that terrorist acts could not be justified, and that while Guantanamo "may be an aggravating factor ... it's not the basis of terrorism."

Critics of President Bush's administration have long accused the U.S. government of unjustly detaining terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base on the southeastern tip of Cuba. Hundreds of men have been held indefinitely at the prison, without charge or access to lawyers.

"What has happened at Guantanamo Bay ... does not represent the will of the American people," Carter said Saturday. "I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people."

Earlier this month, Carter called for the Guantanamo prison to be shut down, saying reports of abuses there were an embarassment to the United States. He also said that the United States needs to make sure no detainees are held incommunicado and that all are told the charges against them.

Carter, who won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, has been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war.

"I thought then, and I think now, that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and unjust. And I think the premises on which it was launched were false," he said Saturday.


The Baptist World Alliance, comprising more than 200 Baptist unions around the world, was formed in London in 1905. The headquarters of the alliance, which meets in a different location every five years, moved to the United States in 1947.

An estimated 12,700 delegates gathered in the city of Birmingham in central England for the conference. Carter, a Sunday school teacher in his hometown of Plains, Ga., was due to lead a Bible study lesson during the conference.

He praised British police and intelligence services for the swift arrests in connection with the July 21 failed bombing attempts on London's transit system.

"I'm very proud to be in a nation that stands so stalwart against terrorism with us," he said. "The people of my country have united our hearts and sympathy for the tragedy that you have suffered from terrorism."

On the Net:

http://www.bwacongress2005.org.uk

Read More...

Summary only...

For Security, Follow the House

The New York Times
July 31, 2005
For Security, Follow the House

After the London bombings, it is more obvious than ever that next year's Homeland Security budget should direct as much money as possible to the places most at risk of attack. But that may not happen. The Senate, disgracefully, voted this month to take money from states like New York, California and Texas, which are at greatest risk, and give it to states like Wyoming. But the House of Representatives has now done the right thing, and voted to hand out more of the money based on risk. When the final formula is settled on, it is important that the House version prevail.

The 9/11 commission and the Homeland Security secretary, Michael Chertoff, have both stated that the only responsible way to allocate antiterrorism funds is by degree of risk. But many members of Congress have ignored this expert advice and treated the Homeland Security budget like any other pot of money in Washington, supporting whatever formula sends the most to their states.

The Senate's domestic security committee, which is headed by Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, should be fighting for a formula that will direct the most money to where it is needed the most. But instead, Ms. Collins formed an alliance with other representatives of small, low-risk states, and came up with a formula that is dangerously skewed in favor of the states that need the money the least.

Earlier this month, the Senate was faced with a fateful choice. It could have voted for Ms. Collins's irresponsible formula, which showers antiterrorism money on rural America, or an alternative formula backed by all six senators from New York, California and Texas to direct more money to high-risk states. In a low moment for the war on terror, the Senate voted for the Collins amendment. That was good news for rural areas that face little real threat of terrorism, but the chemical plants, ports and subway systems that terrorists are likely to take aim at would be left unnecessarily vulnerable.


After the Senate acted, the House voted for a far superior formula. It adopted an amendment sponsored by Nita Lowey, a New York Democrat, and John Sweeney, a New York Republican, that would distribute more of the Homeland Security funds on the bases of threats, vulnerability and consequences of an attack. It would do this in part by using substantially lower "state minimums" - money that is guaranteed to small, low-risk states regardless of whether they are in serious danger of being attacked.

Now it is up to the two houses to reconcile their funding formulas. There are reports that the Senate may be considering dropping the misguided Collins amendment, now that the House has passed a superior formula that would do more to make the nation safe. That is the right thing to do.

If the Senate stands by its formula, when the time comes to reconcile the House and Senate formulas, Dennis Hastert, the House speaker, and Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader, should make sure that the House holds firm. Defending America from acts of terrorism will not be easy in the best of circumstances. It will be a lot harder if the Collins amendment's formula becomes law, and scarce Homeland Security dollars are turned into a wasteful gravy train.

Read More...

Summary only...

GOP Not Doing Enough for Troops

ABC News
Inouye: GOP Not Doing Enough for Troops
In Dems' Radio Address, Sen. Inouye Accuses Republicans of Not Doing Enough for Troops in Iraq
The Associated Press

Jul. 30, 2005 - Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, an Army veteran who lost his right arm in World War II, criticized Republicans on Saturday for not doing enough to help troops fighting in or returning from Iraq.

In the Democrats' weekly radio address, Inouye said Senate Republicans were focusing on legislation sought by the gun lobby while ignoring the needs of troops.

On Tuesday, the Senate put off completion of a $491 billion defense bill to act on the National Rifle Association's top priority: shielding gun manufacturers and dealers from liability suits stemming from gun crimes.

