Friday, February 24, 2006

Declassified memos show 74 CIA air landings in Canada

USA TODAY
Declassified memos show 74 CIA air landings in Canada

TORONTO (AP) — CIA planes have landed in Canada 74 times since the 9/11 terror attacks, underscoring fears that the United States is ferrying suspected terrorists through its neighboring country en route to foreign prisons for torture, according to newly declassified government documents.

The government memos were releassed this week under Canada's Access to Information Act. The Associated Press obtained them Thursday from The Canadian Press.

Internal government briefing notes revealed senior intelligence officials from six government agencies, including the Security Intelligence Service, met in late November to discuss the flights.

One memo dated Nov. 28 instructed officials to tell the media that there was "no credible information to suggest that these planes were used to ferry suspected terrorists to and from Canada, or that illegal activity took place."

A spokesman for the CIA in Washington declined comment on Thursday.

U.S. intelligence officials have said in the past that the planes are more likely to be carrying staff, supplies or Director Porter Goss on his way to a foreign visit.

The U.S. has come under fire, especially in Europe, for the practice of "extraordinary rendition" — the transporting of terror suspects to countries where they face harsh interrogation methods and possibly torture.

Ottawa has been investigating the detention of Syrian-born Canadian engineer Maher Arar. He was detained at JFK International Airport in New York in September 2002 on suspicion of being a member of Osama bin-Laden's al-Qaeda network.

U.S. authorities deported Arar to Syria, where he was kept in a damp Damascus prison cell and allegedly tortured for 10 months before being released and flown back to Canada.

Last November, journalists and the Opposition in Parliament — the Conservative Party that now is in power — raised allegations that at least six aircraft linked to alleged front companies for the CIA had landed at Canadian airports in the previous six months.

One of the briefing notes, which is stamped "SECRET," said that Canada Border Services Agency reported that 20 aircraft had made 74 flights to Canada since the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

After the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush gave the CIA authority to conduct the operations and permitted the agency to act without case-by-case approval from the White House or other administration offices.

U.S. government officials say the operations are used for those considered by the CIA to be the most serious terror suspects.

The European Union has demanded answers from the State Department about reports of secret U.S.-run prisons for terrorism suspects in Europe.

Romania, meanwhile, challenged human rights groups Thursday to provide evidence that his country hosted a secret U.S. detention center or allowed its airports to be used in CIA transfers.

The New York-based Human Rights Watch organization has alleged terror suspects captured in Afghanistan have been transported through Romania, which has denied the claims.

Romanian Foreign Minister Mihai Razvan Ungureanu, who was in London for talks, said there remained no proof of impropriety.

"I've always asked those who pretend to have proof, to offer us that proof, it would be extremely important for us," Ungureanu told a news conference.

The Public Safety Department in Ottawa said in January that a federal review of landings by the supposed CIA flights showed no evidence of "illegal activities."

Amnesty International said the Canadian government has yet to provide the human rights group evidence that the flights were not used to ferry terror suspects to foreign prisons.

"There's clearly a range of international human rights concerns associated with flights of this description," said Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty's Canadian arm.

He said Ottawa should be held responsible if it is determined that the flights did in fact deliver terror suspects into torture, a violation of the Canadian constitution.

"If you're part of the chain of events that make that happen, then your human rights responsibility as a government are engaged," Neve said.

Flight data obtained by The Canadian Press show that since mid-2005, at least seven different planes owned by reputed CIA shell corporations have landed at Canadian airports.

One recent flight, an 11-seat Beech turboprop, set out for Keflavik, Iceland, on Feb. 12 from Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, where it had arrived the previous day from Montreal.

The U.S. military maintains an air station in Keflavik, which serves as a refueling point for Europe-bound aircraft.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-23-cia-canada_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Judge orders U.S. to release Guantanamo detainee data

USA TODAY
Judge orders U.S. to release Guantanamo detainee data

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — A federal judge ordered the Pentagon on Thursday to release the identities of hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to The Associated Press, a move which would force the government to break its secrecy and reveal the most comprehensive list yet of those who have been imprisoned there.

Some of the hundreds of detainees in the war on terror being held at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been held as long as four years. Only a handful have been officially identified.

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff in New York ordered the Defense Department to release uncensored transcripts of detainee hearings, which contain the names of detainees in custody and those who have been held and later released. Previously released documents have had identities and other details blacked out.

The judge ordered the government to hand over the documents by March 3 after the Defense Department said Wednesday it would not appeal his earlier ruling in the lawsuit filed by the AP.

On Jan. 23, Rakoff ordered the military to turn over uncensored copies of transcripts and other documents from 317 military hearings for detainees at the prison camp. There were another 241 detainees who refused to participate in the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and the Defense Department said no transcripts exist of those hearings.

U.S. authorities now hold about 490 prisoners at Guantanamo on suspicion of links to al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Most have been held without charges since the detention center opened four years ago, prompting complaints from human rights groups and others.

"AP has been fighting for this information since the fall of 2004," said Dave Tomlin, assistant general counsel for the news organization. "We're grateful to have a decision at last that keeping prisoner identities secret is against the public policy and the law of this country."

The military has never officially released the names of any detainees except the 10 who have been charged.

Most of those that are known emerged from the approximately 400 civil suits filed on behalf of prisoners by lawyers who got their names from family or other detainees, said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which represents about 200 detainees.

"They have been very resistant to releasing the names," Ratner said. "There are still people there who don't have a lawyer and we don't know who they are. They have disappeared."

The Defense Department earlier released transcripts after the AP filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act, but the names and other details of detainees were blacked out.

The Defense Department said it would obey the judge's order.

"DOD will be complying with the judge's decision in this matter," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.

Law experts said the case has wide-ranging implications.

"The government has tried to maintain Guantanamo as a black hole since they opened it," said Jonathan Hafetz of the New York University School of Law. "This is bringing it within the mainstream of the justice system and says we're not going to have secret detentions at Guantanamo."

In his ruling last month, Rakoff rejected government arguments that releasing the detainees' names from transcripts should be kept secret to protect their privacy and their families, friends and associates from embarrassment and retaliation.

The judge had given the government a month to decide whether to appeal and the U.S. Solicitor General decided not to pursue the case further, said Megan Gaffney, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York.

The AP is awaiting a decision from the judge on whether the government must release the unredacted transcripts from a second round of hearings, the annual Administrative Review Board — panels that decide whether detainees are still considered a threat to the United States.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-23-guantanamo-suit_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

UAE gave $100 million for Katrina relief; contributed at least $1 million before 1995 to the Bush Library Foundation

USA TODAY
Officials: UAE gave $100 million for Katrina relief

The United Arab Emirates has long-standing ties to the Bush family. Records show the UAE and one of its sheikhs contributed at least $1 million before 1995 to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Weeks before one of its companies sought U.S. approval for its ports deal, the United Arab Emirates contributed $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, officials confirmed Thursday.

The Bush administration said the money it received from the United Arab Emirates was nearly four times as much as it received from all other countries combined. Other countries, including some in the Middle East, also pledged large contributions but have not yet sent the money. (Related news: Ports deal may face delay)

The White House said the $100 million for storm victims demonstrates the close relationship between the two governments now caught in a firestorm over the potential security risks of state-owned Dubai Ports World running operations at six major U.S. ports.

The money from the United Arab Emirates was previously described by the State Department only as a "very large" contribution. The White House said so far it has received $126 million in international donations, including the UAE money.

The administration said there was no connection between the request for U.S. approval of the $6.8 billion ports deal and the UAE contribution. It disclosed details about the donation to support President Bush's description of the nations as important allies.


"There was no connection between the two events," said Adam Ereli, the deputy State Department spokesman.

Robert Kimmitt, deputy secretary at the Treasury Department, told senators Thursday that Dubai Ports World first approached U.S. officials Oct. 17 to discuss a proposed purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs significant operations at six large U.S. ports.

Kimmitt said the company informally approached Treasury officials to discuss preliminary stages of the purchase. A formal review of the proposed sale started on Dec. 16, Kimmitt told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The United Arab Emirates sent its $100 million Katrina donation on Sept. 21 using an electronic transfer to an account at the State Department, the White House said. Two-thirds of the money was given to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help coordinate aid to 100,000 families. The rest was sent to the Education Department to help rebuild schools and universities near New Orleans that were damaged by the storm.

