Sen. Specter asks Roberts about judicial activism

Reuters

Sen. Specter asks Roberts about judicial activism

By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was warned on Monday that he will face questions at his confirmation hearings about whether he agreed with "judicial activism" on the court that sought to scale back Congress' authority.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, who will be running the hearings, wrote to the nominee to say he would be asking about two landmark Supreme Court decisions in the last decade that limited Congress' powers under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"What is your thinking on the jurisprudence of U.S. v. Lopez and U.S. v. Morrison, which overturned almost 60 years of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause?" Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, asked.

He said he wanted to give Roberts some "advance notice" of questions he would raise at hearings starting on Sept. 6.

"I do see a great deal of popular and Congressional dissatisfaction with the judicial activism; and, at a minimum, the Senate's determination to confirm new justices who will respect Congress' constitutional role," Specter wrote.


President Bush nominated Roberts, a federal appeals judge, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a mainstream conservative who often cast the decisive vote on the closely divided court.

O'Connor ruled with the majority of the court in both the Lopez and Morrison decisions, which were decided 5-4 and limited Congress' ability to use the commerce clause to intervene in non-commercial interstate matters.

In the 1995 U.S. v. Lopez case, the court struck down a law banning firearms near schools, while in the 2000 U.S. v. Morrison case, the court invalidated part of the federal Violence against Women Act.

Specter's letter to Roberts made no mention of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion and is expected to be a subject at the confirmation hearings.

Instead Specter complained of the "abrupt reversals" of the Lopez and Morrison cases and added that members of Congress were irate about the Court's "denigrating and really, disrespectful statements about Congress' competence."

Specter is not the first senator to mention the commerce clause issue since Roberts' nomination. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, a judiciary committee Democrat, pressed Roberts about it in a recent meeting and said afterwards he was convinced Roberts would not "shrink the commerce clause."

The Senate's leading Democrat meanwhile asked the Bush administration to reconsider its refusal to release internal documents written by Roberts while at the Justice Department.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said senators needed to see the documents from the years Roberts served as deputy solicitor general in order to examine 50-year-old conservative's candidacy effectively.

"I urge the White House to reconsider this initial decision, and to work cooperatively with Judiciary Committee Democrats so that the Senate can do its job more effectively," Reid said in a statement.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. foresees autumn rise in troop levels in Iraq

Reuters

U.S. foresees autumn rise in troop levels in Iraq

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States expects to raise its troop levels in Iraq this fall to bolster security for the planned October constitutional referendum and December elections for a new government, the Pentagon said on Monday.

Planning for a short-term bulge in troop levels comes as U.S. commanders, according to defense officials, also are working toward cutting the current force by 20,000 to 30,000 troops next spring and summer, contingent on progress in Iraq's political process and in developing Iraqi security forces.

The increase in troops also coincides with a spike in the number of Americans killed fighting the insurgency after a U.S.-led invasion toppled President Saddam Hussein in 2003. Since July 30, at least 41 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq, including 18 on Aug. 3 alone.

A Pentagon tally released on Monday listed 1,829 U.S. military deaths since the start of the war in March 2003. Another 13,700 troops have been wounded in action.


Chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said the Defense Department may delay the scheduled departure of an unspecified number of the 139,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq, achieving a short-term increase in the size of the force as more troops flow into the country as previously planned.

Di Rita did not say how big an increase was envisioned. The Pentagon temporarily raised U.S. troop levels by about 20,000 to roughly 160,000 ahead of the historic Jan. 30 elections.

Asked if the size of the U.S. force this fall would reach 160,000 again, Di Rita said, "It could be more. It could be less."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other Pentagon leaders have predicted a rise in violence by insurgents attempting to disrupt the upcoming voting.

The Iraqis have an Aug. 15 deadline for drafting a new constitution, which would face a referendum on Oct. 15. Elections for a new government are scheduled for two months later.

"We'll have a lot of flexibility to be able to let the forces stack on top of one another during the rotation (of troops in and out of Iraq) so that we can have a greater capability during key points," Di Rita said.

"We altered the rotations of units during the January election. And I think it's perfectly plausible to assume we'll do the same thing for this election," said Di Rita, who said final decisions had not been made.

The military previously announced it was augmenting the U.S. force in Afghanistan ahead of Sept. 18 parliamentary elections by sending an airborne battalion of 700 to 800 82nd Airborne Division paratroopers from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to join the 17,600 American troops already in the country.

Di Rita did not rule out the possibility of dispatching a similar unit from the United States to Iraq but said it was more likely an increase in troop levels would come about as a result of delaying the scheduled departure of soldiers already serving there while new ones arrived as planned.

U.S. Army soldiers generally serve tours of no more than a year on the ground in Iraq at a time, with Marines serving seven-month stints.

Read More...

Summary only...

FCC hires anti-porn advocate as adviser

Reuters

FCC hires anti-porn advocate as adviser

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An outspoken anti-pornography advocate has been hired by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to advise the agency on consumer issues involving the cable and broadcast industry, which has been under scrutiny for airing racy material.

Penny Nance, who previously ran the "Kids First Coalition" which advocates on the issues of adoption, crime, pornography, abortion and computer safety, has been hired as a part-time adviser in the FCC's Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, an agency spokesman said.

Nance, a self-described religious conservative, has testified before Congress and has been interviewed on cable television about Internet child pornography. She did not return calls seeking comment.

A FCC spokesman was unable to say when she was hired or what her specific duties would be beyond providing advice and acting as a liaison to Congress, public interest groups and the industry. Her new job was first reported by Mediaweek.

The FCC this year has not yet proposed any fines against broadcasters though complaints are pending. In 2004, under then FCC Chairman Michael Powell, the agency proposed fines totaling almost $8 million.


One of the most recent complaints was by a parents group upset that the ABC television network failed to censor a swear word during one broadcast of the Live 8 concert, an event aimed at drawing attention to poverty in poor nations.

Federal regulations bar the broadcast of obscene material and limit indecent content, such as sexually explicit or profanity laden material, to late night hours when children are less likely to be in the audience.

Spokesmen for the National Association of Broadcasters and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association declined to comment on Nance's new job.

FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin became chairman in March and immediately prodded the cable industry to address concerns by parents worried about the content of programing.

The cable industry has responded with a $250 million campaign to better inform parents about their options to control what their children watch and the television and radio industry plans to issue guidelines to stations this summer.

Congress has been contemplating increasing the maximum fine for indecent incidents on broadcast television and radio to as much $500,000 per violation. The current maximum is $32,500.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill to raise fines but legislation in the Senate has not been considered.

Read More...

Summary only...

Parts of Patriot Act are offensive-lawyers group

Reuters

Parts of Patriot Act are offensive-lawyers group

By Andrew Stern

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The president-elect of the nation's largest lawyers group on Monday said some of the federal government's investigative powers included in the anti-terrorism Patriot Act are a threat to constitutional rights.

Michael Greco criticized aspects of the act, passed to bolster security after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, at the American Bar Association convention, where U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urged the U.S. Congress to renew it.

"We support the (Bush) administration in its efforts to secure the nation but we have taken policy positions, four or five of them, where we think due process has not been followed," Greco said in an interview with Reuters.

He criticized exceptions the law makes to the constitution's privacy protections that give law enforcement the power to search a home without the homeowner's knowledge and without a judge-approved search warrant.

"The ABA position is that some of these provisions are so invasive of individual liberties that there has to be a sunset provision. They're offensive, I think, to democracy," Greco said.


Members of a conference committee in Congress seeking to reconcile competing versions of the law's renewal are debating whether to include a four-year or 10-year "sunset" clause that would allow some of those provisions to expire.

In his address, Gonzales insisted the Patriot Act was essential to fighting terrorism and accused critics of clouding the debate with "a litany of misstatements and half-truths."

"We are fighting terrorism with the tools and techniques provided for in the Patriot Act, tools that have long been available to fight crime," he said. "We are doing this in a manner that protects individual rights and liberties.

"We are not interested in the reading habits of ordinary citizens (and) we are subject to the oversight of federal judges," Gonzales said, citing an oft-ridiculed provision that gives law enforcement powers to review library records and bookstore sales.

Although delegates to the group's annual convention did not single out President Bush, several resolutions appeared aimed at administration stances.

The group, which represents more than 400,000 attorneys, judges and law students, passed by unanimous voice vote a resolution calling for respect for judges.

Bush, for instance, has complained in the past about "activist judges" whose rulings have allowed gays to marry and otherwise angered conservatives. An outcry led by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay also followed judicial rulings in the right-to-die case involving Terri Schiavo, the brain-dead Florida woman whose former husband ultimately succeeded in having her feeding tube removed.

ABA delegates this week were expected to approve a halt to a perceived erosion of attorney-client privilege and a federal shield law for reporters seeking to protect their sources.

Read More...

Summary only...

NYC tests for biochemical attack

BBC NEWS
NYC tests for biochemical attack
By Jeremy Hillman
BBC News, New York

Officials in New York City have begun conducting a large-scale anti-terror test aimed at simulating the effects of a major biochemical attack.

Scientists released a harmless gas in the city's underground railway system.

Hundreds of devices across New York are now tracking the way the gas is being carried by the airflows between Manhattan's skyscrapers.