"For years, we've heard the president and congressional Republicans speak eloquently about honoring our troops," Inouye said. "But this week when push came to shove their priorities were different."


The senator added: "Our men and women who have served should not worry about funding for health care year after year, and our soldiers on the front lines should get the resources they need. Our Congress could consider our men and our women in uniform as our nation's top priority."

The gun bill cleared the Senate 65-31 Friday, with Inouye in opposition.

Read More...

Summary only...

GOP Says It Will 'Bury' Name-Calling Candidate

washingtonpost.com
GOP Says It Will 'Bury' Name-Calling Candidate

By Dan Balz

Paul Hackett doesn't fit conventional political profiles. He is a Marine Reservist and an Iraq war veteran who opposed the war before the U.S. invasion and remains a harsh critic of President Bush's policy there. He is also a Democrat battling to win a special House election in Ohio in a district that has been in Republican hands for more than three decades.

On Tuesday, voters in Ohio's 2nd Congressional District will elect a successor to former representative Rob Portman, who quit Congress to become U.S. trade representative. Hackett hopes to beat the long odds by defeating Republican nominee Jean Schmidt, a former state representative, by stressing his military service and independence.

A lawyer and a major in the Marine Reserves, Hackett volunteered last year to serve in Iraq and spent seven months there in a civilian affairs job, including service around Ramadi and Fallujah. He returned to Ohio in March and decided to jump into the race for Portman's seat, seeking to become the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress.

His campaign has drawn support from Democrats across the country. Liberal blogs have defended him from GOP attacks. Former Ohio senator John Glenn, another former Marine, sent a message to online supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) asking them to pitch in financially. Democracy for America, the organization founded by former Vermont governor Howard Dean, says it has raised $80,000 for Hackett.

Schmidt, who won a crowded GOP primary, has charged that Hackett's views don't fit with those of voters in conservative southwest Ohio, where Bush won 64 percent of the vote last November. But the outspoken Democratic nominee hasn't been shy about bad-mouthing the president.

Hackett told USA Today that Bush's taunting line, "Bring 'em on!" was "the most incredibly stupid comment I've ever heard a president of the United States make." He also told the newspaper that, while he was willing to put his life on the line for the president, "I've said that I don't like the son-of-a-[expletive] that lives in the White House."

Both the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee have bought TV time for commercials over the weekend. "He called the commander in chief a son-of-a-[expletive]," said NRCC spokesman Carl Forti. "We decided to bury him."


Hackett, hoping to capitalize on the widespread disarray in the scandal-plagued Ohio GOP, remains unapologetic about his characterization of the president. "I said it. I meant it. I stand by it," he said in a phone interview. "In this district, we need more straight-talking, straight-shooting politicians."
Edwards Uneasy About Roberts Nomination

If he had sought and won reelection last year, former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) would be looking forward to a prominent role in the upcoming confirmation hearings of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for a seat on the Supreme Court. Instead, he is on the outside looking in.

On Friday, Edwards spoke to the American Constitution Society about the courts and the Roberts nomination, saying the Senate should demand the right to see documents from Roberts's tenure in the solicitor general's office during the administration of President George H.W. Bush.

Edwards sounded troubled by what he has seen of Roberts's record and said his former colleagues should press the nominee to explain his philosophy in greater detail. "Does Judge Roberts still hold today the views he promoted earlier in his career?" he asked, according to his prepared text. "Is Judge Roberts committed to implementing the radical 'protect-the-powerful' jurisprudence or does he recognize the claims of the powerless as well as the powerful?"

These were questions that Edwards did not linger over in 2003 -- when he joined other Democrats in voting to send Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

As a former senator, Edwards won't get to grill Roberts this time, but at least he gets to travel where he wants. Where he wants is New Hampshire -- the 2008 aspirant left for an appearance there immediately after his speech.
Panel Tackles Granite State's Influence

Speaking of New Hampshire, the Democratic National Committee commission tasked with studying whether to change the nominating calendar for the 2008 primaries and caucuses has begun looking at ideas that could reduce the Granite State's outsize influence in picking presidents.

Commission members say they want to preserve the kind of coffee shop style of campaigning required of any candidate who runs in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. But they also want some changes to ensure a larger voice for blacks, Hispanics and other minorities, as well as organized labor, in the crucial opening weeks of a nominating contest.

At a recent meeting in Washington, the commission staff presented the group with scenarios that included regional primaries and the more radical idea of trying to prevent states from having primaries or caucuses before early March. Democrats say none of these proposals is likely to be embraced in the end.

But there appears to be more interest in plans that call for keeping Iowa as the site of the first caucuses and New Hampshire as the host of the first primary, but that would insert a few other caucus contests between the two.

Read More...

Summary only...

