Tuesday, February 21, 2006

States review eminent domain

USA TODAY
States review eminent domain
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

More than 30 state legislatures are considering limits on the power of local governments to condemn private property and transfer it to real estate developers to spur economic growth.

Lawmakers are responding to a Supreme Court ruling in June that permitted eminent domain powers to be used in New London, Conn., to confiscate waterfront homes to build an office complex and condominiums. The 5-4 ruling prompted property rights advocates to take their case to state legislatures.

Five states enacted small changes last year, but most legislatures were not in session after the court ruling.

"This is the crucial year for the eminent domain issue," says Larry Morandi, who tracks eminent domain legislation for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Bills to restrict eminent domain have moved forward in Georgia, Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky and several other states, but none has become law yet. In New Mexico, the state Senate and House both approved limits, but the bill died when the legislature adjourned before giving final approval.

Eminent domain is the power of government to take private property for "public use" if the owner is fairly compensated. It has been used to build roads, schools and utility lines. Cities also have used it to transfer property from unwilling sellers to developers who want to build shopping malls, offices or other projects. Baltimore's Inner Harbor and New York's Times Square were revamped by eminent domain.

---
Legislatures' strategies

Explicit bans. Some bills would ban the use of eminent domain for economic development. Others would do so indirectly by stating when it can be used and leaving commercial development off the list.

Narrower rules. Many states are considering making it harder for cities to declare a neighborhood "blighted" just for economic development.

Economic penalties. New York and Indiana are among states considering making eminent domain more expensive. The government would have to pay 25% or 50% above market value when it confiscates a property for commercial development.
---

After the Supreme Court decision, legislatures in Alabama, Texas, Delaware, Michigan and Ohio took modest steps to restrict eminent domain. Michigan approved a constitutional amendment that will be on the ballot in November. Ohio approved a one-year moratorium on eminent domain for economic development. Congress also is considering restrictions. (Related story: Ohio town tests eminent domain)

"There's been an explosion of outrage by people across the country and across the political spectrum about what can be done under eminent domain," says Scott Bullock of the Institute of Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm.

Last month, Charlotte-based BB&T, the nation's ninth-largest bank, announced it would not lend money to developers who used eminent domain to acquire property. The Rhode Island Economic Development Corp., a quasi-public agency headed by the governor, announced last month that it would no longer use eminent domain for economic development.

Donald Borut, executive director of the National League of Cities, says state legislatures should not rush to act because careful study would show that abuses are rare. "We all feel sympathetic for someone who is losing a home," he says. "But we also have to consider the faces of people of all income levels who benefit from the job creation these projects bring."

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-19-eminentdomain_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Companies Offer to Send Remains to Space; Scotty will be blasted into space — not beamed up — and Gordo is returning for his third flight.

Yahoo! News
Companies Offer to Send Remains to Space

By MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press Writer

Scotty will be blasted into space — not beamed up — and Gordo is returning for his third flight.

The planned launch sometime in March of a rocket carrying the ashes of actor James Doohan, who played chief engineer Montgomery Scott on "Star Trek," and Mercury program astronaut Gordon Cooper will give a fitting send-off to two men who helped popularize human space exploration.

The craft also will hold the ashes of 185 others, including a telephone technician, a nurse and a college student.

Their families paid $995 to $5,300 for the flight, being conducted by one of a handful of growing businesses hoping to give a space experience to the common folk.

"It broadens the market, which is important to us because our whole business plan is about getting more people access to space," said Harvin Moore of Space Services Inc. of Houston, which is sponsoring the ashes flight. "Space needs to be affordable for all in some way."

Along with these services, space tourism businesses hope to send customers into suborbital space at a cost of $25,000 to $250,000 a person, far less than the $20 million businessman Gregory Olsen paid Russia last fall for a ride to the International Space Station. Richard Branson's company, Virgin Galactic, already has 100 people who have paid $200,000 apiece for flights, which the company has said it hopes to begin in 2008.

Kathie Mayo knew her 19-year-old daughter would have loved the idea of having her ashes sent into space. Rachael Mayo died in 2003 from complications of Hodgkin's lymphoma.

"She would have said 'It's about time, Mom, rather than keeping my ashes around the house,'" said Kathie Mayo of Winona, Minn.

Another company, ZeroG Aerospace Inc. of Seattle, hopes to launch a rocket next month with mementoes from by people who paid as little as $49.95.

Colorado-based Beyond-Earth Enterprises plans to launch a rocket on a brief flight in October with hair samples or fingernail clippings sent by people who paid $34.95 for the "DNA kit" package. The company will also transport science experiments — no animals allowed — for $2,500.

So far, the response to Beyond-Earth's services has been in the low hundreds, said CEO Joe Latrell.

"We figured our market is actually Grandma and Grandpa," Latrell said. "I don't know about you, but I don't have $200,000 to give Richard Branson to go and fly in space. If I did have $200,000, the wife would definitely want the second home before I get any say in going to space."

Space Services' planned launch of ashes on an unspecified date next month from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California will be the fifth "memorial spaceflight" for the privately held company and its previous incarnation, Celestis Inc.

It conducted its first "space funeral flight" in 1997 with the ashes of "Star Trek" creator Gene Roddenberry and 23 other people from all walks of life.

The ashes launched next month will be a secondary payload on a privately built Falcon 1 rocket launching an Air Force satellite. A module containing capsules of ashes will orbit for years before falling into the atmosphere, Moore said.

Doohan and Cooper's widows said the decision to send up their husbands' ashes was no different from those made by the families of the less famous.

"He always wanted to go up in space," said Wende Doohan.

Cooper, who died in 2004, piloted the "Faith 7" spacecraft in 1963 and was command pilot of the Gemini 5 mission in 1965. His widow, Suzan Cooper, said she and her daughters thought "Daddy would do it again if he could, so why not?"

Rachael Mayo adored "Star Trek" and the U.S. space program and wanted to be the first woman on Mars. "Fly Me to the Moon" was one of her favorite songs.

"This is the ultimate flight for her," her mother said.

___

On the Net:

Space Services Inc. at http://www.memorialspaceflights.com/

Beyond-Earth Enterprises at http://www.beyond-earth.com/

ZeroG Aerospace at http://www.zerog-space.com/

Virginia Galactic: http://www.virgingalactic.com/en/


Read More...

White House Working to Avoid Wiretap Probe; But Some Republicans Say Bush Must Be More Open About Eavesdropping Program

washingtonpost.com
White House Working to Avoid Wiretap Probe
But Some Republicans Say Bush Must Be More Open About Eavesdropping Program
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer

At two key moments in recent days, White House officials contacted congressional leaders just ahead of intelligence committee meetings that could have stirred demands for a deeper review of the administration's warrantless-surveillance program, according to House and Senate sources.

In both cases, the administration was spared the outcome it most feared, and it won praise in some circles for showing more openness to congressional oversight.

But the actions have angered some lawmakers who think the administration's purported concessions mean little. Some Republicans said that the White House came closer to suffering a big setback than is widely known, and that President Bush must be more forthcoming about the eavesdropping program to retain Congress's good will.

The first White House scramble came on Feb. 8, before the House intelligence committee began a closed briefing on the program, which Bush began in late 2001 but which was disclosed only recently. The program allows the National Security Agency to monitor communications involving a person in the United States and one outside, provided one is a possible terrorism suspect. The administration says the program is exempt from the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for domestic surveillance warrants. Many lawmakers and legal scholars disagree.

The House hearing came a day after a prominent Republican member called for an inquiry into the wiretapping program, and two days after Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales had angered some senators by defending it without providing details. On Feb. 8, House members were grumbling that the administration apparently planned to have Gonzales, joined by former NSA director Michael V. Hayden, provide the same limited briefing to the House intelligence committee.

But the White House unexpectedly announced that Gonzales and Hayden would give the 21-member committee more insight into the program's "procedural aspects." The briefing placated many members. When committee leaders later said the panel will look further into the program, they made clear it will be a controlled process rather than the freewheeling investigation some Democrats want.

The second White House flurry occurred last Thursday, as the Senate intelligence committee readied for a showdown over a motion by top Democrat John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.) to start a broad inquiry into the surveillance program. White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. -- who had visited the Capitol two days earlier with Vice President Cheney to lobby Republicans on the program -- spoke by phone with Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), according to Senate sources briefed on the call.

Snowe earlier had expressed concerns about the program's legality and civil liberties safeguards, but Card was adamant about restricting congressional oversight and control, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing office policies. Snowe seemed taken aback by Card's intransigence, and the call amounted to "a net step backward" for the White House, said a source outside Snowe's office.

Snowe contacted fellow committee Republican Chuck Hagel (Neb.), who also had voiced concerns about the program. They arranged a three-way phone conversation with Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.).

Until then, Roberts apparently thought he had the votes to defeat Rockefeller's motion in the committee, which Republicans control nine to seven, the sources said. But Snowe and Hagel told the chairman that if he called up the motion, they would support it, assuring its passage, the sources said.

When the closed meeting began, Roberts averted a vote on Rockefeller's motion by arranging for a party-line vote to adjourn until March 7. The move infuriated Rockefeller, who told reporters, "The White House has applied heavy pressure in recent weeks to prevent the committee from doing its job."

Hagel and Snowe declined interview requests after the meeting, but sources close to them say they bridle at suggestions that they buckled under administration heat. The White House must engage "in good-faith negotiations" with Congress, Snowe said in a statement.