Officials hope the exercise will help in planning how and where people should be evacuated in case of a real attack.

The exercise comes as the city has raised security following the bombings London's transport system last month.

Complex

Monday is the first of six days of testing this month when gas will be released at different locations and times of day.


A spokeswoman for a programme involved in the project said "it went very well".

Around 100 scientists are working on the simulation.

The gas will be collected and analysed by hundreds of devices placed in baskets and on rooftops across the city, including in Times Square.

This exercise is one of the most complex gas trials ever conducted.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4133440.stm

Read More...

Summary only...

Judge-only terror courts mooted

BBC NEWS
Judge-only terror courts mooted
Judge-only courts are being considered for pre-trial hearings in terror cases, the Home Office has confirmed.

Sitting in secret, judges would look at whether there was enough evidence against suspects for cases to proceed.

On Friday, Tony Blair said the government was looking into a new court procedure allowing a pre-trial process, as he unveiled new terror measures.

Commons home affairs committee chairman John Denham has criticised ministers for putting forward "half-baked" ideas.

The Home Office said details of how terror cases would be tried were still being worked out, but confirmed a move to judge-only courts was under active consideration.

Phone-taps?


Sources told the BBC one possibility was a model similar to the Special Immigrations Appeals Tribunal, which sits in secret and keeps the details of charges from those accused of them.

In those cases defendants are represented by special advocates, who have access to the evidence but do not brief their 'clients' on the details.

BBC Political Correspondent James Hardy said: "A change of that nature might allow the authorities to use phone-tap evidence, currently inadmissible in court."

However, the Home Office said there was no truth in newspaper reports that the courts would be able to use such evidence.

James Hardy also said the changes could underpin police requests to be permitted to hold suspects without charge for longer than the current maximum of 14 days

For Muslims there, they have a duty to fight occupiers, whether they are British soldiers or American soldiers
Omar Bakri Mohammed

A similar system used to detain foreign terrorist suspects without trial was ruled unlawful by the law lords last year.

Ministers made little secret then of their anger at its defeat in the courts and now believe the London bombings may have changed the legal climate, our correspondent says.

Liberal Democrat President Simon Hughes suggested there "may be a case" for security-vetted judges to undertake special work.

But he doubted a major extension of the time suspects were held could be justified.

Tory spokesman Edward Garnier urged the government to "calm down and think these things through" and to consult other parties on the detailed proposals.

Unveiling a raft of counter-terror proposals on Friday, Mr Blair said British hospitality had been abused but people should know the "rules of the game are changing".

He also announced plans to extend powers to deport or exclude foreigners who encourage terrorism, perhaps through changing human rights laws.

'Half-baked'

There could also be new powers to close mosques and automatic refusal of asylum to anyone with anything to do with terrorism.

Police and lawyers are also meeting this week to discuss the possibility of charging some outspoken Islamist radicals with treason.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have accused the government of confusion by announcing different measures on different days.

Mr Denham said the ministers had initially produced a considered response to the London attacks, but that it now looked like they were acting in a knee-jerk fashion.

Clerics

"I think they have got to get a grip on it very, very quickly, stop floating half-baked ideas and get back a proper cross-party consensus on the serious measures that have to be taken."

A Downing Street spokeswoman said Tony Blair had made it clear how he wants to proceed.

Attorney General Lord Goldsmith and Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald have discussed action for treason against three clerics.

Abu Izzadeen, Abu Uzair and Omar Bakri Mohammed, who is now understood to have left the country, were all expected to come under scrutiny.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4133564.stm

Read More...

Summary only...

Army whistleblower draws fire

Army whistleblower draws fire

By DEBORAH HASTINGS
AP National Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In the world as Bunnatine Greenhouse sees it, people do the right thing. They stand up for the greater good and they speak up when things go wrong. She believes God has a purpose for each life and she prays every day for that purpose to be made evident. These days she is praying her heart out, because she is in a great deal of trouble.

Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse is the Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting ("PARC" in the alphabet soup of military acronyms) in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Lest the title fool, she is responsible for awarding billions upon billions in taxpayers' money to private companies hired to resurrect war-torn Iraq and to feed, clothe, shelter and do the laundry of American troops stationed there.

She has rained a mighty storm upon herself for standing up, before members of Congress and live on C-SPAN to proclaim things are just not right in this staggeringly profitable business.

She has asked many questions: Why is Halliburton - a giant Texas firm that holds more than 50 percent of all rebuilding efforts in Iraq - getting billions in contracts without competitive bidding? Do the durations of those contracts make sense? Have there been violations of federal laws regulating how the government can spend its money?

Halliburton denies any wrongdoing. "These false allegations have been recycled in the media ad nauseam," the company said in response to a list of e-mailed questions from The Associated Press.

Now Bunny Greenhouse may lose her job - and her reputation, which she spent a lifetime building.

She is a black woman in a world of mostly white men; a 60-year-old workaholic who abides neither fools nor frauds. But she is out of her element in this fight, her former boss said.

"What Bunny is caught up in is politics of the highest damn order," said retired Gen. Joe Ballard, who hired Greenhouse and headed the Corps until 2000. "This is real hardball they're playing here. Bunny is a procurement officer, she's not a politician. She's not trained to do this."

---

Greenhouse has known for a long time that her days may be numbered. Her needling of contracts awarded to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) predated the war in Iraq, beginning with costs she said were spiraling "out of control" from a 2000 Bosnia contract to service U.S. troops. From 1995 to 2000, Halliburton's CEO was Dick Cheney, who left to run for vice president. He maintains his former company has not received preferential treatment from the government.

Since then, she had questioned both the amounts and the reasons for giving KBR tremendous contracts in the buildup to invading Iraq. At first she was ignored, she said. Then she was cut out of the decision-making process.

Last October 6, she was summoned to the office of her boss. Major Gen. Robert Griffin, the Corps' deputy commander, was demoting her, he told her, taking away her Senior Executive Service status and sending her to midlevel management. Not unlike being cast out of the office of bank president into the cubicle of branch manager. Griffin declined to be interviewed by the AP.

Her performance was poor, said a letter he presented. This was a surprise. Her previous job evaluations had been exemplary, she said. The basic theme was that she was "difficult," and "nobody likes you," she said.

If she didn't want the new position, she could always retire with full benefits, the letter noted.

Over my dead body, said Greenhouse.

"I took an oath of office. I took those words that I was going to protect the interests of my government and my country. So help me God," she says. "And nobody. Has the right. To take away my privilege. To serve my government. Nobody."


She has hired lawyer Michael Kohn, who successfully represented Linda Tripp in her claim that the Pentagon leaked personal information after she secretly taped Monica Lewinsky's confessions of a sexual affair with President Bill Clinton.

Two weeks after Greenhouse's trip to the woodshed, Kohn wrote an 11-page letter to the acting Secretary of the Army, requesting an independent investigation of "improper action that favored KBR's interests."

He also asked that his client be protected against retaliation under whistleblower statutes.

Then he reminded the Army secretary of Federal Acquisition Requirement 3.101: "Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach ... with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none."

The status of an independent investigation by the Defense Department is unclear. "As a matter of policy, we do not comment on open and ongoing investigations," said Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Rose-Ann Lynch.

Halliburton is also under federal investigation for alleged favoritism by the Bush administration. FBI agents questioned Greenhouse for nine hours last November about that probe. In March, a former employee was indicted for taking bribes while working for KBR in Iraq.

Company spokeswoman Melissa Norcross said KBR has "delivered vital services for U.S. troops and the Iraqi people at a fair and reasonable cost, given the circumstances."

Meanwhile, Greenhouse has been placed under a 3-month performance review ending in September.

---

When Gen. Ballard hired her in 1997 she was overqualified - three master's degrees and more than 20 years of contracting experience in private industry, the Army and the Pentagon.

"She is probably the most professional person I've ever met, " Ballard said. "And she plays it straight. That created problems for her after I left."

Ballard used her, he said, to help him revolutionize the Corps - by ending the old-boys practice of awarding contracts to a favored few, and by imposing private industry standards on a mammoth, 230-year-old government agency with 35,000 workers. He felt the Corps, which had overseen everything from building hydroelectric dams to the Soo Locks to the Manhattan Project, needed a hard boot into the new age of contracting.

"The Corps is a tough organization. And I'll tell you, it's not easy to be a woman in this organization, and a black one at that," said Ballard, who was the first black leader of the Corps.

He is not optimistic about her future.

"I think you can put a fork in it," he said. "Her career is done."

At Corps headquarters, few speak to her, she said, and her bosses write down what she says at departmental meetings.

Sometimes, as she walks down a hall, someone will mutter, "Go for it, Bunny," or "Give 'em hell," she said. "They pass by saying this while they're looking straight ahead," she recounted, and chuckled.

In a city where politics is everything, including blood sport, she refuses to play. Right down to her clothes.

Bunny Greenhouse does not subscribe to the Capitol chic of a dowdy Janet Reno jacket and skirt or a boxy Hillary Clinton suit with buttons the size of quarters. On a sweltering summer day, seated in her lawyer's Georgetown office, Greenhouse wears a vibrant pink-and-black shirt, tight-fitting trousers with creases that could cut butter, and a blazer with a shredded-fabric flower.

