Tuesday, December 06, 2005

China to 'tidy up' trade in executed prisoners' organs

timesonline.co.uk
China to 'tidy up' trade in executed prisoners' organs
From Jane Macartney in Beijing

CHINA broke its silence yesterday to admit for the first time that the organs of executed prisoners were sold to foreigners for transplant.

For many years it has denied that such a trade existed. But Huang Jiefu, the Deputy Health Minister, acknowledged that the practice is widespread and promised to tighten the rules.

“We want to push for regulations on organ transplants to standardise the management of the supply of organs from executed prisoners and tidy up the medical market,” Mr Huang told Caijing magazine.

Mr Huang said that regulations drafted in August and now being amended before being handed to the State Council for final approval aim to end the commercialisation of organ transplants in China.

The only existing regulation covering the removal of organs from the bodies of executed prisoners is a 1984 draft document that stipulates that such operations can take place only with the consent of the family or if the body goes unclaimed.

Mr Huang added that the regulations would help to improve China’s image over organ transplants and give condemned prisoners greater control over whether to donate their organs. They will also make it more difficult to buy organs removed after execution.

The supply of organs in China is severely restricted because of religious traditions that require the body to be whole when it enters the afterlife. Yet the country has carried out more organ transplants than any other except the US. Since 1993 China has performed 60,000 kidney transplants, 6,000 liver transplants and 250 heart transplants.

One reason is that transplants are big business. A liver costs nearly £18,000 for Chinese patients, or about £24,000 for foreigners. A kidney costs £3,500 for Chinese. Foreigners typically pay a premium, although the price is about 30 per cent lower than in many countries.

An Israeli newspaper recently reported that dozens of people were flocking to China each month for cheap transplants. “If I had never had my kidney transplant in China, I would already be dead,” Abraham Sassoon, from Eilat, told Maariv newspaper. “A Chinese sentenced to death saved my life.”

The one-year survival rate for a liver transplant in China is about 50 per cent, compared with 81 per cent in the US.

Almost all organs harvested from dead bodies came from those of executed prisoners, Caijing magazine said. That has prompted human rights organisations to question the way in which organs are obtained and supplied to patients requiring transplants. In the past doctors have recounted how they have travelled to execution grounds in specially equipped ambulances with a team of nurses to harvest the organs with as little delay as possible.

Executions in China have long been carried out with a single bullet to the head or the heart. That practice changed in the late 1990s when the use of lethal injection was introduced to make the organs usable.

No official figures are available for the number of executions in China each year and legal experts say that this is partly because the authorities have never compiled a total. However, Amnesty International says that more people are executed in China than in the rest of the world combined, and estimates the total at about 3,400 each year — and possibly as many as 6,000.

Read More...

Monday, December 05, 2005

IS GEORGE BUSH THE WORST PRESIDENT -- EVER?

Yahoo! News
IS GEORGE BUSH THE WORST PRESIDENT -- EVER?

By Richard Reeves

PARIS -- President John F. Kennedy was considered a historian because of his book "Profiles in Courage," so he received periodic requests to rate the presidents, those lists that usually begin "1. Lincoln, 2. Washington ..."

But after he actually became president himself, he stopped filling them out.

"No one knows what it's like in this office," he said after being in the job. "Even with poor James Buchanan, you can't understand what he did and why without sitting in his place, looking at the papers that passed on his desk, knowing the people he talked with."

Poor James Buchanan, the 15th president, is generally considered the worst president in history. Ironically, the Pennsylvania Democrat, elected in 1856, was one of the most qualified of the 43 men who have served in the highest office. A lawyer, a self-made man, Buchanan served with some distinction in the House, served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and secretary of state under President James K. Polk. He had a great deal to do with the United States becoming a continental nation -- "Manifest Destiny," war with Mexico, and all that. He was also ambassador to Great Britain and was offered a seat on the Supreme Court three separate times.

But he was a confused, indecisive president, who may have made the Civil War inevitable by trying to appease or negotiate with the South. His most recent biographer, Jean Clark, writing for the prestigious American Presidents Series, concluded this year that his actions probably constituted treason. It also did not help that his administration was as corrupt as any in history, and he was widely believed to be homosexual.

Whatever his sexual preferences, his real failures were in refusing to move after South Carolina announced secession from the Union and attacked Fort Sumter, and in supporting both the legality of the pro-slavery constitution of Kansas and the Supreme Court ruling in the Dred Scott class declaring that escaped slaves were not people but property.

He was the guy who in 1861 passed on the mess to the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Buchanan set the standard, a tough record to beat. But there are serious people who believe that George W. Bush will prove to do that, be worse than Buchanan. I have talked with three significant historians in the past few months who would not say it in public, but who are saying privately that Bush will be remembered as the worst of the presidents.

There are some numbers. The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record. Four hundred and fifteen, about a third of those contacted, answered -- maybe they were all crazed liberals -- making the project as unofficial as it was interesting. These were the results: 338 said they believed Bush was failing, while 77 said he was succeeding. Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever. Worse than Buchanan.

This is what those historians said -- and it should be noted that some of the criticism about deficit spending and misuse of the military came from self-identified conservatives -- about the Bush record:

He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend and foe alike in the process;

He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive military spending and reduced taxation of the rich;

He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and state;

He has repeatedly "misled," to use a kind word, the American people on affairs domestic and foreign;

He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and foreign (Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida);

He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity;

He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress;

He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems, corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime.

Quite an indictment. It is, of course, too early to evaluate a president. That, historically, takes decades, and views change over times as results and impact become more obvious. Besides, many of the historians note that however bad Bush seems, they have indeed since worse men around the White House. Some say Buchanan. Many say Vice President Dick Cheney.

Read More...

Sunday, December 04, 2005

What Kind of Government . . . ?

Read More...

Fake News

Read More...

Phased Withdrawal

Read More...

Dead Iraqi Substitution Project

Read More...

This way Senor

Read More...

This Season's War Cry: Commercialize Christmas, or Else

The New York Times

This Season's War Cry: Commercialize Christmas, or Else
By ADAM COHEN

Religious conservatives have a cause this holiday season: the commercialization of Christmas. They're for it.

The American Family Association is leading a boycott of Target for not using the words "Merry Christmas" in its advertising. (Target denies it has an anti-Merry-Christmas policy.) The Catholic League boycotted Wal-Mart in part over the way its Web site treated searches for "Christmas." Bill O'Reilly, the Fox anchor who last year started a "Christmas Under Siege" campaign, has a chart on his Web site of stores that use the phrase "Happy Holidays," along with a poll that asks, "Will you shop at stores that do not say 'Merry Christmas'?"

This campaign - which is being hyped on Fox and conservative talk radio - is an odd one. Christmas remains ubiquitous, and with its celebrators in control of the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and every state supreme court and legislature, it hardly lacks for powerful supporters. There is also something perverse, when Christians are being jailed for discussing the Bible in Saudi Arabia and slaughtered in Sudan, about spending so much energy on stores that sell "holiday trees."

What is less obvious, though, is that Christmas's self-proclaimed defenders are rewriting the holiday's history. They claim that the "traditional" American Christmas is under attack by what John Gibson, another Fox anchor, calls "professional atheists" and "Christian haters." But America has a complicated history with Christmas, going back to the Puritans, who despised it. What the boycotters are doing is not defending America's Christmas traditions, but creating a new version of the holiday that fits a political agenda.

The Puritans considered Christmas un-Christian, and hoped to keep it out of America. They could not find Dec. 25 in the Bible, their sole source of religious guidance, and insisted that the date derived from Saturnalia, the Roman heathens' wintertime celebration. On their first Dec. 25 in the New World, in 1620, the Puritans worked on building projects and ostentatiously ignored the holiday. From 1659 to 1681 Massachusetts went further, making celebrating Christmas "by forbearing of labor, feasting or in any other way" a crime.

The concern that Christmas distracted from religious piety continued even after Puritanism waned. In 1827, an Episcopal bishop lamented that the Devil had stolen Christmas "and converted it into a day of worldly festivity, shooting and swearing." Throughout the 1800's, many religious leaders were still trying to hold the line. As late as 1855, New York newspapers reported that Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist churches were closed on Dec. 25 because "they do not accept the day as a Holy One." On the eve of the Civil War, Christmas was recognized in just 18 states.

Christmas gained popularity when it was transformed into a domestic celebration, after the publication of Clement Clarke Moore's "Visit from St. Nicholas" and Thomas Nast's Harper's Weekly drawings, which created the image of a white-bearded Santa who gave gifts to children. The new emphasis lessened religious leaders' worries that the holiday would be given over to drinking and swearing, but it introduced another concern: commercialism. By the 1920's, the retail industry had adopted Christmas as its own, sponsoring annual ceremonies to kick off the "Christmas shopping season."

Religious leaders objected strongly. The Christmas that emerged had an inherent tension: merchants tried to make it about buying, while clergymen tried to keep commerce out.