Roberts, reacting to Hagel and Snowe's actions, told the New York Times on Friday that he now supports bringing the NSA program under FISA's jurisdiction in some manner, a stand that could put him at odds with the administration. The White House has praised a plan by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) to draft legislation that would exempt the NSA program from FISA, while providing for congressional oversight.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that Bush "is open to ideas from Congress regarding legislation, and we've committed to working with Congress on a bill."

Read More...

Frist: No new spy legislation needed

USA TODAY
Frist: No new spy legislation needed

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, standing firmly with the White House on the administration's eavesdropping program, said Sunday he doesn't think new or updated legislation is needed to govern domestic surveillance to foil terrorists.
Sen. Frist argued against getting a court order before eavesdropping. Sen. Frist argued against getting a court order before eavesdropping.
By Alex Wong, Getty Images

"I don't think that it does need to be rewritten, but we are holding hearings in the Judiciary Committee right now," Frist said on CBS' Face the Nation.

Frist also said he didn't think a court order is needed before eavesdropping, under the program, occurs. "Does it have to be thrown over to the courts? I don't think so," he said.

Critics argue the program, run by the National Security Agency, sidesteps the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which prohibits domestic eavesdropping without a warrant from a special intelligence court.

"This NSA program — it has to comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and it has to comply with the Fourth Amendment," which guarantees protection against unreasonable searches, California Rep. Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on CNN's Late Edition.

Some lawmakers are drafting legislation to change FISA, and Sen. Pat Roberts, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says he has worked out an agreement with the White House to consider legislation and provide more information to Congress on the eavesdropping program.

While insisting the program is legal and setting the bar high on any possible legislative changes, White House officials recently signaled they are willing to work with Congress if it feels that further "codification" of the law is needed. A White House spokesman declined to comment further on the issue on Sunday.

White House officials are discussing a proposal by Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, that would more specifically OK warrantless domestic surveillance, but give lawmakers more oversight.

Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said there is bipartisan consensus on Congress to make FISA, which was written in the 1970s, more flexible, establish more congressional oversight into such surveillance and preserve judicial review, or the need for a warrant in certain cases.

"I do believe we can provide oversight in a meaningful way without compromising the program, and I am adamant that the courts have some role when it comes to warrants," Graham said. "If you're going to follow an American citizen around for an extended period of time believing they're collaborating with the enemy, at some point in time, you need to get some judicial review, because mistakes can be made."

Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., told Fox that it's in the Bush administration's interest to make sure there is a neutral party overseeing the program. "Otherwise, you're going to have a number of Americans out there who incorrectly think that (former FBI Director) J. Edgar Hoover has been brought back to life and that there could be abuses taking place."

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-19-frist-eavesdropping_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

American Soldiers Deserve Reparations

huffingtonpost.com
American Soldiers Deserve Reparations
Byron Williams

On Friday October 11, 2002, Congress passed the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq."

The overwhelming bipartisan vote provided the president with the authority to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up his country's weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

The language in the resolution linking Saddam to Al Qaida, possessing weapons of mass destruction, and having some involvement in the 9/11 attacks appears to be without merit.

More than three years later, we have the benefit of selective 20/20 hindsight. We see some things clearer while others remain foggy.

According to the latest Gallup Poll, 55 percent of Americans believe the Iraq invasion was a mistake compared to just 23 percent when the war began. The Pew Research Center indicates that 38 percent approve of the president's handling of the war compared with 52 percent in 2003.

But when it comes to troop withdrawal, the country sends a different message. The same Pew poll shows that 50 percent want the troops to remain.

I have heard all of the arguments for keeping the troops in Iraq. Taking them out might lead to chaos; yet the country is already in chaos. Vietnam should serve as a more-than-adequate reminder that remaining in Iraq will only delay the inevitable.

And to suggest damage to American prestige will result from an early withdrawal, that fate was secured the moment we preemptively attacked Iraq. How long can we sustain a policy based on pride?

If we are going to keep troops in harm's way, knowing that we've made mistakes at every juncture, isn't it time for America to consider reparations for our soldiers?

If one understands reparations to be compensation for a wrong that has been committed, I can think of no worthier recipient than the men and women who have been sent to risk their lives for an unjust cause.

In addition to the bad policy that led the U.S. into this war, the troops have not had the proper resources to do the job. The failure to provide adequate body and humvee armor is a national disgrace that has been well documented.

Reserves and the National Guard have been unfairly asked to shoulder a burden based largely on the poor planning of the administration.

A large portion of military reservists and National Guard members suffers a pay cut when called to defend our nation. Many of these reservists and National Guard are professionals with families who depend upon that paycheck.

While having their tours of duty extended, the families of reservists and National Guard suffer not only from loss of income, but also, for some, loss of health benefits.

At the current rate, if the troops remain in Iraq for another 24 months, we are looking at an additional 2,000 casualties and 12,000 wounded.

The most important reason that I advocate for reparations is the shameful unpatriotic manner in which the overwhelming majority of Americans have been allowed root from the sidelines without the burden of sacrifice. If we are unwilling to say enough is enough, shouldn't we at least bear some of the responsibility?

All of the death, wounds, and psychological strain is limited to a few families. Young men and women, many under 30, will never be able to hold their children, walk on the beach, or see the stars, if they return home at all.

No amount of key chains, bumper stickers, flags, and ribbons announcing to the world support for the troops can make up for this travesty.

There should be little argument against supporting a fund that ensures permanent health care, mortgage assistance, disability payments, career training, and subsidized college education for the soldiers participating in the war in Iraq and their families.

All who have not participated directly in this war should be ready and willing to participate in a reparation tax.

Some may argue that reparations are inappropriate because this is, in theory, a volunteer Army. Volunteer status notwithstanding, no American solider should be placed in danger because of the incompetence of its government and public pride.

Reparations would be good barometer to ascertain whether or not we really do support the troops.


Read More...

Truly, Madly, Deeply

The New York Times
Truly, Madly, Deeply
By SAMUEL A. SCHREINER Jr.

Darien, Conn.

PRESIDENTS' DAY is generally reserved for honoring our presidents. But how about the wives of our presidents? And how about presidential wives who have been unfairly maligned over the years? In this regard, there is no better candidate for rehabilitation this holiday than Mary Todd Lincoln.

For years, authors and scholars have claimed that Mary Lincoln was insane. This is simply not true, and a file of documents found in 1975 in a closet in the Manchester, Vt., home of Mary Lincoln's son Robert proves it. In 1875, Mary Todd Lincoln was declared insane by a jury, and remanded to an asylum. The charge was brought by Robert, and he must have nursed a guilty conscience about it to keep a file, which reveals that the trial was a sham.

The proceeding was nevertheless an international sensation. Although another, little-noted trial a year later set that verdict aside and declared Mary Lincoln sane, the damage had already been done. A mad Mary Lincoln conveniently validated the tales circulated by her enemies and critics, mostly men, from the time she arrived on the national stage as the vivacious consort of a sorely tried president and on through her years as the neglected widow of a martyr.

Of course, the first lady was an emotional volcano, prone to fiery eruption at sometimes inappropriate moments. An attractive woman with expensive tastes, she could be easy on the eye but hard on the budget. With a well-stocked mind and the nerve to speak it, she persuaded her husband to follow her advice in matters like coveted appointments, and this infuriated the men around the president.

Out of fear of or respect for Abraham Lincoln's power, comment on his wife was muted until the assassin's bullet removed him from office and Mary Lincoln became fair game for the gossip mongers, who claimed that Lincoln's bouts of depression were caused by a lost love and a miserable life with a crazy woman.

Creator of the miserable marriage myth was Lincoln's longtime law partner in Springfield, Ill., William Herndon. In a lecture he gave shortly after the president's death, Herndon said that Lincoln had never loved his wife because his heart belonged to Ann Rutledge, a neighbor who died at the age of 22 and whom some historians believe was courted by Lincoln. To claim, however, that her death would have rendered a man of Lincoln's will and intelligence unable to have a loving relationship with another person is absurd. The untimely loss of loved ones was such a common fact of life in the 1800's that people simply had to learn how to cope with it to carry on.

In any event, Herndon is not a believable witness to what went on between the Lincolns. Because he was too fond of the bottle and, in Mary Lincoln's view, too uncouth, he wasn't welcome in the Lincoln household. As a result, he developed an abiding hatred and jealousy of Lincoln's wife.

Herndon was also probably put off by what he undoubtedly regarded as the unmanly ways by which Lincoln helped his wife. Lincoln was known to have greeted callers still wearing an apron, and he was often seen shepherding a quartet of rambunctious young sons through the streets to his office to give his wife respite. Herndon found Lincoln's office visits with children in tow especially annoying. Lincoln let them get into everything, as he evidently did at home, and even Herndon would agree that the Lincoln marriage was compatible in one respect: neither husband nor wife believed in disciplining their children.

People who were intimate with the Lincolns did not buy the Rutledge story or the rest of Herndon's charges. Emily Todd Helm, Mary Lincoln's half-sister, who lived for months in the couple's Springfield home while she was a teenager, considered them love birds. She reported that Mary Lincoln would run out to the street to greet her husband as he returned home, and they would enter the house hand-in-hand. Their differences in temperament — she, for instance, was punctual and he careless of time — could lead to clashes, but Helm was impressed by the way they were resolved. Once when Mary Lincoln let loose her anger at her husband's arriving late for supper, he simply scooped her up in his arms and kissed her.

