Thursday, March 30, 2006

States Have More Schools Falling Behind

washingtonpost.com
States Have More Schools Falling Behind
By Paul Basken
Bloomberg News

More than a quarter of U.S. schools are failing under terms of President Bush's No Child Left Behind law, according to preliminary state-by-state statistics reported to the U.S. Department of Education.

At least 24,470 U.S. public schools, or 27 percent of the national total, did not meet the federal requirement for "adequate yearly progress" in 2004-2005. The percentage of failing schools rose by one point from the previous school year. Under the 2002 law, schools that do not make sufficient academic progress face penalties including the eventual replacement of their administrators and teachers.

The results raise doubts about whether the law is working and its results are fairly calculated, said Michael Petrilli, vice president for policy at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a Washington-based research group.

"Most people thought that at this point in the law, we'd be seeing these numbers go way, way up" as standards toughen, said Petrilli, a former Education Department official who helped implement the law in 2002.

Bush achieved rare bipartisan support to get the No Child Left Behind law passed as part of his first-term agenda. Since then, the law has become a subject of dispute, with Democrats accusing Republicans of providing insufficient money for it.

At the same time, there is evidence that states may be manipulating the numbers, Petrilli said. He cited Oklahoma, where the percentage of failing schools dropped to 3 percent from 25 percent a year earlier.

Under the law's "adequate yearly progress" measurements, states are required to show improvement in student test scores in reading and math. If they do not do so for two consecutive years, individual schools must let students transfer to another school. After a third year, schools must pay for tutoring for students from low-income families. Some states have complained that the federal government has not provided enough funding to cover costs such as tutoring.

The 2004-2005 rankings are just "one thing out of many things" that need to be considered when judging schools, said Chad Colby, a spokesman for the Education Department. A set of federal tests, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, gives policymakers another indication of scholastic achievement, Colby said.

The true test of the No Child Left Behind law will come in 2013-2014, when schools are required to bring all students to proficiency in math and reading, he said.

The Bush administration has expressed satisfaction with the rate of improvement under No Child Left Behind. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, in testimony last month before the Senate's education committee, cited statistics such as 9-year-olds making more progress in reading over the past five years than in the previous 28 years combined.

The law, however, allows states to adjust both their tests and the formulas by which they calculate "adequate yearly progress," leaving parents and policymakers unable to make definite conclusions about such numbers, analysts including Petrilli said.

"These stats are meaningless in the absence of a common test and common standards," said Diane Ravitch, a New York University professor who was an assistant secretary of education under President George H.W. Bush.

Among individual states, Florida placed last with 72 percent of its schools failing to show enough improvement, while Oklahoma led, according to the Education Department statistics provided to Bloomberg News. Rhode Island ranked second behind Oklahoma with 5 percent failing, with Iowa at 6 percent, Montana at 7 percent and New Hampshire, Tennessee and Wisconsin at 8 percent.

At the other end, Hawaii ranked second-worst with 66 percent of its schools failing to improve. Washington, D.C., came in third-worst with 60 percent, followed by Nevada at 56 percent and New Mexico at 53 percent.

Different states were required to submit the statistics to the Education Department by March 8. Federal officials plan to verify them and incorporate them into an annual report to Congress later this year, Colby said.



Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:33 AM

Documents Trace KBR Billing Problems

washingtonpost.com
Documents Trace KBR Billing Problems
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writer

Halliburton Co. repeatedly overcharged the government and exhibited "profound systemic problems" under a $1.2 billion contract to restore oil services in Iraq, according to internal government documents released yesterday by one of the company's fiercest critics.

The documents, cited in a report by the staff of Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), depict government officials' increasing irritation with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root Inc. as schedules slid, costs multiplied and the company balked at meeting demands for accurate cost estimates. Ultimately, contract overseers threatened to terminate the company's contract if it did not improve.

Pentagon auditors have challenged $45 million worth of company costs, out of $365 million in charges that were reviewed. Under the terms of its deal with the government, KBR earns its profit as a percentage of its costs.

In one case, the government's contracting officials reported that KBR attempted to inflate its cost estimates by paying a supplier more than it was due. In another, KBR cut its cost estimates in half after it was pressed on its true expenses. In a third, KBR billed for work performed by the Iraqi oil ministry.

"The government has made numerous attempts to work with KBR to bring their cost reporting procedures into minimal acceptable standards," a contracting officer wrote to the company in January 2005. He said that the company's "failure to deliver a useable, accurate cost report" was "endangering performance of the contract."

As the company's costs escalated and work fell behind schedule, federal officials in Iraq reported KBR was being "obstructive" toward officials trying to investigate what had gone wrong.

Melissa Norcross, a Halliburton spokeswoman, defended the company's performance under the oil contract, saying Waxman's report dredged up old issues that have already been resolved. Norcross pointed to a July report by the State Department that said Halliburton had been "satisfactorily addressing most of the issues" raised in previous evaluations.

She labeled the Waxman report "partisan" and said it does not take into account the numerous changes the government requested once work was already underway.

"After two years and from thousands of miles away, it is easy to criticize decisions and actions that were based on urgent mission requirements and severe time constraints," Norcross said in a statement.

KBR, the Pentagon's largest contractor in Iraq, has often been criticized for its work, including one deal for supporting U.S. troops with food, laundry and mail services. Yesterday's report was the first to look at the competitively awarded contract from 2004 under which KBR worked to restore oil services in the southern part of Iraq.

That contract was a follow-up to a no-bid 2003 deal that gave KBR that responsibility nationwide. The Pentagon's internal audit division -- the Defense Contract Audit Agency -- had warned the Army Corps of Engineers to contact auditors before negotiating with the company on the new contract because of "significant deficiencies" in KBR's ability to estimate its costs. The DCAA later said the Corps never did so.

"Halliburton has pulled off the impossible: it has actually done a worse job under its second Iraq oil contract than it did under the original no-bid contract," Waxman said in a statement. "This new round of overcharges and dismal performance would have been avoided if the Bush Administration had listened to its own auditors."

Halliburton has said in the past it believes criticism of its performance in Iraq is politically motivated, in large part because Dick Cheney was the firm's chief executive before he became vice president.



Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:30 AM

Americans are nearly as worried about their country's dependence on foreign energy sources as they are about the war in Iraq

Reuters
Americans at "tipping point" about energy-poll
By Lisa Lambert

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans are nearly as worried about their country's dependence on foreign energy sources as they are about the war in Iraq, a poll released by the magazine Foreign Affairs showed on Thursday.

Almost half of the 1,000 Americans surveyed for the Public Agenda Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index gave U.S. policymakers a failing grade in weaning the country from foreign oil.

Nearly 90 percent said the lack of energy independence jeopardizes national security.

Public Agenda, a nonpartisan group, conducted the poll in early January with funding from the Ford Foundation. It said that Americans are at a "tipping point" on energy, akin to their state of mind about the war.

Daniel Yankelovich, chairman of Public Agenda, said the public reaches a "tipping point" when it is gravely worried about an issue and believes the government has the ability to change matters. When the index was first published in August 2005, only the Iraq war triggered a similar response, he said.

"This time we find that a second issue has reached a tipping point, which is energy independence, and you have a very strong increase in the number of Americans who are intensely worried about the problem," Yankelovich said in a conference call.

"Now with this issue having reached the tipping point in the public I think that that means the political complexion of that issue is about to change considerably," he added.

In the latest survey, 85 percent of respondents said the U.S. government could do something about energy dependence if it tried. The share of those who worried foreign conflicts will drive up oil prices or cut off supplies rose to 55 percent from 42 percent in the August poll.

Since the August index was published, the U.S. energy chessboard has been rearranged by a broad energy reform law going into effect, a two-hurricane punch that shut in domestic oil production, sudden spikes in oil prices spurred by geopolitics, and record oil company profits.

While energy independence is certainly on citizens' minds, the index found that the war in Iraq remains their leading international concern.

Their least pressing international issue was promoting democracy abroad, with only one out of five participants saying they considered the activity "very important."




Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:28 AM

Abramoff gets 6 years for fraud

Reuters
Abramoff gets 6 years for fraud
By Jim Loney

MIAMI (Reuters) - Jack Abramoff, the disgraced lobbyist at the heart of a Washington influence-peddling scandal that has rattled top Republicans, was sentenced to nearly six years in prison on Wednesday for fraud in the purchase of a Florida casino cruise line.

Abramoff, who is cooperating in a federal investigation into whether Washington politicians gave his clients favorable treatment in exchange for campaign contributions, Super Bowl tickets and other illegal gifts, was also ordered to pay restitution of $21.7 million, together with a co-defendant.

"I am much chastened and profoundly remorseful," Abramoff told a Miami court. "I can only hope that the Almighty and those whom I have wronged will forgive me my trespasses."

U.S. District Judge Paul Huck handed Abramoff and the co-defendant, New York businessman Adam Kidan, sentences of five years and 10 months in prison. They will be on probation for three years after their release.

Abramoff pleaded guilty in a Miami federal court in January to conspiracy and wire fraud charges, acknowledging he faked documents to get a $60 million loan to buy the SunCruz fleet of gambling ships in 2000.

The documents falsely claimed Abramoff and business partner Kidan had put $23 million of their own money into the deal.