Oregon anti-meth law would require prescriptions

Reuters

Oregon anti-meth law would require prescriptions

PORTLAND, Ore. (Reuters) - A bill passed by lawmakers on Saturday would make Oregon the first U.S. state to require a doctor's prescription for cold medicines containing an ingredient that can be used to make the illegal drug methamphetamine.

"We hope this will reduce the supply" of meth, Democratic state Sen. Ginny Burdick told Reuters after the Senate passed the bill.

Oregon's House of Representatives approved the measure earlier this month and Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski was expected to sign it.

The bill has widespread support, but critics say it would hurt people without medical insurance who cannot afford to go to a doctor for a cold or an allergy.

Although much of the nation's meth supply is produced in large labs in Mexico, the addictive drug can be made in smaller labs with easily available equipment and ingredients, including cold or allergy medicines containing pseudoephedrine.

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said recently that meth had surpassed marijuana as the drug posing the greatest danger to the nation's children.

The U.S. Congress is considering a bill that would move medicines containing pseudoephedrine, such as Sudafed, NyQuil, and Tylenol Cold, behind pharmacy counters and limit how much one person can buy to 7.5 grams a month -- the equivalent of roughly 250 30-milligram tablets.


Customers also would be required to show a photo identification and sign a log.

It is modeled after an Oklahoma law, copied by at least a dozen other states, that authorities say has resulted in a large drop in meth labs seized by police.

The bills passed by the Oregon Senate and House of Representatives also would toughen penalties for meth-related crimes.

Lt. Brian Schmautz of the Portland Police Bureau said it was "naive to think that this will solve the meth problem."

But he said the bill would likely reduce the number of local labs and thus the property contamination, fires and danger to children sometimes found in homes with meth labs.

Oregon had the highest per-capita rate of treatment admissions for meth in the United States in 2002, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

More than 326 of every 100,000 Oregonians sought treatment for meth addiction, and more Oregonians sought treatment for meth addiction than any other drug except alcohol, according to the data.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush draws heat from conservatives on highway bill

Reuters

Bush draws heat from conservatives on highway bill

By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite big legislative wins this week, President Bush is drawing heat from some conservatives over his plans to sign a highway bill that critics say warranted a veto because it is chock full of extra spending.

Bush was pleased by a mid-July report from his budget office that slashed the fiscal 2005 deficit forecast to $333 billion -- down nearly $100 billion from its February projection and lower than last year's $412 billion shortfall.

But Bush, whose first four years in office saw a shift from record surplus to record deficits, has some persuading to do with members of his own Republican Party when he extols a commitment to fiscal discipline.

Many Republican activists are upset over the six-year $286.5 billion highway bill approved by Congress on Friday. Bush's aides made clear he would sign the bill even though he previously pledged to veto any measure above $284 billion.

"This bill is an egregiously bloated spending bill and this all happens as we move to the final phase of the spending season," said Pat Toomey, head of the Club for Growth, a group that raises money for Republican candidates.

By backing down on a pledge to hold the line on highway funds, Toomey said Bush was sending a signal of laxity to Congress as it prepares to finalize spending bills this fall, which often include funds for members' pet projects in their districts.

"How will his future threats be taken seriously?" Toomey asked.


'SPENDING SPREE'

Former House of Representatives Republican Leader Dick Armey said a highway-bill veto would be a chance to show Congress "the spending spree is over."

The legislation, which lays out guaranteed amounts of money for road and transit projects, was overwhelmingly approved in both chambers of Congress. Such bills give lawmakers a chance to show they are funneling funds back to their districts and spurring construction and new jobs.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said that Bush felt lawmakers had come a long way in whittling down the bill's cost. A Senate version of the bill in May sought $295 billion.

An administration official, eager to emphasize a push to hold the line on spending, said White House budget director Joshua Bolten spoke this week to House of Representatives lawmakers to oppose Senate plans to shift funds out of the defense budget to pay for non-security programs.

Budget analysts see the Senate move as a gimmick intended to free up more money because the defense funds will be replenished in a supplemental spending bill for Iraq and the war on terror.

William Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute think tank, referred to the highway bill as an "abomination" but said Bush likely agreed to it to buy votes for a key priority, the U.S. Central-American Free Trade Agreement.

The CAFTA pact narrowly passed this week. Bush's long-sought revamp of energy policy also passed Congress this week.

Niskanen said it may also have been in Bush's interest to avoid a fight with the Senate on a spending bill as he seeks approval of his nominee to the Supreme Court, John Roberts.

Brian Riedl, budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation think tank, said that while at some point Bush may have to veto a spending bill, letting the highway bill go through won't by itself spell fiscal doom.