A frequent guest in the Lincolns' Springfield house was the Rev. James Smith, Mary Lincoln's Presbyterian pastor. Although Lincoln was not a churchgoer, he and the minister would spend hours by the fireside discussing religion and everything else under the sun.

When Lincoln went to Washington, Smith was appointed to a consulate in Scotland where he read in a newspaper an account of Herndon's Rutledge lecture. Incensed, he wrote an open letter to Herndon that was published in The Dundee Advertiser. Reprinted in this newspaper and The Chicago Tribune, the letter made the point that a law office was not a good vantage point from which to judge a man's home life. Declaring himself fortunate enough to have known the Lincolns well, Smith wrote that the president was a "faithful, loving and affectionate husband" who "was utterly incapable of withholding" love from his wife.

Mary Lincoln's enemies may have discounted Smith's testimony on the grounds that he was paying off a debt or piously upholding the sanctity of marriage. They would have a harder time shrugging off an address by Charles Sumner, the worldly and sophisticated senator from Massachusetts, during a debate in Congress about Mary's pension. After establishing himself as well acquainted with the couple's home life in the White House, Sumner said, "Surely, the honorable members of the Senate must be weary of casting mud on the garments of the wife of Lincoln." The president "had all her love," he continued, and Lincoln loved her "as only his mighty heart could."

Unquestionably high-strung, Mary Lincoln was under a great deal of stress while she was living in the White House, especially when her son Willie died in 1862. After so many other stresses — the death of another son, Eddie, 12 years earlier; attacks on her extravagance; doubts of her loyalty because she had relatives fighting for the Confederacy — Willie's death was almost more than she could take. According to people who question her sanity, she wailed so hard and so long that Lincoln led her over to a window, pointed out an insane asylum in the distance and threatened to take her there if she didn't stop.

The story is probably true and totally in character for Lincoln, who often tried to tease or startle his wife out of her funks. That it did no damage to the marriage was attested by a couple who took a carriage ride with the Lincolns on April 14, 1865, just hours before their fatal visit to Ford's Theater. The war over, the president and the first lady were talking as happily as newlyweds of plans like trips together to Paris for her and to California for him.

Lincoln's patience with his wife was apparently reciprocated by her patience with him when he slipped away from her into one of his periods of melancholy or preoccupation with affairs of state. Lincoln suffered recurring episodes of what would now be called depression from early childhood onward. In light of what we know today, an effort to link them to emotional disappointments rather than to a chemical imbalance seems quaint rather than scientific.

Mary Lincoln may have been difficult to live with, but she was not insane and there's no question that the president loved her dearly. "My wife was as handsome as when she was a girl," Lincoln once told a reporter. "And I, poor nobody then, fell in love with her, and what is more, have never fallen out."

This Presidents' Day, let's finally acknowledge that truth.

Samuel A. Schreiner Jr. is the author of "The Trials of Mrs. Lincoln."

Read More...

The Way to Save

The New York Times
The Way to Save

Unless new policies are enacted soon, many Americans are destined for a deprived old age. Some 70 million people, nearly half of the work force, have no employer-provided savings plan of any kind. Over all, half of American households have saved little or nothing for retirement.

The response from the Bush administration has been off the mark, at best. For the fourth time in a row, President Bush's annual budget calls for creation of two new kinds of tax-sheltered accounts that would mostly benefit people who already save megabucks every year. Meanwhile Mr. Bush's perennial savings proposal for low- and moderate-income earners is routinely ignored on Capitol Hill. But even if it were taken seriously, it's too limited to reach most of the people who need to save more.

There is a better way. In fact, the groundwork has already been done. Last week, researchers from the conservative Heritage Foundation and the liberal Brookings Institution released a joint proposal to make saving for retirement universal (available at www.retirementsecurityproject.org). The centerpiece of the plan is the automatic individual retirement account, or auto-I.R.A. Employees who are not covered by an employer's savings plan would be allowed to divert a portion of each paycheck into this vehicle. All but the smallest employers would be required to offer direct deposit for their workers' contributions, and all employers — large or small — would get tax breaks for doing so.

Groundbreaking research on savers' behavior is built into the auto-I.R.A. design. Studies have shown, for instance, that automatically enrolling employees in a plan — unless they opt out — dramatically increases participation. And if people are asked whether they want to save, most say "yes." Auto-I.R.A.'s would be set up using one of these two effective approaches, depending on what is most convenient for the employers, instead of leaving it up to workers to take the initiative of enrolling.

Government could play a vital role by matching employees' auto-I.R.A savings — say, dollar for dollar on the first $500 that a worker contributes. Offering a match is a proven way to increase both participation and the amount that employees are willing to save. In contrast, offering tax deductions for savings — the government's preferred incentive — has been of little or no value to low- and middle-income savers. Lawmakers could offer an auto-I.R.A. match for far less than what it would cost to extend the Bush tax cuts.

In a recent poll of registered voters, 83 percent favored auto-I.R.A.'s. Americans are waiting for leaders who will take them where they want to go.

Read More...

Former President Carter Urges America, Israel Not to Financially Punish Palestinians

ABC News
Carter Warns Against Palestinian Sanctions
Former President Carter Urges America, Israel Not to Financially Punish Palestinians
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Former President Jimmy Carter, in an opinion piece published Monday, urged the U.S. and Israeli governments to allow the Palestinians to form a government without financial interference, despite concerns about the militant Hamas group that won a majority of parliamentary seats.

Hamas on Monday began talks to form the Palestinians' first government led by Islamic militants.

"During this time of fluidity in the formation of the new government, it is important that Israel and the United States play positive roles," Carter wrote in a piece in Monday's edition of The Washington Post.

"Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences."

Israel has halted the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money, branding the Palestinian government a "terrorist authority." U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced last week that no U.S. assistance will be provided to a Hamas-led Palestinian government.

Read More...

Administration Critics Chafe at State Dept. Shuffle; Merger Has Brought Appointees Into Conflict With Longtime Workers, Who Say They Are Sidelined

washingtonpost.com
Administration Critics Chafe at State Dept. Shuffle
Merger Has Brought Appointees Into Conflict With Longtime Workers, Who Say They Are Sidelined

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer

A State Department reorganization of analysts involved in preventing the spread of deadly weapons has spawned internal turmoil, with more than half a dozen career employees alleging in interviews that political appointees sought to punish long-term employees whose views they considered suspect.

Senior State Department officials deny that and say an investigation has found that the proper personnel practices were followed. But three officials involved in the reorganization, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly, acknowledge that a merger of two bureaus reduced the influence of employees who were viewed by some political appointees as disloyal to the administration's policies.

"There are a number of disgruntled employees who feel they have been shoved aside for political purposes. That's true," said one of these officials. "But there was rank insubordination on the part of these officers."

About a dozen top experts on nonproliferation have left the department in recent months, with many citing the reorganization as a reason.

The dispute has thrown a spotlight on the tensions that often exist between longtime career employees and the political appointees who come and go with successive administrations. It is also being closely watched within the State Department as another sign that, under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's leadership, the department will no longer be at war with the rest of the administration.

Rice and her top aides have sought to heal the damaging rifts that existed with the Pentagon and other agencies. Some State Department officials privately acknowledge that they used to be thrilled by the department's reputation as a renegade in President Bush's first term, but they say the message has become clear in the past year that such attitudes are no longer acceptable.

Few people would speak about the controversy for the record, either because they fear retaliation or because they must continue to work with State Department officials in their new jobs.

"The suspicion is we would undermine the policy," said one of the officials who have felt sidelined. "That is what all of us find most offensive. We are here to serve any administration."

Robert Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control, who oversaw the reorganization, and Henrietta H. Fore, the undersecretary for management, said in interviews that political motives were not a factor, adding that any change is going to cause distress. Fore said she has listened to employee concerns, reviewed the implementation and determined that "all steps were taken according to the law."

"None of these allegations stand up," Joseph said. "You have got a small group of individuals who are resisting the changes. I am not surprised by that. Change is difficult, but change is absolutely necessary."

The employees who say that they have been targeted once had a back channel to then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, who they said would on occasion ask them to bypass their superior, John R. Bolton, now the ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton, with backing from allies in the Pentagon and the vice president's office, frequently battled the rest of the State Department on policy issues.

But Joseph, who worked for Rice at the White House, is an ideological soul mate of Bolton's and retained much of Bolton's staff -- and now officials say the policy disputes that characterized Powell's State Department have largely faded under Rice's tenure. The back channel that these employees used to alert senior management to their problems with Bolton no longer exists, the career officials said.

By many accounts, the decision to merge two key bureaus focusing on nonproliferation and arms control was necessary. The merger was originally approved by Powell, in his waning days as secretary, after the department's inspector general recommended combining the bureaus on the grounds of efficiency and workload. The IG said the nonproliferation bureau -- which seeks to deter the spread of weapons of mass destruction -- was overworked, and the arms-control bureau -- which negotiates and implements arms-control agreements -- was underworked. The IG also recommended that a third bureau, verification and compliance, be downsized.

But once a panel of Joseph's top aides began implementing the plan, some of the IG's recommendations were set aside -- the verification bureau was expanded, not downsized, while officials in the arms-control bureau appeared to attain more authority. Both bureaus had appeared more in sync with the administration's views, officials said.

The merger was accomplished with unusual speed this fall because, officials said, they did not want it to become mired in excessive bureaucracy. "We wanted to pull the Band-Aid quickly as opposed to slowly, hair by hair," one official said.