The United Arab Emirates has long-standing ties to the Bush family. Records show the UAE and one of its sheikhs contributed at least $1 million before 1995 to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. The executive chairman of Dubai Ports World, Ahmed bin Sulayem, is not listed among donors.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-23-uae-katrina_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

UAE Company Agrees to Delay U.S. Port Deal

Yahoo! News
UAE Company Agrees to Delay U.S. Port Deal
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

A United Arab Emirates company offered Thursday to delay its takeover of most operations at six U.S. ports to give the Bush administration more time to convince skeptical lawmakers the deal poses no security risks.

The surprise announcement relieves some pressure from a standoff between President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress, where some lawmakers have threatened to block the deal because of concerns over the UAE's purported ties to terrorism. Immediate reaction on Capitol Hill was mixed.

Under the offer coordinated with the White House, Dubai Ports World said it will agree not to exercise control or influence the management over U.S. ports pending further talks with the Bush administration, Congress and local port authorities. It did not indicate how long it will wait for these discussions to take place.

The Dubai-based state-owned company said it will move forward with other parts of the deal affecting the rest of the world.

"It is not only unreasonable but also impractical to suggest that the closing of this entire global transaction should be delayed," Dubai Ports said in a statement.

"The reaction in the United States has occurred in no other country in the world," the company's chief operating officer, Ted Bilkey, said in a statement. "We need to understand the concerns of the people in the U.S. who are worried about this transaction and make sure that they are addressed to the benefit of all parties. Security is everybody's business."

The announcement came as bipartisan political furor persisted over the deal — supposed to be completed in early March — because of national security concerns. Republicans and Democrats alike are crafting legislation blocking or delaying the deal with an Arab country tied to some of the hijackers from Sept. 11, 2001. Bush had pledged earlier to veto such a measure.

The company's announcement did not appease some of the deal's harshest Democratic critics.

"If the president were to voluntarily institute the review and delay the contract that would obviate the need for our legislation, but a simple cooling-off period will not allay our concerns," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.

However, one prominent Republican who had questioned the deal appeared optimistic.

"This is definitely a positive step," said Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record) of New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "We'll need more details as to the nature of the discussions that will be held and the extent of the investigation into Dubai Ports."

The company said U.S. operations affected by the deal account for roughly 10 percent of its overall value, noting that its purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. covers 30 terminals in 18 countries, ferries and properties. It stressed that the sale overall would not be delayed, and British shareholders will be paid as previously planned.

Earlier Thursday, Democrats pushed for a new 45-day investigation into the deal and accused the administration of failing to thoroughly investigate whether it would threaten national security.

For its part, the administration sought to quell the controversy.

"People don't need to worry about security," Bush told reporters after a morning Cabinet meeting at the White House. "This wouldn't be going forward if we weren't certain that our ports would be secure. The more people learn about the transaction that has been scrutinized and approved by my government, the more they'll be comforted that our ports will be secure."

Meantime, Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, said Bush was willing to accept a slight delay in Dubai Ports World's purchase of terminal leases and other operations at the U.S. ports from a British company. "What is important is that members of Congress have the time to get fully briefed on this," Rove said on Fox Radio's "Tony Snow Show."

On Capitol Hill, administration officials who approved the transaction told the Senate Armed Services Committee that their 90-day review did not turn up a single national security concern to justify blocking it and they said no one raised an issue that would have prompted the need for a further, 45-day investigation.

"We're not aware of a single national security concern raised recently that was not part of" a three-month review before the deal was approved, Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt told the lawmakers.

Democratic committee members accused officials of failing to take into account issues raised about the Arab country in the final report of the special commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee, derided the administration's "casual approach" in approving a deal involving a country "with an uneven record of battling terrorism."

Levin at one point noted that the Sept. 11 commission found "a persistent counterterrorism problem represented by the United Arab Emirates."

"Just raise your hand if anybody (at the witness table) talked to the 9-11 commission," commanded Levin. There was no response from the administration's representatives.

White House Homeland Security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend said the UAE's cooperation in the fight against terrorism has changed since 2001.

"They have been critical allies in Afghanistan," she told reporters at a news conference on a separate matter. "They have been critical allies in fighting the financial war against terror. They've been critical allies in terms of our military-to-military relationship."

Levin and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., accused the administration of ignoring a law that requires a longer review — an additional 45 days — if a proposed business deal could affect national security.

Kimmitt responded: "We didn't ignore the law. Concerns were raised. They were resolved."

Following the company's announcement, Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines, said the senator "welcomes the news that the investigation that she and others have called for will have a chance to proceed. The administration should now use this delay to conduct the investigation that the law requires."

Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he would ask Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to prepare a memorandum on the administration's interpretation of the law to see if it deviates from Congress' intent.

Elsewhere, New Jersey sued in federal court to block the UAE company from taking over operations at the Port Newark container terminal until the federal government investigates possible security risks. The owner of the busy shipping center, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said it also has security concerns about the takeover and plans to file a lawsuit Friday to terminate the firm's lease at the port.

Also Thursday, administration officials said that weeks before Dubai Ports World sought U.S. approval for the deal, the UAE contributed $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The administration said there was no connection between the request for U.S. approval of the ports deal and the UAE's contribution.

The White House, which so far has gotten a total of $126 million in international donations, said the UAE's contribution shows the close relationship between the two governments.

___

Associated Press writers Devlin Barrett in Washington, Jeffrey Gold in Trenton, N.J., Michael Rubinkam in Allentown, Pa., and Anne Gearan in Beirut, Lebanon, contributed to this report.

Read More...

White House Cites Katrina Response Failures

Yahoo! News
White House Cites Katrina Response Failures
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

Flawed government planning for major disasters led to rampant confusion during the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina, the White House concluded Thursday in a report focusing more on fixing shortfalls before the next storm season than on assigning blame.

The review described poor communications systems, delays in delivering supplies and overall tumult within the Bush administration, but revealed little new about the plodding federal effort in the days just before and after the storm socked the Gulf Coast last Aug. 29.

The 228-page document, including 125 recommendations for improvement, adopted a far softer tone than a scathing House report issued last week and offered scant criticism of President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and then-FEMA Director Michael Brown.

That House review, written by a Republican-led committee, blamed all levels of government for the lackluster response that it said contributed to the deaths and suffering of thousands of the region's residents.

"The magnitude of Hurricane Katrina does not excuse our inadequate preparedness and response, but rather it must serve as a catalyst for far-reaching reform and transformation," the White House report concluded.

It added: "Similar to the images of grief and destruction on September 11, 2001, the images of suffering and despair from Hurricane Katrina are forever seared into the hearts and memories of all Americans. Those painful images must be the catalyst for change."

Katrina, one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history, left more than 1,300 people in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama dead, hundreds of thousands homeless and tens of billions of dollars worth of damage in its wake.

Days after the storm, Bush accepted responsibility for the faulty federal response and ordered White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend to conduct the internal inquiry.

"We will learn from the lessons of the past to better protect the American people," Bush said Thursday.

The report's recommendations span from dramatic reforms — including potentially giving the Pentagon control over the federal response in worst-case disasters — to smaller changes. It calls for a public awareness campaign on individual preparedness similar to the successful "Stop, Drop and Roll" slogan for fire safety information.

It says the government should improve its evacuation preparations, its plans for swifter medical aid and its overall blueprint for coordinating federal response efforts, calling it confusing. It also calls for state tax breaks to encourage citizens to purchase disaster gear and requirements that students take courses in first aid, starting next year.

The review singles out the Homeland Security Department for most of the breakdowns. They included failure to understand the scope of Katrina's damage, delays in passing information to the White House and emergency workers, and a system for delivering water, food and other supplies that was ensnared in red tape.

In one example of the department's failures, the report noted that Homeland Security's operations center was still dithering about whether New Orleans levees had been breached nearly six hours after a National Weather Service reported a break in at least one floodwall.

The report also cited several examples in which the Federal Emergency Management Agency rejected help from other federal agencies — including boats, aircraft, maintenance crews and housing for evacuees — because of miscommunications and misunderstandings. It said Brown, who was heading the federal response at the scene, was still organizing his chain of command nearly 60 hours after the storm struck.

Members of Congress, including Senate Homeland Security Committee chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said the White House assessment is not clear on how it will enact and pay for some of its recommendations. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., questioned why the report does not hold anyone accountable for the failures.

"Only a full understanding of what went wrong and who was responsible will enable us to correct our path for the future," said Lieberman, the top Democrat on a Senate panel separately investigating failures during Katrina.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (news, bio, voting record) of Mississippi, top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, criticized the report for ignoring calls to remove FEMA from Chertoff's control.