"The president has convinced Congress to generally stick within his discretionary spending guidelines," Riedl said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush to bypass Senate to appoint Bolton-sources

Reuters

Bush to bypass Senate to appoint Bolton-sources

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush plans to bypass the U.S. Senate and install John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, officials said.

Bush can go around the Senate and give Bolton a "recess appointment" when the Senate begins its August recess this weekend. Bolton would be able to serve until January 2007, when a new Congress is sworn in.

Two U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it was Bush's intent to make a recess appointment. An announcement could come as early as Monday.

Senate Democrats have stalled the nomination of Bolton, a favorite of conservatives, over accusations he tried to manipulate intelligence and intimidated intelligence analysts to support his hawkish views while the top U.S. diplomat for arms control.

Asked about the possibility of a recess appointment for Bolton, White House spokesman Scott McClellan argued that the job needed to be filled soon.

"We need our permanent representative in place at the United Nations at this critical time. There is an effort under way to move forward on comprehensive reform," he said.

"And it's a critical time to be moving forward on this. The United Nations will be having their General Assembly meeting in September, and it's important that we get our permanent representative in place," he said.

A recess appointment would risk the wrath of the Senate at a time when Bush is pressing senators to support his nominee for Supreme Court justice, John Roberts. His confirmation hearings begin on Sept. 6.

"A recess appointment is not in the interest of the country. Mr. Bolton does not have the full confidence of the Senate. Sending him to the U.N. without the Senate's approval would send a mixed message to friend and foe alike," said Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat and a sharp critic of Bolton.

Thirty-five Senate Democrats and one independent sent Bush a letter on Friday urging him to find a different U.N. envoy.


A STATE DEPARTMENT REVERSAL

Questions about Bolton surfaced anew on Thursday when the State Department reversed itself and acknowledged that Bolton had given Congress inaccurate information when he wrote that he had not been questioned or provided information to jury or government investigations in the past five years.

At first, the State Department had insisted Bolton's answer was truthful.

But it later acknowledged that Bolton had failed to tell lawmakers that he had been interviewed as part of a State Department-CIA joint investigation on intelligence lapses that led to the Bush administration's claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger.

"When Mr. Bolton completed his form during the Senate confirmation process he did not recall being interviewed by the State Department inspector general. Therefore his form as submitted was inaccurate in this regard and he will correct the form," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

McClellan said the White House was not concerned by the episode.

Officials have said Bolton was not interviewed in special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

The White House has argued that Bolton should be given an up-or-down vote in the Senate but Democrats have blocked such a move.

(Additional reporting by Saul Hudson and Vicki Allen)

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrats challenge White House on Roberts documents

Reuters

Democrats challenge White House on Roberts documents

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats challenged the White House on Friday to provide documents stemming from U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' work as an attorney in the first Bush administration and lawmakers announced his confirmation hearings would begin on Sept. 6.

The White House had declared the documents the Democrats want off-limits, but Democratic lawmakers said the Senate Judiciary Committee would need them to scrutinize Roberts properly.

"We would appreciate your prompt attention to this request so that the committee may have adequate time to review the requested documents," eight Democrats on the panel wrote in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The White House had no immediate comment, though Senate Republicans accused Democrats of a fishing expedition.

"We expect this from Democrats," said Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican and Judiciary Committee member. "The White House has made clear the answer: No."

A few hours later, Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel's top Democrat, announced confirmation hearings would begin on Sept. 6, after Congress returns from a month-long recess, with a committee vote anticipated by Sept. 15.

Democrats and Republicans had been trying to reach an agreement on those hearings since President Bush last week nominated Roberts, a 50-year-old conservative, to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Bush has said he wants a Senate confirmation vote before the Supreme Court begins its new term on Oct. 3. Democrats argue they need enough time to adequately review Roberts, who has spent the past two years as a federal appeals court judge.

Under the agreement, Democrats waived some of their rights to delay consideration of Roberts, but refused to guarantee a committee vote by mid-September, which had been a key bone of contention in at times roller-coaster talks.

"The Constitution gives us the duty to make this decision as correctly as we can, not to do it as fast as we can," Leahy said.


ABORTION CASE

Democrats, in their letter to Gonzales, requested documents dealing with 16 cases that Roberts was involved in while deputy solicitor general in the early 1990s.

They touch on a host of divisive issues including school desegregation, the death penalty, civil rights and a case in which Roberts echoed the administration position that the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion should be overturned.

The White House riled Senate Democrats on Tuesday when it began releasing the first of up to 65,000 pages of documents from Roberts' work in the Reagan administration, but said it would refuse to release papers from his time as deputy solicitor general.

The White House cited a letter in 2002 by seven former solicitors general declaring the internal memos are protected by attorney-client privilege.