But other officials said the process was opaque, and even supporters say it could have been better managed because it hurt morale throughout the bureaus and energized intense opposition. "We shouldn't have given the other side ammunition," an advocate of the changes said.

Mark Fitzpatrick, who was deputy assistant secretary for nonproliferation before leaving the department in October after 26 years, said, "I've heard about low morale and a number of people seeking to leave because they don't find the atmosphere as rewarding as it had been when it was not so politicized."

One particular office in the nonproliferation bureau, dealing mainly with the International Atomic Energy Agency, was especially targeted, numerous officials on both sides of the dispute said. Several top officials in the office were close to IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei and had privately objected to the administration's public campaign to deny him a third term. A former office director who had been on loan to the IAEA asked for his job back -- but was given a non-managerial position in another bureau; the acting office director also did not get the job.

Instead, a relatively junior Foreign Service officer, who is outranked by several officials in the bureau but who is considered skeptical of the IAEA, was named acting head of the office. Last year, two months before ElBaradei and the IAEA were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the official sent an e-mail to his colleagues ridiculing the idea. The subject line read: "A Nobel for the IAEA? Please."

Three officials familiar with the reorganization said the actions were necessary because this office -- and others -- had been openly opposed to administration policies and thus was perceived as incompetent. "You can't expect everyone to agree with you. But you do expect results," one official said. "The office became a black hole and was very ineffective."

Supporters of these officials acknowledge that they were sometimes appalled by administration positions, with several saying they had at times been embarrassed for the United States. But they also noted that the IG report had praised the office as being effective, well-run and having high morale -- in contrast to the assessment of its counterpart in the arms-control bureau.

Read More...

Drives to ban gay adoption heat up in 16 states

USA TODAY
Drives to ban gay adoption heat up in 16 states
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY

Efforts to ban gays and lesbians from adopting children are emerging across the USA as a second front in the culture wars that began during the 2004 elections over same-sex marriage.

Steps to pass laws or secure November ballot initiatives are underway in at least 16 states, adoption, gay rights and conservative groups say. Some — such as Ohio, Georgia and Kentucky — approved constitutional amendments in 2004 banning gay marriage. (Related story: Both sides cite concern for children)

"Now that we've defined what marriage is, we need to take that further and say children deserve to be in that relationship," says Greg Quinlan of Ohio's Pro-Family Network, a conservative Christian group.

Florida has banned all gays and lesbians from adopting since 1977, although they can be foster parents. State court challenges and a campaign by entertainer Rosie O'Donnell to overturn the law have failed. A pending bill would allow judges to grant exceptions.

Mississippi bans adoption by gay couples, but gay singles can adopt. Utah prohibits all unmarried couples from adoption.

Kent Markus of the National Center for Adoption Law & Policy in Ohio says he hasn't seen this much activity in 15 years as a researcher.

Richard Carlson, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, says adoption laws based on judgments of morality offer "a weak argument" and will face legal challenges. He cites U.S. Supreme Court rulings striking down bans on interracial marriage and sodomy, which reflected prevailing views when enacted. The high court has not taken up a state ban on gay adoption. (Vote: What do you think about gay adoption?)

Religious groups and state courts are grappling with the issue. Roman Catholic bishops in Massachusetts are seeking an exemption from state anti-bias laws to allow the church to bar gays from adopting through its social service agencies. Meanwhile, a judge in Missouri ruled last week that the state could not deny a foster care license to a lesbian.

Fueling the political activity:

•Ballot victories. Social conservatives view family makeup as the next battleground after passing marriage amendments in 11 states in 2004. They welcomed a bill introduced this month in Ohio that would ban gays and lesbians from adopting or raising foster children. They vow to put it on the ballot if the bill fails.

Patrick Guerriero of Log Cabin Republicans, a gay political group opposed to marriage and adoption limits, calls the strategy the next step by conservatives.

•Election-year politics. Republicans battered by questions over ethics and Iraq "might well" use the adoption issue to deflect attention and draw out conservatives in close Senate and governor races in states such as Missouri and Ohio, says Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, University of Southern California political scientist.

The aim is to replicate 2004, says Julie Brueggemann of the gay rights group PROMO: Personal Rights of Missourians. She says marriage initiatives mobilized conservative voters in 2004 and helped President Bush win in closely contested states such as Ohio. Republicans "see this as a get-out-the-vote tactic."

Republican pollster Whit Ayres is skeptical. Adoption, he says, "doesn't have the emotional power of the gay marriage issue because there is no such thing as the phrase 'the sanctity of adoption.' "

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-20-gay-adoption_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

US removing documents from public access: report

Reuters
US removing documents from public access: report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence agencies have been secretly removing from public access at the National Archives thousands of historical documents that were available for years, The New York Times reported on Monday.

The restoration of classified status to more than 55,000 previously declassified pages began in 1999, when the CIA and five other agencies objected to what they saw as a hasty release of sensitive information after a 1995 declassification order signed by President Bill Clinton, the Times said on its Web site.

The secret program accelerated after the Bush administration took office and especially after the September 11 attacks, according to archives records, the paper said.

It came to light after intelligence historian Matthew Aid noticed dozens of documents he had copied years ago had been withdrawn from the archives' open shelves, the Times said.

Under existing guidelines, government documents are supposed to be declassified after 25 years unless there is a particular reason to keep them secret.

Some historians say the program is removing material that can do no conceivable harm to national security and note that some of the documents have been published by the government, the Times said.

Critics say it is part of a marked trend toward greater secrecy under the Bush administration, which has increased the pace of classifying documents, slowed declassification and discouraged the release of some material under the Freedom of Information Act, the paper said.

Read More...

Jobs cut at energy lab restored before Bush visit

Reuters
Jobs cut at energy lab restored before Bush visit
By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Energy Department said it has come up with $5 million to immediately restore jobs cut at a renewable energy laboratory President George W. Bush will visit on Tuesday, avoiding a potentially embarrassing moment as the president promotes his energy plan.

In his State of the Union speech last month, Bush called for the United States to use less Middle East oil and develop alternative energy sources, including renewable energy such as wind, solar power and biomass.

Bush proposed spending millions more dollars in renewable energy research. However, Democratic lawmakers and environmentalists questioned the administration's commitment when jobs were being eliminated at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado.

Bush will visit the lab on Tuesday to tout his proposal for more renewable energy research funding.

"The role of the government, at this point, is to continue to spend research dollars to help push (renewable energy) technologies forward ... to get these technologies to be even more competitive in the marketplace," Bush said Monday during a tour of a solar panel plant in Auburn Hills, Michigan.

To ensure the Colorado laboratory will have the people to carry out that research, the Energy Department transferred $5 million over the weekend to the Midwest Research Institute, the contractor that operates the renewable energy lab, to restore all the jobs cut earlier this month due to budget shortfalls.

"The action we are taking today will allow the dedicated employees at NREL to continue their work that will bring us great innovation in renewable energy technologies," Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said in a statement on Monday.

"The programs at NREL are critically important to realizing the President's vision to diversify and strengthen our nation's energy mix," Bodman said.

The Energy Department took the money from other accounts. The DOE said it will try to restore those funds by using money from several projects mandated by Congress in 2001 and 2002 "that have failed to make progress."

Bush's 2007 budget requests a 78 percent increase in solar energy research; a 65 percent boost in biomass research; and a 42 percent rise in hydrogen research, work that would be conducted at NREL.

Read More...

Monday, February 20, 2006

The End of the United States of America

The End of the United States of America

It is clear that George W. Bush's mission, and that of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Bush administration, is to destroy the United States of America.

Key actions:

1. Ignores all warnings regarding Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden and allows the USA to be attacked on 9/11/01.

2. Does nothing for an excrutiatingly long time after the attacks have begun on 9/11/01.

3. Does everything in his power to prevent an investigation into the events leading up to 9/11/01, the handling of events on 9/11/01 and on the days and weeks that followed.

4. Lies to Congress and the citizens of the USA and the world in order to invade Iraq, a plan he and his administration had before 9/11/01. Causes the death of thousands of US citizens (and citizens of other countries) in Iraq, the wounding and maiming of many thousands of of US and world citizens, and the death of many many thousands of Iraqis. These actions also lead to extreme escalation in terrorist activites and actions and creates a new reason for the world to hate the USA.

5. This list could go on for many many pages, so let's just skip to the most recent and perhaps deadliest action yet: Secretly grants a foreign country control over the major ports of the USA. And if that alone wasn't bad enough, the country is the United Arab Emirates - home of two of the 9/11/01 terrorists and source of much of the funds used to enable the 9/11/01 attack!

Will Congress finally step up and impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and the rest? It is already way past time!!!

Read More...

Miami firm fights shipping sale to Arab business

USA TODAY
Miami firm fights shipping sale to Arab business

WASHINGTON (AP) — A company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of shipping operations there by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. It is the first American courtroom effort to capsize a $6.8 billion sale already embroiled in a national debate over security risks at six major U.S. ports affected by the deal.

The Miami company, a subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., presently is a business partner with London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which Dubai Ports World purchased last week. In a lawsuit in Florida circuit court, the Miami subsidiary said that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.

The Miami subsidiary, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with the British firm and "may endanger the national security of the United States." It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World's compliance with American security rules.

A spokesman for Peninsular and Oriental indicated the company had not yet seen the lawsuit and declined to comment immediately.