"Simply providing recommendations is not enough for the American people," Thompson said.

Chertoff commended the report, which he said was consistent with internal changes already under way at his department.

Brown, who quit under fire in Katrina's aftermath, applauded the report for concluding the agency's resources and personnel have been stretched too thin since it was merged into Homeland Security in 2003.

"I am pleased that this has been finally recognized and that an opportunity now exists to put FEMA on proper footing," Brown said in an e-mail.

Underscoring the report's upbeat tone, the White House called it, "The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina, Lessons Learned." It included a 19-page chapter called "What Went Right," citing strong work by the National Weather Service and Coast Guard and saying the section portrayed "at best only a partial representation of the enormity of the American spirit."

___

Associated Press Writer Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

White House report: http://www.whitehouse.gov/reports/katrina-lessons-learned/

Read More...

Democrats urge FDA to reverse label liability

Reuters
Democrats urge FDA to reverse label liability

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Food and Drug Administration position that federally approved prescription drug labels are not subject to state liability laws should be reversed, Democratic lawmakers said on Thursday.

In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, whose department includes FDA, Rep. Henry Waxman of California and other lawmakers said the policy protects drugmakers from lawsuits and was enacted without public comment.

The FDA issued the controversial policy last month as part of new rules to simplify long and often hard-to-read drug labels. It said drugmakers were concerned that simpler labels would open them up to lawsuits.

The FDA-approved prescribing information "whether it be in the old or new format, pre-empts conflicting or contrary state law," the agency wrote at the time.

Agency officials have said the language simply restated their position in state lawsuits against drugmakers.

The lawmakers said the decision failed to take into account numerous hurdles to revise drug labels when new risks emerge.

"Unfortunately, important information about how to use the drug safely and effectively that is developed after approval is not always added to the drug's label in a timely way," wrote Reps. Waxman, John Dingell of Michigan and Sherrod Brown of Ohio.

In a second letter to Leavitt, Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy and Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd questioned why the FDA "completely ignores" Congress' intent to allow states to take liability action even under federal law.

In both letters, lawmakers said the agency's proposed version of the rule, issued in December 2000, said FDA labeling would not pre-empt state law.

FDA Deputy Commissioner for Medical and Scientific Affairs Scott Gottlieb defended the agency's decision, saying "it was not at all a total reversal." But he added that he had not read the letters.

HHS spokesman Bill Hall confirmed that the department received the letters and declined further comment.

Read More...

Libby's lawyers ask to dismiss perjury case

Reuters
Libby's lawyers ask to dismiss perjury case

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lawyers for an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, who faces perjury charges, asked a judge on Thursday to throw out the case on the grounds that the prosecutor was appointed improperly.

Since both Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former Attorney General John Ashcroft removed themselves from the investigation because of their close ties to the White House, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald reports to David Margolis, a career Justice Department lawyer.

Lawyers for Lewis "Scooter" Libby argued that because Fitzgerald does not report to the attorney general, he should not have been appointed by a deputy at the Justice Department.

"Because he was not appointed to that office by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, he holds that authority improperly," Libby's lawyers wrote.

Fitzgerald was picked by then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey in December 2003 to investigate who leaked the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame to reporters after her husband accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons to justify the 2003 invasion.

Plame's career at the CIA effectively ended after her identity was made public.

Libby is charged with lying to a grand jury about his conversations with reporters about Plame. He has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial in January 2007.

In other filings Libby's lawyers have argued that any inconsistencies in his testimony come from a faulty memory.

Read More...

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Dubai Ports World and the Bush administration: Connecting the dots

The Op Ed Page
http://theopedpage.blogspot.com
Dubai Ports World and the Bush administration: Connecting the dots
Richard Kuper

In December 2004, Dubai Ports International (DPI), a leading world port operator, acquired the international terminal business of CSX World Terminals.

British owned P&O Ports North America, Inc is the P&O Ports company responsible for all port operations in North America. Among it's responsibilities is the loading and unloading of cargo. P&O Ports is also the managing company of the New York Passenger Ship Terminal.

In November 2005, United Arab Emirates-backed Dubai Ports World agreed to buy UK ports and ferries group Peninsular & Oriental Steam (P&O), creating the world's third-largest ports company.

The Dubai Ports World purchase was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Treasury Secretary John Snow (former CEO of CSX, who's CSX World Terminals division is now part of Dubai Ports World) is chairman of the Committee.

President Bush recently nominated David Sanborn, a senior executive of Dubai Ports World, to run the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration. Mr. Sanborn had been running the company's operations in Europe and Latin America.

So clearly Bush & Co fingerprints are all over this, but the bigger question is why any foreign owned company, friend or foe, is controlling the loading and unloading of cargo in the USA.

Read More...

South Dakota passes abortion ban

Reuters
South Dakota passes abortion ban

SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (Reuters) - South Dakota became the first U.S. state to pass a law banning abortion in virtually all cases, with the intention of forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1973 decision legalizing the procedure.

The law, which would punish doctors who perform the operation with a five-year prison term and a $5,000 fine, awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Michael Rounds and people on both sides of the issue say he is unlikely to veto it.

"My understanding is we are the first state to truly defy Roe v. Wade," the 1973 high court ruling that granted a constitutional right to abortion, said Kate Looby of Planned Parenthood's South Dakota chapter.

State legislatures in Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky also have introduced similar measures this year, but South Dakota's legislative calendar means its law is likely to be enacted first.

"We hope (Rounds) recognizes this for what it is: a political tool and not about the health and safety of the women of South Dakota," Looby said.

"If he chooses to sign it, we will be filing a lawsuit in short order to block it," she said after attending the afternoon debate at the state capital in Pierre.

Proponents have said the law was designed for just such a court challenge.

The timing is right, supporters say, given the recent appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the high court. The two conservatives could pave the way to a decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

The high court said on Tuesday it will rule on whether the federal government can ban some abortion procedures, a case that could reveal whether the court reshaped by President George W. Bush will restrict abortion rights.

In 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the last direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

The South Dakota law concludes that life begins at conception based on medical advances over the past three decades.

Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters.

The bill as written does make an exception if the fetus dies during a doctor's attempt to save the mother's life.

Planned Parenthood operates the sole clinic in South Dakota where roughly 800 abortions are performed each year by doctors from neighboring Minnesota, Looby said.

Two years ago, Rounds vetoed a similar bill, saying it would wipe out existing restrictions on abortion while it was fought in the courts. A rewritten bill lost narrowly in the state Senate.

Some legislators opposed to abortion rights questioned whether it was premature to challenge Roe v. Wade, and said litigation would prove expensive for the sparsely populated state. An anonymous donor has offered $1 million to the state to defray the costs of litigation.

Read More...

Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement

Yahoo! News
Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."

The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.

The concessions — described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies — reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.

Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.

"We're disappointed," Bilkey told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.

It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.

Bush faces a potential rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats, over the sale. It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Senate and House leaders urged the president to delay the takeover, which is set to be finalized in early March. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland." House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further.

In Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the agreement was thoroughly vetted. "We have to maintain a principle that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from," Rice said Wednesday. She described the United Arab Emirates as "a good partner in the war on terrorism."

Bush personally defended the agreement on Tuesday, but the White House said he did not know about it until recently. The AP first reported the U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.

"I think somebody dropped the ball," said Rep. Vito Fossella (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y. "Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information."

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush learned about the deal "over the last several days," as congressional criticism escalated. McClellan said it did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a government review and was determined not to pose a threat.

McClellan said Bush afterward asked the head of every U.S. department involved in approving the sale whether there were security concerns. "Each and every one expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction going forward," he said.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez told the AP the administration was being thoughtful and deliberate approving the sale.

"We are not reacting emotionally," Guiterrez said in an interview Wednesday. "That's what I believe our partners from around the world would like to see from us is that we be thoughtful. That we be deliberate. That we understand issues before we make a decision."
___

Associated Press writers Jeanine Aversa in Washington, Anne Gearan in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and John Christoffersen in Danbury, Conn., contributed to this report.


Read More...

Terror fears, stoked by Bush, now bite him

Reuters
Terror fears, stoked by Bush, now bite him
By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For almost five years President George W. Bush has warned Americans to fear terrorism, but now those words may come back to bite him.

The president, who has cast himself as America's protector against terrorism and Islamic militancy, has been thrown on the defensive by a bipartisan revolt over his administration's approval of a state-owned company from the United Arab Emirates assuming operation of six major U.S. seaports.