Her bag - overflowing with files, papers, pens, wallet, cell phone - rivals the weight of a bound copy of the federal budget. Underestimate her at your peril.

"I have never gone along to get along. And I'm willing to suffer the consequences," she said.

Her contracting staff was sharply reduced, she said, and her superiors have gone behind her back, most notably in issuing an emergency waiver - on a day she was out of the office - that allowed KBR to ignore requests from Department of Defense auditors who issued a draft report in 2003 concluding KBR overcharged the government $61 million for fuel in Iraq.

"They knew I would never have signed it," she said.

The Army Corps of Engineers declined to comment on Greenhouse's complaints. "It's a personnel matter," said Corps spokeswoman Carol Sanders. "We're not going to go point-by-point with Ms. Greenhouse's accusations.

"They want me out," Greenhouse said.

---

In her job, Greenhouse is mandated by Congress to get the best quality at the cheapest price from the most qualified supplier. Over her objections, KBR was awarded three multibillion-dollar war-related contracts, two of them without competitive bidding.

Together, they are worth as much as $20 billion - the entire cost of the Manhattan Project, adjusted to today's dollars.

Greenhouse's most strenuous complaints were over the Restore Iraqi Oil contract, estimated at $7 billion, originally planned to handle oil field fires that might be started by Saddam Hussein's troops. When that failed to happen, it morphed into an agreement to repair oil fields and import fuel for civilians and soldiers.

The contract was given to KBR in March 2003. In Greenhouse's view, that process violated federal regulations concerning fair and open bidding. Halliburton denies that.

A month before KBR got the contract - and three weeks before the U.S. invaded Iraq - she had demanded KBR officials be ejected from a Pentagon meeting attended by high-ranking officials from the Corps and the Defense Department. "They should not have been there," she said. "We were discussing the terms of the contract."

Later, she would tell Democratic members of Congress: "The abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have ever witnessed during the course of my professional career."

At the Corps, Greenhouse said she was told KBR was the only qualified firm.

With the country on the brink of war, she reluctantly signed the RIO contract. But next to her signature, she boldly wrote an objection to the only thing she felt she could challenge - the contract's length, five years. One year would have been more than fair, she said. After that, it should have been put out for bid among contractors with top security clearances.

"I caution that extending this sole source contract beyond a one-year period could convey an invalid perception that there is not strong intent for a limited competition," she penned in neat cursive.

In June, she was asked to testify before the Democratic Policy Committee - formed by Democrats who said their efforts to get the Republican-controlled Congress to investigate alleged war profiteering had been repeatedly denied.

She was joined by a former Halliburton employee who said KBR fed spoiled food to American troops and charged the government for thousands of meals it never served.

Halliburton would not specifically address the former employee's claims. Norcross said taking care of troops is "our priority."

"I thought she was very courageous to come forward and blow the whistle," Rep. Henry Waxman of California said of Greenhouse. "The administration ran around her and ignored her. We owe her a debt of gratitude."

And if she is forced out?

"I would find that outrageous," Waxman replied. "They should be promoting her."

Greenhouse is a registered independent. Her husband, Aloyisus Greenhouse, is retired after a long Army career as a senior procurement officer. They have three grown children.

Bunny grew up in the segregated South, where her parents taught her and her siblings to be proud and hardworking. Her brother is Elvin Hayes, the Hall of Fame basketball player. She followed her husband's military postings, moving and moving and then moving again. In each place she found her own way, and her own job.

Her husband watches what is happening to her and tries to bite his lip.

"Bunny has a lot of faith. She really believes that someone will stand up and say, 'This is wrong.' But I don't think a person exists like that in the Department of Defense."

But in her world, Bunny Greenhouse's faith still beams.

"I simply believe that we have callings and purposes in this life. I walk through this life for a purpose. I wake up every day for a purpose. And every day I say, 'Here I am. Send me.' "

Read More...

Summary only...

Justice Stevens criticizes death penalty

Justice Stevens criticizes death penalty

By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer

CHICAGO (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens steered the debate over President Bush's nominee to a new subject: capital punishment, sharply condemning the country's death penalty system.

The court has been closely divided in death row cases, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor often in the middle.

President Bush's choice to replace her, John Roberts, has a limited track record. Roberts, 50, showed little sympathy for prisoner appeals as a government lawyer in the Reagan administration, but later did free legal work for a death row inmate.

In a February 1983 memo while serving in the Reagan White House, Roberts suggested that the high court could cut its caseload by "abdicating the role of fourth or fifth guesser in death penalty cases."

Stevens used a weekend speech to the American Bar Association to underscore the matter's prominence at the court, noting evidence of "serious flaws."

His remarks provide the first sign of internal dismay over the retirement of O'Connor, a 75-year-old pragmatist who has been a key voter in affirmative action, abortion rights and the death penalty.


So far, much of the focus of the Roberts nomination has been on matters like abortion and civil rights - not the death penalty. His Senate confirmation hearings begin Sept. 6.

"It doesn't appear to be shaping up as a major issue," said Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a pro-death penalty group.

Scheidegger said that although Roberts' wife, Jane, is a member of a group that opposes capital punishment, Roberts has had no opportunities to vote on death cases in his two years on a federal appeals court.

Stevens has evolved into the Supreme Court's most liberal member, in the 30 years since his nomination by Republican President Ford.

Another justice who made a similar transformation was Harry A. Blackmun, who months before his 1994 retirement declared: "I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death."

Stevens, who at 85 is the oldest justice, has given no hints that he will retire soon. A Stevens retirement while Republicans control the White House and Senate would likely dramatically reshape the court.

Stevens, speaking in his hometown of Chicago, started his Saturday night speech to lawyers with what he called the "sad news" that O'Connor was leaving the court.

"It's really a very, very wrenching experience," he said.

The comments were not part of his prepared remarks for the evening, to honor liberal former judge and congressman Abner Mikva, nor were the remarks about capital punishment.

Stevens said DNA evidence has shown "that a substantial number of death sentences have been imposed erroneously."

"It indicates that there must be serious flaws in our administration of criminal justice," he said.

Death penalty cases dominate the work of the high court. Week after week justices deal with final emergency appeals, sometimes filed in the late night hours.

In their last term which ended in June, justices overturned the death sentences of four inmates, ruled that states cannot put to death killers who were not at least 18 years old at the time of the crime and held that it was unconstitutional to force defendants to appear before juries in chains during a trial's penalty phase.

Justices already have four capital cases on their docket when they return to work in October, including a potentially significant issue of letting inmates have a new chance to prove their innocence with DNA evidence.

Other Supreme Court justices, including O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have also spoken out about concerns that defendants in murder cases are not adequately represented at trial.

But Stevens told the ABA that the problems were more dramatic.

He said the jury selection process and the fact that many trial judges are elected work against accused murderers. He also said that jurors might be improperly swayed by victim-impact statements.

Stevens was speaking in Illinois, his home state and a place that has been roiled by controversy over the death penalty. In 2000, wrongful convictions led then-Gov. George Ryan to halt all executions.

It also came just a day after a Virginia jury decided against the inmate whose case led to a 2002 Supreme Court ban on executing the mentally retarded. The jury said Daryl Atkins was mentally competent and could be put to death.

Stevens wrote that 2002 Atkins decision, which was joined by O'Connor. One of the three dissenters was Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who hired Roberts as a law clerk in 1980. A year later, as a Justice Department lawyer, Roberts wrote in a memo that the availability of federal court appeals, "particularly for state prisoners, goes far to making a mockery of the entire criminal justice system."

Stevens, however, laid out the case for close review of appeals, pointing to "special risks of unfairness" in capital punishment.

According to the anti-capital punishment Death Penalty Information Center, more than three dozen death row inmates have been exonerated since 2000.

Said Scheidegger, "I wouldn't say that 20 or 30 cases out of 8,000 constitutes a broken system."

---

On the Net:

American Bar Association: http://www.abanet.org

Read More...

Summary only...

Roberts' Senate hearing to raise many questions

Reuters

Roberts' Senate hearing to raise many questions

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts will be grilled on matters from abortion to civil rights when his Senate confirmation hearing opens, but a key issue is how much the 50-year-old conservative will answer.

Getting responses from Roberts on where he stands on issues may be Democrats' only hope of blocking what opponents view as a move by President Bush to shift the nation's top court to the right.

If confirmed, Roberts, a federal appeals judge, will replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a mainstream conservative who often cast the decisive vote on the closely divided court.

"Federal court candidates, who serve for life, should explain their judicial philosophy and their method of legal reasoning," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat and Senate Judiciary Committee member who has already given Roberts a seven-page list of questions.

Key to the process will be committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican who will run the televised hearings that begin Sept. 6.

Specter wrote in his 2000 book "Passion for Truth" that "the Senate should resist, if not refuse, to confirm Supreme Court nominees who refuse to answer questions on fundamental issues."

He notes, however, that "nominees tend to answer just as many questions as they have to in order to be confirmed."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and former chairman of the committee, said panel members can ask what they want. "But we must realize, as we have in the past, that simply asking a question does not mean a judicial nominee should answer it," he said.