The lawsuit represents the earliest skirmish over lucrative contracts among the six major American ports where Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations: New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The lawsuit was filed moments before the court closed Friday and disclosed late Saturday by people working on the case.

The sale, already approved by the Bush administration, has drawn escalating criticism by lawmakers in Washington who maintain the United Arab Emirates is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts. At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month. (Related story: White House urged to review port deal)

The Port of Miami is among the nation's busiest. It is a hub for the nation's cruise ships, which carry more than 6 million passengers a year, and the seaport services more than 30 ocean carriers, which delivered more than 1 million cargo containers there last year.

A New Jersey lawmaker said Saturday he intends to require U.S. port security officials be American citizens, to prevent overseas companies operating domestic shipping facilities from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions. Republican Frank A. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, cited "significant" security worries over the sale to Dubai Ports World.

Caught by surprise over the breadth of concerns expressed in the United States, Dubai is cautiously organizing its response. The company quietly dispatched advisers to reassure port officials along the East Coast, and its chief operating officer — internationally respected American shipping executive Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey — is expected to travel to Washington this week for meetings on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.

The Bush administration in recent days has defended its approval of the sale, and has resisted demands by Congress to reconsider. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack described the United Arab Emirates on Friday as a "long-standing friend and ally" and said the United States and UAE had a good relationship.

President Bush visited the seaport in Tampa, but did not mention the dispute Friday. The president said an important element of defeating terrorism was taking precautions domestically and working with local government officials.

"We've got to protect ourselves by doing smart things in America," Bush said. "I appreciate working with the mayors on homeland security issues."

One of those mayors, Martin O'Malley of Baltimore, on Saturday harshly criticized the president's approval of the ports deal as an "outrageous, reckless and irresponsible decision" and urged the White House to reconsider the sale. Baltimore is one of the affected ports, and O'Malley is co-chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Task Force on Homeland Security. O'Malley also is running for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Maryland.

Dubai Ports World declined through a spokesman to respond to O'Malley's remarks.

In New York, families of some victims from the September 2001 terror attacks planned to criticize the deal during a press conference Sunday with Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, a leading critic of the sale. Schumer said he is dubious any assurances can justify involvement by the United Arab Emirates in American ports.

Schumer and other critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against New York and Washington.

"A lot of families are incensed by this, because you're talking about the safety of the country," said William Doyle, whose son Joseph died at the World Trade Center. '"'We have a problem already in our ports because all of our containers aren't checked, but now they want to add this unknown? It's not right."

LoBiondo's legislative proposal would amend federal maritime laws to require facility security officers, which operate at terminals in every U.S. port, to be American citizens. LoBiondo said there are presently no citizenship requirements, which he said permits foreign companies who are or become partners in domestic terminal operations to employ security officers who are not Americans.

"We cannot be lax about our nation's security nor fail to recognize that our ports are realistic targets of terrorists," LoBiondo said.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-18-portdeal_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Report: Pentagon warned on torture, abuse

USA TODAY
Report: Pentagon warned on torture, abuse

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Navy's former general counsel warned Pentagon officials two years before the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that circumventing international agreements on torture and detainees' treatment would invite abuse, according to a published report.

Legal theories granting the president the right to authorize abuse in spite of the Geneva conventions were unlawful, dangerous and erroneous, Alberto J. Mora advised officials in a secret memo. The 22-page document was obtained by The New Yorker for a story in its Feb. 27 issue.

A Pentagon spokeswoman said Sunday she had not read the magazine story.

The memo from July 7, 2004, recounted Mora's 2 1/2-year effort to halt a policy that he feared would authorize cruelty toward suspected terrorists.

It document also indicates that some lawyers in the Justice and Defense departments objected to the legal course the administration undertook, according to the report.

Mora said Navy intelligence officers reported in 2002 that military-intelligence interrogators at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were engaging in escalating levels of physical and psychological abuse rumored to have been authorized at a high level in Washington.

"I was appalled by the whole thing," Mora told the magazine. "It was clearly abusive and it was clearly contrary to everything we were ever taught about American values."

Mora said he thought his concerns were being addressed by a special group set up by the Pentagon. But he discovered in January 2003 that a Justice Department opinion had negated his arguments with what he described as "an extreme and virtually unlimited theory of the extent of the president's commander in chief authority."

When the first pictures from the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib appeared in the press in spring 2004, Mora said, he felt stunned and dismayed that what he had warned against had taken place, and in a different setting than Guantanamo.

Mora retired this year and now is a general counsel for Wal-Mart.

A U.N. report issued last week called for the U.S. to close its prison at Guantanamo Bay. In response, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rejected accusations of torture or abuse and said the detention facility is well-run.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-19-pentagon-report_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Bill Clinton Says Strong Reaction to Shooting Caused by Administration's 'Penchant for Secrecy'

ABC News
Clinton: Secrecy Sparked Shooting Reaction
Bill Clinton Says Strong Reaction to Shooting Caused by Administration's 'Penchant for Secrecy'
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Former President Clinton said Sunday the Bush administration's "enormous penchant for secrecy" sparked the strong reaction to Vice President Dick Cheney's shooting mishap.

"We have people quite often who are shot in quail incidents, so I didn't feel the need to get into the pile-on," Clinton said Sunday on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Cheney has been criticized for not disclosing the shooting on Feb. 11 of Texas lawyer Harry Whittington until the following day.

"I think the White House should have said something about it sooner," Clinton said. "I think that it's gotten a little more light than it would have because the administration has an enormous penchant for secrecy for not telling anybody anything about anything."

The shooting had little impact on public opinion about the job done by Cheney, which was already low. A Time magazine poll found 29 percent of those surveyed approve of the job done by Cheney, close to the 32 percent approval for the vice president in November.

President Bush said last week that Cheney had handled the situation "just fine."

Bush also said critics were drawing "the wrong conclusion about a tragic accident" by saying it depicted the White House as overly secretive.

Read More...

Austria to try 'Holocaust denier'

BBC NEWS
Austria to try 'Holocaust denier'
By Bethany Bell
BBC News, Vienna

British historian David Irving goes on trial in the Austrian capital, Vienna, on Monday, accused of denying the Holocaust occurred.

The charges relate to a speech and an interview he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz.

Mr Irving's lawyer told the BBC his client would plead guilty.

Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in Austria which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

David Irving came to Austria last November to give a lecture to a far-right student fraternity. He was stopped by police as he was driving on a motorway in the south of the country.

They arrested him in connection with a lecture and an interview he gave in Austria in 1989.

Mr Irving has been held in custody in Vienna ever since he was arrested in November.

In a letter to the BBC from his prison cell, Mr Irving said some of his views on the gas chambers had changed - but he also expressed opinions which would be challenged by mainstream historians.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4730832.stm

Read More...

Bin Laden compares US "barbaric" acts to Saddam's

Reuters
Bin Laden compares US "barbaric" acts to Saddam's
By Inal Ersan

DUBAI (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden accused U.S. forces of "barbaric" acts in Iraq comparable to those committed by Saddam Hussein, according to an audio tape first broadcast in January and posted on the Internet in full on Monday.

"The (U.S.) criminality has gone as far as raping women and holding them hostage before their husbands ... as for the torture of men it has now come to the use of burning chemical acids and electric drills in their joints," he said in the tape posted with an English-language voice over.

"Despite all these barbaric methods ... the mujahideen are strengthening and increasing by the grace of Allah," he said.

The tape, whose authenticity could not be verified, was posted on the Internet by the al Qaeda media group al-Sahab.

In January, the Qatar-based Al Jazeera television aired parts of the tape, in which bin Laden said al Qaeda was preparing further attacks in the United States.

U.S. intelligence analysts then authenticated the tape as a message from bin Laden. It was the first bin Laden tape since 2004.

In the audio released on Monday, bin Laden said the insurgency in Iraq was gaining strength despite "barbaric and oppressive steps taken by the American army and its agents to the extent that there is no longer any mentionable difference between this criminality and the criminality of Saddam."

The tape was first broadcast by Al Jazeera before new images surfaced of Iraqi prisoner abuse by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib prison in a 2004 scandal. The images showed sexual humiliation of prisoners and physical abuse.

U.S. officials have often accused Saddam of links to al Qaeda, one of the reasons of the U.S.-led war on Iraq which was chiefly based on allegations Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction.

Bin Laden's remarks appeared to disassociate his group from Saddam's regime.

He said Washington was trying to muffle any media outlet that reports the truth about the losses of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Commenting on British newspaper report in a November that U.S. President George W. Bush had mulled bombing Al Jazeera's head office, the Saudi-born militant called Bush the "butcher of freedom" and criticized the prominent Arab television and the leaders of its host country, Qatar.

"Recently it has surfaced in documents that the butcher of freedom in the world had resolved to bomb the head offices of Al Jazeera satellite channel in Qatar after he had bombed its offices in Kabul and Baghdad although it, as it stands, is the instrument of your (Americans) servants there (in Qatar)."

In 2001, the station's Kabul office was hit by U.S. bombs and in 2003 Al Jazeera reporter Tareq Ayyoub was killed in a U.S. strike on its Baghdad office. The United States has denied deliberately targeting the station.

Read More...

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Mission Accomplished - Again

Read More...

"Trust Me"

Read More...

Deficit

Read More...

Do you think you notified the public in a timely manner?

Read More...

Damn. Missed.

Read More...

The youth of India and America explain the iPod

Read More...

New at Guantanemo

Read More...