The acknowledgment of guilt was tied to a plea bargain deal that involves cooperating in a federal investigation into whether he showered golf trips, meals, sports tickets and other gifts on lawmakers -- almost all Republicans -- in return for actions that would help his clients.

"Jack Abramoff broke the law and now he is going to pay the price for it," Rep. George Miller, a California Democrat, said in a written statement. "But complete justice will not be served until all of Abramoff's activities and connections are exposed and all of this partners-in-crime are punished."

WASHINGTON LINKS

Abramoff has already pleaded guilty to conspiracy and fraud charges in Washington, and federal investigators are examining his links to a number of politicians, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and Republican Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio. DeLay and Ney have denied any wrongdoing.

Huck postponed the start of the prison terms for at least 90 days to allow Abramoff and Kidan to continue to help prosecutors in the corruption probe.

"I have every reason to believe both of these defendants will continue to cooperate," Assistant U.S. Attorney Lawrence LaVecchio said.

Abramoff left the court by a back entrance and slipped away in a black Lincoln, avoiding a horde of reporters and cameras.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said Abramoff had given Republican lawmakers more than $120,000.

It accused some Republicans of refusing to hand back the money, and urged voters to take note of the corruption scandal at midterm elections in November, when the Democrats hope to wrest control of Congress from Republicans.

"With so many thousands of dollars shelled out to Republicans in Congress and so many Republicans in Congress holding fast to Abramoff's tainted cash, American families are again reminded of the cost of the corruption that he engineered in Washington, D.C.," Bill Burton, the campaign committee's communications director, said in a statement.

Abramoff and Kidan bought SunCruz from Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, who was shot to death in an ambush on a street in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in February 2001. Three men were charged in the killing last year.

Abramoff and Kidan have said they know nothing about Boulis' death.

(Additional reporting by Tom Brown)




Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:26 AM

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

President's Dress Up Closet

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:44 AM

Sept 11 panel chief warns of nuclear threat

Reuters
Sept 11 panel chief warns of nuclear threat
By Joanne Kenen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has not adequately protected itself against the nightmare scenario of a nuclear attack by terrorists, the head of the panel that investigated the September 11, 2001, attacks said on Tuesday.

Former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean told a Senate panel that neither the Bush administration nor Congress has done all it can to protect American lives and the U.S. economy: "The size of the problem still totally dwarfs the policy response."

Another expert, Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations, outlined numerous security gaps in global trade and shipping. Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander, said the country is living on "borrowed time" for avoiding a so-called dirty bomb that could contaminate a financial district or residential neighborhood and wreak havoc on the economy.

They were among the witnesses before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations one day after the release of a government report that said that four years after the attacks on New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, federal undercover investigators were able to enter the United States with enough radioactive material for two dirty bombs.

Radiation monitors did detect the radioactive materials in investigators' cars crossing the U.S.-Mexican and U.S.-Canadian borders in December 2005, but border patrol officials did not realize the shipping documents and permits were forged, the Government Accountability Office said in that report.

The commission disbanded in 2004 after conducting a comprehensive probe of the attacks. But its 10 members have remained active in promoting better national defense.

A dirty bomb could kill people in the blast's immediate vicinity and spew radioactive material, making an area unusable. It could cause immense economic disruption, as other ports and transport routes could be shut down temporarily, just as air traffic was halted after the 2001 attacks.

"We're not acting like a nation at war," said Flynn, adding that security plans have not drawn on all the available technology nor the incentives in the private sector for closing security gaps.

Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, noted that a nuclear bomb would be far more devastating than a dirty bomb. A small amount of plutonium -- smaller than a water glass that Levin displayed -- could wipe out a city and kill millions.

Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican, said the lack of nuclear screening at seaports is a "massive blind spot."

Kean acknowledged that a nuclear attack is less likely than other actions, like the train and subway bombings in Madrid and London. "But a nuclear event is possible, and it would have profound and incalculable consequences."

"Why isn't the president talking more often about securing nuclear materials?" he asked. "Why isn't the Congress focused? ... Why aren't the airwaves filled with commentary if everyone agrees that the crossroads of terrorism and nuclear weapons is the most serious threat to our security?"




Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:43 AM

Democrats Opening Assault on Bush Security Policies

The New York Times
Democrats Opening Assault on Bush Security Policies
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

WASHINGTON, March 28 — Seeking to capitalize on President Bush's troubles overseas, leading Democrats in Congress are unveiling a broad attack this week on the administration's security policies at home and overseas along with a set of proposals intended to demonstrate that they have a credible alternative.

In a set of policy papers titled "Real Security: Protecting America and Restoring Our Leadership in the World," Democratic leaders in the House and Senate plan to join with leading figures in the party, including former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Wesley K. Clark, the retired general and former presidential contender, in presenting the plan on Wednesday.

Their purpose, Democrats say, is to rebut the Republican accusation, echoed in some editorial columns, that with Mr. Bush's approval ratings sagging eight months before the next election, party leaders and candidates have not laid out a coherent set of alternatives, especially on Iraq and on dealing with nuclear proliferation.

The Democrats' material asserts that in combating terrorism, party leaders want to increase financing for Special Operations forces and interdicting terrorist financing and to spend more on economic development in troubled areas like the Middle East and South Asia.

Democrats also want to give greater powers to the office of the national intelligence director and to investigate accusations of abuse and torture of detainees. They say they want increased financing for screening containers at ports and securing nuclear and chemical plants and training emergency health workers.

Most of the proposals are not new. Many echo arguments put forward by Democrats and by their 2004 presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, including a demand for more military equipment and body armor for troops and improved veterans' benefits.

In the diplomatic field, the proposals say Democrats will "redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea," but they offer few details that differ from the Bush administration's effort to get cooperation from allies in Asia, the Middle East and Europe to pressure those countries to abandon their nuclear programs.

"In these times of unprecedented challenge and change, real leadership demands preparing for the threats that exist today and those that will emerge tomorrow," said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, who will be appearing with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader.

"It demands tough and smart policies that recognize that a stronger America begins at home," Ms. Pelosi added.

In a statement to be released on Wednesday, Mr. Reid is to say: "Over the last century, Democrats have led America through two world wars, have stared down threats to our security at home and have defeated the ideals of Communism and Fascism. Today, Democrats are here to build on that record."

But Republicans, anticipating the Democratic attack, were already circulating their own counteroffensive on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. Senator Christopher S. Bond, Republican of Missouri, said he had just obtained a copy of the Democrats' plan and added, "It's taken them all this time to figure out what we've been doing for a long time."

Mr. Bond said that while Democrats sought to showcase their support of national security, they had tried to block renewal of the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act and the administration's program of wiretapping without warrants.

Democrats say that while their policies lack detail in some respects, they were able at least to put together a package of proposals to which all members of the party could subscribe, calling for more money to be spent on a broad array of items, including port security and foreign aid.

Meanwhile, the manifesto skirted divisive issues like whether the United States should set a timetable on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, as advocated by Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, but opposed or not endorsed by other members of his party.

Instead, it calls for making sure that 2006 "is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces." Beyond "redeployment," no mention is made of whether American troops should be taken out of Iraq.

The Democrats' paper also calls for the United States to achieve "energy independence" by 2020 by increasing production of alternative fuels.




Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:42 AM

Bush Opposes Iraq's Premier, Shiites Report

The New York Times
Bush Opposes Iraq's Premier, Shiites Report
By EDWARD WONG

BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 28 — The American ambassador has told Shiite officials that President Bush does not want the Iraqi prime minister to remain the country's leader in the next government, senior Shiite politicians said Tuesday.

It is the first time the Americans have directly expressed a preference in the furious debate over the country's top job, the politicians said, and it is inflaming tensions between the Americans and some Shiite leaders.

The ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, told the head of the main Shiite political bloc at a meeting on Saturday to pass on a "personal message from President Bush" to the interim prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, said Redha Jowad Taki, a Shiite member of Parliament who was at the meeting.

Mr. Khalilzad said Mr. Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. Jaafari as the next prime minister, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite bloc. It was the first "clear and direct message" from the Americans on a specific candidate for prime minister, Mr. Taki said.

The Shiite bloc, which won a plurality in the parliamentary election in December, nominated Mr. Jaafari last month to retain his post for four more years.

American officials in Baghdad did not dispute the Shiite politicians' account of the conversation, though they would not discuss the details of the meeting. A spokeswoman for the American Embassy confirmed that Mr. Khalilzad met with Mr. Hakim on Saturday. But she declined to comment on what was said.

"The decisions about the choice of the prime minister are entirely up to the Iraqis," said the spokeswoman, Elizabeth Colton. "This will be an Iraqi decision."

In Washington, the State Department said it would not comment on diplomatic conversations, but Adam Ereli, the deputy spokesman, reiterated American support for "a government of national unity with strong leadership that can unify all Iraqis."

The Americans have harshly criticized the Jaafari government in recent months for supporting Shiite militias that have been fomenting sectarian violence and pushing Iraq closer to full-scale civil war.

Mr. Khalilzad has sharpened his criticism in the last week, saying the militias are now killing more people than the Sunni Arab-led insurgency. American officials have expressed growing concern that Mr. Jaafari is incapable of reining in the private armies, especially since Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric who leads the most volatile militia, is Mr. Jaafari's most powerful backer.

Haider al-Ubady, a spokesman for Mr. Jaafari, said the prime minister had received the ambassador's message and accused the Americans of trying to subvert Iraqi sovereignty.