Republicans also contend Roberts should not have to prejudge any case that could come before him.

That means he could refuse to answer many questions. The nation's top court deals with virtually every major issue affecting Americans, from terrorism and church-state disputes to the balance of power between the federal and state governments.


PROBING QUESTIONS

"Historically, nominees have not been asked particularly probing questions, and when asked they have not answered," said Eugene Volokh, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA.

Hatch noted that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nominated to the Supreme Court in 1993 by Democratic President Bill Clinton, had a rule when asked to prejudge issues or cases: "No hints, no forecasts, no previews." She was confirmed, 96-3.

Republican party Chairman Ken Mehlman said last week, "I believe Judge Roberts has the right to expect the same treatment, and the same swift confirmation."

While no Democrats have announced plans to oppose him, they want to know where Roberts, who served in the administrations of two previous Republican presidents, stands on some landmark Supreme Court rulings such as the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, said he doubts a nominee could be confirmed unless he or she views Roe v. Wade as "settled law of the land."

Roberts said just that before being confirmed two years ago to the federal appeals court. However, he is unlikely to repeat it, because he is now bidding for a place on the high court, which can reverse earlier precedents.

Democrats have also demanded access to internal documents on Roberts relating to divisive issues including school desegregation, the death penalty and civil rights. The Justice Department on Friday refused to release some of the requested documents from Roberts' work for the agency, saying it was not in the public interest.

Volokh said an exception to the pattern of nominees not answering questions was Robert Bork, "who answered questions in great detail and got rejected."

Bork was nominated in 1987 by Republican President Ronald Reagan and viewed by critics as a conservative extremist.

Specter, not chairman at the time, opposed Bork, saying, "I believe there is substantial doubt as to how he would apply fundamental principles of constitutional law."

Read More...

Summary only...

Calif. drug proposals spark huge campaigns

Calif. drug proposals spark huge campaigns

By BETH FOUHY
AP Political Writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- The soaring price of prescription drugs has led federal and state lawmakers to seek ways to ease the burden on uninsured residents. But in California, the land of direct democracy, drug companies and consumer groups are going straight to the voters with dueling initiatives in one of the costliest campaigns in U.S. history.

Both measures on California's Nov. 8 special election ballot would cover uninsured residents of all ages who are not eligible for Medicaid, the federal health program for the poor. But they differ on how many people would be eligible and whether drug companies would be forced to participate.

Proposition 79, backed by a coalition of consumer groups and unions, would offer prescription drug discounts to uninsured individuals and families making up to four times the federal poverty level - up to $37,000 for an individual and $75,000 for a family of four. It would discourage any companies that refuse to provide discounts from participating in the state's $4 billion Medicaid program, and would allow residents to sue drug companies for "illegal profiteering."

"Proposition 79 is the wrong proposition for the people of California," said Jan Faiks, vice president for government affairs at the Washington-based Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America. "We will spend as much as it takes to educate the voters. It is that important to us."


PhRMA has made good on that promise. Since June, the California Initiative Fund, an industry-controlled account, has collected more than $59 million, according to campaign finance reports released this past week, a figure that should rise significantly. Drug companies including Pfizer, Merck & Co. and Glaxosmithkline each made identical contributions of nearly $8.4 million to the fund.

By contrast, the pharmaceutical industry spent a total of $9.4 million to affect federal elections in 2004, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

At this pace, drug companies' spending will easily surpass the previous record for a state initiative campaign, of $66 million, spent by Indian tribes in 1998 to legalize casino gambling on tribal land in California.

"The amount they've collected is breathtaking, and it shows how scared they are and how much trouble they think they're in," said Anthony Wright of Health Access California, a consumer group backing Proposition 79. "Is this a David and Goliath fight? Yes. But there are lots of Davids out there who are suffering through high drug costs - and remember, David won."

The drug industry's alternative is Proposition 78, based on legislation supported last year by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who as governor has received over $377,000 in contributions from drug companies.

It would allow drug companies to voluntarily participate in a plan offering discounts to uninsured residents earning three times the federal poverty level - up to $28,000 for an individual and $56,000 for a family of four.

Many states, including California, have programs that provide drug discounts to senior citizens and the disabled, but only Hawaii, Maine and Michigan have programs that cover people of all ages. Arkansas, Maryland, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Rhode Island have recently passed laws creating low-cost drug programs for uninsured of all ages, but none have yet launched.

But as the nation's most populous state, California presents more of a threat to the drug companies' bottom line, and the idea of allowing people to sue over "illegal profiteering" has mobilized industry lobbyists like never before.

A statewide Field poll released last month showed voters favoring both initiatives, with 64 percent saying they support the industry initiative and 54 percent supporting the consumer measure.

That deeply concerns both sides. Under state law, voters can say yes or no to either or both of the initiatives - and if both pass the measure with the most votes becomes law.

Both sides have tried to negotiate a way out of this political war. The obstacle, both sides say, is that the propositions can't be removed from the ballot.

That means that even if a compromise were reached, it would have to be placed on the ballot as a third alternative to compete with the other two - a recipe for even more voter confusion.

State Sen. Deborah Ortiz co-sponsored the industry-backed bill last year. She said a legislative solution could have been reached that would have eliminated the need for an expensive ballot showdown, but "heavy handed" campaigning by opponents got in the way.

"What's really unfortunate is, all this aggressive opposition really had to do with politics, not policy," Ortiz said. "Shame on all of them."

Sofya Rubinshteyn, 58, who lives in San Francisco with her husband on a combined income of about $30,000 per year, cares less about politics than about getting help - and soon. She takes three separate medications to control her high blood pressure. Her husband, a diabetic, takes numerous drugs every day.

"We need whatever it takes to reduce the cost of medication - it's a necessity to survive, it's not just a luxury," Rubinshteyn said.

Read More...

Summary only...

ABC News anchor Peter Jennings dies of cancer

Reuters
ABC News anchor Peter Jennings dies of cancer

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Peter Jennings, prime-time anchorman for ABC News for more than two decades, died of lung cancer on Sunday at his home in New York, the network said. He was 67.

The Canadian-born Jennings, host of ABC's "World News Tonight" since 1983, announced in April that he had been diagnosed with lung cancer.

"Peter died with his family around him, without pain and in peace. He knew he'd lived a good life," his family said in a statement released by the network.



Jennings was the last of a generation of long-serving lead anchors for major U.S. broadcasters.

He is survived by his wife Kayce Freed, his two children Elizabeth, 25 and Christopher, 23 and his sister, Sarah Jennings.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fight over Alaska oil drilling continues

Fight over Alaska oil drilling continues

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Conspicuous by its absence in the sweeping energy bill that President Bush has championed and will sign Monday is his top energy priority: opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling.

But the fight over the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will flare anew in Congress next month with drilling advocates saying they have their best chance in more than two decades of making it happen.

Tapping what is believed to be at least 10 billion barrels of oil within the refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain has been the centerpiece of Bush's energy agenda dating back to his first presidential campaign in 2000. Bush has repeatedly said the oil is important to the nation's national and economic security.

But the idea that drilling proponents might win has produced outrage among environmentalists, who see the region as a pristine refuge where caribou, polar bears, migratory birds and other wildlife thrive and should be protected.

A coalition of most Democrats and a handful of moderate Republicans repeatedly has thwarted attempts to open the refuge to energy development through the power of the Senate filibuster.

"If we had put (Arctic drilling) in the bill, we wouldn't be here," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., celebrating passage of the energy bill that Bush plans to sign in a ceremony in Albuquerque, N.M. The bill never could have mustered the 60 votes needed to overcome a certain Senate filibuster over ANWR, he says.

But drilling advocates have a backup plan that is expected to unfold in mid-September.

Domenici said he will include a provision authorizing ANWR drilling as part of a budget procedure that is immune to filibuster. A similar maneuver is being planned in the House, although the final strategy is still being worked out.

Unlike normal legislation, the budget process is not subject to filibuster, so only 51 votes will be needed in the Senate for it to clear Congress and be signed into law by the president. Just such a tactic was used a decade ago when Congress approved ANWR drilling as part of the budget process, only to see the measure vetoed by then-President Clinton, a drilling opponent.
Fight over Alaska oil drilling continues

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Conspicuous by its absence in the sweeping energy bill that President Bush has championed and will sign Monday is his top energy priority: opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling.

But the fight over the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will flare anew in Congress next month with drilling advocates saying they have their best chance in more than two decades of making it happen.

Tapping what is believed to be at least 10 billion barrels of oil within the refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain has been the centerpiece of Bush's energy agenda dating back to his first presidential campaign in 2000. Bush has repeatedly said the oil is important to the nation's national and economic security.

But the idea that drilling proponents might win has produced outrage among environmentalists, who see the region as a pristine refuge where caribou, polar bears, migratory birds and other wildlife thrive and should be protected.

A coalition of most Democrats and a handful of moderate Republicans repeatedly has thwarted attempts to open the refuge to energy development through the power of the Senate filibuster.

"If we had put (Arctic drilling) in the bill, we wouldn't be here," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., celebrating passage of the energy bill that Bush plans to sign in a ceremony in Albuquerque, N.M. The bill never could have mustered the 60 votes needed to overcome a certain Senate filibuster over ANWR, he says.