Bush and his aides have argued that the United Arab Emirates is an anti-terrorist ally and that the company would have no security role. But even Bush allies, like South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham, have called the deal "politically tone deaf."

With Republican and Democratic lawmakers drafting legislation to block the port deal, Bush vowed on Tuesday to use his veto for the first time should any such law reach his desk, drawing the lines for a high-stakes political battle.

"Politically, for the president, it is a huge mistake for him to be defending this decision. The president will be overturned," said U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, the former number two Republican in the House of Representatives.

Bush has long been successful in persuading Americans they were under constant threat and he was the best man to protect them, although polls reveal paradoxes in attitudes.

Last month, some 75 percent of Americans said in a Zogby survey that they expected the country to suffer a major terrorist attack within the next two years, but a CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll found that 64 percent of Americans had confidence in Bush's ability to prevent an attack.

Fears have not subsided, pollster John Zogby said, although the United States has not suffered a major attack since September 11, 2001. Bush two weeks ago revealed a plot foiled in 2002 to fly an airplane into the West Coast's tallest building and said the terrorist threat had not abated.

"That's what makes this story so ironic. I guess you can't have it both ways," Zogby said.

Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University, said, "Bush is a victim of his own rhetoric. This deal flies in the face of the Bush administration's general posture, which has been that there is much to fear out there and they have been vigilant in protecting the country."

DEMOCRATS HIT BACK

Other factors may also be driving opposition to the proposed takeover by Dubai Ports World of operations at the six ports.

Among them may be general anti-Arab sentiment and political calculations in a congressional election year. For years, Bush has portrayed Democrats as weak on security. Now, they have taken the chance to hit back.

Meanwhile Republicans are less beholden to a second-term president with weak approval ratings.

"So far Bush has always managed to get Republicans back in line when he needed to, but his influence is waning and it will only get worse for this administration," Jillson said.

Some in Congress have complained they were blindsided by the deal, which was approved by a panel whose deliberations are closed to the public.

Anger has also bubbled up among grassroots conservatives at the heart of Bush's political base who are expressing themselves on talk radio and the Internet.

Political analyst Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute compared the furor to a conservative revolt last year that thwarted Bush's nomination of White House legal counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. "It's the foreign policy equivalent of the Miers nomination. It's stupid," Ledeen said.

Read More...

Swiftly Defending DeLay

FactCheck.org
Swiftly Defending DeLay

A somewhat misleading pro-DeLay ad is funded by $200,000 from a donor who also bankrolled the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Summary

A newly formed conservative group is running a TV ad in Houston implying that liberal billionaire George Soros is "the source" of an earlier anti-DeLay ad by liberal groups. The pro-DeLay ad is somewhat misleading. Soros gave the liberal groups early funding two years ago, but there's no evidence he funded the anti-DeLay ad.

However, the source of the pro-DeLay ad turns out to be a Houston homebuilder who gave $200,000 to air it, and who also was an early financier of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Analysis

An ad running in Houston defends Republican Congressman Tom DeLay from Texas, the former majority leader of the House, by attacking George Soros. It implies that he is "the source" of an earlier TV ad that attacked DeLay (and which we discussed in an earlier article.) That earlier ad called for DeLay to resign, citing his dealings with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Soros "the source?"

The ad says Soros, chairman of Soros Fund Management, LLC, is "full of money and liberal ideas" such as legalizing drugs and letting felons vote. It says Soros "bankrolled the liberals linked to attacks on Tom DeLay," and it concludes: "So when you see attacks on Tom DeLay consider the source," while a photograph of Soros is displayed on screen.

It's certainly true that Soros is a wealthy liberal who spent millions opposing President Bush's re-election. Soros also favors legalizing "medical marijuana" (not exactly the same thing as legalizing all drugs), restoring voting rights to persons who have completed their prison terms after being convicted of felonies, and keeping some version of the federal tax on large estates.

However, the claim that Soros is "the source" of the earlier ad attacking DeLay is without support. The only evidence offered by the ad or its sponsor is a Jan. 26 Houston Chronicle article which says that Soros in January 2004 gave $300,000 to the Campaign For America’s Future CC-Fund, a group directly related to Campaign for America’s Future (CFAF), one of the earlier ad's two sponsors. Toby Chaudhury, spokesman for CFAF, confirms that Soros made the donation but says CFAF has received nothing from him since. "George Soros didn't pay for the ads," Chaudhury said.

We also checked with a representative of the anti-DeLay ad's other sponsor, the Public Campaign Action Fund, who said Soros had made a donation in 2004, but nothing since. So the current ad is correct to say that Soros "bankrolled the liberals" behind the ad – but money given two years ago doesn't make Soros "the source" of an ad run in 2006. That money came from other sources, according to both spokesmen.

The Swift Boat Connection

Tracking down the source of this ad was something of a chore. The sponsor is the Free Enterprise Committee, a new group formed about the time the anti-DeLay ad hit the air in Texas. It is a so-called "527" political committee based in Washington, DC. It first registered with the Internal Revenue Service on Jan. 31 of this year. Its current registration form lists it as "connected" to the Free Enterprise Fund, an anti-tax group headed by New York merchant banker Mallory Factor. Its policy council is co-chaired by supply-side guru Arthur Laffer, former Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp, and MSNBC's pro-business crusader Lawrence Kudlow. The new committee has yet to file any disclosure of its income or expenses, and a spokesman for the Free Enterprise Fund declined to say who had paid for the DeLay ad.

However, as the Houston Chronicle was first to report over the weekend, we were able to confirm that the ad is being financed by a $200,000 donation from Houston homebuilder Bob Perry. As we reported in 2004, Perry was the main source of initial funding for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth at the time they launched their attack on the Vietnam War record of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

Perry gave $100,000 of the first $158,750 received by the Swift Boat group, according to its first disclosure report. Perry is probably the biggest campaign donor in Texas. He and his wife Doylene gave more than $3 million to Texas Republicans during the 2002 elections and more than $2 million during the 2004 elections, according to a database maintained by the Institute on Money in StatePolitics .

In addition, the Perrys have given $564,200 in donations to federal candidates and federal political committees since 1999, according to a search of records at the Center for Responsive Politics. That includes $8,000 given directly to DeLay's current re-election effort on April 17, 2005.

"Mr. Perry felt the truth needed to be told and this was the best vehicle to do so," Perry spokesman Anthony Holm told the Chronicle. "Mr. Perry believes Tom DeLay has done an excellent job protecting jobs, NASA, and our borders. He spent it as the result of the several unjustified attacks on Tom DeLay."

---
Free Enterprise Committee Ad: "Meet George Soros"

Announcer: George Soros. Full of money, and liberal ideas. Like legalizing drugs, letting felons vote and keeping the Death Tax
Soros spent 25 million dollars against President Bush. He also bankrolled the liberals linked to attacks on Tom DeLay.
(On Screen: Soros picture disappears and a color picture of Tom DeLay appears on the left.)
Announcer: Maybe that’s because Tom DeLay fights for lower taxes and economic freedom.
(Text: Lower Taxes, Economic Freedom)
Announcer: So when you see attacks on Tom DeLay consider the source.
(On Screen: Black and white picture of Soros.)
Announcer: And tell Tom DeLay to keep fighting for your conservative values. The Free Enterprise Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.
---


--By Brooks Jackson and Emi Kolawole

Sources

“Free Enterprise Fund Announces New Chairman: Investment Leader and Noted Fundraiser Mallory Factor to Replace Outgoing President Stephen Moore,” Free Enterprise Fund. NewsRelease . 25 May 2005.

Levine, Samantha. “2 groups that bough anti-DeLay TV ads able to shield donors ,” The Houston Chronicle. 26 Jan 2006.

Levine, Samantha and Kristen Mack. “DeLay ad challenges anti-Bush billionaire; Area builder paid entire cost of TV attack on Dem financier Soros ,” The Houston Chronicle. 17 Feb 2006. B, Pg. 1.

Read More...

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Republicans Married into the Wrong Family

huffingtonpost.com
Republicans Married into the Wrong Family
Alec Baldwin

I want to apologize to all of the readers of this blog for referring to Vice President Cheney as a terrorist. I suppose that, in the post-9/11 world, one would be hard-pressed to refer to anyone other than a militant Arab fundamentalist who hijacks a plane and pilots it into a building somewhere on our shores or a Palestinian who bears a bomb into a cafe in Israel as a terrorist.