Senate Democrats say there is plenty of precedent of sensitive materials from other Supreme Court nominees being turned over to the committee.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, first disclosed plans to request the documents on Thursday as he questioned Roberts' commitment to civil rights laws.

Kennedy did so in releasing documents from Roberts' work in the Reagan administration, which had a number of clashes with civil rights groups.

No Senate Democrat has announced plans to oppose Roberts, and many have spoken glowingly of him. But virtually all say they will withhold final judgment until confirmation hearings. (Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell and Richard Cowan)

Read More...

Summary only...

US Senate approves veterans funds, sends to Bush

Reuters

US Senate approves veterans funds, sends to Bush

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Friday approved $1.5 billion in additional spending for veterans' health care programs strained by seriously wounded soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan combat.

By a vote of 99-1, the Senate approved the emergency funds that were passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday. The legislation, attached to an unrelated spending bill for environmental programs, now goes to the White House for President Bush's signature.

The measure will give the Department of Veterans Affairs "full flexibility to fill the coffers that they have been borrowing from," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican.

This fall, Congress is expected to debate a second round of additional veterans health-care spending that is expected to total $1.5 billion to $2 billion for the fiscal year starting on Oct. 1.

"With all of our new veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan every day, this problem is only going to get more severe," cautioned Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington State Democrat who fought for the additional money over the objections of Republicans earlier this year.


Last month, the Veterans Administration acknowledged a funding shortfall, after months of insisting it had adequate resources for hospitals and clinics.

Besides larger-than-anticipated numbers of injured veterans from the Iraq war, the VA said its resources were strained by aging veterans of wars in Vietnam, Korea and World War II.

During debate on the bill, Murray warned the Bush administration that it should use the added funding to end a hiring freeze at veterans' health facilities, which has contributed to long waits for nonemergency care, and to expand outpatient services.

The emergency funds, Murray said, "cannot be used for budget shell games to make the VA look solvent."

In its budget plan submitted in February to Congress, the Bush administration called for new fees on veterans as one way to cover some rising costs.

Murray said that when adjusted for inflation, the Veterans Administration is spending 25 percent less for patients than it did in 2000.

Lawmakers attached the veterans money to an unrelated spending bill because it was headed for quick approval and they wanted the funds put into the pipeline before a month-long congressional recess.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ruling Sets Off Tug of War Over Private Property

The New York Times

Ruling Sets Off Tug of War Over Private Property
By TIMOTHY EGAN

SANTA CRUZ, Calif. - More than a month after the Supreme Court ruled that governments could take one person's property and give it to another in the name of public interest, the decision has set off a storm of legislative action and protest, as states have moved to protect homes and businesses from the expanded reach of eminent domain.

In California and Texas, legislators have proposed constitutional amendments, while at least a dozen other states and some cities are floating similar changes designed to rein in the power to take property.

But at the same time, the ruling has emboldened some cities to take property for development plans on private land. Here in Santa Cruz, for example, city officials started legal action this month to seize a parcel of family-owned land that holds a restaurant with a high Zagat rating, two other businesses and a conspicuous hole in the ground and force a sale to a developer who plans to build 54 condominiums.

Far from clarifying government's ability to take private property, the 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision has set up a summer of scrutiny over a power that has been regularly used but little-discussed for decades.

"The intense reaction - this backlash - has caught a lot of people off guard," said Larry Morandi, who tracks land use developments for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In Connecticut, where the court case originated, Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, has likened the reaction to the Boston Tea Party and called for a moratorium on land takings until the legislature can revisit the law.

California's proposal would prohibit the use of eminent domain, a process in which governments force a sale of someone's property, in cases like Santa Cruz's.

"This decision opens a new era when the rich and powerful can use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain," said State Senator Tom McClintock, a Republican who proposed the amendment.


In Congress, liberals like Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, have joined conservatives like Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority leader, in criticizing the ruling. The House voted 365 to 33 to pass a resolution condemning the decision, and proposals in both the House and the Senate would prevent the federal government from using eminent domain for private development, as well as local governments using federal money on such projects.

The Fifth Amendment allows the taking of land for "public use" with "just compensation," and governments have long used the practice to build roads and schools and to allow utilities to run service lines. In its June 23 ruling regarding efforts by the City of New London, Conn., to condemn homes in an old part of town to make way for a private development, the Supreme Court said public use could mean something that brings a public benefit - like jobs or increased tax revenue.

But at the same time, the court invited states to tailor their own laws. While only one state, Delaware, has changed its law, most states are likely to have a proposed change by next year, Mr. Morandi said.

"The initial outcry after the court case was: Nobody's house is safe, we've got to do something now," he said. "But as more states take a look at this they will respond in some form, but they won't want to take away a valuable tool."