But drilling advocates have a backup plan that is expected to unfold in mid-September.

Domenici said he will include a provision authorizing ANWR drilling as part of a budget procedure that is immune to filibuster. A similar maneuver is being planned in the House, although the final strategy is still being worked out.

Unlike normal legislation, the budget process is not subject to filibuster, so only 51 votes will be needed in the Senate for it to clear Congress and be signed into law by the president. Just such a tactic was used a decade ago when Congress approved ANWR drilling as part of the budget process, only to see the measure vetoed by then-President Clinton, a drilling opponent.


Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said her state's delegation is determined to push for opening the refuge, calling it "the final component" of a nation energy plan that she hopes will be put in place later this year.

Alaska would get half of the proceeds from oil leases, which the Congressional Budget Office has estimated at $5 billion over five years, shared equally by the federal government and the state.

This expected revenue is at the heart of the strategy drilling supporters plan to pursue to end more than 20 years of debate over access to ANWR's oil. The budget will assume $2.5 billion in federal revenue from ANWR lease sales, beginning in 2007. That, in turn will allow lawmakers to draft an accompanying document authorizing such drilling - a so-called "reconciliation" document which is not subject to filibuster and when signed by the president will have the force of law.

It's "backdoor budget chicanery," complained Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., an ANWR drilling opponent. "By shoehorning the Arctic refuge into the budget, they are making an end-run around the legislative process, knowing it cannot pass the Senate any other way."

But drilling advocates accuse opponents of also having relied on parliamentary maneuvers, the filibuster, to keep the issue from being decided on a straight up-or-down vote.

Environmentalists are gearing up for a fight, hitting state fairs, town meetings and other community events during the summer August doldrums when Congress is in recess, hoping to rally public sentiment against drilling.

"We're not holding anything back. We're organizing like we have never before," said Athan Manuel of U.S. PIRG, a grass-roots environmental advocacy group with branches in every state.

The outcome could depend on a handful of votes, says Melinda Pierce, of the Sierra Club. But handicapping them will be anything but simple.

---

On the Net

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: http://arctic.fws.gov

Read More...

Summary only...

Troop cuts in Iraq feasible - House Republican

Reuters

Troop cuts in Iraq feasible - House Republican

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States might be able to remove up to 30,000 troops from Iraq by next spring as the Iraqi military gets stronger, the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee said on Sunday.

Separately, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Time magazine that Iraqi insurgents were losing steam as a political force even though their ability to kill and maim appeared undiminished.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, said on CBS' "Face the Nation" it was feasible to begin planning for U.S. troop reductions of that size even though recent deadly attacks have again raised questions about whether Washington has underestimated the Iraqi insurgency.

Reports indicate "there is a growing strong core of strength in the Iraqi military, that it's standing and fighting, that it's doing its share of the load," Hunter said.

Rice said the Iraqi insurgency was losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

"I do think the insurgency has a problem, which is that as the political process matures and the Iraqis every day accept the political process as their future, (the insurgents) become more and more isolated from the population and they become nothing but a destructive force," Rice told Time.

More progress was being made in Iraq than the rising U.S. death toll suggests, Rice said.

"It's a lot easier to see the violence and suicide bombing than to see the rather quiet political progress that's going on in parallel," she said.

On Wednesday a roadside bomb just outside Haditha, 120 miles northwest of Baghdad, killed 14 Marines, the deadliest attack of its kind since the war began.


Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat and member of the Armed Services Committee, cautioned that success in Iraq depends on meaningful political and economic development.

"And that's going to take a long time," Reed told CBS.

Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. Middle East commander, has outlined a plan that would reduce American forces in Iraq by some 20,000 to 30,000 by next spring if the security and political situation allows it, The New York Times reported on Sunday.

There are currently some 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and Abizaid's plan calls for the number to rise temporarily to 160,000 in December to provide security for elections of a new Iraqi National Assembly, the paper said.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, told the "Fox News Sunday" program that the United States should clarify its objectives rather than discuss a military drawdown.

"One is, we should state forthrightly, 'We have no desire to have a permanent base there.' Two, 'We have no desire to deal with their oil,"' Biden said.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Credibility Gap

The Credibility Gap

Read More...

Summary only...

Its Your Turn To Sacrifice

Its Your Turn To Sacrifice

Read More...

Summary only...

Vulnerable

Vulnerable

Read More...

Summary only...

Let's Hope He Mellowed

Let's Hope He Mellowed

Read More...

Summary only...

Trojan Judge

Trojan Judge

Read More...

Summary only...

Angry Mom Protests President

CBS News
Angry Mom Protests President

CRAWFORD, Texas

The angry mother of a fallen U.S. soldier staged a protest near President Bush's ranch, demanding an accounting from Bush of how he has conducted the war in Iraq.

Supported by more than 50 demonstrators who chanted, “W. killed her son!” Cindy Sheehan told reporters: “I want to ask the president, 'Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for?”'

CBS News Correspondent Mark Knoller reports that the passion of Sheehan’s message reflects the polarizing effects of war and may be why some in the administration tried late last month to call the conflict something else.

Sheehan, 48, didn't get to see Bush, but did talk about 45 minutes with national security adviser Steve Hadley and deputy White House chief of staff Joe Hagin, who went out to hear her concerns.

Appreciative of their attention, yet undaunted, Sheehan said she planned to continue her roadside vigil, except for a few breaks, until she gets to talk to Bush. Her son, Casey, 24, was killed in Sadr City, Iraq, on April 4, 2004. He was an Army specialist, a Humvee mechanic.

“They (the advisers) said we are in Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that the world's a better place with Saddam gone and that we're making the world a safer place with what we're doing over there,” Sheehan said in a telephone interview after the meeting.

“They were very respectful. They were nice men. I told them Iraq was not a threat to the United States and that now people are dead for nothing. I told them I wouldn't leave until I talked to George Bush.”

She said Hagin told her, “I want to assure you that he (Bush) really does care.”

“And I said if he does care, why doesn't he come out and talk to me.”

Sheehan arrived in Crawford aboard a bus painted red, white and blue and emblazoned with the words, “Impeachment Tour.” Sheehan, from Vacaville, Calif., had been attending a Veterans for Peace convention in Dallas.


The bus, trailed by about 20 cars of protesters and reporters, drove at about 15 mph toward Bush's ranch. After several miles, they parked the vehicles and began to march, in stifling heat, farther down the narrow country road.

Flanked by miles of pasture, Sheehan spoke with reporters while clutching two photographs, one of her son in uniform, and the other, a baby picture, when he was seven months old.

She said she decided to come to Crawford a few days ago after Bush said that fallen U.S. troops had died for a noble cause and that the mission must be completed.

“I want to ask the president, `Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for?” she said, her voice cracking with emotion. “Last week, you said my son died for a noble cause and I want to ask him what that noble cause is?”

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said response that Bush also wants the troops to return home safely.

“Many of the hundreds of families the president has met with know their loved one died for a noble cause and that the best way to honor their sacrifice is to complete the mission,” Duffy said.

“It is a message the president has heard time and again from those he has met with and comforted. Like all Americans, he wants the troops home as soon as possible.”

The group marched about a half-mile before local law enforcement officials stopped them at a bend in the road, still four to five miles from the ranch's entrance. Capt. Kenneth Vanek of the McLennan County Sheriff's Office said the group was stopped because some marchers ignored instructions to walk in the ditch beside the road, not on the road.

“If they won't cooperate, we won't,” Vanek said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Cheney's Deadly 'Last Throes'

The Nation
Cheney's Deadly 'Last Throes'
John Nichols

Vice President Dick Cheney, who predicted on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, that Americans would be "greeted as liberators," has in recent weeks been peddling a new line of spin.

If Cheney was not in charge of U.S. foreign policy, he could be dismissed as a ranting lunatic. But, because of his title, and because the former Secretary of Defense is the dominant player in the Bush administration when it comes to military policy, Cheney has to be taken seriously -- as seriously, that is, as his bizarro worldview permits.

Unfortunately, the primary reason to take Cheney seriously is the fact that Americans and Iraqis are dying because of the policies he has promoted. And, of course, because those same policies are emptying the U.S. Treasury into the quagmire that is Iraq.

So it is appropriate to try and hold Cheney accountable.

And it is not difficult to do so.

Here is what Cheney said during a June 20, 2005, interview on CNN's Larry King Live:

Hailing what he described as "major progress" in Iraq, Cheney said, "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

Here is what the Associated Press reported from Iraq on August 3, 2005, less than two months after Cheney asserted that the insurgency was fading away:


BAGHDAD, Iraq - Fourteen U.S. Marines and a civilian interpreter were killed Wednesday in western Iraq, the U.S. command said.

The Marines, assigned to Regimental Combat Team 2, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward), were killed in action early Wednesday when their vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device, the military said. One Marine was also wounded in the attack.

The Associated Press report goes on to note that:

The latest losses come on the heels of the deaths of seven U.S. Marines in combat two days ago in the volatile Euphrates Valley of western Iraq. The American deaths come as the Bush administration is talking about handing more security responsibility to the Iraqis and drawing down forces next year.