How about something more measured, then? How about...a lying, thieving Oil Whore. Or, a murderer of the US Constitution? No wait! Try...the worst Vice President in US history? Anyway, let me work on that.

You've got to hand it to Whittington, though. Classic Republican noblesse oblige. These guys have party loyalty down to a virtual art form. No matter what ANY of them do, no Republican in Congress ever seriously challenges this administration. 9/11. Iraq. Katrina. Poverty. Education. Infrastructure. Healthcare. Abramoff. Valerie Plame.

We were at peace under Clinton. The deficit was gone. Things seemed pretty good. So, some right-wing nuts had to grab hold of what they could and tried to bury Clinton over his sex life. These idiots might get us all killed, sooner or later. But Bush gets a pass because of these incompetent, gutless cowards like Hastert and Frist who believe their loyalty lies with Rove and not the American people.

One of the most important elections in US history is approaching. A chance not only for Democrats to make their case for better government, but a chance for Republican voters to reclaim their party and wrestle control of it away from corrupt insiders like DeLay, radical fundamentalists like Santorum and closeted, clandestine Constitution-killers like Cheney. Republicans have a chance to do what Democrats did when they voted to disavow the welfare state. The Democratic party, as a whole, steered away from their traditionally more liberal planks in recent years. They realized that fewer and fewer Americans were willing to foot the bill for much of the social programing that defined Democratic platforms throughout the '60s and '70s. The Reagan era taught more and more Americans to worry about themselves, and let "the market" take care of everybody else. For better or worse, there are Democratic nominees from the '70s who wouldn't win one primary today. That's how much things have changed.

Things must change again. The Republican rank and file must look inward and realize that they married the wrong guy. And they married into the wrong family. The Bush era will end, but we must make sure that the era of lies, corruption, incompetence and arrogance goes with him. A Democratic House and a Democratic Senate have never been more necessary than they are today. Give to the DCCC and the DSCC today.

Read More...

Some City Jobs Top Off Salary With Pension

The New York Times
Some City Jobs Top Off Salary With Pension
By MIKE McINTIRE

One of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's first acts on starting his second term was to write a letter to personnel officials asking that his correction commissioner, Martin F. Horn, be allowed to collect a pension along with his $178,200 salary.

But to accomplish that under a state retirement law that seeks to prevent such "double-dipping," Mr. Bloomberg had to make the case that Mr. Horn was singularly qualified for the job, and that no one else of his talents and skills could be found for it.

So Mr. Bloomberg essentially declared that Mr. Horn, who also oversees the Probation Department, was the greatest commissioner in the world, and would, he wrote, "bring qualifications to these positions which cannot be matched by any other individual."

Mr. Horn, 57, is just one of several high-ranking city officials who have been granted waivers from laws prohibiting double-dipping by retirees who rejoin the city work force, making them eligible for tens of thousands of dollars a year in pension payments. More than 100 waiver requests from city department heads were approved last year alone, most of them seeking permission to hire retired police officers as investigators with other agencies.

While the practice has become more common as employers try to retain qualified workers, it has sounded alarms in other states, where allowing double-dipping has sometimes backfired and led to calls to restrict the employees from collecting government pensions and paychecks at the same time.

The Bloomberg administration defends the practice by saying it allows the city to keep talented commissioners who might otherwise gravitate toward the private sector.

Other recipients of a public sector pension and city paycheck include Joseph F. Bruno, a retired judge and fire commissioner, who Mr. Bloomberg said was "uniquely qualified" to become emergency management commissioner in 2004.

The mayor wrote to personnel officials that he had considered 50 applicants and interviewed 7 of them before settling on Mr. Bruno. In Mr. Horn's case, the mayor did not mention conducting a job search, but simply cited his recent experience running the two departments.

Beyond the waivers, Mr. Bloomberg has also gone to unusual lengths to allow Mr. Horn and the sanitation commissioner, John J. Doherty, to collect pensions while they are still working. He approved a bookkeeping maneuver in January in which the city "retired" the two men and immediately rehired them, making them eligible for retirement benefits on top of their salaries.

Mr. Doherty, who has worked for the city for 46 years, did not need a waiver because he is over 65. He and Mr. Bruno are each paid $178,200 a year.

The waivers have been granted at a time when Mr. Bloomberg has been calling for unions to help him curtail pension costs. The city maintains that the waivers do not cost taxpayers money, since the employees would be eligible for the pensions anyway, and that they allow the city to retain skilled administrators who might otherwise retire.

Some government watchdog groups said that while such practices did not appear to cost the city any extra money, they nevertheless constituted an abuse of the pension system, one that has gone on for years and is not unique to the Bloomberg administration. At a minimum, they illustrate how huge public-sector pension funds are used for reasons beyond their core purpose, which is to provide a livable stream of income for employees who reach the end of their working life.

"It underscores the need for the kind of reform that the mayor claims to support," said E. J. McMahon, a fiscal analyst at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative policy research group. "Retirement benefits should be reserved for people who are retired. Period."

Administration officials strongly defended the waivers and other actions.

Jordan Barowitz, a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, said that the mayor's actions would not only keep qualified commissioners from leaving for better-paying private-sector jobs, but that they were not in conflict with his broader aim of curbing the escalating future costs of public-employee pensions. The mayor, he said, does not begrudge the right of longtime employees to collect pensions they have already earned while they continue to serve the city.

"The qualifications necessary to be a New York City commissioner are unique," Mr. Barowitz said last week. "Given the job John Doherty did leading the Sanitation Department in the snow-clearing operation this week, for example, he's clearly worth his weight in gold." While the pensions for some of Mr. Bloomberg's commissioners have been previously reported, the wider practice of issuing waivers has not been closely examined.

A review of the more than 200 waiver applications received by the city over the last two years reveals a process that occurs entirely beyond the public eye, with some of the beneficiaries senior city officials who make relatively large salaries. Internal Revenue Service rules generally prohibit someone not of retirement age from collecting both a salary and a pension from the same employer, but governments and private businesses desperate to retain workers with specialized skills have increasingly found ways around the rules. Some companies rehire retired employees through a temporary-employment agency, thereby allowing them to continue collecting a company pension while being paid by someone else.

Other federal, state and local agencies have variations of New York's waiver policy, and most have engendered controversy at one time or another. In 2004, the Social Security Administration drew criticism from Congress after it rehired about 300 retired employees, on both salary and pension, because it had underestimated its staffing needs.

Lawmakers in Ohio reacted angrily five years ago when it was discovered that some elected judges were collecting pensions and salaries by declaring themselves retired for two months after their re-election, and then rejoining the payroll. And legislators in Washington were forced to tighten a 2001 law intended primarily to lure retired teachers back to work, after a few high-ranking state officials stepped off the payroll just long enough to qualify for pension benefits. In New York, under most circumstances, retirees under the age of 65 are prohibited from rejoining the public payroll and drawing a pension.

But with a waiver, retirees can be hired by a different public employer and keep their regular pensions (a retired city worker hired by a state agency, for example), or by the same employer at a reduced pension (a former city police officer joining the parks department).

The state's Civil Service Commission handles waiver requests for most public employees in the state but not for those in New York City, where under state law the local Civil Service Commission is the controlling authority. But the city's commission has never handled the issue, according to its chairman, Stanley K. Schlein.

Instead, the task was delegated some 30 years ago to the Department of Personnel, and then, when that agency was eliminated, to the Department of Citywide Administrative Services. Lewis S. Finkelman, the general counsel for administrative services, said the procedure was authorized by the City Charter, which vests the department with most of the powers that would otherwise reside with the Civil Service Commission, including approval of pension waivers.

Martha K. Hirst, the administrative services commissioner, said that approvals "are not given out in any cavalier way," and that applicants invariably have experience that cannot easily be found elsewhere.

"The city of New York can benefit from the expertise of these individuals," she said. "It's really a benefit to the city in these small number of cases." Among those who have been granted waivers are scores of former police officers, most of whom are eligible to retire at half pay after 20 years. They often seek new jobs at district attorneys' offices or other agencies seeking experienced investigators.

Others who were granted waivers last year included a retired teacher who was hired as chief lifeguard at Coney Island; a former Police Department budget official, whom Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly wanted to retain as his chief of staff; and a former Police Department pension counselor who was tapped for a similar job with the New York City Police Pension Fund, where he advises officers on, among other things, pension waivers.