A 1931 Times roundup of Christmas sermons reported a common theme: "the suggestion that Christmas could not survive if Christ were thrust into the background by materialism." A 1953 Methodist sermon broadcast on NBC - typical of countless such sermons - lamented that Christmas had become a "profit-seeking period." This ethic found popular expression in "A Charlie Brown Christmas." In the 1965 TV special, Charlie Brown ignores Lucy's advice to "get the biggest aluminum tree you can find" and her assertion that Christmas is "a big commercial racket," and finds a more spiritual way to observe the day.

This year's Christmas "defenders" are not just tolerating commercialization - they're insisting on it. They are also rewriting Christmas history on another key point: non-Christians' objection to having the holiday forced on them.

The campaign's leaders insist this is a new phenomenon - a "liberal plot," in Mr. Gibson's words. But as early as 1906, the Committee on Elementary Schools in New York City urged that Christmas hymns be banned from the classroom, after a boycott by more than 20,000 Jewish students. In 1946, the Rabbinical Assembly of America declared that calling on Jewish children to sing Christmas carols was "an infringement on their rights as Americans."

Other non-Christians have long expressed similar concerns. For decades, companies have replaced "Christmas parties" with "holiday parties," schools have adopted "winter breaks" instead of "Christmas breaks," and TV stations and stores have used phrases like "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings" out of respect for the nation's religious diversity.

The Christmas that Mr. O'Reilly and his allies are promoting - one closely aligned with retailers, with a smack-down attitude toward nonobservers - fits with their campaign to make America more like a theocracy, with Christian displays on public property and Christian prayer in public schools.

It does not, however, appear to be catching on with the public. That may be because most Americans do not recognize this commercialized, mean-spirited Christmas as their own. Of course, it's not even clear the campaign's leaders really believe in it. Just a few days ago, Fox News's online store was promoting its "Holiday Collection" for shoppers. Among the items offered to put under a "holiday tree" was "The O'Reilly Factor Holiday Ornament." After bloggers pointed this out, Fox changed the "holidays" to "Christmases."

Read More...

What Would J.F.K. Have Done?

The New York Times

What Would J.F.K. Have Done?
By THEODORE C. SORENSEN and ARTHUR SCHLESINGER Jr.

WHAT did we not hear from President Bush when he spoke last week at the United States Naval Academy about his strategy for victory in Iraq?

We did not hear that the war in Iraq, already one of the costliest wars in American history, is a running sore. We did not hear that it has taken more than 2,000 precious American lives and countless - because we do not count them - Iraqi civilian lives. We did not hear that the struggle has dragged on longer than our involvement in either World War I or the Spanish-American War, or that by next spring it will be even longer than the Korean War.

And we did not hear how or when the president plans to bring our forces back home - no facts, no numbers on America troop withdrawals, no dates, no reference to our dwindling coalition, no reversal of his disdain for the United Nations, whose help he still expects.

Neither our military, our economy nor our nation can take that kind of endless and remorseless drain for an only vaguely defined military and political mission. If we leave early, the president said, catastrophe might follow. But what of the catastrophe that we are prolonging and worsening by our continued presence, including our continued, unforgivable mistreatment of detainees?

Each month that America continues its occupation facilitates Al Qaeda's recruitment of young Islamic men and women as suicide bombers, the one weapon against which our open society has no sure defense. The president says we should support our troops by staying the course; but who is truly willing to support our troops by bringing them safely home?

The responsibility for devising an exit plan rests primarily not with the war's opponents, but with the president who hastily launched a pre-emptive invasion without enough troops to secure Iraq's borders and arsenals, without enough armor to protect our forces, without enough allied support and without adequate plans for either a secure occupation or a timely exit.

As we listened to Mr. Bush's speech, our thoughts raced back four decades to another president, John F. Kennedy. In 1963, the last year of his life, we watched from front-row seats as Kennedy tried to figure out how best to extricate American military advisers and instructors from Vietnam.

Although neither of us had direct responsibility on Vietnam decision-making, we each saw enough of the president to sense his growing frustration. In typical Kennedy fashion, he would lean back, in his Oval Office rocker, tick off all his options and then critique them:

Renege on the previous Eisenhower commitment, which Kennedy had initially reinforced, to help the beleaguered government of South Vietnam with American military instructors and advisers?

No, he knew that the American people would not permit him to do that.

Americanize the Vietnam civil war, as the military recommended and as his successor Lyndon Johnson sought ultimately to do, by sending in American combat units?

No, having learned from his experiences with Cuba and elsewhere that conflicts essentially political in nature did not lend themselves to a military solution, Kennedy knew that the United States could not prevail in a struggle against a Vietnamese people determined to oust, at last, all foreign troops from their country.

Moreover, he knew firsthand from his World War II service in the South Pacific the horrors of war and had declared at American University in June 1963: "This generation of Americans has had enough - more than enough - of war."

Declare "victory and get out," as George Aiken, the Republican senator from Vermont, would famously suggest years later?

No, in 1963 in Vietnam, despite assurances from field commanders, there was no more semblance of "victory" than there was in 2004 in Iraq when the president gave his "mission accomplished" speech on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

Explore, as was always his preference, a negotiated solution?

No, he was unable to identify in the ranks of the disorganized Vietcong a leader capable of negotiating enforceable and mutually agreeable terms of withdrawal.

Insist that the South Vietnamese government improve its chances of survival by genuinely adopting the array of political, economic, land and administrative reforms necessary to win popular support?

No, Kennedy increasingly realized that the corrupt family and landlords propping up the dictatorship in South Vietnam would never accept or enforce such reforms.

Eventually he began to understand that withdrawal was the viable option. From the spring of 1963 on, he began to articulate the elements of a three-part exit strategy, one that his assassination would prevent him from pursuing. The three components of Kennedy's exit strategy - well-suited for Iraq after the passage of a new constitution and the coming election - can be summarized as follows:

Make clear that we're going to get out. At a press conference on Nov. 14, 1963, the president did just that, stating, "That is our object, to bring Americans home."

Request an invitation to leave. Arrange for the host government to request the phased withdrawal of all American military personnel - surely not a difficult step in Iraq, especially after the clan statement last month calling for foreign forces to leave. In a May 1963 press conference, Kennedy declared that if the South Vietnamese government suggested it, "we would have some troops on their way home" the next day.

Bring the troops home gradually. Initiate a phased American withdrawal over an unannounced period, beginning immediately, while intensifying the training of local security personnel, bearing in mind that with our increased troop mobility and airlift capacity, American forces are available without being stationed in hazardous areas. In September 1963, Kennedy said of the South Vietnamese: "In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it." A month later, he said, "It would be our hope to lessen the number of Americans" in Vietnam by the end of the year.

President Kennedy had no guarantee that any of these three components would succeed. In the "fog of war," there are no guarantees; but an exit plan without guarantees is better than none at all.

If we leave Iraq at its own government's request, our withdrawal will be neither abandonment nor retreat. Law-abiding Iraqis may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we leave; but they may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we stay. The president has said we will not leave Iraq to the terrorists. Let us leave Iraq to the Iraqis, who have survived centuries of civil war, tyranny and attempted foreign domination.

Once American troops are out of Iraq, people around the world will rejoice that we have recovered our senses. What's more, the killing of Americans and the global loss of American credibility will diminish. As Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Republican and Vietnam veteran, said, "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have." Defeatist? The real defeatists are those who say we are stuck there for the next decade of death and destruction.

In a memorandum to President Kennedy, roughly three months after his inauguration, one of us wrote with respect to Vietnam, "There is no clearer example of a country that cannot be saved unless it saves itself." Today, Iraq is an even clearer example.

Theodore C. Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. were, respectively, special counsel and special assistant to President John F. Kennedy.

Read More...

Bush, Security Team Out of Synch

ABC News
Newsview: Bush, Security Team Out of Synch
Newsview: Bush and His National Security Team Aim to Get on Same Page on Iraq Message
By TOM RAUM
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush and his national security team may be singing from the same songbook on their "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" campaign blitz. They're just not necessarily always on the same page.

Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld are making a concentrated push to clarify the administration's goals and game plan. The hope is to rebuild public support and demonstrate resolve ahead of elections Dec. 15 in Iraq for a permanent government.

Bush gave a major speech on Iraq last week at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., plans one this week and two more the following week. Rumsfeld gives a speech on Monday. Cheney, who in recent days has given two sharply worded speeches castigating Democratic critics of the war, plans to address troops returning from Iraq to Fort Drum, N.Y., on Tuesday.

"They're trying to get on a common message, and it's basically coming through. But it took them a long time to get to this message," said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy analyst at the Brookings Institution.

Among some of the less-than-resonant notes sounded in recent days by Bush's war cabinet:

Rice told interviewers late last month that the U.S. would not need to maintain current troop levels in Iraq "very much longer." Rumsfeld told radio talk show host Sean Hannity that the war would wind down over the next few years. But Bush, in his Naval Academy speech, gave no sense of a departure date. That, he said, would be decided by commanders on the ground and not "politicians in Washington."

Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news conference last Tuesday that he would no longer use the word "insurgents," instead substituting "enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government." But Bush used insurgents the next day at the Naval Academy and it appeared 14 times in a 35-page accompanying document issued by the White House.