At least 39 American service members have been killed in Iraq since July 24 - all but two in combat. In addition, 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.

It looks as if the last throes that Cheney was discussing with Larry King have turned out to be death throes for the young American men and women who are serving in Iraq, as well as for the Iraqi people.

Any attempt to address Cheney's rhetorical excesses brings to mind the words of a young veteran from another misguided and unnecessary war.

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam?" young John Kerry asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Cheney has come up with a contemporary answer for that question. How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Iraq? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

For Cheney, that's simple: Just keep telling the young men and women who are marching to their deaths that they will be greeted as liberators and that the enemy is so weak that it is in its "last throes."

In other words, just keep spinning a slurry of fantasy and lies into U.S. policy.

Read More...

Summary only...

Timing Is Key to Success

cq.com
Craig Crawford's 1600: Timing Is Key to Success
By Craig Crawford, CQ Columnist

What do Terri Schiavo’s parents think about the Central American Free Trade Agreement? After all, they helped pass it. Many thought that President Bush and Republican congressional leaders blundered last March when they rushed to intervene in the court battle over a dying woman’s feeding tube. Sure, the polls showed that most Americans thought it was out of line for Congress to pass a law ordering federal courts to review the case. But the maneuver served a hidden purpose that White House insiders only now will admit. It helped save House Majority Leader Tom DeLay from the media wolves then chomping on his ethical problems.

The risky Schiavo vote four months ago paid off big time for Bush just before Congress left town for a month, when DeLay took command of CAFTA arm-twisting and won a 217-215 photo finish in the House.

The politics of distraction strikes again. It is a tactic the Bush administration has honed into pure science. Timing is the key, and the president’s team has a sense of it that Broadway’s best actors would envy.

Just look at how they recently diverted the media from Karl Rove’s legal troubles. As the media hunt for the president’s political guru reached a fever pitch, the Bush camp rushed up the rumored timetable for a Supreme Court nomination. Presidential aides delivered a week of speculation about various people under consideration, then followed through with the announcement of John G. Roberts Jr., a relatively unknown quantity requiring exhaustive media explorations of his past that are continuing today.

As is typically the case during such distractions, the issue from which attention has been diverted has not gone away. Rove’s possible complicity in the outing of a secret agent’s identity will surely resurface as the grand jury investigation moves toward closure. But negative stories do not have to disappear for a distraction ploy to work, so long as they take a back seat, even temporarily, to something else.

Likewise, DeLay’s problems have not disappeared, and in coming months the House ethics committee is likely to take up questions about his close relations with lobbyists and his overseas travel. But there is no mistaking that, for now, DeLay remains in charge. After the CAFTA vote, The Washington Post’s Mike Allen wrote that the president’s late night cliffhanger victory was “symbolic of DeLay’s continued hold over the House.”

DeLay’s return to the limelight can be traced to the March vote in the House to intervene in the Schiavo case. The comatose Florida woman who he tried to save eventually died, but DeLay’s political career survived. A quick look at the public relations timing of Capitol Hill’s unprecedented intrusion shows how.


Coverage of DeLay’s lobbyist ties had reached critical mass in the days leading up to the surprising last-minute decision by the White House and GOP congressional leaders to get involved in the Schiavo matter. Newspaper headlines in those days tell the story: “DeLay At Heart Of Firestorm Over Handling Of Ethics Cases” (Dallas Morning News, March 16); “President Supports DeLay As Investigations Widen” ( The New York Times, March 17); and “DeLay Attacks Critics” ( The Washington Post, March 20).
‘DeLay on Life Support’

There were many similar headlines, but those three show the fast-breaking evolution of White House media management: Just as the story is deemed a “firestorm,” the president steps forward to defend his embattled friend, followed by the target — DeLay, in this case — launching a vigorous defense that makes headlines. And as the Texan took control of the ethics story for a time by offering his own take, the House took up the all-consuming Schiavo story. As the predictable media frenzy enveloped Schiavo’s dramatic case, coverage of DeLay’s ethical lapses fell into a black hole. The bubble was burst.

Within a week, as the federal courts made it clear they would not be pressured by the legislation that Bush had rushed back from vacation to sign, the White House dropped its once emotional support for Schiavo’s parents, who were battling her husband’s desire to remove her feeding tube. I’m sure the president believed in keeping Schiavo on life support, but by this time any purpose in keeping DeLay on life support had been at least temporarily achieved.

Perhaps stung by criticism that the Schiavo intervention was a mistake, White House insiders now boast — but not for attribution — about the cleverness of using the Schiavo story to help DeLay.

Even if such pride is overblown, it’s true that DeLay’s critics have not regained critical media mass since that turnabout week.

Free trade with Central America is surely not much consolation for parents trying to keep a daughter alive, but thanks to Congress they got what they wanted: one more round in court. And the president surely got what he wanted: a return to business as usual on Capitol Hill with “The Hammer” nailing votes for his agenda.

Contributing Editor Craig Crawford is a news analyst for MSNBC, CNBC and “The Early Show” on CBS. He can be reached at ccrawford@cq.com.

Read More...

Summary only...

Energy's on the Anti-Iraq Side

The Nation
"Energy's on the Anti-Iraq Side"
John Nichols

It is not often that this column pays tribute to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. But the man who in 1994 played a pivotal role in putting the Republican Party in control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years -- and in developing the strategies that have kept the GOP in control -- has a sharp political mind. And he used it this week to analyze the unexpectedly strong showing of Democrat Paul Hackett in a special election to fill the southern Ohio U.S. House seat vacated by U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman.

Hackett won 48.3 percent of the vote in a district where no Democrat had ever gotten more than 28 percent against Portman. In the most Republican House district in the state of Ohio, the Democrat, a Marine veteran of the Iraq war, lost by barely 3,000 votes. And he did that after a campaign in which he said the U.S. should not have invaded the Iraq in the first place and condemned the administration's approach to the occupation. Unlike more cautious Democrats, Hackett was unapologetic about calling President Bush an "SOB" whose actions endangered Americans, and about referring to members of the administration as "chickenhawks."

Of course,most Republicans and their media allies were quick to dismiss the significance of Hackett's showing -- despite the fact that it was the best finish for a Democrat in the district since the Watergate election of 1974. The rules of spin these days are such that reality is rarely allowed to intrude on discussions of politics.

But Gingrich decided to ditch the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee's talking points and recognize the significance of Hackett's near win. Speaking to the Washington Post on the day after the Ohio vote, the former Speaker of the House said, "It should serve as a wake-up call to Republicans. Clearly, there's a pretty strong signal for Republicans thinking about 2006 that they need to do some very serious planning and not just assume that everything is going to be automatically okay."


With a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll showing that President Bush's overall approval rating has fallen to 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving -- and 50 percent of Americans surveyed saying the nation's top Republican is not honest -- the evidence that the GOP has a potential problem extends well beyond the results from one special election in Ohio.

But the Ohio vote telescoped the significance of concern about the Iraq imbroglio as a factor in the governing party's declining fortunes -- a point confirmed by the new poll's finding that only 38 percent of Americans now approve of Bush's handling of the occupation.

Gingrich acknowledges this reality, saying that, ''There is more energy today on the anti-Iraq, anti-gas price, anti-changing Social Security, and I think anti-Washington (side of the debate). I think the combination of those four are all redounding to weaken Republicans and help Democrats... I don't think this is time to panic, but I think it's time to think. If we don't think now, then next September, people will panic when it's too late."

Gingrich's warning is a wise one for Republicans, and you can bet that it will be taken seriously by at least some leaders of a party that has mastered the art of maintaining power. As such, the real question is this: Will Democrats be smart enough to recognize that Gingrich is right when he speaks about the energy being on the anti-Iraq side?

So far, indications are not encouraging. An analysis of the strong showing by Hackett distributed to Democratic House after the election by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee failed to make any mention of the significance of Iraq as an issue.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Swift Boats of Science

The Nation
The Swift Boats of Science
Ari Berman

Paul Cameron, founder of the Family Research Institute, calls gays and lesbians "death marketers."

"I am not sure how long they will take to destroy the US from within, but sufficiently weakened, the US will probably fall to another state before that occurs," he recently told the Boston Globe.

In 1983, Cameron cofounded the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, where he published reports claiming that homosexuals were more likely than heterosexuals to molest children and commit other crimes. Shortly thereafter, the American Psychological Association barred Cameron from its membership. The American Sociological Association said that "Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism."

But Cameron resurfaced with the Family Research Institute, publishing studies titled "Gay Parents More Apt to Molest." In recent years, his pseudoscience has been cited by dissenters in the Massachusetts ruling legalizing gay marriage, in a Florida Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on adoption by same-sex couples and on behalf of a Virginia proposal requiring that adoptive parents reveal their sexual identities to social workers. The media frequently credits the Institute as an alternative to the 150,000-member American Psychological Association.

Cameron's Institute, along with the American College of Pediatrics--a right-wing splinter of the 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics--seek to blur the distinction of what is and isn't accepted science, the Boston Globe reports. And these fraud think tanks are multiplying. "Created as counterpoints to large, well-established medical organizations whose work is subject to rigorous review and who assert no political agenda," the Globe writes, "the tiny think tanks with names often mimicking those of established medical authorities have sought to dispute the notion of a medical consensus on social issues such as gay rights, the right to die, abortion, and birth control."