In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry added the issue to a special legislative session initially called for education. Both houses passed bills limiting eminent domain with some exceptions, including one allowing the City of Arlington to condemn homes for a new Dallas Cowboys football stadium, a project already under way. The two versions of the bills were not reconciled before the session ended.

But some cities view the ruling as blessing their redevelopment plans; Arlington filed condemnation lawsuits against some holdout property owners this month. Officials in Sunset Hills, Mo., outside St. Louis, voted to condemn a cluster of homes to make way for a shopping center, despite the pleas of some elderly homeowners who said they had nowhere else to go and no desire to move. Officials in Oakland, Calif., evicted a tire shop and an auto repair shop to make room for a development that is part of Mayor Jerry Brown's plan to bring 10,000 residents to the central part of the city.

In Santa Cruz, the plans pit one family against the city's long effort to redevelop a downtown hit by the 1989 earthquake. With the Supreme Court's ruling, city officials here said they felt free to seize a 20,000-square-foot lot they considered a blight.

To the city, the lot owned by the Lau family is a drag on other businesses, because the hole, left by the earthquake, has never been redeveloped. To the family, the seizure is legalized theft and shows how the court decision can be used to take anyone's property under the broad rubric of public use.

"My family has owned this land for 36 years," said Eric Lau, who laid bricks to shore up the building that would become his thriving restaurant, which is adjacent to the hole. "And now they're trying to erase us from this place, to take it and say we don't have any choice."

The ruling has struck a chord; in a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll this month, the legal issue that Americans said most concerned them was "private property rights," ahead of parental notification for minors' abortions or the right-to-die debate.

Property rights groups have united with more liberal organizations in arguing that taking property for economic use usually favors the rich over the poor.

"Typically, you have these corporate lobbyists who go down to a city council and say, 'Take this person's property and we'll build you a shopping center,' " said Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian-leaning legal group that helped draft the proposed California amendment.

Opponents of the Supreme Court decision also point to San Diego, where Ahmed Mesdaq lost his prosperous cigar and coffee shop in the trendy Gaslamp Quarter to a hotel project, which the city said would bring more tax revenue.

Many city officials say eminent domain is crucial for creating jobs, expanding tax bases and keeping their communities economically viable.

"Redevelopment is sometimes the only tool a community has to jump-start revitalization of downtrodden, blighted communities," officials at the California League of Cities wrote in a response to the proposed amendment.

Mayor Brown of Oakland said it was inevitable that some small businesses would have to be relocated, and he urged caution in any efforts to pass laws. "I understand the horror of urban renewal," he said. "But you don't want to take away a tool that a city has to reform itself. If you did, Oakland would suffer greatly."

During the 1970's, the Lau property, with its bookstore and cafe in the pre-Starbucks age, was a central hangout in funky Santa Cruz, neighbors say. Eric Lau watched his father's bookstore come to life and then die in the Loma Prieta earthquake, which destroyed the building.

The family's restaurant, Oswald, would not be considered blight by many standards. There is ivy on the outside walls, art on the inside, and the tables are covered with fresh-pressed linen. The restaurant is packed on most nights, neighbors say. And it has consistently been voted one of the best places to dine in Santa Cruz, a beach town of 54,000 people south of San Jose, known for its university and the carpet of redwoods on its fog-shrouded hills.

Ron Lau, who is 69, has long tried to build something on the undeveloped part of the property - the hole in the ground. The problem, city officials say, is that Mr. Lau has proposed hard-to-build, idealistic plans, involving alternative energy sources and unusual designs, that have never gotten off the ground, angering some nearby property owners.

"We do not use eminent domain frivolously," said Ceil Cirillo, executive director of the Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency. "I feel we have been very fair and very patient."

Taking the Lau property would serve the public good, Ms. Cirillo said, "because there is a hole in the center of our retail district."

Eric Lau and his sister Lani say the city is taking their property simply because their father took so much time to try to build something unusual.

"My dad was hellbent on getting his dream project built, nothing less, and that has been his biggest weakness," Eric Lau said.

The city agency has offered the family $1.6 million for the property, and the Laus plan to fight it. It is unclear whether the amendment would protect the Laus, but they hope to hang on to the property long enough to find out. A vote on the amendment would come no sooner than next June, legislative leaders say.

Meanwhile, the Laus say they are willing to modify their plans and build something close to what the city has agreed to with a developer.

But city officials say that they have run out of patience and that it is too late for the Laus to come up with new designs. They have an exclusive agreement, Ms. Cirillo said, with a developer, Bolton Hill, to take over the property and build on it.

"The project is moving forward," Ms. Cirillo said. "The Supreme Court gave us reassurance of our ability to proceed."

As for Laus and their restaurant, Ms. Cirillo said there might still be a place for them in the new development - after they sell out.