Bush, beginning in Asia late last month, softened his criticism of Democrats who voted for his war resolution in October 2002 and are now among his harshest critics. Yet Cheney later denounced such lawmakers as "dishonest and reprehensible" and "corrupt and shameless." Democrats said Cheney apparently did not get the tone-down memo.

It may just be that Bush and Cheney have settled into a "good cop, bad cop" routine: Bush gives upbeat reports on progress in Iraq and Cheney slams critics.

Cheney, who has said he has no presidential ambitions, has little to lose in playing the heavy; his public approval ratings are even lower than Bush's.

"He's become such a lightning rod. Much of the public blames him for everything that's gone wrong in the Bush administration," said Paul Light of New York University, a presidential historian and expert on the vice presidency.

Cheney is popular with the party's conservative base. "Cheney has become the junkyard dog" on Iraq, said Stephen Hess, a political analyst who was a speechwriter in the Eisenhower and Nixon White Houses. "He's speaking out to hold the president's base, and he's not giving any quarter."

The campaign is an attempt to respond to increasing pressure from members of Bush's own party in Congress and criticism that the administration lacked specific benchmarks for lowering the U.S. presence in Iraq. There are now 158,000 American troops in Iraq.

It is too soon to tell whether the push is working.

When he can, Bush uses military audiences as a backdrop for his speeches. Cheers and shouts are abundant, protests essentially nonexistent, access severely limited.

In addition to the Naval Academy, Bush has spoken on Iraq on air bases in Alaska and South Korea and at a National Guard installation in Pennsylvania.

Cheney will address the Army's 42nd Infantry Division and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y., on Tuesday.

Democrats have accused the president of using the military as props, as he did in his "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard an aircraft carrier in May 2003. But his defenders say that is one of any president's prerogatives.

"The president talks about the war on terrorism in many different formats, but he is the commander in chief, we are a nation at war, and no one has more invested in this war than our men and women in uniform," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

There could be a downside, suggested Wayne Fields, director of American culture studies at Washington University in St. Louis and a specialist on presidential rhetoric.

"Going back again and again to the troops is also a constant reminder to Americans of just who is taking the risks in Iraq. I don't think it's playing particularly well," Fields said.

EDITOR'S NOTE Tom Raum has covered national and international affairs for The Associated Press since 1973.

Read More...

Report Finds Cover-Up in an F.B.I. Terror Case

The New York Times

Report Finds Cover-Up in an F.B.I. Terror Case
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 - Officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation mishandled a Florida terror investigation, falsified documents in the case in an effort to cover repeated missteps and retaliated against an agent who first complained about the problems, Justice Department investigators have concluded.

In one instance, someone altered dates on three F.B.I. forms using correction fluid to conceal an apparent violation of federal wiretap law, according to a draft report of an investigation by the Justice Department inspector general's office obtained by The New York Times. But investigators were unable to determine who altered the documents.

The agent who first alerted the F.B.I. to problems in the case, a veteran undercover operative named Mike German, was "retaliated against" by his boss, who was angered by the agent's complaints and stopped using him for prestigious assignments in training new undercover agents, the draft report concluded.

Mr. German's case first became public last year, as he emerged as the latest in a string of whistle-blowers at the bureau who said they had been punished and effectively silenced for voicing concerns about the handling of terror investigations and other matters since Sept. 11, 2001.

The inspector general's draft report, dated Nov. 15 and awaiting final review, validated most of Mr. German's central accusations in the case. But the former agent, who left the bureau last year after he said his career had been derailed by the Florida episode, said he felt more disappointment than vindication.

"More than anything else, I'm saddened by all this," Mr. German said in an interview. "I still love the F.B.I., and I know that there are good, honest, hard-working agents out there trying to do the right thing, and this hurts all of them."

Robert S. Mueller III, director of the F.B.I., has emphasized repeatedly, both publicly and in private messages to his staff, that employees are encouraged to come forward with reports of wrongdoing and that he will not tolerate retaliation against whistle-blowers.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who has been a frequent critic of the bureau, said of Mr. German: "Unfortunately, this is just another case in a long line of F.B.I. whistle-blowers who have had their careers derailed because the F.B.I. couldn't tolerate criticism."

Michael Kortan, an F.B.I. spokesman, said the bureau had not been briefed on the findings. But Mr. Kortan said that when the F.B.I. received the report, "if either misconduct or other wrongdoing is found, we will take appropriate action."

Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the inspector general's findings, coming just days after the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from an earlier F.B.I. whistle-blower, pointed to the need for tougher measures to protect those who report abuse. "With courts reluctant to protect whistle-blowers, it is crucial that Congress pass additional protections," Ms. Beeson said.

Mr. German's case dates to 2002, when the F.B.I. division in Tampa opened a terror investigation into a lead that laundered proceeds, possibly connected to a drug outfit, might be used to finance terrorists overseas. The F.B.I. was considering initiating an undercover operation to follow the lead, and Mr. German, who had extensive experience infiltrating militias, skinheads and other groups, was asked to take part.

But in the coming months, Mr. German would alert F.B.I. officials that the Orlando agent handling the case had "so seriously mishandled" the investigation that a prime opportunity to expose a terrorist financing plot had been wasted. He said agents had not adequately pursued leads, had failed to document important meetings with informants, and had tolerated violations of rules and federal law on the handling of wiretaps.

The report, in one of its few dissents from Mr. German's accusations, said it could not confirm that the F.B.I. had missed an important chance to expose terrorism. Rather, it cited two findings by the bureau that the prime informant had misled agents about the terrorism angle in the case and that "there was no viable terrorism case."

Nonetheless, the inspector general found that the F.B.I. had "mishandled and mismanaged" the investigation, partly through the failure to document important developments for months at a time. The report also found that supervisors were aware of problems in the case but did not take prompt action to correct them.

Moreover, after Mr. German raised concerns about the lack of documentation, an unnamed agent in Orlando "improperly added inaccurate dates to the investigative reports in order to make it appear as though the reports were prepared earlier," the inspector general found.

In addition, someone used correction fluid to backdate by two months a set of forms that the main informant had signed as part of a bugging operation, in which he agreed that he had to be present for all undercover taping.

The backdating was significant, the inspector general said, because the informant had taped a 2002 meeting with several suspects but had left the recording device unattended while he went to use the restroom - a violation of federal law.

Mr. German became increasingly vocal within the F.B.I. about what he saw as the bureau's failure to correct missteps, taking his concerns directly to Mr. Mueller in a 2003 e-mail message. His complaints, the inspector general found, led agents in Florida, Washington and Oregon to distance themselves from him.

In the most serious instance, the head of the F.B.I. undercover unit, Jorge Martinez, froze Mr. German out of teaching assignments in undercover training and told one agent that Mr. German would "never work another undercover case," the report said.

Mr. Martinez told investigators that he did not remember making the statements but that if he had, it was a "knee-jerk reaction but did not mean to indicate I was retaliating against him," the report said.

The inspector general disagreed. It said in the report that Mr. Martinez's treatment of Mr. German amounted to improper retaliation and "discrimination that could have a chilling effect on whistle-blowing."

Read More...

Details Emerge on a Brazen Escape in Afghanistan

The New York Times

Details Emerge on a Brazen Escape in Afghanistan
By ERIC SCHMITT and TIM GOLDEN

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 - The prisoners were considered some of the most dangerous men among the hundreds of terror suspects locked behind the walls of a secretive and secure American military detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan.

Their escape, however, might as well have been a breakout from the county jail.

According to military officials familiar with the episode, the suspects are believed to have picked the lock on their cell, changed out of their bright orange uniforms and made their way through a heavily guarded military base under the cover of night. They then crawled over a faulty wall where a getaway vehicle was apparently waiting for them, the officials said.

"It is embarrassing and amazing at the same time," an American defense official said. "It was a disaster."

The fact of the escape was disclosed by the American authorities shortly after it set off an intense manhunt at Bagram, 40 miles north of Kabul, on the morning of July 11. But internal military documents and interviews with military and intelligence officials indicate it was a far more serious breach than the Defense Department has acknowledged.

One of the four suspects was identified as Al Qaeda's highest-ranking operative in Southeast Asia when he was captured in 2002, a fact that emerged only during an unrelated military trial last month. Another, a Saudi, was also described by intelligence officials as an important Qaeda operative in Afghanistan.

The detainees planned their breakout meticulously, United States officials said, apparently studying the guards' routines, getting themselves moved into a cell that was less visible to the guards and taking advantage of construction work that was intended to expand and improve security at the prison.

"Based upon the findings of the investigation, it appears that the detainees had a clear understanding of the operating procedures of the guards inside the facility," said the chief spokesman for United States military forces in Afghanistan, Col. James R. Yonts.

One American intelligence official said the prisoners also took advantage of "a perfect storm" of mistakes by the military guards. The escape is believed to have been the first from one of the detention centers established by the United States for people suspected of being terrorists after 9/11. Military officials, many of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the incident are classified, said there was still much they did not know about how the men escaped.

Although an American military police guard was initially suspected of having helped the prisoners, he was eventually cleared. Half a dozen other soldiers, including officers and sergeants, have received administrative punishments, a senior military official in Afghanistan said.