Employers applying for waivers must provide evidence that they advertised for the job and considered other applicants before settling on the retiree. To clear that hurdle, many department heads all but declare that their favored candidates are so irreplaceable that city government would grind to a halt without them.

In going to bat for their preferred lifeguard, Arthur Miller, at Coney Island, the Department of Parks and Recreation pointed to Mr. Miller's experience in that job and suggested that people's lives would be in danger if it could not hire him to patrol the beaches: "To do such will not only put the public at risk but also endanger one of the most important recreational activities New York City has to offer."

Mr. Kelly, in seeking a waiver for his chief of staff, Joseph P. Wuensch, wrote that "there is no other person that has comparable experience, expertise or knowledge of the intricacies that being a manager at this level in law enforcement entails." Mr. Wuensch, who worked for the city for 36 years before retiring in 2000, earns $154,000 in his new position.

The size of the pension payments available to those seeking waivers could not be immediately determined. An administration official said that Mr. Bruno's combined pension and salary came to more than $200,000 a year. Mr. Horn and Mr. Doherty became eligible for pension payments only last month. But city employees who reach a certain age can typically retire at half their salary after 25 years on the job, and Mr. Horn and Mr. Doherty "retired" from six-figure jobs after decades of working for the city.A more precise glimpse of the money to be had by retiree-workers at the highest levels of city government could be found in financial disclosure statements by Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta on file with the Conflicts of Interest Board. Mr. Scoppetta, who did not need a waiver because he was over 65 and already collecting a pension when Mr. Bloomberg rehired him four years ago, received $97,000 in pension benefits in 2004, in addition to his $163,000 commissioner's salary.

Waiver decisions are issued in the form of a letter from a deputy commissioner. A typical one was sent to parks and recreation officials last June in response to their request to exempt Mr. Miller from restrictions that would have diminished his pension payments if he made more than $27,500 in his new job.

The request was approved, the letter said, "in light of your need to fill this position on a seasonal basis with someone who has significant experience as a lifeguard and supervisor of lifeguards, particularly in the lifeguard operations of Coney Island, and based further upon Mr. Miller's unique qualifications."

Read More...

Groups protest use of carbon monoxide in meat packaging

USA TODAY
Groups protest use of carbon monoxide in meat packaging

WASHINGTON (AP) — Shoppers who judge the freshness of meat by its pink color may be deceived by a relatively new industry practice of treating meat with carbon monoxide, critics say.

The meat industry defends the use of carbon monoxide to help meat retain its pink hue, saying large sums of money are wasted when sellers throw away meat that is still safe to eat but is not as attractive because it is slightly brown.

"Color is the number one indicator that's used" in selecting meat, said Don Berdahl, vice president of Kalsec Inc., a maker of natural food extracts in Kalamazoo, Mich. Last November Kalsec filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration seeking a ban on the use of carbon monoxide in meat packaging.

Berdahl said Tuesday that carbon monoxide-treated meat could be left on the kitchen counter for five days and would still look bright red and fresh. Carbon monoxide "also suppresses bad odors and the presence of slime, other telltale signs that meat is spoiled," Kalsec's petition said.

The petition said treated meat could hide the growth of pathogens such as Clostridium botulinum, Salmonella and E. coli.

Berdahl acknowledged that his company has a business interest in protesting the practice. But consumer groups, while agreeing that carbon monoxide in itself is not a health risk, are concerned that meat buyers will focus on the color and ignore expiration dates and other signs that meat is no longer edible.

"Carbon monoxide masks the natural coloration of meat by reacting with myoglobin in the meat and producing a bright red color," the Consumer Federation of America and the group Safe Tables Our Priority wrote last month in asking the FDA to reverse its acceptance of the practice. The artificial color, they said, "has been found to last 'beyond the time of spoilage,' thus masking the true color and freshness of meat packaged with carbon monoxide."

The Kalsec petition also argued that the FDA does not have the legal authority to permit the use of carbon monoxide in fresh meat packaging because it is an unapproved and prohibited color additive.

Carbon monoxide is used in some "case-ready" meats, products put in leak-proof, tamperproof, hermetically sealed packages before being shipped to the local butcher or supermarket. Up to 60% of meat sold is now case-ready, according to industry estimates, but a relatively small amount of that is carbon monoxide-treated, said Randall Huffman, vice president for scientific affairs at the American Meat Institute.

In most cases, he said, case-ready meat is treated with a high level of oxygen, which causes the meat to turn red but also leads to deterioration of color, quality and flavor. The carbon monoxide technology eliminates the oxygen, preventing degradations in quality, he said.

"It eliminates so much waste in the system," Huffman said. "It's an excellent way to reduce costs and keep meat prices competitive for consumers."

Since 2002, the FDA has given the go-ahead to three meat producing or packaging firms to use carbon monoxide under a process known as "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS.

Under GRAS notifications, the FDA conducts no research on its own, instead relying on the notifier's documents confirming the safety of the product.

Laura Tarentino, director of the FDA office of food additive safety, said in a telephone interview that the FDA had reviewed the evidence submitted by companies seeking to use the procedure and "did not disagree" with conclusions that it was safe.

She said the agency would be concerned "if we had evidence that consumers would be misled into buying meat that was spoiled." But so far, she said, there was "no evidence that that is the case."

Critics of carbon monoxide usage also pointed to the 2003 decision by the European Union to ban the practice in meat and tuna. Canada, Japan and Singapore don't allow carbon monoxide treatment for tuna.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-02-21-carbon-monoxide-meat_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Witness: Skilling Ordered Earnings Changes

Yahoo! News
Witness: Skilling Ordered Earnings Changes
By KRISTEN HAYS, AP Business Writer

Former Enron Corp. Chief Executive Jeffrey Skilling ordered last-minute changes to at least two quarterly earnings reports so the company could meet or beat analysts' expectations, a former vice president of investor relations testified Tuesday.

Paula Rieker, 51, was poised and articulate, often addressing the jury directly, when she described the chaos and high emotions as what was once the nation's seventh-largest company descended into bankruptcy proceedings in December 2001.

The government's fourth witness in the fraud and conspiracy trial of Skilling and Lay, Rieker recalled the board of directors were "outraged" upon learning in February 2002 that Enron founder Kenneth Lay had sold more than $70 million in Enron stock back to the company in 2001.

Even a board member who supported him, John Duncan, accused Lay of using the company "like a damn ATM machine," testified Rieker, whose last position was corporate secretary, answering to Lay.

Lay is not charged with any offenses related to illegal stock sales. But he is accused of lying to investors about Enron's health in the months after Skilling's abrupt mid-August 2001 resignation until the company failed.

Rieker testified earlier on Tuesday that she learned in January 2000 from her then-boss, former Enron investor-relations chief Mark Koenig, that Skilling ordered a penny increase in company earnings-per-share figures for the fourth quarter of 1999 to match analysts' expectations of 31 cents.

She also said Koenig told her Skilling ordered a two-cent increase to reported earnings per share in the second quarter of 2000 — hours before they were officially released, so Enron could top expectations and generate Wall Street enthusiasm for its stock.

Rieker's testimony was stronger than that of Koenig, the prosecution's first witness. While she said Koenig told her Skilling ordered the changes, Koenig stopped short of saying his boss explicitly issued such an order, testifying only that Skilling was authorized to do so.

Neither Rieker nor Koenig addressed what accounting methods may have been behind the changes. Rieker also said nothing about hearing any such orders from Skilling directly.

In an example of how Lay allegedly hid bad news from investors, Rieker said he told the company's directors in October 2001 that Enron's highly touted retail-energy unit had undergone "lots of retooling" to address chaotic billing and paltry cash flow.

Those issues included up to $1 billion in uncollected bills because of the company's chaotic billing procedures and lack of cash flow. Rieker said Lay told the board "there had been lots of retooling" with "good progress" in solving problems.

But, she said, Lay neglected to disclose the unit's issues days later to Wall Street while praising its reported profitability upon announcing more than $600 million in third-quarter 2001 losses and a $1.2 billion writedown in shareholder equity.

Her testimony appeared to contradict Lay's oft-repeated claim that he believed Enron was strong when he resumed the CEO position. She became corporate secretary in September, and in that role she maintained board meeting minutes and answered to Lay.

Six weeks after announcing the losses, Rieker said Enron's board met several times a week — sometimes more than once a day — instead of its usual five times a year.

Three days after the earnings announcement, Rieker said Lay told directors his biggest concern was how much money Enron Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow pocketed from running two partnerships, LJM1 and LJM2.