Tensions between Shiite leaders and the American government, which had been rising for months, boiled over after an assault on Sunday night by American and Iraqi forces on a Shiite mosque compound in northern Baghdad.

Shiite leaders say at least 17 civilians were killed in the battle, most of them members of a Shiite political party. American commanders say the soldiers fought insurgents.

The reported American pressure over Mr. Jaafari's nomination is another sign of White House impatience over the deadlocked talks to form a new government. American officials say the impasse has created a power vacuum that has encouraged lawlessness and civil conflict.

The nomination has become one of the most contentious issues in those talks, with the main Kurdish, Sunni Arab and secular blocs calling for the Shiites to replace Mr. Jaafari. On Monday, Shiite leaders suspended their participation in the negotiations, saying they were enraged by the assault on the mosque complex.

In Baghdad on Tuesday, at least 21 people were abducted in four separate incidents in the biggest wave of kidnappings in a month, an Interior Ministry official said. In one incident, 15 men in Iraqi Army uniforms dragged at least six people from a money exchange shop and stole nearly $60,000. In two other cases, people wearing Interior Ministry commando uniforms snatched victims from two electronics shops.

The police in western Baghdad discovered 14 bodies on Tuesday, all killed execution-style with gunshots to the head, apparently the latest victims of sectarian bloodletting. On Monday, Iraqi forces found 18 bodies near Baquba with similar wounds. Earlier reports of 30 beheaded bodies found in that area were wrong, the Interior Ministry official said.

An American soldier was killed Tuesday by small-arms fire in Baghdad, and another was killed and three were wounded by a roadside bomb outside Habbaniya, the American military said.

The Iraqi security minister, Abdul Karim al-Enizi, said on the state-run Iraqiya network on Tuesday night that the Iraqi forces who had raided the mosque compound in Baghdad were not part of the Interior or Defense Ministry. A survivor said the soldiers did not speak Arabic well, implying they may have been Kurdish militiamen working with Americans, Mr. Enizi said.

At the Pentagon, senior officials defended the raid, releasing photographs they said proved that weapons and bomb-making materials had been seized inside the compound, which they described as a school complex that had been turned into a base for a "hostage ring."

When the soldiers entered the compound, "they found that there was a building there that had a small minaret and a prayer room inside it," said Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "Some people are calling that a mosque."

The surge in violence has shaken confidence in Mr. Jaafari, who has been widely criticized by Iraqis for failing to smash the Sunni-led insurgency, letting Shiite death squads run rampant and doing little on reconstruction.

Mr. Jaafari won the Shiite bloc's nomination for prime minister by one vote in a secret ballot of its members of Parliament, beating out the deputy of Mr. Hakim, the bloc's leader. As the largest bloc, with 130 of the 275 seats, the Shiites have the right to nominate the prime minister.

But a two-thirds vote of Parliament is required for approval of the new government. As long as the other major blocs oppose Mr. Jaafari, the process is at a standstill.

Thom Shanker and Steven R. Weisman contributed reporting from Washington for this article.





Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:40 AM

Record Shows Senators' 'Debate' That Wasn't

washingtonpost.com
Record Shows Senators' 'Debate' That Wasn't
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer

According to the official Congressional Record of Dec. 21, 2005, Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) held a long conversation on the Senate floor about an amendment bearing Graham's name that restricts the legal rights of detainees in the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"I agree entirely," Graham responds to Kyl at one point. "I have just been handed a memorandum on this subject," Kyl says later. Another Republican senator, Sam Brownback of Kansas, interrupts the two with his own commentary.

But those exchanges never occurred. Instead, the debate -- which runs 15 pages and brims with conversational flourishes -- was inserted into the Congressional Record minutes before the Senate gave final approval to the legislation.

In legal briefs to the Supreme Court, which took up the issue yesterday, the Justice Department cites the material as evidence that Congress intended the Detainee Treatment Act to retroactively invalidate pending legal challenges by hundreds of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Graham and Kyl submitted a friend-of-the-court brief asserting the same thing.

Some Democrats, including Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), whose name is also on the amendment to the law, have argued otherwise. They contend that the law was written to allow cases filed before its enactment to go forward.

The inserted floor debate, known in Senate parlance as a "colloquy," has since become an intriguing side issue in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former driver, whose case was at issue before the court yesterday.

Hamdan's lawyers complained about the colloquy in a recent legal filing, and the origin of Graham's and Kyl's comments has drawn recent attention on legal Web sites and on Slate.com. The subject did not come up during yesterday's Supreme Court argument, which focused on broader issues.

The briefs filed in support of the government do not make clear that the Graham-Kyl debate was manufactured. In their friend-of-the-court brief, filed in February, Graham and Kyl note that the "Congressional Record is presumed to reflect live debate except when the statements therein are followed by a bullet . . . or are underlined."

The Graham-Kyl exchange is not marked in either way, although a C-SPAN recording and other records make clear that the discussion never happened.

Members of the House and Senate routinely insert lengthy statements into the Congressional Record without uttering them on the floor or anywhere else. But Senate historian Richard Baker said that colloquies -- contrived debates between two or more lawmakers -- are relatively rare. Baker said he could not recall another example that included feigned banter of the type found in the Graham and Kyl debate.

David H. Remes, a Washington lawyer who has helped Hamdan's defense team, called the colloquy "outrageous."

"This colloquy is critical to the government's legislative history argument, and it's entirely manufactured and misrepresented to the court as having occurred live on the Senate floor before a crucial vote," Remes said.

Representatives from Kyl's and Graham's offices did not respond to telephone messages yesterday. A spokesman for Levin and a spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment.


Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:38 AM

Senate Rejects New Office to Investigate Ethics Violations

ABC News
Senate Nixes New Ethics Violations Office
Senate Rejects New Office to Investigate Ethics Violations
By JIM ABRAMS
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Tuesday rejected the notion that it could not discipline itself, defeating a proposal to create an office to investigate possible ethics violations.

Senators rejected the idea of an Office of Public Integrity by a 67-30 vote as they moved toward a Wednesday vote on legislation to tighten rules and laws covering congressional contacts with lobbyists. With Congress trying to restore its scandal-tainted reputation before the fall election, passage is a near-certainty.

Opposition to the new office was led by members of the existing ethics committee. They insisted that the current system of self-policing was working fine and the proposed office would duplicate their work.

It's "off-target and unnecessary," said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, chairman of the six-member ethics committee. "It will simply replicate the tasks that the ethics committee does every day."

Many advocates of a lobbying overhaul, joined by clean government advocacy groups, have maintained that an independent ethics commission must be an important of any legislation. They say the ethics committees, particularly in the more partisan House, have proved incapable of addressing the lobbying scandals and ethical problems that have plagued Congress in recent years.

"It's very difficult for us to investigate ourselves," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and co-sponsor of the amendment with the committee's Democratic leader, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.

The new office, she said, "would remove the cloud of doubt and suspicion that often hangs over members of Congress unfairly."

With the approval rating of Congress down to about 25 percent, said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., "shouldn't we do what we can to fix either a real or imagined problem that we have with the people that we serve?"

Collins' own committee this month rejected the idea of the ethics office, reflecting the strong resistance to what some saw as an attempt to undermine the constitutional duty of lawmakers to set their own rules. Before the proposal went to the full Senate, Collins changed it to reduce the powers of an ethics office, assuring that the ethics committee would retain authority over investigations and could overrule the office. The proposal was rejected nonetheless.

The Senate approved, by 84-13, a proposal by Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, to end the practice of secret "holds" in which a single senator can block action on legislation.

The amendment requires a lawmaker who holds up legislation to identify himself. Senators who put holds on legislation, sometimes to gain leverage on other bills or issues they are promoting, "ought to have guts enough" to let the public know, Grassley said.

Normally it takes a 60-vote majority to overcome a hold and proceed to a vote on a blocked bill or nomination.

The Senate lobbying bill is a response to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and other ethical questions that have rocked Congress in the past year. The measure would ban lawmakers from accepting meals from lobbyists, require lobbyists to make quarterly reports of their contacts with lawmakers, and force lawmakers to wait two years before accepting jobs lobbying Congress, compared with the current one-year moratorium.

The bill also sets up a procedure by which lawmakers can try to eliminate from legislation those earmarks, or specific projects, that often are inserted without the knowledge or vote of other members.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has told senators he wants to start debate on immigration reform legislation this week, pressing them to finish up work on the lobbying bill.

One other major issue still to be addressed is whether to ban travel on corporate jets. The current bill requires lobbyists to disclose itemized expenditures for any travel for public officials they arrange. The House has yet to take up similar legislation emphasizing greater disclosure of lobbyist activity.

The Senate debated the legislation while House Republicans stepped up their call for a measure reining in outside political groups that are permitted to accept donations of unlimited size. Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said the proposal would close a loophole that exists despite enactment of a law in 2002 banning federal office holders and candidates as well as the political parties from accepting unlimited donations.

"Our goal is to make sure our constituents know we are acting with integrity," said Cantor, a member of the GOP leadership. He and other Republicans cited a report by the Treasury Department's inspector general that said these groups may owe as much as $9.4 million in taxes on donations they received before filing necessary paperwork with the government.

They released a letter urging Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Mark Everson to prosecute "to the fullest extent of the law" groups that failed to pay their taxes or disclose information about their donors.