"It was bizarre to me," said Maj. Gen. Peter Gilchrist of Britain, who served at the time as the deputy commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan in Kabul. "I don't understand how it could happen."

Military officials have often cited the danger posed by the prisoners at Bagram and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as a reason for the extreme security measures and harsh conditions there. Prisoners are typically shackled by their hands and feet when outside their cells and rarely move without an escort of at least two guards. During interrogations, they have often been forced into uncomfortable "safety positions" or chained to a bolt on the floor.

The two prisoners believed to have led the escape, Omar al-Faruq, a Kuwaiti who was the former Qaeda operative in Southeast Asia, and Muhammad Jafar Jamal al-Kahtani, the Saudi, had for months been awaiting transfer to Guantánamo Bay, officials said. For reasons they have not explained, the military authorities gave different names for both men in announcing the escape last summer.

At the time of Mr. Faruq's arrest in Jakarta, Indonesia, in early June 2002, he was considered one of the most important Qaeda figures ever captured by the United States. Three months later, he told C.I.A. interrogators at Bagram that he had been sent to the region to plan large-scale attacks against American Embassies and other targets there.

Intelligence officials gave differing views on the importance of Mr. Kahtani. One official described him as having been responsible at one point for maintaining Al Qaeda's operational support structure in Afghanistan; another said he was an important Qaeda fighter, but not a senior-level operative.

According to a classified, one-page military report on the escape that was reviewed by The New York Times, those two detainees - along with a Syrian prisoner identified as Abdullah Hashimi and a Kuwaiti named Mahmoud Ahmad Muhammad - were being held with four other men in Cell 119, on the ground floor of the Bagram prison.

A senior military official said each of the prisoners who escaped was moved into the cell in the days before his escape after causing problems with other detainees. The main cells at Bagram are large wire cages that can be easily surveyed by guards patrolling the catwalks above them. Cell 119, by contrast, was somewhat apart and out of the way, officials said. Asked whether the prisoners might have fabricated the disturbances to be moved together into Cell 119, the senior official said, "The investigation revealed credible factors that support this theory."

After a head count of prisoners at 1:50 a.m. on July 11, the military report states, the sergeant of the guard on duty at the detention center, now called the Bagram Theater Internment Facility, reported all of them accounted for, the report states.

About two hours later, at 3:45 a.m., as the detainees were being roused for the morning prayer, the four detainees were discovered missing from their cell. The military police battalion on duty at the prison, Task Force Cerberus, immediately locked down the prison and began a search, the report said.

How the men got out of their cell remains a mystery, officials said. Two senior military officials said some equipment was temporarily moved beside the cell, partly obstructing the guards' view. One senior military official said investigators believe the prisoners managed to pick the lock with implements they had fashioned while detained.

There were also suspicions that one of the American military guards, who had had disciplinary problems, might have deliberately left the door open, two senior officials said. But those suspicions were eventually discounted and the guard was never charged, they said.

The four men escaped out the southeast door of the main prison building, the report said. Military and intelligence officials said the detainees left behind their bright orange prison uniforms, apparently changing into less conspicuous blue prison garb that they might have somehow hidden in their cells or knew where to find elsewhere.

At the time, several officials said, construction crews had been working to expand and reinforce the prison, a cavernous aircraft machine-shop built by the Soviet military during its occupation of Afghanistan and converted by the American military into its primary screening center for terror suspects captured overseas. The breakout took place only days before a series of tougher security measures, including surveillance cameras and brighter lighting, were to be put in place.

The American forces have released more than 250 Taliban and other prisoners from Bagram this year as part of an Afghan national reconciliation program. Still, they have had to refurbish the prison to hold the roughly 500 detainees who remain.

The escapees also appear to have taken advantage of the construction work to move through an exercise yard and out of the prison compound. Another indication that the four men might have received help in their escape, officials said, was the apparent speed with which they found their way through a maze of buildings and roads to a small, damaged section of the perimeter wall surrounding the vast Bagram Air Base.

Once they found the faulty section of the packed-dirt wall, officials said, the detainees were able to crawl beneath the concertina wire that topped the barrier and drop down on the other side in an area of agricultural fields and abandoned homes.

"There were three or four points where they could have been caught," one American intelligence official said. "The escapees got very lucky." Within minutes of the escape, American forces began fanning out across and outside the prison, concentrating on the area near the faulty section of the wall. As the base sirens blared an alert and Cobra and Black Hawk helicopters hovered overhead, American soldiers and Afghan policemen scoured fields and homes in the area.

The district police chief, Colonel Assadullah, said in an interview in Bagram that he was asked to have his men search for a yellow pickup truck, which was apparently seen leaving the area. The district governor, Kabir Ahmad, said the Afghan authorities set up checkpoints on the highway leading to Kabul and other roads in the area, but turned up nothing suspicious.

Military officials said American soldiers questioned laborers who had been working at the prison, as well as local Afghan officials. But no arrests were made, and neither Afghans working at the base nor American officials said they knew of any laborers fired as a result of the inquiry.

In a recent interview, a former Bagram prisoner, Moazzam Begg, said he had heard during his detention there that American intelligence officers had once proposed staging an escape to release a detainee whom they wanted to act as a double agent against Al Qaeda. He said he had no knowledge that any such scheme had been carried out, and several American officials strongly dismissed the idea that that had happened with Mr. Faruq and the others.

In a videotape delivered to the Pakistan bureau of the Arab-language satellite television station Al Arabiya, Mr. Kahtani boasted about the preparations for the escape, suggesting that they had been painstaking.

"We decided to escape on Sunday because that is the day off for the nonbelievers," he said on the tape, which was broadcast Oct. 18. "To escape we studied the plan very carefully."

Sultan M. Munadi and Abdul Waheed Wafa contributed reporting from Bagram, Afghanistan for this article.

Read More...

Dean: GOP Will Use Immigration to Divide

ABC News
Dean: GOP Will Use Immigration to Divide
Democratic National Committee Leader Dean Says Republicans Will Use Immigration to Divide Voters
By JACQUES BILLEAUD
The Associated Press

PHOENIX - Republicans plan to use the vast problems caused by illegal immigration to try and divide Americans voting in next year's midterm election, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said Saturday.

"Once again, the Republicans created problems so they think they can come in and solve them," Dean told DNC members meeting in Phoenix.

Thousands of illegal immigrants cross America's borders each year to work better-paying jobs. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 11 million illegal immigrants now live in the United States.

Immigration is gaining prominence in politics, especially in Arizona and other states in the West, the busiest illegal entry point along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border.

President Bush has urged Congress to let illegal immigrants get three-year work visas that could be extended for an additional three years. Then, they would have to return home for a year to apply for a new work permit.

Dean said the government should have an "earned legalization" program in which immigrants who contribute to society and pay taxes should be able to earn the right to become citizens.

The DNC chairman also criticized Bush for not working with Mexico to confront America's immigration problems. "Work with Mexico to improve economies in rural America and rural Mexico, and you will stop the flood of people wanting to come to America," Dean said.

Republican National Committee spokesman Tucker Bounds said Democrats are out of touch with voters on border security.

"Dean's blatant mischaracterization of Bush's agenda is his best effort to mask the Democrats' unmistakable lack of a plan and any connection with voters on issues that matter," Bounds said.

Dean said Democrats will appeal to voters on other issues by offering tax law changes that treats middle-class families fairly, health care for more Americans and plan for withdrawing troops from the war in Iraq.

"The collapse of the Republican confidence in the Republican leadership is not enough to elect Democratic leadership," Dean said. "We have stand up for what we believe."

Read More...

Bush Presses Congress on Immigration Plan

ABC News
Bush Presses Congress on Immigration Plan
President Bush Calls on Congress to Embrace His Proposal to Crack Down on Illegal Immigration
By DEB RIECHMANN
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush is stepping up pressure on Congress to embrace his plan for a guest worker plan for foreigners while talking tough about illegal immigration and a need for secure U.S. borders.

"Those who enter the country illegally break the law," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

"In communities near our border, illegal immigration strains the resources of schools, hospitals and law enforcement. And it involves smugglers and gangs that bring crime to our neighborhoods. Faced with this serious challenge our government's responsibility is clear. We're going to protect our borders."

This week, the president made appearances in Arizona and Texas that focused on border security and immigration, two items he says will top his legislative agenda next year.

His goal is to catch more foreigners crossing the border while increasing the number of temporary work visas for those who will take jobs that Americans are unwilling to fill. He is trying to appease social conservatives who take a hard line against illegal immigrants and business leaders who want to hire foreign laborers.

Bush already increased the number of Border Patrol agents but said in the broadcast that he wants money to hire more of them, along with high-tech aerial drones and other technology.

"Since I took office we've increased funding for border security by 60 percent, and our border agents have caught and sent home more than 4.5 million illegal immigrants, including more than 350,000 with criminal records," he said. "Yet we must do more to build on this progress."

The president said his administration is committed to promptly returning every illegal immigrant caught at the border with no exceptions.

"For illegal immigrants from Mexico, we are working to expand an innovative program called interior repatriation, in which those caught at the border are returned to their hometowns, far from the border making it more difficult for them to attempt another crossing," Bush said.