Nothing gets by you guys

Read More...

Sorry for . . .

Read More...

No one could have seen this coming

Read More...

Just a few bad apples

Read More...

Reason for the delay

Read More...

Story of Cheney's Hunting Accident Filled With Discrepancies

ABC News
VP Accident Tale Filled With Discrepancies
Story of Cheney's Hunting Accident Filled With Discrepancies
By CALVIN WOODWARD
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney said he didn't immediately disclose his hunting accident because he wanted the confusing details to come out right. Instead, authorized accounts came out slowly and often still wrong.

The result: a week of shifting blame, belatedly acknowledged beer consumption (not "zero" drinking after all) and evolving discrepancies in how the shooting happened, its aftermath and the way it was told to the nation.

"There's a reason they call this crisis management," said corporate damage-control specialist Eric Dezenhall, "and that's because it's a mess."

BLAME

In the first days after the vice president wounded attorney Harry Whittington while shooting at quail last Saturday in Texas, blame was placed on the victim for not announcing his presence to fellow hunter Cheney.

"The vice president did everything right," Katharine Armstrong, the ranch owner approved by Cheney to disclose the accident, said Monday. Whittington, 78, should have shouted that he was rejoining the hunting group after drifting off to retrieve a downed bird. "The mistake exposed him to getting shot," she said. "It's incumbent on him. He did not do that."

The White House picked up on that theme the same day in attempting to deflect any responsibility from the vice president. "If I recall," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said of Armstrong, "she pointed out that the protocol was not followed by Mr. Whittington, when it came to notifying the others that he was there."

The about-face came Wednesday when Cheney made his first public comment on the accident.

"It was not Harry's fault," he said. "You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend."

DRINKING

Although there is no evidence that beer impaired Cheney's judgment, initial denials that he had consumed alcohol were wrong.

"No one was drinking," Armstrong said at the outset. "No, zero, zippo." She said the hunters washed down lunch with Dr Pepper. Later, she qualified her comments and said beer might have been in the cooler but she did not think anyone drank any.

The investigating officer from the Kenedy County sheriff's department, after interviewing Whittington in the hospital, reported that the victim "explained foremost there was no alcohol during the hunt."

Authorities did not investigate the accident until the next day. The Texas Parks and Wildlife accident report, dated two days after the shooting, checked "No" on the question of whether Cheney appeared under the influence of intoxicants. It did not address whether the hunters had been drinking at all. (The report also included a diagram depicting Whittington's wounds on the wrong side of his body.)

Cheney acknowledged Wednesday, "I had a beer at lunch" several hours before the group's afternoon hunt, asserting "nobody was under the influence."

VICTIM'S CONDITION

In the rush to assure everyone Whittington was "just fine," some important details were left out.

Initial reports had him treated at the scene, then taken by ambulance to the hospital, where in no time he was cracking jokes with the nurses. It turned out that after being taken to the emergency room of a local, small hospital, he was flown by helicopter to the intensive care unit of the larger hospital in Corpus Christi.

According to Armstrong's initial account of the accident scene: "He was talking. His eyes were open." Later, Cheney said that when he rushed up to the stricken man and talked to him, Whittington had one eye open and did not respond. He was, however, conscious.

Doctors said Tuesday that Whittington suffered a mild heart attack while in the hospital when one of the pellets migrated to his heart. He was released Friday.

LICENSE

Cheney did not have all his hunting papers in order, as suggested by the White House and initially stated by Texas authorities.

On Sunday, a spokesman for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department said Cheney was legally hunting with a license he bought in November. While that was true, the department's accident report the next day stated that he was in violation of a law requiring him to have an upland game bird stamp.

DISCLOSURE

The accident raised questions about the flow of information into and out of the White House communications apparatus.

Asked why no one released news of the shooting on Saturday night, McClellan said "the vice president's office was working to make sure information got out" but that details were slow to reach Washington that evening.

Armstrong, for her part, said

no one at the ranch even discussed releasing the news on Saturday.

She said her family realized Sunday morning that it would be a story and decided to call the local newspaper, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. She said she then discussed news coverage with Cheney for the first time.

"I said, 'Mr. Vice President, this is going to be public, and I'm comfortable going to the hometown newspaper,'" she told The Associated Press. "And he said, 'You go ahead and do whatever you are comfortable doing.'"

TELLING WASHINGTON

McClellan said President Bush was told shortly before 8 p.m. EST Saturday that Cheney had shot Whittington, less than half an hour after Bush first heard there had a been an accident of some sort involving Cheney's hunting party. Confirmation that Cheney was the shooter was obtained when deputy chief of staff Karl Rove called Armstrong, McClellan said.

However, McClellan said he didn't personally know Cheney was the shooter until the next morning, about 6 a.m. EST Sunday, when he was awakened with the news.

He said he only knew the previous evening that someone in Cheney's party had been involved in a hunting accident.

Read More...

In N.C., GOP Requests Church Directories

washingtonpost.com
In N.C., GOP Requests Church Directories
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer

The North Carolina Republican Party asked its members this week to send their church directories to the party, drawing furious protests from local and national religious leaders.

"Such a request is completely beyond the pale of what is acceptable," said the Rev. Richard Land, head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

During the 2004 presidential race, the Bush-Cheney campaign sent a similar request to Republican activists across the country. It asked churchgoers not only to furnish church directories to the campaign, but also to use their churches as a base for political organizing.

The tactic was roundly condemned by religious leaders across the political spectrum, including conservative evangelical Christians. Ten professors of ethics at major seminaries and universities wrote a letter to President Bush in August 2004 asking him to "repudiate the actions of your re-election campaign," and calling on both parties to "respect the integrity of all houses of worship."

Officials of the Republican National Committee maintained that the tactic did not violate federal tax laws that prohibit churches from endorsing or opposing candidates for office, and they never formally renounced it. But Land said he thought the GOP had backed down.

"I heard nothing further about it, so my assumption was that it stopped, at least at the national level," he said.

Yesterday, the Greensboro News & Record reported that the North Carolina Republican Party was collecting church directories, and it quoted two local pastors as objecting to the practice. The Rev. Richard Byrd Jr. of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Greensboro said anyone who sent in a directory "would be betraying the trust of the membership," and the Rev. Ken Massey of the city's First Baptist Church said the request was "encroaching on sacred territory."

Chris Mears, the state party's political director, made the request in a Feb. 15 memo titled "The pew and the ballot box" that was sent by e-mail to "Registered Republicans in North Carolina."

Mears said the "Republican National Committee has completed a study on grass-roots activity that reveals that people who regularly attend church usually vote Republican when they vote."

"In light of this study's findings, it is imperative that we register, educate and get these potential voters from the pew to the ballot box. To do this we must know who these people are," the memo continued.

"I am requesting that you collect as many church directories as you can and send them to me in an effort to fully register, educate and energize North Carolina's congregations to vote in the 2006 elections," it said.

It added that the "North Carolina Republican Party holds your church's directory in strict confidence" and will not use it "to solicit church members for any other reason."

William Peaslee, the party's chief of staff, told the Greensboro newspaper that Republicans also gather lists of gun owners and military families. "In doing voter registration, you always go to where you base is," he said. Peaslee did not return messages from The Washington Post yesterday.

Read More...

Scholars rate worst presidential errors (excluding the current president)

USA TODAY
Scholars rate worst presidential errors (excluding the current president)

LOUISVILLE (AP) — From engaging in sexual relations with an intern to letting the Vietnam War escalate, U.S. presidents have been blamed for some egregious errors.

So who had the worst blunder? President James Buchanan, for failing to avert the Civil War, according to a survey of presidential historians organized by the University of Louisville's McConnell Center.

The survey's top 10 presidential blunders were announced Saturday during a President's Day weekend conference called "Presidential Moments."

"We can probably learn just as much — or maybe even more — by looking at the mistakes rather than looking at why they were great," said political scientist and McConnell Center Director Gary Gregg.

Scholars who participated said Buchanan didn't do enough to oppose efforts by Southern states to secede from the Union before the Civil War.

The second worst mistake, the survey found, was Andrew Johnson's decision just after the Civil War to side with Southern whites and oppose improvements in justice for Southern blacks beyond abolishing slavery.

"We continue to pay" for Johnson's errors, wrote Michael Les Benedict, an Ohio State University history professor emeritus.

Lyndon Johnson earned the No. 3 spot by allowing the Vietnam War to intensify, Gregg said.

Where does Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky scandal rank? Many scholars said it belonged at No. 10, saying that it probably affected Clinton's presidency more than it did American history and the public.

The rest of the top 10 blunders:

•4: Woodrow Wilson's refusal to compromise on the Treaty of Versailles after World War I.

•5: Richard Nixon's involvement in the Watergate cover-up.

•6: James Madison's failure to keep the United States out of the War of 1812 with Britain.

•7: Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807, a self-imposed prohibition on trade with Europe during the Napoleonic Wars.

•8: John F. Kennedy allowing the Bay of Pigs Invasion that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

•9: Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair, the effort to sell arms to Iran and use the money to finance an armed anti-communist group in Nicaragua.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-18-presidential-goofs_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Promise to Shore Up Ethics Loses Speed

washingtonpost.com
Promise to Shore Up Ethics Loses Speed
GOP Schedule Slips In House; Senate Panels to Act Soon
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer

The rush to revise ethics laws in the wake of the Jack Abramoff political corruption scandal has turned into more of a saunter.