Fastow had sold his interest in the partnerships by then, but questions had arisen in the press about the propriety of a CFO running entities that conducted transactions with his main employer.

On Oct. 23, Lay publicly expressed to analysts the "highest confidence" in Fastow's abilities as CFO. Fastow was ousted the next day, and it was later disclosed he had pocketed about $60 million.

Fastow pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy in 2004 for using those partnerships to manipulate Enron's earnings while skimming millions for himself. He is expected to be a chief witness against Skilling and Lay.

Bad news kept coming, Rieker said. Enron had little cash and potentially billions in debt coming due that it couldn't pay. Smaller rival Dynegy Inc. sought to buy Enron, but backed off, leaving it with no course but bankruptcy court.

In those last months, Rieker said, Lay repeatedly drew down millions from a line of credit from Enron, and repaid the loans with Enron stock. He said he sold stock back to the company because he needed cash to repay bank loans collateralized by his Enron shares.

Lay lawyer Bruce Collins tried to show his client didn't have to disclose sales of stock back to the company until later in 2002, and hid nothing from the board, which had approved his credit line.

"I can't comment on the legal duty," Rieker said. "I can only comment on what the board thought was right or wrong when they heard about it."

Collins' cross examination was to continue Wednesday, followed by questioning from Skilling's lawyers.

Rieker is among 16 ex-Enron executives — including Koenig — who have pleaded guilty to charges and are cooperating with prosecutors. She pleaded guilty in May 2004 to insider trading for selling stock based on inside information that Enron's broadband unit lost more money than anticipated.

Skilling faces 31 counts of fraud, conspiracy, insider trading and lying to auditors, while Lay faces seven counts of fraud and conspiracy. If convicted, both face decades in prison. Both sold millions of dollars in stock before Enron went bankrupt, but only Skilling faces allegations of improper stock sales.

___

Associated Press Writer Michael Graczyk contributed to this story.

Read More...

Almost 100 prisoners have died in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since August 2002, according to US group Human Rights First.

BBC NEWS
Report probes US custody deaths

Almost 100 prisoners have died in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since August 2002, according to US group Human Rights First.

The details were first aired on BBC television's Newsnight programme.

Of the 98 deaths, at least 34 were suspected or confirmed homicides, the programme said.

The Pentagon told Newsnight it had not seen the report but took allegations of maltreatment "very seriously" and would prosecute if necessary.

The report, which is to be published on Wednesday, draws on information from Pentagon and other official US sources.

Torture

Human Rights First representative Deborah Pearlstein told Newsnight she was "extremely comfortable" that the information was reliable.

The report defines the 34 cases classified as homicides as "caused by intentional or reckless behaviour".

It says another 11 cases have been deemed suspicious and that between eight and 12 prisoners were tortured to death.

But despite this, charges are rare and sentences are light, the report says.

Speaking on the programme, the US ambassador to Iraq said the "overwhelming number" of troops behaved according to the law.

But Zalmay Khalilzad said abuses did exist.

"They are human beings, they violate the law, they make mistakes and they have to be held accountable and the good thing about our system is that we do hold people accountable," he said.

Investigation call

UK MP Bob Marshall-Andrews told the Press Association that the report confirmed "in statistical terms the appalling evidence already available in footage".

"If it is indeed systemic, then the responsibility for it must go right to the top, and that would apply to both British and American governments," he said.

A spokesman for Amnesty International UK called for a probe into the deaths in custody.

"Deaths in custody during the war on terror are a real matter of concern to us and we want to see the US and its allies allowing a full independent and impartial investigation into these deaths, as well as mounting incidents of alleged torture and other mistreatment," he said.

He said Amnesty had raised the issue of "overly lenient sentences" for those found guilty of mistreating prisoners.

Last week, an Australian TV channel broadcast previously unpublished images showing apparent US abuse of prisoners in Iraq's Abu Ghraib jail in 2003.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4738008.stm

Read More...

Rumsfeld says 'misstated' facts on planted Iraq news

Reuters
Rumsfeld says 'misstated' facts on planted Iraq news
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday he was mistaken when he stated last week that the U.S. military had stopped paying Iraqi newspapers to publish pro-American articles.

Rumsfeld had said in a television interview on Friday that the U.S. military had ceased paying to place positive stories in Iraqi media after criticism in the U.S. Congress and press. Rumsfeld made similar comments the same day to the Council on Foreign Relations.

"I just misstated the facts," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon briefing on Tuesday.

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the military command in Iraq was still paying to plant positive stories, even as U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Scott Van Buskirk investigates it.

Rumsfeld said he did not know whether Van Buskirk's inquiry would be completed soon. The review was ordered by Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, officials said.

On "The Charlie Rose Show," aired on PBS stations, Rumsfeld said, "The press got it, then the Congress starts calling for hearings and fussing about this, and complaining about that, as though it was something terrible that happened."

"It wasn't anything terrible that happened. When we heard about it, we said, 'Gee, that's not what we ought to be doing.' And we told the people down there, and they -- they told the contractor who did it -- it wasn't a military person -- and they stopped doing that," Rumsfeld added in the interview.

The stories were placed with the help of Lincoln Group, a Washington-based defense contractor.

Van Buskirk's inquiry was announced in December after the military confirmed U.S. troops in an "information operations" task force wrote articles with positive messages about the U.S. mission that were translated from English into Arabic and placed in Iraqi newspapers in return for money.

The U.S. command in Iraq at the time said "articles have been accepted and published as a function of buying advertising and opinion/editorial space, as is customary in Iraq."

Some U.S. lawmakers have said the practice could undermine U.S. credibility as American officials try to foster democratic institutions in Iraq and tout its emerging free press.

Rumsfeld told the Council on Foreign Relations that the military command in Iraq "has sought nontraditional means to provide accurate information to the Iraqi people in the face of (an) aggressive campaign of disinformation."

"Yet this has been portrayed as inappropriate -- for example, the allegations of someone in the military hiring a contractor, and the contractor allegedly paying someone to print a story -- a true story -- but paying to print a story," Rumsfeld said.

The U.S. military has argued it is important to counter what it calls misinformation spread by insurgents.

Read More...

Reshaped high court to decide abortion law

Reuters
Reshaped high court to decide abortion law
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday it will rule on whether the federal government can ban some abortion procedures, a case that could show if the high court reshaped by President George W. Bush will restrict abortion rights.

The justices agreed to decide whether the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act that Bush signed into law in 2003 is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception to protect the health of a pregnant woman.

In taking the case, the high court will again be tackling one of the most contentious issues it has faced since its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

The law represents the first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure since the 1973 ruling. The case has the potential to mark a turning point in abortion law for the court, which struck down a similar Nebraska law by a 5-4 vote in 2000.

The court's action was announced with new Justice Samuel Alito joining Chief Justice John Roberts on the bench of the nine-member court. Abortion was a central issue in the Senate confirmation hearings for Alito and Roberts.

The conservative Alito, Bush's second pick for the high court confirmed in the past year, replaced Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who cast the decisive vote striking down the Nebraska law.

Abortion rights groups expressed concern.

"Today's action means the core principle of protecting women's health as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade is in clear and present danger," said Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

'DANGEROUS ACT OF HOSTILITY'

"The Supreme Court's decision to hear this case is a dangerous act of hostility aimed squarely at women's health and safety," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

But supporters of the law welcomed the court's decision.

Citing its new make-up, Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice said, "We're hopeful the high court will determine that the national ban is not only proper, but constitutional as well."

Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition added, "With two new judicial conservatives on the Supreme Court, this could signal the end of the abortion lobby's stranglehold on the court."

The partial-birth abortion ban has never been enforced because of court challenges and six federal courts have all found it unconstitutional. The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to uphold the law as constitutional.

When it passed the legislation after nine years of debate, the U.S. Congress decided not to include an exception for a woman's health, even though the Supreme Court's ruling on the Nebraska law in 2000 required it.

The law contains an exception when the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother, but not one to preserve the woman's health. Any physician who knowingly performs the procedure faces up to two years in prison.

The U.S. Justice Department said the phrase "partial-birth abortion" is commonly used to describe a late-term procedure known as "dilation and extraction" or "intact dilation and evacuation."

Opponents of the law said it also would ban a more frequently used abortion procedure known as standard dilation and evacuation. That procedure is the most common one in the second trimester of pregnancy, they said.

Some doctors have described the surgical procedure as the safest method to end a pregnancy because it reduces the risk of bleeding, infection and other health consequences.