"For non-Mexican illegal immigrants, we're changing the unwise policy of catch-and-release to a policy of catch-and-return, and we're speeding up the removal process."

Bush said Congress needs to fix weak and unnecessary provisions in U.S. immigration laws. Those include "senseless rules that require us to release illegal immigrants if their home countries do not take them back in a set period of time," he said.

Strengthening border security has the broadest support in Congress, and a bill to do so appears to likely to move first and perhaps become the starting point for additional measures.

Bush's desire for a guest-worker program has been stalled in Congress since he proposed it, although at least two competing bills would establish temporary worker visas.

"Comprehensive immigration reform requires us to create a new temporary worker program that relieves pressure on the border, but rejects amnesty," Bush said.

"By creating a legal channel for willing employers to hire willing workers we will reduce the number of workers trying to sneak across the border, and that would free up law enforcement officers to focus on criminals, drug dealers, terrorists, and others who mean us harm."

Reassuring his conservative supporters, the president said his program would not create an automatic path to citizenship, and would not provide amnesty.

"I oppose amnesty," he said. "Rewarding lawbreakers would encourage others to break the law and keep pressure on our border. A temporary worker program will relieve pressure on the border and help us more effectively enforce our immigration laws."

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked Bush in a letter Monday to encourage bipartisan and realistic changes to immigration laws. Reid said the president should "stand up to the right wing of your party and stand up for what is right" by taking more than an enforcement-only approach to illegal immigration.

"Enforcement alone does not work," Reid said. "Unless we address the gap between our immigration laws and reality, illegal immigration will not stop and the situation on the border will continue to be chaotic."

Read More...

Democrats Lack Unified Position on Iraq

ABC News
Democrats Lack Unified Position on Iraq
Democrats Divided on When to Pull Troops Out of Iraq, but Unified Against Bush's Current Strategy
By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi says it's time for U.S. troops to start coming home from Iraq. Her top lieutenant, Rep. Steny Hoyer, says a precipitous pullout could be disastrous.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid calls on President Bush to develop a timetable for the phased withdrawal of troops. Some of his Democratic colleagues, including Sen. John Kerry, craft their own plans for the military's eventual return.

The only position Democrats seem to share is that Bush's current strategy is flawed.

Otherwise, they have widely disparate views about how and when to get out of Iraq, raising the question of whether the lack of a unified message could hinder Democratic efforts to turn Bush's woes and mounting public frustration about the war into liabilities for GOP candidates during congressional elections next fall.

"There simply is no party position on Iraq ... It's every man and woman for themselves," said Ross Baker, a political analyst at Rutgers University in New Jersey who closely monitors Congress.

Democrats say positions on the war are deeply personal and should be left up to individual lawmakers who represent districts and states that also have vastly differing views. But Democrats also don't have one standard-bearer to look to for direction, unlike the Republicans, who have the president.

GOP leaders in Congress have lined up behind Bush in rejecting a timetable for withdrawal. But some in their rank-and-file Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, for one have started challenging the administration on future U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Other Republicans are questioning the administration's path forward carefully and privately so they aren't perceived as crossing an administration known for demanding loyalty.

"There isn't a unified position in either political party on exactly what to do moving forward in Iraq," said Michael Feldman, a Democratic consultant in Washington. "This is a big and difficult and sticky issue. Lives are at stake."

Unlike the Republican fissures, Democratic differences have been prominently on display in recent weeks.

Pelosi, D-Calif., Wednesday endorsed a call by her top adviser on defense issues, the hawkish Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., for U.S. troops to begin pulling out of Iraq. He says all could be home in six months.

At the same time, Hoyer, D-Md., released a statement responding to a Bush speech on Iraq. It contradicted Pelosi, saying: "a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility."

Last month, Reid, D-Nev., sought to create a cohesive Senate Democratic position with a resolution calling on Bush to craft a plan for Iraq with estimated dates for the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops based on a host of conditions.

But Kerry, D-Mass., has rolled out his own plan to bring 20,000 troops home after Dec. 15 elections. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has proposed the military mission end by Dec. 31, 2006.

Other Democrats offered varying positions last week.

"The Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn," Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., wrote in an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal.

In a letter to constituents, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., rejected an immediate pullout of troops, saying: "We must set reasonable goals to finish what we started and successfully turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis."

Democrats dismiss the notion that the lack of a unified party position on Iraq will hurt the party as it seeks to reclaim Congress in 2006.

"I think we all make a mistake if we think that the sole criteria in November of '06 is going to be the war," Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said Thursday on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews."

Republican scandals and domestic troubles like high gasoline prices also will be on voters' minds, Democrats say.

Plus, said Bill Carrick, a Democratic strategist in California: "It is going to be a whole series of state and local elections where Iraq will play differently depending on which two candidates are running against each other."

Read More...

Alito Critics Cite Inconsistencies

ABC News
Alito Critics Cite Inconsistencies
Alito's Opponents Looking at What They Say Are Inconsistencies, Omissions in His Record
By DAVID ESPO
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Challenging his candor and by implication his character, Samuel Alito's critics are seizing on a handful of inconsistencies and omissions in the record to raise doubts about the judge's fitness for the Supreme Court.

By themselves, the issues seem minor:

shifting explanations for Alito's participation in a 2002 case involving the mutual fund company Vanguard. Alito had pledged in 1990 to Congress that he would step aside.

a statement that Alito did not recall his membership in a controversial conservative Princeton alumni group until recently seeing a document.

a 1985 Reagan administration legal brief seeking the reversal of a landmark abortion rights case. The material was not sent to the Senate along with other records.

Critics of the federal appeals court judge say they detect a pattern.

"A credibility gap is emerging with each new piece of information released on Judge Alito's record," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is to begin confirmation hearings on Jan. 9.

"He bears an especially heavy burden at the hearings in January to explain the growing number of discrepancies between his current statements and his past actions," said Kennedy, D-Mass.

Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, said that as more documents about Alito's record become public, "a disturbing lack of credibility has begun to emerge across a range of key issues."

A White House spokesman, Steve Schmidt, said critics are "trying to smear a good man." Schmidt said their claims were a "recognition by the Democratic groups that there is thin gruel from which to mount a rational opposition to the Alito nomination."

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told reporters on Friday that a lot of information was requested and "there may be some times when people forget." He added, "When reminded, the key is coming forward with the information."

The fate of Alito's nomination to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor probably will be determined by his writings and formal rulings on abortion as well as the other opinions issued during 15 years on the appeals court.

Alito's supporters say that barring an unexpected turn at confirmation hearings, he will be confirmed for the high court.

Ironically, Alito's critics find no fault with the legal opinion in the Vanguard case, and even his six-figure investment in the firm's mutual funds has seemed a secondary concern at times.

Not so a commitment to the Judiciary Committee during his appeals court confirmation in 1990. Alito pledged then to disqualify himself from cases involving Vanguard and three other entities.

Yet Alito was on a three-judge panel that ruled unanimously in 2002 in favor of Vanguard on a case involving the account of a deceased investor. Subsequently, the investor's widow sought a new review and Alito's disqualification, citing his substantial investments.

Alito wrote the chief judge of the 3rd Circuit that he did not believe he was required to disqualify himself, although he said he was voluntarily stepping aside. The letter did not mention the pledge he had made to the Senate, and it is not clear whether Shantee Maharaj, the woman who sought to disqualify him, knew about it.

Initially, Alito and Bush administration officials said his initial participation was the result of a computer error that had failed to flag the case.

Then, responding to a letter last month from the Judiciary Committee chairman, GOP Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Alito wrote that his pledge to the committee covered his "initial service" as a judge. As time passed, he said, he realized it had been "unduly restrictive."

But a questionnaire Alito returned to the committee last week shows that as late as 2005, he removed himself from a case involving Vanguard because it was on a "standing recusal list."

The dispute surrounding an alumni organization is less complex.

In 1986, as part of an application for a new job in the Reagan Administration, Alito stressed his conservative credentials. Among them, he cited his membership in the "Concerned Alumni of Princeton University, a conservative alumni group."

The group once said school officials had lowered standards to accept female and minority applicants.

In completing the committee's questionnaire, Alito stepped carefully around the issue. "A document I recently reviewed reflects that I was a member of the group in the 1980s," he wrote.

"Apart from that document, I have no recollection of being a member, of attending meetings or otherwise participating in the activities of the group."

People for the American Way announced on Nov. 18 it was seeking records at the Library of Congress that might "shed more light on the activities and ideology" of the group.

The questionnaire also requested that Alito provide legal briefs and a detailed summary of his work on Supreme Court cases. He responded with voluminous material dating from his tenure in the Reagan Administration.

On the same day, a 1985 memo was released separately in which he outlined a legal strategy for eroding and eventually ending abortion rights.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., quickly sought an explanation "for this omission." He wrote Alito asking whether he participated in drafting the appeal in which the Reagan administration sought the reversal on abortion.

Schmidt said Alito omitted the case because he had neither argued it before the Supreme Court nor signed his name to the legal brief.

A fellow lawyer in the solicitor general's office, Albert Lauber, said he had been assigned to write part of the brief and that Alito offered to help.