Republicans earlier made clear they hope to reduce the clout of these groups, arguing that Democrats benefit disproportionately from their existence.

On the Net:

Information on the bill, S. 2349, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/



Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:36 AM

Justices Hint That They'll Rule on Challenge Filed by Detainee

The New York Times
Justices Hint That They'll Rule on Challenge Filed by Detainee
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON, March 28 — As the justices of the Supreme Court took their seats Tuesday morning to hear Osama bin Laden's former driver challenge the Bush administration's plan to try him before a military commission, one question — perhaps the most important one — was how protective the justices would be of their jurisdiction to decide the case.

The answer emerged gradually, but by the end of the tightly packed 90-minute argument, it was fairly clear: highly protective.

At least five justices — Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens — appeared ready to reject the administration's argument that the Detainee Treatment Act, passed and signed into law after the court accepted the case in November, had stripped the court of jurisdiction.

It was less certain by the end of the argument how the court would then go on to resolve the merits of the case, a multipronged attack on the validity of the military commissions themselves and on their procedures. Lawyers for the former driver, a Yemeni named Salim Ahmed Hamdan who is charged with conspiracy, also argue that he cannot properly be tried before any military commission for that crime because conspiracy is not recognized as a war crime.

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement was on the defensive throughout his argument. His stolid refusal to concede that any of the government's positions, on the jurisdictional as well as ultimate questions of the case, might present even theoretical problems provoked the normally soft-spoken Justice Souter into an outburst of anger.

What appeared to trouble Justice Souter most was Mr. Clement's discussion with Justice Stevens about whether Congress's removal of the federal courts' jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from detainees at the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, amounted to "suspending" the writ of habeas corpus.

Suspending habeas corpus is an action, limited by the Constitution to "cases of rebellion or invasion," that Congress has taken only four times in the country's history. Habeas corpus is the means by which prisoners can go to court to challenge the lawfulness of their confinement, and its suspension is historically regarded as a serious, if not drastic, step.

Mr. Clement's position was that Congress had not in fact suspended habeas corpus, but that it might constitutionally have done so given "the exigencies of 9/11." Addressing Justice Stevens, the solicitor general said, "My view would be that if Congress sort of stumbles upon a suspension of the writ, that the preconditions are satisfied, that would still be constitutionally valid."

Justice Souter interrupted. "Isn't there a pretty good argument that suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is just about the most stupendously significant act that the Congress of the United States can take," he asked, "and therefore we ought to be at least a little slow to accept your argument that it can be done from pure inadvertence?"

When Mr. Clement began to answer, Justice Souter persisted: "You are leaving us with the position of the United States that the Congress may validly suspend it inadvertently. Is that really your position?"

The solicitor general replied, "I think at least if you're talking about the extension of the writ to enemy combatants held outside the territory of the United States —— "

"Now wait a minute!" Justice Souter interrupted, waving a finger. "The writ is the writ. There are not two writs of habeas corpus, for some cases and for other cases. The rights that may be asserted, the rights that may be vindicated, will vary with the circumstances, but jurisdiction over habeas corpus is jurisdiction over habeas corpus."

Justice Breyer, in his questioning of Mr. Clement, practically begged the solicitor general to endorse an alternative approach that would allow the court to avoid "the most terribly difficult and important constitutional question of whether Congress can constitutionally deprive this court of jurisdiction in habeas corpus cases."

The alternative at hand was the one offered by Mr. Hamdan's lawyer, Neal Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown University. That was to interpret the Detainee Treatment Act as applying only prospectively, stripping federal courts of hearing future cases brought by the detainees but allowing the Supreme Court to continue with at least this one.

The argument was a textual one, based on a slight change in wording from the measure originally proposed by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, to the version the Senate eventually passed after Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, and others raised objections to taking the Hamdan case away from the Supreme Court.

Mr. Graham, who filed a brief in this case, and the administration maintain that the change was immaterial. But the justices appeared ready to embrace the ambiguity if it would allow them to retain jurisdiction and proceed with the case.

Only eight justices will vote in the case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, No. 05-184. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is not sitting, because he was a member of the three-judge panel of the federal appeals court here that rejected Mr. Hamdan's challenge to the military commissions in a decision last July.

Of the other members of the court, Justice Antonin Scalia appeared most supportive of the administration. He intervened several times to offer Mr. Clement a helping hand, something the solicitor general rarely needs but accepted gratefully.



For example, Justice Kennedy was questioning Mr. Clement on the government's position that even if the court had jurisdiction, it should abstain from ruling on the validity of the military commission until after Mr. Hamdan's trial.

Justice Kennedy said he found the argument troubling, pointing out that Mr. Hamdan was arguing that because the commissions lacked the procedures required by the Geneva Conventions, they were invalid. "The historic office of habeas corpus is to test whether or not you're being tried by a lawful tribunal," Justice Kennedy said. "And he says, under the Geneva Convention, as you know, that it isn't."

Mr. Clement replied that Mr. Hamdan could raise that argument later, before the military commission itself. He predicted that the argument would fail and said that in any event, there was no reason "why that claim has to be brought at this stage."

Justice Scalia then jumped in to support the solicitor general. "In the normal criminal suit," he said, "even if you claim that the forum is not properly constituted, that claim is not adjudicated immediately."

[NOTE: Five retired generals and admirals urged Scalia to remove himself because of recent remarks he made in Switzerland dismissing the idea that the prisoners have constitutional rights.]

Along with Justice Scalia, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. also appeared to support the argument that the court should allow the trial to go forward. Justice Clarence Thomas alone asked no questions.

Mr. Clement argued that the detainee law would allow a detainee to argue in federal court, after a conviction by a military commission, that the commission's procedures were illegal or unconstitutional.

Justice Ginsburg then asked him to "straighten me out." She said, "I thought it was the government's position that these enemy combatants do not have any rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States."

"That is true, Justice Ginsburg," the solicitor general answered.

Mr. Hamdan's lawyer, Mr. Katyal, appeared to get traction with his argument that conspiracy, with which Mr. Hamdan and nine other detainees awaiting military commissions have been charged, is not an appropriate crime for a trial before a military commission. If a majority agrees, this might provide a narrow way of resolving the case.

In many respects, the argument marked a resumption of the encounter between the court and the Bush administration two years ago, in cases that led to the court's rejection of the administration's claim to broad authority to proceed without judicial oversight. The administration was once again seeking "fundamentally open-ended authority," the "blank check" the court had rejected then, Mr. Katyal said.





Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:33 AM

Halliburton overcharged for Iraq oil work

Reuters
Halliburton overcharged for Iraq oil work: report
By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Halliburton Co., the world's second largest oil services company, repeatedly overcharged taxpayers and provided substandard cost reports under a $1.2 billion contract to restore Iraq's southern oil fields, according to a new report by U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman.

Waxman, a California Democrat, said Democratic staff members of the House Committee on Government Reform examined a series of previously undisclosed government audits and correspondence that criticized Halliburton's performance under the "Restore Iraqi Oil 2" (RIO2) contract.

The documents, which cover the period from January 2004 to July 2005, painted "an absolutely abysmal picture of Halliburton's RIO2 work" and cited profound systemic problems, misleading and distorted cost reports, he said.

Halliburton, a Texas-based company formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, dismissed the committee report as partisan and said it focused on old issues with the two-year contract that have been resolved.

"After two years and from thousands of miles away, it is easy to criticize decisions and actions that were based on urgent mission requirements and severe time constraints," the company said in a statement.

Halliburton, the largest private contractor in Iraq, said the contract went through "countless changes" and review by at least 15 different government contracting officials.

Waxman, who has introduced legislation to limit sole-source contracts in the future, said lawmakers did not know much about what had happened with the contract since July 2005, adding: "From what we can see, major problems remain."

Halliburton said its engineering and construction arm KBR, which is gearing up for an initial public stock offering, had received 30 task orders under the contract to date, for a total current value of nearly $750 million and work was ongoing.

The Democratic report said that, in addition to the RIO 2 contract, Halliburton was also paid $13.5 billion for providing troop support under a logistics contract with the U.S. Army, and $2.4 billion under the original RIO contract to import fuel into Iraq and rebuild Iraq oil infrastructure.

The Pentagon's Project and Contracting Office (PCO) found that Halliburton repeatedly overcharged the government, Waxman said, citing the documents.

PCO put KBR on notice in January 2005 that it could cancel the contract for cause. It lifted the notice six months later, saying KBR demonstrated "adequate" compliance. In January, it exercised one of three one-year options to extend the deal.

In one case, the agency said Halliburton tried to inflate cost estimates by $26 million. In another, it said Halliburton claimed costs for laying concrete pads and footings that the Iraqi Oil Ministry had already installed.

The report said the same agency reported Halliburton was "accruing exorbitant indirect costs at a rapid rate," while the Defense Contract Audit Agency challenged $45 million of $365 million in costs as unreasonable or unsupported.

The PCO also cited "profound systemic problems" with Halliburton's cost reporting and said some documents were stripped of information that would allow tracking of details.

It said Halliburton's work under RIO 2 was 50 percent late and officials refused to cooperate with oversight officials.

Halliburton, run by Cheney from 1995-2000, has been under scrutiny for its contracts in Iraq.



Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:26 AM

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

U.S. Review Panel That Approved Dubai Ports Deal Prevents Sale of Software Security Firm to Israeli Company

Technology Review
U.S. Prevents Sale of Software Security Firm

The FBI and Pentagon have stopped the purchase of a U.S. software company by an Israeli competitor.

The investigation was carried out by the same U.S. review panel that approved the now-abandoned ports deal involving Dubai-owned DP World.

By Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A leading Israeli software company failed to resolve security objections by the Bush administration over its plans to buy a smaller U.S. technology rival and abruptly abandoned the US$225 million (euro187 million) deal.

Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. of Ramat Gan, Israel, withdrew its plans Thursday near the conclusion of a rare, full-blown investigation by a U.S. review panel over the company's plans to buy Sourcefire Inc.

Check Point had been told U.S. officials feared the transaction could endanger some of government's most sensitive computer systems.

Lawyers for the companies offered to attach conditions to the sale that executives believed were onerous, but were intended to satisfy the concerns expressed by the review panel, said one person familiar with the process. But no agreement could be reached.

The Treasury Department, which oversees the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, formally accepted Check Point's request to withdraw from the review process.

The objections by the FBI and Pentagon were partly over specialized intrusion detection software known as ''Snort,'' which guards some classified U.S. military and intelligence computers.

Snort's author is a senior executive at Sourcefire, based in Columbia, Maryland, near the ultra-secret National Security Agency.

The investigation was carried out by the same U.S. review panel that approved the now-abandoned ports deal involving Dubai-owned DP World.

Sourcefire said in a statement it was prepared to continue operating independently as a booming software security company. One financial analyst said Sourcefire may limit future transactions with U.S.-based companies to avoid another security review.

''Given the CFIUS concerns, they may have to limit their potential partners,'' said Peter Kuper of Morgan Stanley. ''A U.S. acquirer would be a lot simpler and cleaner.''

In private meetings between the panel and Check Point, FBI and Pentagon officials objected forcefully to letting any foreign company acquire some sensitive Sourcefire technology for preventing hacker break-ins and monitoring data traffic, an executive familiar with the discussions previously told The Associated Press. This executive spoke on condition of anonymity because government negotiations are supposed to remain confidential.

Under the sale, publicly announced Oct. 6, Check Point would have owned all Sourcefire's patents, source-code blueprints for its software and the expertise of employees.

The review panel privately notified Check Point on Feb. 6 it intended to fully investigate the transaction's security risks, the executive said. That was days before the furor erupted over the Dubai ports deal.

Check Point disclosed the news to investors Feb. 13, but the announcement drew little attention despite escalating scrutiny and interest in Washington over such reviews.

The U.S. committee has concluded only 25 full-blown investigations in more than 1,600 business transactions it has reviewed since 1988. In roughly half the investigations, companies pulled out of the deal rather than face imminent rejection.

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 11:12 AM

Waiting for Macguffin

huffingtonpost.com
Waiting for Macguffin
Peter Allan

In his films Alfred Hitchcock often introduced characters and sub-plots whose sole purpose was to distract the viewer while more important information was kept unobtrusively in the background for maximum effect when later revealed during a film's climactic moment. Hitchcock called these cinematic devices "Macguffins." The Macguffin should be familiar to any voter who has watched Republican electoral strategy evolve over the past several decades.

Most Americans do not have upper management positions with Fortune 500 companies nor do they hold inherited seven-figure stock portfolios. Accordingly, if voters focused on it, a majority would probably oppose the Bush-league economic policy of tax breaks for the very rich, corporate welfare for the very powerful, and revolving-door industry regulation that leaves the fox guarding the henhouse.

But voters rarely do focus on the central plotline. Instead, cleverly scripted campaigns divert and distract with emotional Macguffin-like wedge issues complete with entertaining sound-bites that can be re-run ad nauseum on right wing media outlets like Fox News, the Drudge Report, and the Rush Limbaugh show.

During the Presidential election Macguffin reared his head in the now forgotten push for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Early as it is in this Congressional election year, I think I have spotted Macguffin in the drive to felonize illegal immigration. This classic wedge issue will be used to frighten blue-collar workers while subtly playing upon unspoken racial prejudices. Willie Horton couldn't have done a better re-write.

But maybe this time voters will ignore the noise machine long enough to hold this Republican-dominated Congress accountable for its rampant corruption, its environmental negligence, its erosion of our civil liberties, its lazy acquiescence on matters of national security, and its refusal to act like an equal branch of government when confronted by Presidential arrogance and bullying. If they don't, all I can say is we had all better lock the door the next time we take a shower.

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 2:01 AM

Iraq wants US to cede control after raid

Reuters
Iraq wants US to cede control after raid
By Omar al-Ibadi and Alastair Macdonald

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's ruling parties demanded U.S. forces cede control of security on Monday as the government launched an inquiry into a raid on a Shi'ite mosque complex that ministers said saw "cold blooded" killings by U.S.-led troops.

U.S. commanders rejected the charges and said their accusers faked evidence by moving bodies of gunmen killed fighting Iraqi troops in an office compound. It was not a mosque, they said.

As Shi'ite militiamen fulminated over Sunday's deaths of at least 16 people in Baghdad, an al Qaeda-led group said it staged one of the bloodiest Sunni insurgent attacks in months. A suicide bomber killed 40 Iraqi army recruits in northern Iraq.

The Iraqi Defense Ministry said a suicide bomber wearing an explosive belt also wounded 30 at a base near Mosul.

After 24 hours of limited communication, U.S. commanders mounted a media offensive to deny Shi'ite accounts of a mosque massacre and portray instead a bold and disciplined operation by U.S.-trained Iraqi special forces that killed 16 fighters and freed a hapless Iraqi hostage being held to ransom for $20,000.

Three gunmen were wounded and 18 people detained, he added.

"After the fact, someone went in and made the scene look different from what it was," Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli said of footage aired extensively on state television showing the bodies of apparently unarmed civilians in a mosque.

"There's been huge misinformation," he said. He insisted he did not know the religious affiliation of the group targeted, although the raid was the fruit of lengthy intelligence work.

He did not spell out his criticism of the Shi'ite political groups who made the massacre accusations. Confrontation between the Iranian-linked Shi'ite leaders and U.S. forces comes at a sensitive time when Washington is pressing them to forge a unity government with minority Sunnis to avert civil war.

ACCUSATION

Iraq's security minister accused U.S. and Iraqi forces of killing 37 unarmed civilians in the mosque after tying them up.

Residents and police, who put the death toll among the troops' opponents at around 20, spoke of a fierce battle between the soldiers and gunmen from the Mehdi Army militia of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose followers ran the mosque.

Though Chiarelli stressed his forces did not view the site targeted as a mosque, neighbors and clerics insisted it was. It was not, however, a typical religious building but a compound of former Baath party offices converted by Sadr followers.

Despite confusions, one thing was certain: Shi'ite leaders are up in arms against the U.S. forces who brought them to power by ousting Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated Baathist regime.

"The Alliance calls for a rapid restoration of (control of) security matters to the Iraqi government," Jawad al-Maliki, a senior spokesman of the Shi'ite Islamist Alliance and ally of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, told a news conference.

The United States handed over formal sovereignty in 2004 but 133,000 troops in the country give it the main say in security.

Baghdad provincial governor Hussein al-Tahan said he would halt all cooperation with U.S. forces.

Aides to Sadr denied any Mehdi Army fighters were present.

But witnesses spoke of a lengthy gun battle: "The shooting lasted for more than an hour," shopkeeper Ali Abdul Jabbar said.

SADR

The fiery young cleric's militia was ordered to disband after U.S. forces crushed uprisings in 2004. But it remains a force in southern Iraq and eastern Baghdad, and is accused by U.S. officials of some of the violence that killed hundreds of Sunnis after last month's bombing of a Shi'ite shrine.

Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, at the center of urgent U.S. efforts to stem violence by creating a unity government, has said in recent days that the militias must be brought to heel and accused Iran of funding and training some armed groups. He said militias are now killing more Iraqis than the insurgents.

Khalilzad plans ground-breaking talks with Iran to try to break the deadlock over the formation of a unity government.

Iranian backing seems to have been critical in pushing Sadr to kingmaker status within the Alliance and to securing the nomination of Dawa party leader Jaafari to a second term. Sunni and Kurdish opposition to Jaafari is blocking a government deal.

Alliance leaders stayed away from the daily round of talks on the government, saying the mosque incident kept them busy.

President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, who has been hosting the negotiations said: "We have to know the truth about what happened, and we must not be driven by rumours. This is a very dangerous incident which we must investigate."

(Additional reporting by Michael Georgy, Mariam Karouny, Terry Friel, Hiba Moussa and Aseel Kami)



Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 2:00 AM

Iraqi Documents Are Put on Web, and Search Is On

The New York Times
Iraqi Documents Are Put on Web, and Search Is On
By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, March 27 — American intelligence agencies and presidential commissions long ago concluded that Saddam Hussein had no unconventional weapons and no substantive ties to Al Qaeda before the 2003 invasion.

But now, an unusual experiment in public access is giving anyone with a computer a chance to play intelligence analyst and second-guess the government.

Under pressure from Congressional Republicans, the director of national intelligence has begun a yearlong process of posting on the Web 48,000 boxes of Arabic-language Iraqi documents captured by American troops.