"Ideally, we would like to see them relocated in some way to the project," she said.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Roots of Prisoner Abuse

The New York Times

The Roots of Prisoner Abuse

This week, the White House blocked a Senate vote on a measure sponsored by a half-dozen Republicans, including Senator John McCain, that would prohibit cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment of prisoners. Besides being outrageous on its face, that action served as a reminder of how the Bush administration ducks for cover behind the men and women in uniform when challenged on military policy, but ignores their advice when it seems inconvenient.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican who has shown real political courage on this issue, recently released documents showing that the military's top lawyers had warned a year before the Abu Ghraib nightmare came to light that detainee policies imposed by the White House and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld violated American and international law and undermined the standards of civilized treatment embedded in the American military tradition.

In February 2003, Maj. Gen. Jack Rives, the deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, reminded his civilian bosses that American rules on the treatment of prisoners had grown out of Vietnam, where captured Americans, like Mr. McCain, were tortured. "We have taken the legal and moral 'high road' in the conduct of our military operations regardless of how others may operate," he wrote. Abandoning those rules, he said, endangered every American soldier.

General Rives and the other military lawyers argued strongly against declaring that Mr. Bush was above the law when it came to antiterrorism operations. But the president's team ignored them, offering up a pretzel logic that General Rives and the other military experts warned would not fool anyone. Rear Adm. Michael Lohr, the Navy's judge advocate general, said that the situation at the American prison at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba might be so legalistically unique that the Geneva Conventions and even the Constitution did not necessarily apply. But he asked, "Will the American people find we have missed the forest for the trees by condoning practices that, while technically legal, are inconsistent with our most fundamental values?"


General Rives said that if the White House permitted abusive interrogations at Guantánamo Bay, it would not be able to restrict them to that single prison. He argued that soldiers elsewhere would conclude that their commanders were condoning illegal behavior. And that is precisely what happened at Abu Ghraib after the general who organized the abuse of prisoners at Guantánamo went to Iraq to toughen up the interrogation of prisoners there.

The White House ignored these military lawyers' advice two years ago. Now it is trying to kill the measure that would define the term "illegal combatants," set rules for interrogations and prohibit cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners. The president considers this an undue restriction of his powers. It's not only due; it's way overdue.

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate Makes Permanent Nearly All Provisions of Patriot Act, With a Few Restrictions

The New York Times

Senate Makes Permanent Nearly All Provisions of Patriot Act, With a Few Restrictions
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, July 29 - The Senate voted unanimously on Friday to make permanent virtually all the main provisions of the law known as the USA Patriot Act, after Republican leaders agreed to include additional civil rights safeguards and to forestall any expansion of the government's counterterrorism powers.

The House passed a bill of its own last week that would also extend the law's surveillance and law enforcement powers, which the Bush administration considers critical to combating terrorism. While the House and Senate bills are not identical, the differences are modest enough that Congressional officials said they were confident that they could work out a compromise.

The Patriot Act has become a target of criticism since it was passed in the weeks after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, with more than 300 communities voicing formal concerns about what they see as its chilling effect on civil liberties. But many opponents of the law, as well as many supporters, said the Senate bill was an acceptable compromise after months of heated debate over the scope of the government's authority to track and eavesdrop on terror suspects.

Senate Republican leaders had been eager to win approval of their measure before leaving Washington for a monthlong recess. They rushed the bill to the Senate floor Friday evening after persuading Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who leads the Intelligence Committee, to sign on to the plan, Congressional officials said. The action came by unanimous consent as the Senate wrapped up its business.

Mr. Roberts had been pushing for changes that would have expanded the Patriot Act to allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation to demand records in terror investigations through administrative subpoenas, without a judge's order, and to have sole discretion in deciding whether to monitor the mail of terror suspects. He had argued that the changes would strengthen the F.B.I.'s ability to deter terrorist attacks.

The Bush administration had pressed for the expanded subpoena powers as well. But Congressional officials said that after several days of private discussions among Senate leaders, Senator Roberts agreed not to pursue the administrative subpoenas or other measures endorsed by the Intelligence Committee in order to ensure quick reauthorization of the Patriot Act in some form.

Senator Roberts "had a desire to move the bill, no matter how defective he thought it might be," said a senior Republican aide in the Senate who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the negotiations. But Republican officials said that the senator still planned to seek the expanded subpoena power for the F.B.I. through separate legislation, and that he had received assurances in this week's discussions that Republican leaders would back those efforts if and when he decided to revisit the issue.

The bill approved Friday by the Senate makes permanent 14 of the 16 antiterrorism provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire at the end of the year. The two remaining sections - particularly controversial provisions that allow the government to conduct roving wiretaps and to demand records from institutions like libraries - are to expire in four years unless Congress acts to reauthorize them.