A month ago, Republican leaders in Congress called legislation on the topic their first priority, and promised quick action on a measure that would alter the rules governing the interaction between lawmakers and lobbyists.

But now they do not anticipate final approval of such a measure until late March at the earliest.

The primary holdup is in the House. Republican lawmakers left Thursday for a week-long recess without agreeing on a proposal that would serve as a starting point for debate. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) had been working with House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) to devise such a plan and had expected to finish by now.

Their progress was slowed by the election two weeks ago of a new majority leader, Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who has a different notion of what "reform" should entail and who challenged parts of Hastert's plan.

In mid-January, Hastert proposed broad new restrictions on lobbying, including a ban on privately funded travel for lawmakers and tight limits on meals and other gifts.

But Boehner and many rank-and-file Republicans objected to his recommendations and have said they would prefer beefing up disclosure of lobbyists' activities rather than imposing new restrictions.

As a result, House Republicans are still talking about where to begin. "The speaker wants to gain a consensus on this legislation, introduce it . . . and complete it by the end of March so he can get onto other business," said Ronald D. Bonjean Jr., Hastert's spokesman.

Previously, Hastert's office had said it wanted to finish work by mid-March.

Government watchdog groups are disappointed by the pace. "Particularly in the House, the progress is very slow and may end up with very little reform," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Talks on the issue among House Republicans will go on through the break and continue when lawmakers return at the end of this month, Bonjean said. The measure that emerges would then go through the committee process before reaching the floor, he added, a procedure that commonly takes weeks or months.

"It's important that the leadership listen to all the House Republican members' ideas on the issue before moving forward so we have thought through every possibility," Bonjean said.

The Senate, which started out lagging behind the House, plans to move its legislation first. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has scheduled a drafting session for a lobbying bill during the week that begins Feb. 27. The Senate Rules and Administration Committee plans to write its own bill on Feb. 28.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has said that he wants to take up the lobbying issue on the floor the following week. As of last week, however, senior Republican aides in the Senate did not know how the two separate measures would be dealt with at that time.

Nonetheless, both bills that are going to be considered by the Senate panels are likely to lean toward expanding disclosure requirements rather than proscribing lawmakers' behavior.

The starting point for the governmental affairs committee's session will be a proposal by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a committee spokeswoman said. The McCain plan would require lobbyists to disclose all gifts of $20 or more and would increase disclosure of privately paid trips, but would not impose a ban.

The rules committee's deliberations will begin with a bill by its chairman, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), in consultation with the panel's senior Democrat, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.).

Although that proposal is not yet complete, Lott is known to favor additional transparency for lobbying and campaign fundraising. "He's expressed a belief that when everybody knows what's going on, we're that much farther along to improving the system," Lott spokeswoman Susan Irby said.

Irby added that Lott would also consider other proposals that deal with gifts, meals, travel, former senators' access to the Senate floor, and the so-called revolving-door question: How long a former lawmaker or congressional staffer must wait before returning to Capitol Hill to lobby former colleagues.

Lott's committee will also propose ways to rein in so-called earmarks, which are narrowly focused appropriations that benefit individual communities and companies. These have become controversial as they have proliferated over the past decade.

The McCain bill would double to two years the length of time that former congressional officials are barred from lobbying. Lott's position on that issue is not known. The House voted Feb. 1 to bar former lawmakers from going onto the House floor or using the House gymnasium.

McCain would vastly expand the amount of detail that lobbyists would be required to report about their meetings with lawmakers and their aides. In addition, he would mandate the disclosure of grass-roots lobbying for the first time.

Currently only direct lobbying of lawmakers needs to be disclosed. McCain would ask lobbyists to report in some detail how much indirect lobbying, such as organizing voters back home, they do. The senator would also require lobbyists to reveal the amount of money they contribute to lawmakers and their pet causes.

Outside groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have complained about proposals, including McCain's grass-roots plan, that they said would burden lobbying groups such as themselves with additional paperwork and potentially chill public debate. They also have protested as excessive and counterproductive proposals that would cut into their ability to take lawmakers and staff aides on educational trips.

Democrats have offered a variety of proposals that would impose stiff restrictions on privately paid meals and travel and, like McCain, would add grass-roots disclosures to the existing regimen.

Once the lobbying legislation hits the Senate floor, no one can predict what will happen. According to a senior Republican aide who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the legislation, the bill could begin with a limited amount of disclosure enhancements, but could end up banning lobbyist gifts and travel.

"The politics of this is so explosive that there's the possibility that anything that's put out there might be trumped and senators would be unable to vote 'no,' " the aide said.

Read More...

After Her War Injury, an Iraq Vet Takes on Politics

washingtonpost.com
After War Injury, an Iraq Vet Takes on Politics
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer

CHICAGO, Feb. 18 The smiling candidate in rimless eyeglasses and a long woolen skirt maneuvers carefully among tables and chairs as she works a crowded Starbucks. She is taking small steps, and the reason for the slight awkwardness in her gait is not instantly clear.

Reaching to shake hands with a voter, she says: "You may have heard of me. I'm the Iraq war vet who's running. I was injured over there." Talking with another, she says: "I actually lost both my legs. I can walk because I got really good health care."

Tammy Duckworth, Democratic candidate for Congress, cannot escape the catastrophic wounds she suffered as an Army helicopter pilot in Iraq. And, for the purposes of her candidacy, she does not want to. For better or worse, her injuries are her signature, her motivator and, she hopes, her ticket into the consciousness of voters in the Illinois 6th District.

"I can't avoid the interest in the fact that I'm an injured female soldier," Duckworth, 37, says in an interview at her campaign headquarters in Lombard, west of Chicago. "Understand that I'm going to use this as a platform."

That is just what a pair of influential Illinois Democrats expected when they recruited her to seek the seat surrendered after 32 years by Republican stalwart Henry J. Hyde. Sen. Richard J. Durbin and Rep. Rahm Emanuel appealed to Duckworth when she was still recovering from her injuries, dissing the up-and-running campaign of fellow Democrat Christine Cegelis, who took 44 percent of the vote against Hyde in 2004.

Duckworth, who considers the Iraq war a mistake, is among about a dozen veterans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan running for federal office this year, at last count all but one of them Democrats. The party leadership is calculating that candidates who wore the uniform can offer a credible counterpoint on national security to Republicans who have dominated the debate from the campaign trail to Capitol Hill.

That's fine with Duckworth. She sees the race -- and pretty much everything else since Nov. 12, 2004, when an insurgent's rocket-propelled grenade exploded at her feet -- as a second chance. "I know this sounds really corny, but I've just got to be more," Duckworth says. "I've got to be more than I was."

At the same time, Duckworth constantly wrestles with the reality of what she no longer is, the moves she can no longer make.

A self-described girlie girl whose favorite color is pink, she watches "America's Next Top Model" and laments not being able to wear feminine shoes. She has ordered special prosthetic "runway feet" that will allow for a two-inch heel.

Then there is the matter of her missing lap. One leg is only 2 1/2 inches long.

"I can't actually hold a soda between my knees in the car," she says. "It's really hard to use a laptop when you only have half a lap."

She half smiles as she says this, able to find wonderment in discovering the novelties of her new self. The smile builds into a laugh as she adds: "But there are positives. My feet don't get cold."

Duckworth still wears pink. She has a baseball jersey that reads, "Dude, where's my leg?"

The daughter of a retired Marine, Duckworth was born in Bangkok, where her father, Franklin Duckworth, did U.N. refugee work and married Lamai Sompornpairin, an ethnic Chinese. She spent much of her youth in Southeast Asia. She joined the ROTC while earning a master's degree in international affairs at George Washington University.

Moving to Illinois to pursue a doctorate, she signed up with the Illinois Army National Guard, asking to train as a Black Hawk pilot. This was partly because she hoped to taste combat, partly because she wanted to show she could match the men.

In her civilian life, she was a manager for Rotary International. As an Army captain, she rose to command 42 soldiers. She was about to transfer when the unit was called to duty in Iraq. She persuaded her superiors to reverse the move, saying, "There was no way I was going to let them go without me."

Of being a pilot, Duckworth says: "I love controlling this giant, fierce machine. I strap that bird on my back and I'm in charge of it and we just go, and it's just power."

On Nov. 12, 2004, after a stop in Baghdad's secure Green Zone for chocolate milkshakes, stir-fry and Christmas ornaments, Duckworth was right where she wanted to be, flying above the treetops at 130 mph.

Chief Warrant Officer Dan Milberg was at the controls when the grenade hit.

Milberg landed the chopper and mistook Duckworth for dead, she said, but helped haul her body, slippery with blood, to a second Black Hawk. Eight days later, she awoke from unconsciousness at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

For days, husband Bryan Bowlsbey had been at her bedside, repeating over and over: "You were injured. You are at Walter Reed. You are safe."

Unaware she was missing most of both legs, she asked why her feet hurt.

One person who had been to war, and had suffered for it, helped her see the future. He was former Army Lt. Robert J. Dole, wounded World War II vet and later Senate majority leader, who often visited Walter Reed without fanfare.

After a long conversation with him in early 2005, Duckworth understood that she had more to accomplish. She thought about the public service of veterans such as Dole, John F. Kennedy and Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), and their Vietnam War-era brethren, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.).

Her public career began shortly after Durbin invited wounded Illinois vets to attend last year's State of the Union address. Duckworth, promoted to major, soon was calling Durbin's office to get help for military families, which led to congressional testimony on military health care.