Less than two weeks into the project, and with only 600 out of possibly a million documents and video and audio files posted, some conservative bloggers are already asserting that the material undermines the official view.

On his blog last week, Ray Robison, a former Army officer from Alabama, quoted a document reporting a supposed scheme to put anthrax into American leaflets dropped in Iraq and declared: "Saddam's W.M.D. and terrorist connections all proven in one document!!!"

Not so, American intelligence officials say. "Our view is there's nothing in here that changes what we know today," said a senior intelligence official, who would discuss the program only on condition of anonymity because the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, directed his staff to avoid public debates over the documents. "There is no smoking gun on W.M.D., Al Qaeda, those kinds of issues."

All the documents, which are available on fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm, have received at least a quick review by Arabic linguists and do not alter the government's official stance, officials say. On some tapes already released, in fact, Mr. Hussein expressed frustration that he did not have unconventional weapons.

Intelligence officials had serious concerns about turning loose an army of amateurs on a warehouse full of raw documents that include hearsay, disinformation and forgery. Mr. Negroponte's office attached a disclaimer to the documents, only a few of which have been translated into English, saying the government did not vouch for their authenticity.

Another administration official described the political logic: "If anyone in the intelligence community thought there was valid information in those documents that supported either of those questions — W.M.D. or Al Qaeda — they would have shouted them from the rooftops."

But Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and who led the campaign to get the documents released, does not believe they have received adequate scrutiny. Mr. Hoekstra said he wanted to "unleash the power of the Net" to do translation and analysis that might take the government decades.

"People today ought to be able to have a closer look inside Saddam's regime," he said.

Mr. Hoekstra said intelligence officials had resisted posting the documents, which he overcame by appealing to President Bush and by proposing legislation to force the release.

The timing gives the documents a potent political charge. Public doubts about the war have driven Mr. Bush's approval rating to new lows. A renewed debate over Saddam Hussein's weapons and terrorist ties could raise the president's standing.

"As an historian, I'm glad to have the material out there," said John Prados, who has written books on national security, including one that accuses the administration of distorting prewar intelligence. He said the records were likely to shed new light on the Iraqi dictatorship. Some of the documents, also included in a new study by the United States military, already have caused a stir by suggesting that Russian officials passed American war plans to Mr. Hussein's government as the invasion began.

But Mr. Prados said the document release "can't be divorced from the political context."

"The administration is under fire for going to war when there was no threat — so the idea here must be to say there was a threat," he said.

That is already the assertion of a growing crowd of bloggers and translators, almost exclusively on the right. So far they have highlighted documents that refer to a meeting between Osama bin Laden and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Sudan in 1995; a plan to train Arab militants as suicide bombers; and a 1997 document discussing the use of "special ammunition," chemical weapons, against the Kurds.

But the anthrax document that intrigued Mr. Robison, the Alabama blogger, does not seem to prove much. It is a message from the Quds Army, a regional militia created by Mr. Hussein, to Iraqi military intelligence that passes on reports picked up by troops, possibly from the radio, since the information is labeled "open source" and "impaired broadcast." No anthrax was found in Iraq by American search teams.

"No offense, but the mainstream media tells people what they want them to know," said Mr. Robison, who worked in Qatar for the Iraq Survey Group, which did an exhaustive search for weapons in Iraq.

The document release may help the president, he said, but that is not the point. "It's not about politics," Mr. Robison said. "It's about the truth."

The truth about prewar Iraq has proven elusive. The February 2003 presentation Colin L. Powell, the secretary of state at the time, to the United Nations appeared to provide incontrovertible proof of Iraqi weapons, but the claims in the speech have since been discredited.

Given that track record, some intelligence analysts are horrified at exactly the idea that excites Mr. Hoekstra and the bloggers: that anyone will now be able to interpret the documents.

"There's no quality control," said Michael Scheuer, a former Central Intelligence Agency specialist on terrorism. "You'll have guys out there with a smattering of Arabic drawing all kinds of crazy conclusions. Rush Limbaugh will cherry-pick from the right, and Al Franken will cherry-pick from the left."

Conservative publications have pushed for months to have the documents made public. In November, Mr. Hoekstra and Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, asked Mr. Negroponte to post the material.

When that request stalled, Mr. Hoekstra introduced a bill on March 3 that would have forced the posting. Mr. Negroponte began the release two weeks later.

Under the program, documents are withheld only if they include information like the names of Iraqis raped by the secret police, instructions for using explosives, intelligence sources or "diplomatically sensitive" material.

In addition, the intelligence official said, known forgeries are not posted. He said the database included "a fair amount of forgeries," sold by Iraqi hustlers or concocted by Iraqis opposed to Mr. Hussein.

In previous Internet projects, volunteers have tested software, scanned chemical compounds for useful drugs and even searched radiotelescope data for signals from extraterrestrial life.

The same volunteer spirit, though with a distinct political twist, motivates the Arabic speakers who are posting English versions of the Iraqi documents.

"I'm trying to pick up documents that shed light on the political debate," said Joseph G. Shahda, 34, a Lebanese-born engineer who lives in a Boston suburb and is spending hours every evening on translations for the conservative Free Republic site. "I think we prematurely concluded there was no W.M.D. and no ties to Al Qaeda."

Mr. Shahda said he was proud he could help make the documents public. "I live in this great country, and it's a time of war," he said. "This is the least I can do."





Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:57 AM

Retired generals want Scalia off Gitmo case

USA TODAY
Retired generals want Scalia off Gitmo case

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was asked Monday to stay out of a case involving a foreign detainee because of remarks Scalia made about the rights of enemy combatants.

Speaking at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland on March 8, Scalia said foreigners waging war against the United States have no rights under the Constitution.

Justices were hearing arguments Tuesday in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden. His lawyers argue that President Bush overstepped his authority when he ordered Hamdan and other alleged enemy combatants to face special military trials.

Hamdan's lawyers have not called for Scalia to step aside. Instead, five retired generals who support Hamdan's arguments sent a letter late Monday to the court with the request that Scalia withdraw from participating in the case. They say Scalia appears to have prejudged the case.

The retired generals said Scalia's speech in Switzerland "give rise to the unfortunate appearance that ... the justice had made up his mind about the merits" of Hamdan's arguments.

In the speech, first reported by Newsweek, Scalia repeated his views from 2004 that enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should not have access to U.S. courts and traditional legal rights. (Related stories: Scalia calls Europe 'hypocritical' | Justice doesn't give finger)

The retired generals said that the justice may have "personal animus" to the Hamdan case because he has a son who served in the military in Iraq.

Justices decide for themselves whether they have conflicts and should stay out of cases.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees could use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. Scalia disagreed with that ruling, and in the recent speech repeated his beliefs that enemy combatants have no legal rights.

The Hamdan case will go forward without Chief Justice John Roberts, who had voted in the case as a lower court judge.

The letter came from five retired generals and admirals: Navy Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter; Navy Rear Adm. John D. Hutson; Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn; Marine Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms; and Army Brig. Gen. James P. Cullen.


Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-27-scalia-guantanamo_x.htm




Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:55 AM

Is the press being hoodwinked by Bush again?

The New York Times
For Bush and Press, Informal Talks
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

President Bush has been holding informal off-the-record sessions with major news organizations over the last several days.

Starting Thursday, he began meeting with groups of about a half-dozen reporters from newspapers, television, news agencies and magazines. They have discussed a variety of issues including the war in Iraq, said a reporter who attended a session.

The meetings, which the journalists have agreed not to describe publicly, have been in the White House residence. They come as several news organizations have assigned new reporters, who had no relationship with Mr. Bush, to cover the White House.

David Bohrman, the Washington bureau chief for CNN, one of whose reporters attended a session, said they were a good idea.

"Most of the time, the environments that our reporters deal with the president in are very structured, very managed, and they rarely get to just kick back and have a conversation," he said. "I think there's a lot of value in it for both sides."

He also said he did not see the sessions as compromising. "If something pops up in there that someone wants to follow, they are free to follow up on it," he said.

The New York Times, which was invited to attend a session today, has declined to participate.

Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief for The Times, said in a statement last night: "The Times has declined this opportunity after weighing the potential benefits to our readers against the prospect of withholding information from them about the discussion with Mr. Bush. As a matter of policy and practice, we would prefer when possible to conduct on-the-record interviews with public officials."

Times editors and reporters have participated in such unreported sessions with several presidents, including Mr. Bush, over the years. These have involved both social situations and substantive discussions.

This appears to be the first time that the Bush administration has systematically brought in members of the White House press corps, although Mr. Bush holds an annual off-the-record barbecue with reporters during his summer vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Tex.

One reporter who attended a recent session said Mr. Bush had appeared relaxed and seemed to enjoy showing the group around the residence. They met in the yellow oval room and were taken out on the Truman balcony. A few of Mr. Bush's aides were present as the reporters were served iced tea, water and soda and chatted for about an hour.

Mr. Bush does better in such informal sessions than in formal presentations, said Mr. Bohrman, who added that he would like to see more.




Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:53 AM

FBI still doesn't have viable computer system

The New York Times
Keystone Komputers

It may sound incredible to anyone who's ever used the Internet, but the Federal Bureau of Investigation has struggled unsuccessfully for 10 years to come up with a workable computer system. The idea is to allow agents to quickly share discoveries and analyze information in ongoing investigations. The problem surfaced most grimly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks when it emerged that the F.B.I.'s 1980's-era technology could not cross-reference words — like, say, "flight" and "schools" — for any agent who might have had advance suspicions about the suicide attackers' preparations.