Alito "helped with the legal research and analysis, and I think he gave me proposed inserts," said Lauber, whose assignment did not include drafting the plea to have abortion rights ended.

Alito "made a real contribution," Lauber said in an interview, although he added, "I wrote more than he did."

Read More...

La. Governor Seeks to 'Set the Record Straight'

Washington Post
Blanco Releases Katrina Records
La. Governor Seeks to 'Set the Record Straight'

By Joby Warrick, Spencer S. Hsu and Anne Hull
Washington Post Staff Writers

Thousands of documents released by Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco Friday night shed new light on clashes between state officials, New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin and the Bush administration as they struggled to respond to Hurricane Katrina.

Among the more than 100,000 pages of newly released records, which ranged from after-action reports to hand-scrawled notes written at the height of the storm, are memos showing Blanco frustrated and angered over delays in evacuations and the slow delivery of promised federal aid.

"We need everything you've got," Blanco is quoted in a memo as telling President Bush on Aug. 29, the day Katrina made landfall. But despite assurances from the Federal Emergency Management Agency that 500 buses were "standing by," Blanco's aides were compelled to take action when the FEMA buses failed to materialize, documents show. "We need buses," Andy Kopplin, chief of staff to Blanco, said in an e-mail to Blanco staffers late on Aug. 30, the day after the storm hit. "Find buses that can go to NO [New Orleans] ASAP."

Two days later, on Sept. 2, Blanco complained to the White House that FEMA had still failed to fulfill its promises of aid. While cloaked in customary political courtesies, Blanco noted that she had already requested 40,000 more troops; ice, water and food; buses, base camps, staging areas, amphibious vehicles, mobile morgues, rescue teams, housing, airlift and communications systems, according to a press office e-mail of the text of her letter to Bush.

"Even if these initial requests had been fully honored, these assets would not be sufficient," Blanco said. She also asked for the return of the Louisiana Army National Guard's 256th Brigade Combat Team, then deployed to Iraq.

Tensions between state leaders and the White House seemed at times near the boiling point. At 3:49 p.m. on Sept. 2, after spending three hours to appear with Bush at a Mississippi news conference, Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) wrote Blanco's staff, "I am returning home to baron[sic] rouge in hoping I can accomplish something for the people I represent other than being occupied with PR."

He added that Bush's "entire effort on behalf of the federal government has been reflected in his and his people's nonchalant attitude to the people of LA. You may give him this to read."

The documents, which were posted on the Internet late Friday, also provide the most detailed account yet of the harrowing conditions at the storm's epicenter, as state officials and emergency workers fought to retain control amid rising floodwaters and failing communications systems. Their release comes amid new efforts by Blanco to defend her government's much-criticized response to the nation's costliest natural disaster.

Raw and frequently conflicting, reflecting the chaotic conditions in the initial hours after the storm hit, the records paint an intimate portrait of a state struggling to overcome extremes of weather and bureaucratic incompetence as the storm ripped its way across the state.

The documents were prepared in response to requests by two congressional committees investigating the federal response to Katrina. Blanco spokeswoman Denise Bottcher said the governor decided to release the documents "publicly not to vindicate herself, but to set the record straight."

"You can see the requests that were made, day after day, hour after hour," Bottcher said yesterday.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said she has not seen the documents, but noted multiple reviews of the week of the storm are underway, "and all levels of government have a responsibility to take stock of what happened, act on it, and then make sure it doesn't ever happen again."

Blanco has been struggling to repair her image after being widely criticized for the state's initial response to Katrina. In contrast to reports that she was indecisive and overwhelmed, the new documents portray her as assertive, if somewhat beleaguered. "I believe my biggest mistake was believing FEMA officials who told me that the necessary federal resources would be available in a timely fashion," Blanco wrote in one memo.

Among the trove of documents were thousands of internal e-mails, handwritten notes and communiques that show the governor's staff responding to dozens of crises as the severity of the storm became apparent. As late as Friday evening, Aug. 26, Louisiana hurricane planners expected the storm to hit eastern Mississippi, causing only a two- to four-foot tidal surge in the state. But when they met 12 hours later, they discovered the storm track had shifted west and was projected to swamp coastal areas with surges of as much as 18 feet.

By early Saturday, with predictions for Katrina becoming increasingly dire, Blanco had launched a desperate effort to persuade New Orleanians to evacuate ahead of the storm, memos show.

Her staff began calling ministers in African American churches, telling them to advise parishioners to "pack and pray." But with the city's evacuation efforts still lagging, Blanco decided she needed to appear publicly with Nagin. Some on her staff expressed concern that such an "artificial event" would pull people from their posts during evacuation preparation, but Blanco "seems to feel that a show of unity is important for the people of the area to see," according to an e-mail. It was decided that the meeting would be held on "Nagin's turf."

After the storm hit, Blanco's staff was under siege on every front, the communiques show. Someone sent word that 60 people were starving and dying at a sugar refinery. Another reported that elderly patients were trapped in a nursing home. "Our crews just got into St. Tammany Parish and it is bad," said an Aug. 29 e-mail to Kopplin, Blanco's chief of staff. "They are under water, major damage and they need someone from the state and FEMA to help."

Intermingled with the damage reports were hundreds of offers of assistance, from every conceivable source. A church called to offer buses. A developer called to offer the use of a mall. Jordan's King Abdullah called asking to speak with Blanco. The Italian consul general in Houston sent word that he was "headed to New Orleans to pick up stranded Italians" and did not want to be stopped by state police.

The next day, as images of New Orleans's devastation became clear, an e-mail to the governor's assistant chief of staff -- the sender's name was redacted in the documents -- said that Nagin "seemed overwhelmed and didn't have a clue on national news," and listed selling points for Blanco's office to use in gaining federal help: "New Orleans inextricably tied to national economy, 25 percent offshore oil contribution and number one port in U.S."

Blanco's office was concerned with perceptions, too. Jerry Luke LeBlanc, Blanco's chief financial adviser, stressed the need to take control of hurricane victim relief funds. LeBlanc said he had already seen political commentator James Carville and musician Wynton Marsalis, both Louisiana-born, on national TV "saying they are raising money for this effort. We have got to get this under control."

Other documents from Louisiana's state and emergency preparedness command detail how emergency workers struggled to cope with encroaching floodwaters and the rising human toll over ensuing days. The reports paint a scene of growing chaos, beginning at dawn Aug. 29, with flood-control pumping stations failing, "extensive flooding in eastern New Orleans," fires and building collapses.

That day National Guard helicopters rescued 2,296 people from rooftops and "newly created islands," according a Louisiana National Guard report. Blackhawks designed to carry 11 passengers ignored standard operating procedures; one crew loaded 31 evacuees into one of the helicopters.

Overnight the crisis deepened. Although FEMA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers personnel in New Orleans reported witnessing a massive break hundreds of feet long in the 17th Street Canal levee that afternoon -- effectively dooming the city -- the first report of the collapse in the state police log came at 3 a.m. the next day, Aug. 30.

By that time, police had tracked 548 calls for help, mostly people from New Orleans trapped in attics or on rooftops. Pleas for rescue would grow throughout the day, a new 911 call every minute on average.

"The water in the City of New Orleans is rising," the state police log reported at 3 p.m. on Aug. 30. By that time, Charity and Tulane University hospitals had flooded. Inmates had freed themselves at Orleans Parish Prison, threatening 150 deputies and family members in a second-floor break room.

A gun store was burglarized, with dispatchers noting, "Every gun has been stolen including assault rifles." Railroad tanker cars filled with chemicals were entangled in power lines, creating fears of chlorine, acid and oil spills.

At 6 p.m., state police Trooper Robert Bennett reported, "New Orleans City Hall is starting to take on water. They are closing their EOC at 1800hrs. They don't know where or when it will be reopened."

The night of Aug. 30 , police recorded a cry for help every 25 seconds, or 900 calls between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. By 11 a.m. Aug. 31, the police log shows, National Guard units abandoned air rescues, changing over to dropping food and water.

Blanco's response can be found at http://gov.louisiana.gov

Read More...

Documents Show Katrina's Political Storm

ABC News
Documents Show Katrina's Political Storm
Louisiana Governor's Papers Show State, Federal Officials Seeking Political Cover During Katrina
By CONNIE MABIN
The Associated Press

NEW ORLEANS - As Hurricane Katrina roared ashore and thousands of people waited days amid the floodwater for rescue, a series of letters passed between the governor and the White House that reveal delays, claims that requests for federal help weren't received, and concerns on both sides about public relations.

Gov. Kathleen Blanco late Friday released 100,000 pages of memos, handwritten notes, e-mails, phone logs and other documents requested by congressional committees that are now investigating what happened behind the scenes in the frantic days surrounding the deadly Aug. 29 storm.

Among those documents are the back-and-forth communications between Blanco's office and the White House, starting with a letter Blanco sent President Bush a day before the hurricane hit.

"I have determined that this incident will be of such severity and magnitude that effective response will be beyond the capabilities of the state and the affected local governments and that supplementary federal assistance will be necessary," Blanco wrote.