Cameron's "studies" are distributed through the Christian Communications Network, run by anti-choice advocate Gary McCullough, the press agent for Operation Rescue and the parents of Terri Schiavo. Press releases in the past few weeks included: "Gays Twice as Apt to Drive Under the Influence, says Family Research Institute," "Gays 6X More Expensive Than Smokers, says Family Research Institute," and, "Weird Behavior Among Gays Due to Mental Illness? Asks Family Research Institute." Until the Globe article, the 43,000-church Traditional Values Coalition listed Cameron's work on its website. He's briefed White House aides on his adoption theories.

Articles published in Psychological Reports, an obscure Montana journal described as "a scientific manifestation of free speech," lends Cameron's junk agitprop academic cover. "I'm amazed that he is able to continue to be published," says Dr. Ellen Perrin, professor of pediatrics at the Tufts-New England Medical Center. Perrin and other established scientific experts have found no important difference between children raised by same-sex and heterosexual couples, nor a higher tendency toward "antisocial" behavior among gays and lesbians. "Cameron's work is methodologically weak and in many cases the conclusions he draws from his data are not valid," adds Dr. Gregory Harek, professor of psychology at the University of California-Davis.

It's as if the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth discovered science.

Read More...

Summary only...

DeLay's Dirty Trick

The Nation
DeLay's Dirty Trick
Ari Berman

Much of the dirty business of Congress is done outside of public debate, during conference negotiations between the House and Senate Republican leadership, after legislation has passed. Eleventh-hour language added to appease the Christian right, repay big business or bring controversial pork-barrel projects back home has become a regular practice for Republicans.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay took this shady scheming to a new low last week, when he "mysteriously inserted" a $1.5 billion sweetheart deal for Houston oil companies into a massive energy bill that supposedly had been finalized. The provision, according to the sharp eye of Rep. Henry Waxman, stipulates that 75 percent of the $1.5 billion allocated for deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico must go toward "a corporation that is constructed as a consortium."

The leading contender for the contract just happens to be the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America consortium, based in DeLay's Sugar Land, Texas, district. Its members include war profiteer Halliburton and Marathon Oil, under SEC investigation for bribing the president of Equatorial Guinea for oil rights. Governor Rick Perry created the consortium in March 2004, promising 1,500 jobs. "None had been created as of last December," AP reports.

The provision was apparently added at 4 am last Tuesday, after House Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton, a favored son of big oil, halted all amendments and wrapped up the House and Senate conference. Amazingly, the ranking Democrats on the House and Senate energy committees knew of DeLay's plans, and did nothing to oppose them. The dispute only emerged after Waxman and Rep. Edward Markey learned of the provision, and its intended beneficiaries in DeLay's district.


The lavish giveaway comes at time when the oil and gas industry is amassing record profits, with the net income of top oil companies expected to total $230 billion this year. Yet the overall energy bill passed by Congress on Friday gives billions more in tax breaks for oil, gas and nuclear companies while doing nothing to ease soaring gas prices, raise fuel-efficiency standards or reduce America's crippling dependence on foreign oil. The US currently imports 58 percent of the oil it consumes; analysts predict that figure will jump to 68 percent by 2025.

Such ominous trends prompt few worries from energy companies who rake in staggering profits while the US fights a war in oil-rich Iraq. "How the sausage is made is not important to me," says Melanie Kenderdine of the Gas Technology Institute, part of DeLay's select consortium. That's because it's the rest of us who get stuck with the greasy fat.

Read More...

Summary only...

Poll: Fewer Americans Think Bush Is Honest

Poll: Fewer Americans Think Bush Is Honest

By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Less than half of Americans now say they think President Bush is honest, according to an AP-Ipsos poll taken at a time of increasing concerns about Iraq, a potential problem for a president who won re-election declaring that "people know where I stand."

The percentage of people who say they consider Bush honest has dropped slightly from the start of the year. In January, 53 percent described him that way in the AP-Ipsos poll, while 45 percent said they did not believe he was honest. Now, people are just about evenly split - 48 percent saying he's honest and 50 percent saying he's not.

"Whether you agree or disagree with him, the president has taken a pounding on perceptions of his honesty," said Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. She cited as one example the administration's claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but none have been found.


A solid majority still see Bush as likable and a strong leader, but a growing number view the president's confidence as arrogance, up from 49 percent in January to 56 percent now.

"He pushes and pushes and pushes until he gets his own way," said Diane Maley, a politically independent registered nurse from East Greenbush, N.Y. "I don't think he has the best interest of the country in mind."

For some people, especially Republicans, Bush is personally appealing.

"He's a man of character," said Cheryl Cheyney, a school bus driver from Cumming, Ga., and a Republican. "He's very honest in the things he says. I agree with his belief system, the way he believes in God and is not afraid to show it. That's very important to me."

Bush's overall job approval was at 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving. That's about where his approval rating has been all summer but slightly lower than it was when the year began. His approval on handling Iraq was at 38 percent.

Some who don't approve of Bush's job performance admire him personally.

"I think he tries to be likable and I think he's somewhat honest," said Cindy Bashura, a Democratic-leaning resident of Seymour, Conn. "He tries to do what he thinks is right, but sometimes I think he takes the wrong advice from people in his circle."

Continuing worries about Iraq may do more than drag down Bush's standing with the public. They could become a major issue in the 2006 midterm congressional races, and if the war is still going in 2008, they could be a factor in the presidential race.

The war in Iraq also could have an impact on more than elections.

"Bush's standing with the public is a factor in his ongoing effort to influence legislation and to sustain support for his Iraq policy," said Bruce Buchanan, a professor of political science at the University of Texas. "The honesty dip is partly caused by a loss of faith in his credibility on Iraq."

The poll of 1,000 adults was conducted Aug. 1-3 by Ipsos, an international polling firm. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

---

On the Net:

Ipsos: http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

Read More...

Summary only...

Roberts Questioned Lifetime Appointments

wwltv.com
Roberts Questioned Lifetime Appointments

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD
Associated Press Writer

SIMI VALLEY, Calif. (AP) -- Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, holding one lifetime appointment and seeking another, argued against them as a young lawyer in Ronald Reagan's White House.

At age 50, Roberts could influence federal law for many years to come. Two decades ago, however, he reasoned that long-entrenched judges could fall out of step with the society they serve. Limiting terms of federal judges would ensure a fresh supply of talent while guarding against "ivory tower" elitism, he wrote.

The Constitution "adopted life tenure at a time when people simply did not live as long as they do now," Roberts wrote in an Oct. 3, 1983, memo to White House Counsel Fred Fielding that is now on file at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

"A judge insulated from the normal currents of life for 25 or 30 years was a rarity then but is becoming commonplace today," Roberts wrote. "Setting a term of, say, 15 years would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence."

Roberts, then 28, offered his views while analyzing a Senate resolution that called for limiting members of the federal bench to 10-year terms, after which they could be reappointed.


The Reagan administration opposed the proposal, arguing in part that lifetime tenure protected judicial independence. Though Roberts did not formally object to that position, he saw merit in set terms. He accepted an open-ended federal appeals court seat in 2003.

Ending lifetime tenure would "provide a more regular and greater degree of turnover among the judges," Roberts wrote 20 years earlier. "There is much to be said for changing life tenure to a term of years, without the possibility of reappointment."

In the same memo, Roberts railed against what he described as an overreaching federal judiciary. He suggested that lifetime tenure was defensible only if judges stuck to interpreting - rather than making - law. It was a frequent complaint through his writings of the time.

"It is certainly appropriate to protect judges from popular pressure if their task is limited to discerning and applying the intent of the framers or legislators," he wrote. "The federal judiciary today benefits from an insulation from political pressure even as it usurps the roles of the political branches."

His criticisms weren't limited to lifetime tenure. Writing to Fielding earlier that year, Roberts scoffed at a proposal by then-Chief Justice Warren Burger to lighten the Supreme Court's caseload.

Burger suggested creating a "special temporary panel" of federal appeals court judges to hear cases referred by the Supreme Court.

In a Feb. 10, 1983, memo, Roberts wrote that "a new tier of judicial review is a terrible idea." The justices were to blame for taking too many cases and issuing "opinions so confusing that they often do not even resolve the questions presented," Roberts wrote.

To cut its caseload, he suggested that the high court consider "abdicating the role of fourth or fifth guesser in death penalty cases."

"So long as the court views itself as ultimately responsible for governing all aspects of our society, it will, understandably, be overworked," Roberts wrote. "A new court will not solve this problem."

Read More...

Summary only...

Justice Dept denies request for Roberts documents

Reuters

Justice Dept denies request for Roberts documents

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush Administration refused on Friday to release some documents sought by Democratic lawmakers from Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' work as deputy solicitor general, opening the door for conflict as the Senate votes later this year on his confirmation.

"It is simply contrary to the public interest for these documents to be released," the Justice Department wrote in a letter to Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the committee that will first consider Roberts' nomination.

Roberts, who worked on the government's cases in the solicitor general's office during former President Bush's administration, was nominated by President Bush to fill the vacant seat on the high court as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retires.