The legislation also puts in place several new restrictions on the government's powers, including a higher standard of proof for the government in demanding library and business records, greater judicial oversight and increased reporting to Congress on antiterrorism operations, time restrictions on the use of secret searches, and limits on roving wiretaps. Civil rights advocates saw the new limits as welcome steps.

Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said: "We think this is a positive step and puts in place significant restrictions over the current law. It doesn't fully safeguard constitutional freedoms, but it's a significant improvement."

President Bush had pushed repeatedly for the quick reauthorization of the Patriot Act, and Congressional officials said Republican leaders wanted to get the bill approved before the recess to avoid a drawn-out debate in the fall that might have pitted the Judiciary Committee bill against Mr. Roberts's version.

"I don't think anyone wanted to be responsible for missing our deadline on an issue this critical," said a senior Republican aide on the Judiciary Committee who spoke on condition of anonymity because this week's negotiations were conducted in private.

While Mr. Roberts and others had pushed for greater F.B.I. power, the aide said, "I think they realized that it might not be worth the fight if you're probably not going to win anyway, and people much preferred a safe reauthorization now to a risky one later on."

Meanwhile, in a federal court decision released Friday involving the Patriot Act, a judge in Los Angeles ruled that portions of the law regarding the definition of "material support" to terrorism were too vague and thus unconstitutional.

Congress had tried to fix the problem by amending the language as part of last year's intelligence reform bill, after the same district judge, Audrey Collins, ruled twice that the wording raised constitutional problems. Judge Collins said in her latest ruling that the changes by Congress adequately clarified what constituted providing "personnel" to banned terrorist groups, but that the wording on providing "training" and other support remained "impermissibly vague."

David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University who had argued the case on behalf of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said the decision was an affirmation of Americans' right to support lawful, nonviolent causes associated with even those groups that the United States has banned. "This law is so sweeping that it makes it a crime for our clients to provide medical services to tsunami survivors in Sri Lanka and to provide assistance in human rights advocacy to the Kurds in Turkey," Professor Cole said.

The Justice Department said it was pleased that the judge had ruled in its favor in four of the five claims over the material support law. The department said in a statement that "the judge's ruling affects only one small aspect of the Patriot Act" and that the law remains critical to fighting terrorism.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bolton Not Truthful, 36 Senators Charge in Opposing Appointment

The New York Times

Bolton Not Truthful, 36 Senators Charge in Opposing Appointment
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

WASHINGTON, July 29 - Charging that John R. Bolton was "not truthful" in answering questions about his record, 36 senators urged President Bush on Friday not to make a recess appointment of Mr. Bolton as United Nations ambassador after the Senate's failure to confirm him for that job.

But one Republican official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the president has not announced his decision, said Mr. Bush would probably appoint Mr. Bolton next week.

In a letter to Mr. Bush, the senators cited the disclosure on Thursday that Mr. Bolton had been interviewed by the State Department's inspector general in an investigation of intelligence failures related to Iraq, even though he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March that he had not been involved in any such inquiry.

Mr. Bolton "did not recall this interview" when he assured the committee that he had not been questioned by any investigators, according to a letter sent Friday from the State Department to Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the ranking Democrat on the foreign relations panel.

The letter from the senators, all Democrats except for the Senate's sole independent, who usually votes with them, was the latest escalation of the battle over Mr. Bolton.

He has run into heavy opposition in the Senate because of his history of criticizing the United Nations and over charges that he tried to influence intelligence assessments to conform with his own views.


Mr. Bolton's nomination has the support of the majority of senators, but fewer than the 60 needed to head off a filibuster that Democrats say they would mount until specific questions about Mr. Bolton's activities were answered, particularly his use of classified intelligence about conversations involving administration colleagues.

The State Department has admitted that, as Mr. Biden charged, Mr. Bolton had been interviewed in a previous inquiry into one particular intelligence failure on Iraq, the finding that Iraq had tried to buy raw uranium from Niger for a nuclear arms program. That finding turned out to be based on forged documents.

Administration officials appeared shaken by the disclosure, and some worried openly that it might hurt Mr. Bolton's chances of a recess appointment, a tactic that a president is permitted use once Congress is in recess in August. The appointment would expire at the end of next year, however.

In a final gesture of opposition, Democratic senators indicated that they would use a parliamentary maneuver to formally send Mr. Bolton's name back to the White House once the Senate adjourns, rather than have it remain pending at the Senate.

That move was seen as symbolic, but one reflecting the growing bitterness of Democrats and their hopes that by standing firm they would make it more politically awkward for Mr. Bush to give Mr. Bolton the interim appointment.

Republicans, on the other hand, said Mr. Bush would likely go ahead and make the appointment as early as next week.

Read More...

Summary only...