Three days after the storm, Blanco wrote Bush asking that the 256th Louisiana National Guard Brigade be sent home from Iraq to help. The governor also asked for more generators, medicine, health care workers and mortuaries.

Five days later, Bush assistant Maggie Grant e-mailed Blanco aide Paine Gowen to say that the White House did not receive the letter.

"We found it on the governor's Web site but we need 'an original,' for our staff secretary to formally process the requests she is making," Grant wrote. "We are on the job but appreciate your help with a technical request. Tnx!"

The stack of documents also includes a timeline put together by Blanco's staff detailing the state response; notes expressing frustration about missing items such as a communications center for police and rescuers promised by the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and police reports, including logs of calls from people trapped amid the floodwater. Other documents show how Blanco's aids were inundated with requests from celebrities and dignitaries wanting to visit the city.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Saturday that she hadn't seen the documents.

"There are many reviews underway to look back and review how the events unfolded during that week and all levels of government have to take stock of what happened, act on that and make sure that it doesn't happen again," Perino said.

Other exchanges between the governor's staff and the White House show public relations was a priority for both administrations.

Grant, Bush's aide, e-mailed Gowen Sep. 13 asking if Blanco would be attending a Washington, D.C., service marking the president's "National Day of Prayer." If she didn't, Grant wrote, "We'd love to have someone like (Homeland Security) Secretary (Michael) Chertoff attend a service with her."

For the state's part, Blanco's chief of staff Andy Kopplin e-mailed employees Sept. 4 saying they needed to get national supporters to say "that the federal response was anemic" and asked them to point out budget cuts to levee programs.

While Blanco's office wanted to blame the federal government, the documents show that her staff didn't want it to appear as if the federal government was seizing state power.

When Bush visited New Orleans on Sept. 5 Blanco was initially supposed to visit evacuees in Houston, but Blanco spokeswoman Denise Bottcher didn't like the idea of Bush being in the state when the governor wasn't. "Reinforces the notion that she's not in charge and LA needs to be federalized," she e-mailed Kopplin.

Blanco's communication's director Bob Mann agreed, the documents show, and Blanco stayed to meet Bush.

The Democratic governor's staff also griped that Republicans were attacking Blanco. "Rove is on the prowl," says one unexplained Sept. 3 message from Kopplin to Mann, a reference to Bush adviser Karl Rove.

Read More...

FBI mishandled Florida terror investigation

Reuters

FBI mishandled Florida terror investigation: NYT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - FBI officials mishandled a Florida terror investigation, falsified documents to try to cover mistakes and retaliated against an agent who complained about the problems, The New York Times reported in its Sunday edition.

Citing a draft report of an investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general's office, a copy of which was obtained by the newspaper, the Times said that in one instance correction fluid was used to alter dates on three FBI forms to conceal an apparent violation of federal wiretap law. It was not known who altered the forms.

The case dates to 2002, the Times said, when the FBI's Tampa office opened a terror investigation into whether laundered money, possibly connected to a drug outfit, might be used to finance terrorists overseas. The FBI was considering initiating an undercover operation and asked an agent with expertise in the area to take part.

But the agent, Mike German, soon told FBI officials the Orlando agent handling the case had "so seriously mishandled" the investigation that a prime opportunity to expose a terrorist financing plot had been wasted. The report however concluded that "there was no viable terrorism case."

But the draft report, dated November 15, said German, who left the bureau last year after he said his career was derailed after the Florida incident, was "retaliated against" by his boss, who stopped using him for prestigious assignments in training new undercover agents.

FBI spokesman Michael Kortan told the Times the bureau had not been briefed on the findings but said that once it did get the report, "if either misconduct or other wrongdoing is found we will take appropriate action."

The report said the inspector general found the FBI had "mishandled and mismanaged" the investigation and said supervisors were aware of problems in the case but did not take prompt action to correct them.

Once German raised his concerns, an unidentified agent in Orlando "improperly added inaccurate dates to the investigative reports in order to make it appear as though the reports were prepared earlier," the inspector general found, according to the Times.

Correction fluid was used to backdate forms that the main informant had signed as part of a bugging operation, in which he agreed that he had to be present for all undercover taping. The alteration was significant, the report found, because the informant had taped a 2002 meeting with suspects but left the recorder unattended while he used the restroom, in violation of federal law.

The report also said that after German began making his complaints about the case, the head of the FBI undercover unit, Jorge Martinez, froze him out of teaching assignments in undercover training and told one agent that he would "never work another undercover case."

Read More...

Saturday, December 03, 2005

US civil rights group to sue CIA

BBC NEWS
US civil rights group to sue CIA

A US civil rights groups says it is taking the CIA to court to stop the transportation of terror suspects to countries outside US legal authority.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says the intelligence agency has broken both US and international law.

It is acting for a man allegedly flown to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she'll comment on recent reports of alleged CIA prisons abroad before starting a visit to Europe on Monday.

Ms Rice has said she will provide an answer to a EU letter expressing concern over reports last month alleging the US intelligence agency was using secret jails - particularly in eastern Europe.

'Extraordinary rendition'

"The lawsuit will charge that CIA officials at the highest level violated US and universal human rights laws when they authorised agents to abduct an innocent man, detain him in incommunicado, beat him, drug and transport him to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan," the ACLU said in a news release.

The release identified the jail as the "Salt Pit".

The group did not provide the name or nationality of the plaintiff, saying only that he would appear at a news conference next week to reveal details of the lawsuit.

The ACLU also wants to name corporations which it accuses of owning and operating the aircraft used to transport detainees secretly from country to country.

The highly secretive process is known as "extraordinary rendition" whereby intelligence agencies move and interrogate terrorism suspects outside the US, where they have no American legal protection.

It has become extremely controversial, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington reports.

Some individuals have claimed they were flown by the CIA to countries like Syria and Egypt, where they were tortured.

The US government and its intelligence agencies maintain that all their operations are conducted within the law and they will no doubt fight this case vigorously, our correspondent says.

He says they will not want to see US intelligence officers forced publicly to defend their actions and they will not want to see one of their most secret procedures laid bare in open court.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4494246.stm

Read More...

9/11 Panel Gives Gov't Poor Marks on Reform

Yahoo! News
9/11 Panel Gives Gov't Poor Marks on Reform

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

More than four years after the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies still are failing to share information while Congress battles over security funding, a panel that investigated the terrorist hijackings will conclude in a new report.

In interviews Friday, members of the former Sept. 11 commission said the government should receive a dismal grade for its lack of urgency in enacting strong security measures to prevent terror attacks.

The 10-member, bipartisan commission disbanded after issuing 41 recommendations to bolster the nation's security in July 2004. The members have reconstituted themselves, using private funds, as the 9/11 Public Discourse Project and will release a new report Monday assessing the extent their directives have been followed.

Overall, the government has performed "not very well," said former commission chairman Thomas Kean, former Republican governor of New Jersey.

"Before 9-11, both the Clinton and Bush administrations said they had identified Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida as problems that have to be dealt with, and were working on it," Kean said. "But they just were not very high on their priority list. And again it seems that the safety of the American people is not very high on Washington's priority list."

A spokesman at the Homeland Security Department declined to comment until the report is issued Monday. Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, acknowledged that some areas continue to be vulnerable but have not been addressed due to disagreements with the Senate.

Congress established the commission in 2002 to investigate government missteps that led to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It found that the United States could not protect its citizens from the attacks because it underestimated al-Qaida. Since June, the former commissioners have held hearings to examine what they described as the government's unfinished agenda to secure the country.

Among the main concerns, which former Democratic commissioner Timothy Roemer said would receive the "worst grades":

_The United States is not doing enough to ensure that foreign nations are upgrading security measures to stop proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical materials. Such materials could be used in weapons of mass destruction, and over 100 research reactors around the world have enough highly enriched uranium present to make a nuclear device.

"We've seen that Osama bin Laden likes to do spectacular things," said Roemer, a former Indiana congressman. "Is a dirty bomb next? ... We're not doing enough, and we're not doing it urgently enough."

_Police, firefighters, medics and other first responders still lack interconnected radio systems letting them communicate with each other during emergencies. Responders from different agencies at the World Trade Center were unable to coordinate rescues — or receive information that could have saved their own lives — on 9/11.

Congress last year approved spending nearly $1 billion on interoperable systems, but King said the matter is "a very difficult issue."

_Both the Bush administration and Congress have continued to distribute security funding to states without aiming most money at high-risk communities. The Homeland Security Department gave $2.5 billion in grants to states and 50 high-risk cities last year, but some rural states, like Wyoming, received more money per resident than terror targets like New York.

The House and Senate have been unable this year to agree on a funding formula that distributes money based solely on risk, threats and vulnerability. King said the Senate's proposal "is still living with a pork-barrel formula." But Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins said in statement that her bipartisan plan "provides a meaningful baseline of funds to each state so that the nation as a whole can achieve essential levels of preparedness."

Kean said information-sharing gaps among turf-conscious federal intelligence agencies continue to exist. He also chastised the Transportation Security Administration for failing to consolidate multiple databases of passenger information into a single "terror watch list" that would make it easier for airlines to screen for suspicious travelers.