His nomination has drawn huge interest in Congress, particularly among Democrats concerned about his views on abortion and other controversial issues.

"The administration's decision to shield these documents is an unfortunate turn as the Senate prepares for these confirmation hearings," Leahy said.


In its letter, the department said it will release documents reflecting the Solicitor General's office's final decisions in any case, but internal deliberations among attorneys in the office could not be made public.

"These internal discussions among lawyers have always been considered privileged, covered by both the deliberative process privilege and the attorney-client privilege," the Justice Department wrote.

The Department further stated that it would be difficult to provide those documents without disclosing the confidential communications of many other lawyers who worked with Roberts.

"It would be unfair to all lawyers who serve in the office, and particularly so with respect to those who served with Mr. Roberts," the Department wrote.

Read More...

Summary only...

US scientists find flexible stem cells in placenta

Reuters

US scientists find flexible stem cells in placenta

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Scientists looking for easier and less-controversial alternatives to stem cells from human embryos said on Friday they found a potential source in placentas saved during childbirth.

They described primitive cells found in a part of the placenta called the amnion, which they coaxed into forming a variety of cell types and which look very similar to sought-after embryonic stem cells.

With 4 million children born in the United States each year, placentas could provide a ready source of the cells, the team at the University of Pittsburgh said.

It is not yet certain that the cells they found are true stem cells, said Stephen Strom, who worked on the study. But they carry two important genes, called Oct 4 and nanog, which so far have only been seen on embryonic stem cells.


"We were just blown away when we found those two genes expressed in those cells," Strom said in a telephone interview.

"The presence of these two genes suggests these cells are pluripotent, which means they should be able to form any cell type in the body."

Stem cells are the body's master cells. So-called adult stem cells are found in the tissue and blood are a source for renewing cells.

Embryonic stem cells are found in days-old embryos. While powerful, their use is controversial because some people, President Bush among them, believe destroying an embryo is immoral and unethical.

Supporters of embryonic stem-cell research say it may provide an important path to a new field called regenerative medicine, in which diseases ranging from juvenile diabetes to paralysis could be cured using transplants of carefully cultivated stem cells.

There are moves in Congress to expand funding of embryonic stem cell research, in case it proves to be the best way forward, but also counter-measures to further restrict it.

GETTING AROUND POLITICS

Mindful of the controversy, Strom's team looked for other sources of stem cells.

"We looked and we found them. The politics is important," Strom said.

Writing in the journal Stem Cells, Strom and colleagues said they looked in a part of the placenta called the amnion -- the outer membrane of the amniotic sac.

The placenta is the interface between mother and fetus during gestation, and is produced by the embryo. The embryo and later fetus floats inside the sac of amniotic fluid.

Other teams of researchers, notably Dr. Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University in North Carolina, have found stem cells resembling embryonic cells in amniotic fluid, but research is still early and it is not known how useful those would be.

Strom says his cells are different are different from the ones the Wake Forest team found, and they may not be true stem cells because they did not form tumors in his experiments, as a true stem cell would.

Strom said the cells he worked with also do not appear to be immortal, meaning they die out after a while in the lab, unlike true stem cells.

Strom's team tested the cells in lab dishes, incubating them in various compounds, and got them to form into what looked like heart cells, nerve cells, liver cells and pancreatic cells.

Strom's lab works specifically on liver transplants and he hopes to develop the cells to use them instead of donated liver. Pancreatic cells would be important because they could be used to treat diabetes.

The university has licensed the technology to a company called Stemnion, LLC, and the researchers are shareholders and will receive license fees as part of the agreement.

Read More...

Summary only...

Leading Republican differs with Bush on evolution

Reuters

Leading Republican differs with Bush on evolution

By Jon Hurdle

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A leading Republican senator allied with the religious right differed on Thursday with President Bush's support for teaching an alternative to the theory of evolution known as "intelligent design."

Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a possible 2008 presidential contender who faces a tough re-election fight next year in Pennsylvania, said intelligent design, which is backed by many religious conservatives, lacked scientific credibility and should not be taught in science classes.

Bush told reporters from Texas on Monday that "both sides" in the debate over intelligent design and evolution should be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."

"I think I would probably tailor that a little more than what the president has suggested," Santorum, the third-ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate, told National Public Radio. "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."


Evangelical Christians have launched campaigns in at least 18 states to make public schools teach intelligent design alongside Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Proponents of intelligent design argue that nature is so complex that it could not have occurred by random natural selection, as held by Darwin's 1859 theory of evolution, and so must be the work of an unnamed "intelligent cause."

Santorum is the third-ranking member of the U.S. Senate and has championed causes of the religious right including opposition to gay marriage and abortion.

He is expected to face a stiff challenge from Democrat Bob Casey in his quest for re-election next year in Pennsylvania, a major battleground state in recent presidential elections.

The controversy over intelligent design is a hot topic in Pennsylvania, where the Dover Area School District in south central Pennsylvania has included the theory in its biology curriculum.

The American Civil Liberties Union has sued to block the policy, calling it a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.

Most Americans believe that God created human beings or guided the process of evolution, according to a CBS poll last November. Two-thirds said they wanted creationism taught alongside evolution in schools.

SCIENCE CURRICULUM

Critics, including many science teachers, say intelligent design cannot be scientifically tested and has no place in a science curriculum.

Santorum sided in part with intelligent-design proponents in saying that there were gaps in the theory of evolution.

"What we should be teaching are the problems and holes -- and I think there are legitimate problems and holes -- in the theory of evolution. What we need to do is to present those fairly, from a scientific point of view," he said in the interview.

"As far as intelligent design is concerned, I really don't believe it has risen to the level of a scientific theory at this point that we would want to teach it alongside of evolution."

Santorum had proposed an unsuccessful measure in 2001 that would have required discussing the "controversy" of evolution when the theory is taught in classes.

Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, was quoted in The New York Times this week as saying intelligent design was not a scientific concept, and that Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean he thinks the concept should be taught as part of the "social context" in science classes.

Read More...

Summary only...

Sticking Up for Evolution

TechnologyReview.com
Sticking Up for Evolution
Posted by David Appell

In the wake of President Bush's outrageous remarks
(http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/12278405.htm)
on the teaching of intelligent design the other day (remarks which seem to contradict his own science advisor), it's good to see science organizations publically speaking out on the issue.

"President Bush, in advocating that the concept of 'intelligent design' be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America's schoolchildren at risk," says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union, which represents 43,000 Earth and space scientists. "Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses.... The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief."

And the American Physical Society, which also represents several tens of thousands of physicists, made their point via a sly backhanded comment: "We are happy that the President's recent comments on the theory of intelligent design have been clarified," says Marvin Cohen, president of the American Physical Society. "As Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger has explained, President Bush does not regard intelligent design as science. If such things are to be taught in the public schools, they belong in a course on comparative religion, which is a particularly appropriate subject for our children given the present state of the world."


Unfortunately, I doubt Bush had Marburger's naunce in mind when he made his comments.

Read More...

Summary only...

Pentagon Agrees to Issue Photos of Coffins of Iraq War Dead

The New York Times

Pentagon Agrees to Issue Photos of Coffins of Iraq War Dead
By JOHN FILES

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 - Under the terms of a legal settlement announced on Thursday, the Pentagon will make available "as expeditiously as possible" some photographs of the coffins of service members killed in Iraq. The agreement runs counter to a longstanding Pentagon policy that bars the public release of such photographs. But in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act, the Pentagon has already released hundreds of such photographs this year, and it agreed under the settlement to continue to do so.

The agreement responded to a Freedom of Information Act suit filed in October in Federal District Court here that sought all photographs and video images that showed coffins or similar items that held the remains of American military personnel at Dover Air Force Base, Del., beginning in February 2003.

The Pentagon has strictly enforced a policy barring news photographs showing the coffins. That policy has been in place since the Persian Gulf war in 1991, and President Bush has said it protects the privacy of the families of the dead.

Ralph Begleiter, a journalism professor at the University of Delaware who was a lead plaintiff in the current suit, said the Pentagon's agreement to release the photographs represented a "significant victory for the honor of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in war for their country, as well as for their families, for all service personnel and for the American people."


The settlement was announced by Mr. Begleiter, along with the National Security Archive, a research institute on foreign affairs that is affiliated with George Washington University, which provided counsel for the case. The archive has used the Freedom of Information Act in other cases to obtain information about government operations.

The Pentagon issued a statement, saying, "As with all information, including images, the Department of Defense has an obligation and a responsibility to strike a balance between our strong desire to be as transparent as possible and the legitimate concerns to protect the privacy of military families and as necessary, operational security."

But there was no indication that the government would permit news organizations to begin taking such photographs.

Under President Bill Clinton, the policy against taking such photographs was not rigorously enforced, and Mr. Clinton took part in numerous ceremonies that honored dead service members. Under Mr. Bush, the Pentagon issued a directive in March 2003 stating that there would be no news coverage of "deceased military personnel returning to or departing from" air bases.

In June 2004, that policy won the backing of the Senate, when lawmakers defeated a Democratic measure to instruct the Pentagon to allow such pictures.

Read More...

Summary only...