In March, Duckworth took her first steps on her first set of artificial legs. It took her two minutes to walk 12 feet. She felt exhausted, and elated.

It was summer when Durbin asked her to consider a fresh career. She realized the target was the Illinois 6th, whose boundary lay three miles from the home that friends and strangers remodeled to accommodate her.

She asked herself, "Did I want to do this to my private life?" Still weak, still learning to walk, still trying to strengthen a badly damaged arm that she almost lost, Duckworth chewed it over for two months with her husband, whom she describes as a true partner: "He annoys me. I annoy him. He chews gum with his mouth open. I leave my legs lying around on the floor."

With a boost from her new political friends, Duckworth formally announced her candidacy on Dec. 18 on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." In just two weeks, she raised $120,000, giving her more money than Cegelis or the third Democrat in the primary, evangelical Christian Lindy Scott.

Campaigning now under the tutelage of some of the most experienced Democratic strategists in Illinois, Duckworth stresses bread-and-butter issues. She speaks of the expanding reach of the alternative minimum tax and the rising cost of health care. She points out that she still has $70,000 in student loans and has fought through a health crisis.

Duckworth casts abortion and end-of-life decisions as private matters that should lie beyond the federal government's reach. If she wins the March 21 primary, she will face state Sen. Peter Roskam, a well-financed conservative Republican in a historically Republican district.

Whatever happens, she is confident she will be fine. "What the past year has done," she says, "is give me a fearlessness."

Duckworth is the first to say her campaign is about more than Iraq, but it is her opinions on the war that some questioners most want to hear. She tells them she supports the troops and believes the United States must persevere long enough to give Iraqis a chance.

But she believes the decision to invade was an error, and a badly executed error at that.

"I think it was a bad decision. I think we used bad intelligence. I think our priority should have been Afghanistan and capturing Osama bin Laden," Duckworth says. "Our troops do an incredible job every single day, but our policymakers have not lived up to the sacrifices that our troops make every day."

Asked whether she feels she lost her legs on an unworthy mission, she replies: "I was hurt in service for my country. I was proud to go. It was my duty as a soldier to go. And I would go tomorrow."

Duckworth has a recurring dream, often after watching news coverage of the war. She is back in Iraq, at the controls of her Black Hawk or doing desk duty in Balad. She has her legs. It took eight months for her dream personality to accept that the good health would evaporate at daybreak, but now she finds the sensation gratifying.

"In my dream, I usually know: 'Oh, I have legs. Cool. I'm going to run around.' "

That's how Duckworth feels about her second chance.

Read More...

Controversial New Clerk for Alito was a top aide to ttorney General John Ashcroft

The New York Times
New Clerk for Alito Has a Long Paper Trail
By ADAM LIPTAK

JUSTICE SAMUEL A. ALITO JR., who was so bland and self-effacing at his Supreme Court confirmation hearings last month, made a bold decision on arriving at the court. He hired Adam G. Ciongoli, a former top aide to Attorney General John Ashcroft and an architect of the Bush administration's legal strategy after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to be one of his law clerks.

In the world of clerkdom, Mr. Ciongoli's appointment was a startling development, both because of his seniority and because of his political background. While his paper trail might attract critics eager to see potential conflicts of interest, his substantial professional experience, rare among clerks, may also be a big asset.

"We don't normally contemplate a high-level Justice Department official becoming a Supreme Court clerk," said Ronald D. Rotunda, a specialist in legal ethics at George Mason University School of Law. "It's just asking for problems that are unnecessary." Most Supreme Court law clerks, who prepare memorandums and draft decisions for the justices, have little of note on their résumés beyond superior grades at a top law school and a clerkship with a federal appeals court judge.

"They're like legal Doogie Howsers — child prodigies of the law," said David Lat, a former federal prosecutor whose blog "Underneath Their Robes" reports on the hiring of Supreme Court clerks. "Yet they're influencing decisions that affect millions."

Mr. Ciongoli, 37, represents a different model. He has a rich and public history in government and, most recently, as a senior lawyer at Time Warner.

"It really indicates a lapse in judgment," Deborah L. Rhode, who teaches legal ethics at Stanford, said of Justice Alito's decision. "I just don't think it helps your reputation for nonpartisanship, particularly after such partisan confirmation hearings, to start out by hiring someone who is perceived to have an ideological agenda."

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments next month in a case considering the constitutionality of the military commissions the Bush administration created to try suspected terrorists. The court is also considering whether to hear the case of Jose Padilla, who challenged his detention without charges as an enemy combatant.

Former Supreme Court clerks and experts in legal ethics said that Mr. Ciongoli will almost certainly not work on any cases relating to his earlier work, which covered a broad range of legal issues concerning terrorism.

"He cannot work for the justice on any cases that come before the court if he worked on those matters at Time Warner or the government," said Stephen M. Gillers, who teaches legal ethics at New York University. "You don't want him to the judge the quality of his own work."

Of course, it will never be possible to know what sort of casual conversations may take place in Justice Alito's chambers, said Monroe H. Freedman, who teaches legal ethics at Hofstra University. "No one is ever going to be able to police that," Professor Freedman said.

But, he added, "There is also a presumption that the justice can think for himself regardless of anyone he gets advice or counsel from."

WHATEVER its wisdom, the decision to hire Mr. Ciongoli says at least three things about Justice Alito, legal experts said.

First, Justice Alito is loyal, and he feels most comfortable with longtime associates. Mr. Ciongoli clerked for him as a federal appeals court judge in Philadelphia in 1995 and 1996. Two of the justice's other new clerks also worked for him in the appeals court and then went on to clerk on the Supreme Court, one for late chief justice, William H. Rehnquist, the other for Justice Clarence Thomas.

Second, Justice Alito, like the other justices, hires clerks whose views are close to his own. "Most of the time," Mr. Lat said, "clerks' ideologies line up pretty cleanly with the justices." Another Alito clerk, Alexander Volokh, has written for libertarian publications.

Third, Justice Alito, whose own paper trail was substantial, is willing to hire clerks who come with their own documentary record.

Other justices have been more wary. In 1966, for instance, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. withdrew an offer to a clerk, Michael E. Tigar, after pressure from conservative groups who took issue with Mr. Tigar's liberal political views.

In all, Justice Alito's decision to hire Mr. Ciongoli was smart, said Steven Lubet, who teaches legal ethics at Northwestern. "Somebody with some real experience can provide better work than someone who's green," Professor Lubet said. "It's a terrific idea."

Read More...

At a Scientific Gathering, U.S. Policies Are Lamented

The New York Times
At a Scientific Gathering, U.S. Policies Are Lamented
By CORNELIA DEAN

ST. LOUIS, Feb. 18 — David Baltimore, the Nobel Prize-winning biologist and president of the California Institute of Technology, is used to the Bush administration misrepresenting scientific findings to support its policy aims, he told an audience of fellow researchers Saturday. Each time it happens, he said, "I shrug and say, 'What do you expect?' "

But then, Dr. Baltimore went on, he began to read about the administration's embrace of the theory of the unitary executive, the idea that the executive branch has the power or even the obligation to act without restraint from Congress. And he began to see in a new light widely reported episodes of government scientists being restricted in what they could say in public.

"It's no accident that we are seeing such an extensive suppression of scientific freedom," he said. "It's part of the theory of government now, and it's a theory we need to vociferously oppose." Far from twisting science to suit its own goals, he said, the government should be "the guardian of intellectual freedom."

Dr. Baltimore spoke at a session here at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Though it was organized too late for inclusion in the overall meeting catalogue, the session drew hundreds of scientists who crowded a large meeting room and applauded enthusiastically as speakers denounced administration policies they said threatened not just sound science but also the nation's research pre-eminence.

The session was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit organization that has been highly critical of the Bush administration.

Not all of the speakers had harsh words for the administration. Rita R. Colwell, who headed the National Science Foundation, the government's leading financing organization for the physical sciences, from 1998 to 2004, said she had never experienced political pressure in that job. But, Dr. Colwell said, the free flow of scientific information is crucial for maintaining the nation's leadership in research. Threats to that, she said, are second only to terrorism as threats to the nation's security.

Another speaker, Susan F. Wood, former director of the office of women's health at the Food and Drug Administration, said administration interference with the agency's scientific and regulatory processes had left morale there at a "nadir."

Dr. Wood, who received a standing ovation from many in the audience, resigned in August to protest agency officials' unusual decision to overrule an expert panel and withhold marketing approval for Plan B, the so-called morning after pill, a form of emergency contraception. She said she feared that competent scientists would leave rather than remain at an agency where their work was ignored because "social conservatives have extreme undue influence."

Later, in response to a question, she said that she might have consulted the agency's inspector general over the Plan B decision, but that inspectors general often had to be prodded by Congress before taking action. Democrats have little power in this Congress, she said, and Republicans who care about science have been "remarkably silent."

Others in the audience said efforts to stifle researchers were attacks on more than science.

"Administrative legitimacy has been violated as much as scientific legitimacy," said Sheila Jasanoff, an expert on science policy who teaches at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. "You can't get the most solid possible basis for making a decision unless you have not just the most credible and legitimate form of science but also the most credible and legitimate administrative process."

Leslie Sussan, a lawyer with the Department of Health and Human Services who emphasized that she was speaking only for herself, drew applause when she said she saw the administration's science policies as "an attack on the rule of law as a basis for self-government and democracy."

Read More...