Attorneys from the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights said the government was seeking, in effect, to have the Supreme Court overrule its 2000 decision requiring a health exception.

Any weakening of this "would represent a significant retreat from more than three decades of this court's jurisprudence striking down any abortion regulation that failed to protect pregnant women's health," they said.

The case will be argued during the court's upcoming term that begins in October.

Read More...

House Speaker asks moratorium on Dubai port deal

Reuters
House Speaker asks moratorium on Dubai port deal

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Dennis Hastert wrote to President Bush on Tuesday asking for a moratorium on an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major U.S. seaports.

"I believe there should be an immediate moratorium placed on this seaport deal in order to further examine its effects on our port security," Hastert said in the letter, a copy of which was released to the media.

The Illinois Republican also asked the Bush administration to conduct a "more thorough review" of the deal allowing state-controlled Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates to manage the ports. Hastert warned further that it "may require additional congressional action" to make sure Americans are protected.

Read More...

Bush pushes wind, solar power, cutback on oil use

Reuters
Bush pushes wind, solar power, cutback on oil use
By Caren Bohan

GOLDEN, Colo. (Reuters) - President George W. Bush called on Tuesday for tapping renewable energy sources like wind and solar power to contend with surging energy costs but environmental groups questioned his commitment to easing U.S. oil dependence.

Bush also told employees at a key laboratory for renewable energy research that he regretted "mixed signals" that had led the Colorado facility to announce job cuts earlier this month because of budget cuts.

He visited the National Renewable Energy Laboratory a day after his administration rushed the transfer of $5 million to the lab to enable it to restore the jobs and resolve what could have been an embarrassing situation.

Democrats had cited the job cuts as a sign of lack of real commitment by the government to energy independence initiatives that Bush, a former oil company executive, announced with great fanfare in his State of the Union speech on January 31.

The stop in Golden was the last on a two-day, three-state tour on which Bush pushed his new energy approach.

"I have spent a lot of time worrying about the national security implications of being addicted to oil," Bush said. "The demand for oil is rising faster than the supply of oil. Any time that happens it creates the conditions for what could be price disruption."

In a congressional election year when Democrats are hoping to challenge Republican dominance in both houses of Congress, soaring costs for gasoline and home-heating are pinching Americans' budgets.

The energy initiative is part of Bush's attempt to show he and fellow Republicans are addressing that issue. This week, oil prices rose above $60 a barrel after militant attacks in Nigeria, the world's eighth largest crude exporter.

FUNDING WAS "GUTTED"

Many environmental groups say Bush has paid insufficient attention to developing alternative energy sources during the first five years of his presidency.

"Funding for renewable technologies has been gutted since 2001, and only recently has been made a policy priority," Greenpeace said in a statement.

That group and others have criticized Bush for refusing to back stricter fuel efficiency standards for vehicles which they say are needed to significantly cut gasoline demand.

While the Bush administration has required a small boost in efficiency standards for light trucks, environmental groups say more stringent requirements are needed. Gasoline accounts for 40 percent of U.S. daily petroleum demand.

Dave Hamilton, an energy expert at the Sierra Club environmental group, said an energy bill Bush signed last August was a "missed opportunity" to have boosted alternative-fuels research funds further.

He said Bush's latest energy initiatives were "baby steps in the right direction". But he added, "The administration's larger actions have moved counter to the goals of reducing foreign oil dependence."

Addressing the issue of the jobs that had just been restored at the lab, Bush said, "I recognize that there has been some ... let me say, mixed signals when it comes to funding."

"Our mutual desire is to clear up any discrepancies in funding, and I think we've cleaned up those discrepancies," he added.

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria)

Read More...

House Democrat says White House nixed NSA briefing

Reuters
House Democrat says White House nixed NSA briefing
By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top intelligence official was prepared to brief the House of Representatives intelligence committee about President George W. Bush's domestic spying program last December but was stopped by White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, a leading House Democrat said on Tuesday.

Rep. Jane Harman of California, ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said she and fellow Democrats on the panel sought a briefing from deputy U.S. intelligence chief, Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, soon after Bush confirmed the existence of the surveillance program.

"Gen. Hayden said he was prepared to brief the full committee but our request was disapproved by White House Chief of Staff Andy Card," Harman said in a statement issued by her office.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said she was not aware of any conversations about a possible intelligence briefing in December. A spokeswoman for Hayden declined to comment.

But Harman's remarks could suggest a previously undisclosed readiness by top intelligence officials to speak about the secret program with a broader audience of lawmakers.

The administration has fully briefed only eight lawmakers in the House and Senate about the program's operations up to now, saying wider disclosure could pose security risks.

Bush acknowledged publicly on December 17 that he authorized the National Security Agency after the September 11 attacks to eavesdrop without a court warrant on international telephone calls and e-mails between Americans and others suspected of ties with al Qaeda.

The program has raised concerns among Democrats and some Republicans that Bush may have overstepped his constitutional authority and even violated federal law by not briefing the full House and Senate intelligence panels about the operation.

Two weeks ago, the White House bowed to mounting pressure in Congress and provided some details of the eavesdropping program to the full House and Senate intelligence committees.

But the White House has also pressed Republican lawmakers to stave off calls for full congressional investigations.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has put off until March 7 a vote sought by Democrats that would authorize such an inquiry. House Republicans have also clashed over the need for Congress to undertake a full-scale probe.

Perino said the White House was open to ideas in Congress, particularly a proposal by Republican Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio to create special House and Senate intelligence subcommittees to oversee the program's operations.

"The administration has signaled that it is now shifting course. A senior White House official told me this weekend that it is important to put the program on solid legal footing and improve congressional oversight," Harman said.

"This is welcome news, but it is not a substitute for fully briefing the committees on the operations of the program."

(Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick)


Read More...

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

GOP Governors Question Port Turnover

Yahoo! News
GOP Governors Question Port Turnover
By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer

Two Republican governors on Monday questioned a Bush administration decision allowing an Arab-owned company to operate six major U. S. ports, saying they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states.

New York Gov. George Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running the U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.

The British company, Peninsular and Oriental, runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

"Ensuring the security of New York's port operations is paramount and I am very concerned with the purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam by Dubai Ports World," Pataki said in a news release.

"I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them in regards to this transaction," said the New York governor, who is still in the hospital recovering from an appendectomy.

Ehrlich, concerned about security at the Port of Baltimore, said Monday he is "very troubled" that Maryland officials got no advance notice before the Bush administration approved an Arab company's takeover of the operations at the six ports.

"We needed to know before this was a done deal, given the state of where we are concerning security," Ehrlich told reporters in the State House rotunda in Annapolis.

The state of Maryland is considering its options, up to and including voiding the contract for the Port of Baltimore, Ehrlich said, adding: "We have a lot of discretion in the contract."

Pataki is also asking the federal government to "share all critical relevant information made available to the Council on Foreign Investment during the course of the review of the purchase," a reference to the federal panel that approved the deal.

New York's legal options could include canceling the lease for operation, effectively shutting out Dubai Ports World from port activities. P&O signed a 30-year lease with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 2000 to operate the Port Newark Container Terminal.

The governors are the latest elected officials from both parties to complain about the deal.

House Homeland Security chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., has been one of the most vocal, saying secret assurances obtained by the government don't go far enough to protect the nation's seaports.

Democratic New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez joined the chorus of complaints on Monday.

"We wouldn't turn over our customs service or our border patrol to a foreign government," Menendez said during a Monday news conference in Newark. "We shouldn't turn over the ports of the United States, either."

Menendez said he and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., will introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of port operations to foreign governments.

Bush administration officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, have defended the decision.

During a stop Monday in Birmingham, Ala., Gonzales said the administration had a "very extensive process" for reviewing such transactions that "takes into account matters of national security, takes into account concerns about port security."

Critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

Frustration about the ports takeover put two Maryland gubernatorial candidates on the same side of an issue.

During a campaign stop in Bladensburg, Md., Monday, Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley was adamant that the operations of his city's port not be turned over to the Arab-owned company.

"I believe that President's Bush's decision to turn over the operations of any American port is reckless," said O'Malley, who is seeking the Democratic nomination to oppose Ehrlich in the Maryland governor's race. "We are not going to turn over the Port of Baltimore to a foreign government."

___

Associated Press writers Matthew Verrinder in Newark, N.J. and Tom Stuckey in Annapolis, Md. contributed to this story.

Read More...