After 9/11, the bureau started an urgent and very expensive program to fix the problem. But now we discover, equally grimly, that the search for high-tech sleuthing could take four more years and a half-billion dollars. The first effort, called the Virtual Case File, was a complete failure and was ignominiously closed at a cost of $170 million. The next effort was called Sentinel, but it is already stirring doubts from the Justice Department's inspector general. Among other worrisome signs is the bureau's borrowing of $29 million from its counterterrorism budget to bolster the push for computer overhaul. Any large enterprise can suffer technological shortcomings, but the bureau stands out for having a third of the project's 76 oversight slots vacant as of January, and a director on loan from the Central Intelligence Agency.

Most alarming of all, the inspector general concluded that even if the F.B.I. finally came up with a workable model, there would be no guarantee that it would solve the most crucial issue — agents' inability to share information with the myriad of other government departments involved in the detection of terrorism.


Surely the White House should be prodding the bureau to do better.





Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:49 AM

Activists want public to know terror case ruling

USA TODAY
Activists want public to know terror case ruling

NEW YORK (AP) — A civil liberties group asked an appeals court on Monday to force a federal judge to unseal a ruling he made in a terrorism case regarding the government's warrantless wiretapping program.

The judge's sealing of the ruling without an explanation is unprecedented, the New York Civil Liberties Union said.

"Courts do not have authority to issue entire opinions in secret," the group said.

The group's submission to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came in the case of two Muslims accused of supporting terrorism. The NYCLU asked to intervene three days after defense lawyers for the men asked the same appeals court to say the judge erred in letting authorities keep information about wiretaps secret.

The two men — Yassin Aref, imam at an Albany mosque, and Mohammed Hossain, a pizzeria owner and mosque member — are accused of laundering money in 2003-04 for an FBI informant, a Pakistani businessman posing as an arms dealer.

The mosque was raided by federal agents in August 2004 following a yearlong sting aimed at Aref.

The defense lawyers argued that charges against their clients should be tossed out and evidence from wiretaps should be suppressed because illegal wiretaps may have been used.

The NYCLU noted in its papers that the judge rejected the defendants' suppression motion less than two hours after the government on March 10 submitted a secret court document opposing it.

The judge's classified ruling leaves his reasons secret, and an after-hours call to his clerk's office Monday wasn't immediately returned.

The NYCLU said the First Amendment requires U.S. District Judge Thomas McAvoy in Albany to make public his ruling and the government's submission or to find a narrowly tailored response to the need to protect classified national security information.

The NYCLU asked the appeals court to order the judge to release his opinion publicly with redactions only to the extent necessary to protect classified information.

"It's not a surprise that the government wants this to be secret, but it's extraordinary for a court to go along," said Chris Dunn, NYCLU associate legal director.

Assistant U.S. Attorney William Pericek declined to comment.


Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-27-mosque-secrecy_x.htm





Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:48 AM

Radioactive Material Is Smuggled Across U.S. Borders in GAO Security Tests Last Year

ABC News
Radioactive Matter Gets Into U.S. in Test
Radioactive Material Is Smuggled Across U.S. Borders in GAO Security Tests Last Year
By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Undercover investigators slipped radioactive material enough to make two small "dirty bombs" across U.S. borders in Texas and Washington state in a test last year of security at American points of entry.

Radiation alarms at the unidentified sites detected the small amounts of cesium-137, a nuclear material used in industrial gauges. But U.S. customs agents permitted the investigators to enter the United States because they were tricked with counterfeit documents.

The Bush administration said Monday that within 45 days it will give U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents the tools they need to verify such documents in the future.

The Government Accountability Office's report, the subject of a Senate hearing Tuesday, said detection equipment used by U.S. customs agents to screen people, vehicles and cargo for radioactive substances appeared to work as designed.

But the investigation, carried out simultaneously at both border crossings in December 2005, also identified potential security holes terrorists might be able to exploit to sneak nuclear materials into the United States.

"This operation demonstrated that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is stuck in a pre-9/11 mind-set in a post-9/11 world and must modernize its procedures," Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said Monday in a statement.

The NRC, in charge of overseeing nuclear reactor and nuclear substance safety, challenged that notion.

"Security has been of prime importance for us on the materials front and the power plant front since 9/11," commission spokesman David McIntyre said in an interview.

The head of the Homeland Security Department's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Vayl Oxford, said the substance could have been used in a radiological weapon with limited effects.

A Senate Homeland Security subcommittee, which Coleman leads, released details of the investigation and two GAO reports on radiation detectors and port security before hearings on the issues this week.

The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, also found that installation of radiation detectors is taking too long and costing more money than the U.S. expected. It said the Homeland Security Department's goal of installing 3,034 detectors by September 2009 across the United States at border crossings, seaports, airports and mail facilities was "unlikely" to be met and said the government probably will spend $342 million more than it expects.

Between October 2000 and October 2005, the GAO said, the government spent about $286 million installing radiation monitors inside the United States.

To test security at U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada, GAO investigators represented themselves as employees of a fake company. When stopped, they presented counterfeit shipping papers and NRC documents that allegedly permitted them to receive, acquire, possess and transfer radioactive substances.

Investigators found that customs agents weren't able to check whether a person caught with radioactive materials was permitted to possess the materials under a government-issued license.

"Unless nuclear smugglers in possession of faked license documents raised suspicions in some other way, CBP officers could follow agency guidelines yet unwittingly allow them to enter the country with their illegal nuclear cargo," a report said. It described this problem as "a significant gap" in the nation's safety procedures.

Jayson Ahern, the assistant customs commissioner for field operations, said a system for customs agents to confirm the authenticity of government licenses will be in place within 45 days. Ahern noted the radiation detectors had sounded alarms.

"We're pleased when a test like this is able to demonstrate the efficacy of our technology," Ahern said.

False radiation alarms are common sometimes occurring more than 100 times a day although the GAO said inspectors generally do a good job distinguishing nuisance alarms from actual ones. False alarms can be caused by ceramics, fertilizers, bananas and even patients who have recently undergone some types of medical procedures.

At one port which investigators did not identify a director frustrated over false alarms was worried that backed-up trains might block the entrance to a nearby military base until an alarm was checked out. The director's solution: simply turn off the radiation detector.

Associated Press writer Ted Bridis contributed to this report.

On the Net:

Customs and Border Protection: http://www.cbp.gov/

Government Accountability Office: http://www.gao.gov/




Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:45 AM

Monday, March 27, 2006

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed the idea that Guantanamo detainees have constitutional rights

Reuters
US high court judge said to slam detainee rights
By Alister Bull

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed the idea that Guantanamo detainees have constitutional rights and called European concerns over the issue hypocritical, Newsweek magazine reported on Sunday.

The comments, which Newsweek said were recorded at a private appearance by Scalia in Switzerland on March 8, emerge before a Supreme Court hearing this week on a legal challenge by a Guantanamo prisoner against U.S. military tribunals.

"War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," Scalia said in the talk at the University of Freiburg, according to Newsweek. "Give me a break."

Court officials were not immediately available for comment.

Ethics experts said the impression that Scalia had already made up his mind before the hearing should mean that he will voluntarily drop out of the proceedings. However, Newsweek said he did not refer specifically to this week's case.

"He should remove himself when there is a reasonable doubt of his impartiality," said Father Robert Drinan, a professor of law at Georgetown University and long-standing human rights campaigner, who teaches judicial ethics.

"It should logically be a reason for his recusal but I don't think he'll do it ... he's so stubborn" said Drinan.

Scalia caused an outcry in 2004 for refusing to recuse himself from an energy policy case involving Vice President Dick Cheney, following the disclosure that they had been on a duck-hunting trip together the year before.

Scalia, asked at Freiburg whether detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have protections under international conventions, gave the suggestion short shrift.

'IT'S CRAZY'

"If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son, and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy," he said. Scalia's son Matthew served with the U.S. Army in Iraq.

Newsweek said it had reviewed a recording of the talk.

It said Scalia added that he was "astounded" at "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to the Guantanamo prison.

Lawyers for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, accused of being Osama bin Laden's bodyguard and driver, present oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday to challenge U.S. President George W. Bush's authority to try prisoners before military tribunals.

Chief Justice John Roberts has recused himself from the hearing because he ruled on the case while he was on a federal appeals court. Scalia has previously recused himself from a case -- one involving the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag -- after making public remarks on it.

"A judge has to have an open mind; when he hears the articles and reacts to briefs. If he's made up his mind on a particular issue, he shouldn't be sitting (in)," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

"Here he has publicly said that this is what my position is, before the arguments ... It's really stacking the deck," Ratner said. CCR has argued for Guantanamo prisoner rights.

The Hamdan case is considered an important test of the administration's policy in the war on terrorism. The tribunals, formally called military commissions, were authorized by Bush after the September 11 attacks and have been criticized by human rights groups as being fundamentally unfair.

There are about 500 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

The administration's argument was based on a law signed by Bush on December 30 that limits the ability of Guantanamo prisoners caught in the president's war on terrorism to challenge their detention in federal courts.



Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:37 AM

Official warns of unsecured nuclear reactors

USA TODAY
Official warns of unsecured nuclear reactors
By John Diamond, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — One-third of the world's 130 civilian nuclear research reactors lack security upgrades needed to prevent theft of materials that terrorists could use to build an atomic bomb, the chief U.S. nuclear proliferation official says.

In an interview with USA TODAY, Linton Brooks, director of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said most of these reactors use highly enriched uranium, the easiest fuel used to make atomic bombs. (Related story: U.S. confronts issue of 'loose nukes' on several fronts)

"Fresh" highly enriched uranium — the supply not yet used in reactors — is hard to detect and safe enough to handle with bare hands.

Security was at the heart of the recent furor over a deal that would have turned over terminal management at U.S. ports in six states to a company owned by the Arab emirate of Dubai. Unsecured nuclear fuel, not who manages port terminals, poses the biggest risk for a nuclear weapon entering the USA, said Brooks and former senator Sam Nunn, D-Ga.

The U.S. government won't say specifically where the unsecured reactors are. All reactors in the USA, Russia and Eastern Europe have adequate security, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration and Holly Harrington of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

That's an improvement over 10 years ago when many Soviet bloc research reactors were particularly vulnerable to theft. Eight reactors not in those countries are slated to receive improved perimeter fencing, surveillance cameras and material storage.

That leaves 47 reactors with inadequate or questionable security in China, Ghana, Jamaica, Pakistan and Uzbekistan, according to an International Atomic Energy Agency list. There are also research reactors in countries hostile toward the United States, including Iran and North Korea.

The IAEA, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, says 38 countries have reactors that use highly enriched uranium.

Brooks said security has improved at former Soviet bloc research reactors with U.S. funds of about $1 billion a year. The upgrades were driven by concerns that the sites lacked the security of military bases.

These reactors, often found at universities or hospitals, contain about 18 tons of highly enriched uranium, according to a 2004 Harvard University study. That is enough for 400 to 800 nuclear weapons.

The world's research reactor security efforts are "at about 3" on a 1-to-10 scale with 10 being safest, said Nunn, who helped create the 1991 U.S. plan to secure nuclear materials.



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-26-nuclear-security_x.htm





Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:36 AM

U.S. confronts issue of 'loose nukes' on several fronts

USA TODAY
U.S. confronts issue of 'loose nukes' on several fronts
By John Diamond, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Nuclear materials from Soviet warheads that once threatened U.S. cities are now helping to light them up.

With little fanfare, U.S. utilities have been buying uranium that once sat in Soviet nuclear weapons to fuel civilian nuclear power reactors. The program supplies half the uranium used by U.S. nuclear plants which, in turn, generate 20% of all U.S. commercial power. That means, essentially, that one in every 10 light bulbs in America is powered by uranium that once sat atop a Russian missile.

'MEGATONS TO MEGAWATTS' LIGHTS CITIES

A program to extract nuclear material from dismantled Russian warheads and turn it into fuel in the USA provides about 10% of all electricity in this country.

1: Highly enriched uranium is removed from nuclear warheads.

2: The uranium is stabilized, turned into a gas and then diluted to about 5% of its original concentration of fissionable material.

3: United States Enrichment Corp. takes possession of the material in Russia, ships it to the USA, then processes it into fuel for nuclear power plants.

“Megatons to Megawatts” projections over 20-year life of contract:

• Cost: $12 billion

• Power: 6 trillion kilowatt hours

Energy equivalents:

• 10 billion barrels of oil

• 60 trillion cubic feet of natural gas

• 3 billion tons of coal

Cost equivalents (estimated to produce same amount of electricity today):

• $600 billion in oil

• $420 billion in natural gas

• $43 billion in coal

Linton Brooks, head of the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration, called the program one of several aimed at preventing a terrorist weapon from entering the USA aboard a container ship. That scenario sparked a recent furor over a deal that would have turned over terminal management at U.S. ports in six states to a company owned by the Arab emirate of Dubai.

Brooks' agency leads U.S. government efforts to keep nuclear weapons out of terrorists' hands, which President Bush has called the top national security priority.

While other programs, including those at the Department of Homeland Security, focus on domestic port security, the main line of defense must be overseas, Brooks said. That's because the overriding goal is preventing a nuclear weapon from arriving in the USA in the first place, he said.

The U.S. strategy against what is sometimes called the "loose nukes" problem includes:

•Securing sites. The United States has been helping Russia since 1991 to install modern security systems at nuclear material storage sites that were in sorry shape at the end of the Cold War. That job is largely finished.

•Securing nuclear material. Over the past decade, nuclear warheads and bomb-grade plutonium and uranium have been gradually consolidated from far-flung locations throughout the former Soviet Union to fewer, but more secure, sites in Russia.

•Reducing quantities. Through the "Megatons to Megawatts" program, Russia converts highly enriched uranium used in bombs into low-enriched fuel suitable for power reactors. It is then shipped to the USA and sold to power companies.

The self-financing program has converted 287 tons of highly enriched Russian uranium into reactor fuel since 1993, Brooks says. An additional 265 tons will be converted and sold on the U.S. market over the next seven years.

Other Energy Department programs exist to reduce the amount of nuclear material around the world. But even after they are completed, the United States and Russia will each have about 500 tons of highly enriched uranium in storage, enough to make tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Highly enriched uranium is a concern because it is harder to detect than plutonium and would be easier for terrorists to make into a bomb, Brooks said.

•Border control. With U.S. help, Russia and neighboring countries have installed equipment designed to detect traces of smuggled nuclear materials. There have been several reported attempts to smuggle radiological material but no known successful thefts of plutonium or highly enriched uranium.

•Port security. An Energy Department "megaports" initiative, still in the early stages, is adding new cargo-screening devices at ports in Rotterdam, Netherlands; Piraeus, Greece; Freeport, Bahamas; and Colombo, Sri Lanka. There are plans to install security systems at least 10 other ports.

The Energy Department's budget request for non-proliferation programs next year is $1.7 billion, a 7% increase over this year. The total Energy Department budget request is $22.6 billion. The U.S. strategy also involves extensive operations in the Defense, State and Homeland Security departments and the intelligence community.

State's Proliferation Security Initiative, for example, focuses on scenarios in which nuclear material gets out of a foreign storage site, past border guards and through a port security check. It allows the United States and allied governments to block shipment of nuclear materials or technology to other countries, said Stephen Rademaker, who oversees the program.

In 2003, the program helped block a shipment of nuclear centrifuges from Malaysia, via a port in the United Arab Emirates, to Libya. The incident led to the unraveling of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan's secret proliferation network, and ultimately, to his arrest.

If a country involved in such smuggling "has a track record of supporting international terrorism, we really have to worry that at some point they'll transfer such weapons to international terrorists," Rademaker said.



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-26-loose-nukes_x.htm





Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:33 AM

Feingold's censure resolution may pay off

USA TODAY
Feingold's censure resolution may pay off

WASHINGTON (AP) — While only two Democrats in the Senate have embraced Sen. Russ Feingold's call for censuring President Bush, the idea is increasing his standing among many Democratic voters as he ponders a bid for the party's presidential nomination in 2008.

Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, insists his proposal has nothing to do with his political ambitions. But he does challenge Democrats who argue it will help energize Republicans.

"Those Democrats said that within two minutes of my announcing my idea," Feingold said in a telephone interview last week. "I don't see any serious evidence of that."

A Newsweek poll taken March 16-17 found that 50% of those surveyed opposed censuring Bush while 42% supported it, but among Democrats, 60% favored the effort.

Feingold's resolution would censure the president for authorizing a warrantless surveillance program, which the senator contends is illegal. Co-sponsors are Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California.

The White House argues that Bush was authorized to order eavesdropping on American citizens under his wartime powers as commander in chief.

Feingold said his sole purpose was to hold Bush accountable, but he argued that it's also good politics.

"These Democratic pundits are all scared of the Republican base getting energized, but they're willing to pay the price of not energizing the Democratic base," he said. "It's an overly defensive and meek approach to politics."

Some Democrats have accused Feingold of putting his 2008 presidential ambitions over helping Democrats try to recapture the House and Senate in this year's midterm elections. Should Feingold run, his opposition to the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act and the spying program would help position him as the liberal candidate.

Many also see his effort as a distraction at a time when the Bush administration was on the ropes over Iraq and a since-scuttled port deal.

"It just takes us off discussions we ought to be having in this country on issues that really matter in people's lives," said Rep. Sherrod Brown, a liberal Democrat from Ohio who is running for Senate.

Some Republicans have been thanking Feingold for what they consider a political fumble.

"This is such a gift," Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show. The National Review came to the same conclusion. In an online editorial titled, "Feingold's Gift to the GOP," the conservative magazine wrote that Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman would hug Feingold if given the chance.

The Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing Friday on Feingold's resolution.

Mehlman, visiting Wisconsin last week, skipped the hug and instead criticized Feingold. That reinforced an RNC radio ad buy in the state, in which a narrator says, "Call Russ Feingold and ask him why he's more interested in censuring the president than protecting our freedom."

Feingold's response, essentially, is bring it on.

"I welcome their attempt to make a campaign issue of the question of whether there will be accountability for the president's breaking the law," he said. "They will remind people every minute that the president thumbed his nose at the law."



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-26-censure-feingold_x.htm




Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:25 AM

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)