Moreover, expanded governmental powers to seek out terror-related intelligence have not been adequately balanced by civil liberties protections or oversight, said former Democratic commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste. He said President Bush was "tardy in naming a civil liberties protection board, whose funding is anemic and which has not yet been met to get underway."

A bright spot in the government's performance is the creation of a national intelligence director to help coordinate all government terror information, Roemer said.

"Generally, the grades range all the way from A to F," Kean said.

Still, "No parent would be happy with this report card," said former Democratic commissioner Jamie Gorelick.

___

On the Net:

9/11 Public Discourse Project: http://www.9-11pdp.org/

Read More...

The United States Is Opposed

huffingtonpost.com
Carl Pope
The United States Is Opposed

"The United States is opposed." That's how Harlan Watson, the chief of the U.S. delegation to the international global warming meeting in Montreal, responded this week. What's appalling is that Watson was not referring to the Kyoto Protocol, which the Bush administration has always been against.

Nor was he taking off on some European or Third World proposal that the U.S. found objectionable. Watson was nixing the idea of continuing to negotiate about international targets for greenhouse emissions, even though we already are a signatory to (and in violation of) the Rio Treaty, which binds us at the least to hold emissions down to 1990 levels. So the U.S. is against further discussion of the world's biggest environmental challenge and against talking about how the U.S. might honor its treaty obligations.

In fact, Watson even opposed having the conference talk about his own government's proposal. As Elizabeth May, the Executive Director of Sierra Club Canada put it:

"The U.S. even objected to any discussion of its pet techno-fix, carbon capture and storage -- a hugely controversial technology to bury carbon dioxide below ground and hope it stays there. The U.S. is still pushing carbon capture and storage -- it just does not want to allow that discussion to happen in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention or Kyoto."

This opposition was expressed in such incredible diplomatic doublespeak that I won't even try to quote it, but the State Department has kindly posted the full verbiage on its website, and it's worth reading as a model if there’s something you need to say but you don't actually want anyone to know what you mean.

Meanwhile Richard Pombo's land grab ran into still more resistance in the West, when five western governors, led by Wyoming's Dave Freudenthal, weighed in against Pombo's attempted public-lands giveaway rider tucked into the pending House version of the Budget Bill. Freudenthal was joined by Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, and Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire:

"Private lands that have historically been accessible by the average outdoorsman are becoming increasingly closed to public access. It follows that public lands have over the years become essential to these folks, but there are provisions in this bill that could see those lands lost to the public as they pass into private ownership."

And while it happens that all six governors who signed the letter are Democrats, Pombo can't take much heart from this fact. Because Wyoming's two Republican senators are now joining the alarm, with Senator Craig Thomas saying "I won't stand by and let a Band-Aid fix to the Mining Act become a chronic injury to land use in our state."

Read More...

Friday, December 02, 2005

US skewed evidence of 1964 Tonkin attack

Yahoo! News
US skewed evidence of 1964 Tonkin attack: document

U.S. intelligence officials in 1964 skewed evidence of an attack on two U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin to support claims of communist aggression that led to a massive escalation of the Vietnam War, according to a newly declassified government document.

An article by a National Security Agency historian, released by the NSA this week along with intelligence reports and other related documents, said officials at the spy agency withheld nearly 90 percent of intelligence on the August 4, 1964, incident to back allegations of a North Vietnamese attack.

"It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened. It is that no attack happened that night," NSA historian Robert Hanyok wrote.

Hanyok's article, which appeared in a classified NSA publication in 2001, was based on a review of newly discovered signals intelligence documents from 41 years ago.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident gave President Lyndon Johnson carte blanche for a huge U.S. military buildup in Southeast Asia that led to the deaths of more than 58,000 U.S. soldiers and over 2 million Vietnamese civilians.

The New York Times reported Friday that some intelligence officials believe the NSA delayed the release of the Hanyok article to avoid comparisons between skewed Vietnam intelligence and flawed prewar intelligence on Iraq.

But NSA spokesman Don Weber said there was no delay. The agency only waited so it could also make public the raw material Hanyok used in composing his history, he said.

Officials at NSA, the spy agency that monitors transmission signals, provided the Johnson administration only with signals intelligence that supported claims of an attack. The reports were also flawed by severe analytic errors and contained unexplained translation changes, the article said.

In fact, Johnson's main proof that the August 4 attack occurred proved to be a "conjunction of two unrelated messages into one translation," the article stated.

"Information was presented in such a manner as to preclude responsible decisionmakers in the Johnson administration from having the complete and objective narrative," said the article, which was among hundreds of documents on the Gulf of Tonkin released by the NSA.

"The conclusion that would have been drawn from a review of all ... evidence would have been that the North Vietnamese not only did not attack, but were uncertain as to the location of the (U.S.) ships."

Historians have long suspected that government reports of the 1964 attack were fabricated. Robert McNamara, Johnson's defense secretary, said during a visit to Vietnam a decade ago that he had come to believe the attack did not occur.

Read More...

Diebold faces e-voting machine hack test in California

computerworld.com
Diebold faces e-voting machine hack test in California
The attempted hack, set to take place this week, has been delayed

News Story by Marc L. Songini

DECEMBER 01, 2005 (COMPUTERWORLD) - Looking to quell fears about the potential for vote tampering with electronic voting machines, the state of California is sponsoring a hacking test of an optical scan voting device from Diebold Election Systems.

The initial hacking was slated to be held yesterday but was postponed, said Jim March, an investigator at Black Box Voting Inc., a Renton, Wash.-based nonprofit voter advocacy group. His organization has been prodding California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's office to test Diebold's AccuVote optical scan gear for alleged vulnerabilities.

The move comes amid recurring concerns that e-voting gear, including optical scan and touch-screen voting machines, are vulnerable to intrusion or rigging. In this case, March claimed that a vulnerability in the memory card in the Diebold optical scan machine could allow a hacker to replace code and "doctor the results."

Black Box Voting had planned to provide a hacker for yesterday's demonstration, a Finland-based security expert and "uber-geek" named Harri Hursti, March said. Working with Black Box Voting, Hursti last May successfully hacked a Diebold machine in Leon County, Fla. (download PDF).

A spokeswoman for the California secretary of state said that McPherson decided to sponsor the security test because of the Florida experiment. She also said the exact protocols and logistical details to be used in the hacking attempt are still being finalized with Hursti. The testing would involve the random selection of an AccuVote machine currently in use in one of California's voting precincts. No new date for the hacking attempt has been set, but California officials said they hope to conduct it by year's end.

McKinney, Texas-based Diebold denied that its optical scan gear is vulnerable and said it will work with McPherson on the upcoming hacking attempt. A Diebold spokesman also called the Leon County, Fla., hacking invalid. "We weren't ever aware of it," David Bear said. "The election official bringing [Hursti and Black Box] in gave them complete and unfettered access and the passcode." In a real election, doing so is bad policy and something elections officials would not allow to happen, he said. Bear also said that security procedures during elections extend beyond the safety of the equipment.

"If I gave you the keys to my house and told you when I was out, you would have a good chance to get in," Bear said. He also noted that the optical scan machine records the actual vote in a memory card and on paper ballots that are audited during the mandatory canvassing period to guarantee the integrity of the results.

On another front, Diebold's status as a provider of e-voting equipment in North Carolina is in limbo after a judge this week denied the company's request for protection from the state's election transparency laws.

North Carolina's strict election statues, passed in August, demand that the vendors of all e-voting machines put their source code in escrow with an approved and independent agent. The vendor must also include relevant scripts, object libraries, application interfaces, and design and technical documentation. If the vendor doesn't comply, it faces potential civil or criminal legal penalties.

Diebold on Nov. 4 got a temporary restraining order to exempt it from any legal jeopardy while it continues to sell its machines in North Carolina. On Monday, Diebold appeared in Wake County Court in Raleigh, N.C., for a preliminary injunction to shield it from potential penalties. But the judge ruled that such an injunction would be premature and dismissed the suit.

"We're not trying to evade anything," said Doug Hanna, a Raleigh-based attorney representing Diebold. He said there is no way any vendor can comply with the statute because there are software components from third-party vendors such as Microsoft Corp. that Diebold has no legal to right to place in escrow. Diebold would also be unable to name every programmer that worked on those third-party applications, as the state law requires, he said.

Hanna said many states dictate that proprietary source code be placed in escrow, and Diebold has done so in a number of jurisdictions. North Carolina could gain access to the code through one of them, he said.

He said he doesn't know how the fight in North Carolina will affect Diebold's status there.

Critics of Diebold are chalking up the latest ruling as a win. "We think this is a great victory for North Carolina voters," said Matthew Zimmerman, staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit civil rights advocacy group. The EFF was among the parties opposing Diebold in court.

"It sends a clear message to the rest of the country that the laws designed to increase integrity and transparency are valid and don't prevent a state from being able to go forward with e-voting systems," Zimmerman said, adding that other e-voting vendors, such as Election Systems & Software Inc., have complied with North Carolina's laws. "It [the third-party software issue] was a completely artificial argument in the first place," he said.

Read More...