Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Bruce Springsteen criticises politicians for "criminal ineptitude" in their response to Hurricane Katrina in the southern United States

BBC NEWS
Rocker angry at Katrina response

Bruce Springsteen has criticised politicians for "criminal ineptitude" in their response to Hurricane Katrina in the southern United States.

The singer was performing at the Jazz and Heritage Festival in New Orleans, parts of which he had visited after they were devastated in the disaster.

"I saw sights I never thought I'd see in an American city," he said. "The criminal ineptitude makes you furious."

More than 1,300 people were killed across US states affected by Katrina.

The population of New Orleans fell from nearly 500,000 to less than 200,000.

Fans cried and embraced during poignant songs in Springsteen's set.

In one, How Can a Poor Man Stand Such Times and Live?, the lyrics referred to "bodies floating" in the street and levees which had "gone to hell".

Jazz influences

My City in Ruins, originally written for the singer's favourite town of Asbury Park in New Jersey, was dedicated instead to New Orleans.

And reflecting the city's jazz influences, he ended his performance with When The Saints Go Marching In.

Springsteen was joined on the bill at the festival by other high-profile acts including Bob Dylan, the Dave Matthews Band and Elvis Costello.

The annual event traditionally draws around 400,000 people and boosts the city's economy by up to $300m (£165m).

It is being held at a racetrack on the northern side of city that was underwater eight months ago and continues next weekend.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/4961742.stm




Read More...

Bolivia's President Evo Morales has signed a decree placing his country's energy industry under state control

BBC NEWS
Bolivia gas under state control

Bolivia's President Evo Morales has signed a decree placing his country's energy industry under state control.

In a May Day speech, he said foreign energy firms must agree to channel all their sales through the Bolivian state, or else leave the country.

He set the firms a six-month deadline, but the military and state energy officials have already started taking control of the oil fields.

Brazil and Spain have both expressed concern at the move.

The main foreign oil firms operating in Bolivia are Brazil's Petrobras, the Spanish-Argentine company Repsol YPF, British companies British Gas and British Petroleum, France's Total, and the US Exxon Mobil Corporation.

The Brazilian government called the moves unfriendly and said their operations in Bolivia were under review.

The Spanish Foreign Ministry expressed its deep concern and said it hoped there would be authentic negotiations and dialogue, while Exxon Mobil said it was monitoring the situation very closely.

Bolivia has South America's second largest natural gas reserves.

But the country has suffered years of political crises over how to develop and profit from the industry.

High energy prices

Speaking at an oilfield in the south of the country, Bolivia's left-wing president called it an "historic day".

"The pillage of our natural resources by foreign companies is over," he declared.

The time has come, the awaited day, a historic day in which Bolivia retakes absolute control of our natural resources
Evo Morales
Bolivian President

He said the companies had six months to re-negotiate their contracts and urged them to "respect the dignity of Bolivians".

Foreign companies would receive 18% of oil and gas revenues during the transition period, reports said.

Vice President Alvaro Garcia said the military and officials from the state energy firm YPFB moved to take control of 53 energy installations - including gas fields, pipelines and refineries - immediately after the decree was signed.

There was no immediate word from the foreign energy companies themselves.

The firms will get less favourable terms but current high global energy prices may be an incentive to see if they can work with Mr Morales, the BBC's Americas editor Simon Watts says.

Friendly meetings

Mr Morales swept to victory as Bolivia's first indigenous president in January elections after vowing to "recover" the country's natural resources by renationalising them.

However, he has shown signs of pragmatism since coming to office, and has held friendly meetings with several oil bosses.

On a visit to Brazil in January he said renationalising the industry would not mean expelling foreign companies or expropriating foreign property.

"Foreign companies have every right to recover investments and make profits, but profits should be balanced," he told a press conference at the time.

Petrobras is one of Bolivia's largest foreign investors, controlling 14% of the country's gas reserves.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4963348.stm


Read More...

Use of secret warrants increased last year

Reuters
Use of secret warrants up last year

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of court-approved warrants allowing the Bush administration to conduct intelligence searches and electronic surveillance inside the United States climbed 18 percent to 2,072 in 2005, the Justice Department said on Monday.

The administration also increased in its pursuit of business records and used secret subpoenas to get information on more than 3,000 people in the United States under separate provisions of the USA Patriot Act, which granted the government expanded police powers after the September 11 attacks.

The Justice Department released statistics on its use of secret warrants, business records and national security letters in a report to Congress dated April 28. A copy of the document was first reported by "Secrecy News," an e-mail newsletter published by the Federation of American Scientists.

The number of intelligence-related warrants approved last year by a secret federal court for surveillance and searches rose 318 from a total of 1,754 in 2004, a Justice Department spokeswoman confirmed.

The secret court, established in 1978 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, made substantial modifications to 61 government warrant applications last year. But it denied no warrant application filed in 2005.

The increase in secret wiretaps and searches comes amid an expansion of domestic counterterrorism activities among federal agencies including the FBI.

But the warrants are not related to the domestic spying program that President George W. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct soon after the September 11 attacks.

The NSA program allows the authorities to monitor the international e-mails and phone calls of U.S. citizens without obtaining warrants while in pursuit of al Qaeda suspects.

Administration officials have said warrantless surveillance is necessary because FISA warrant requirements are not flexible enough to contend with al Qaeda and other militant networks opposed to the United States.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department said the FISA court in 2005 also approved 155 warrants granting federal authorities access to business records under the Patriot Act.

Comparison figures for 2004 are classified. But Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate intelligence committee last year that by March 30, 2005, the administration had used the authority only 35 times since the Patriot Act first came into force in 2001.

The Justice Department also said the government issued 9,254 secret national security letters in 2005 to gather information on 3,501 people, including U.S. citizens and residents. National security letters, authorized by the Patriot Act, allow the FBI to demand disclosure of personal information without the approval of a judge or grand jury.



Read More...

Europeans hold May Day protests

BBC NEWS
Europeans hold May Day protests

Many thousands of people have taken to the streets across Europe as part of traditional May Day protests.

Some 25,000 Russian trade unionists - and several thousand Communists - marched in Moscow for social welfare.

In Belarus, more than 1,000 opposition supporters held a show of defiance after the jailing of their leaders on Thursday over another protest.

While in Turkey, police clashed with at least 20 protesters who held a rally in an unauthorised area of Istanbul.

Tens of thousands of Germans meanwhile called on the government not to dilute peoples' rights as it tackles reforms.

"The government should not put in place anti-social policies," said Michael Sommer, president of the German Federation of Trade Unions (DGB), at a rally in Wolfsburg, home to the headquarters of car manufacturer Volkswagen.

Car workers for the Peugeot factory in the UK were attending the May Day rally in London to protest at plans to cut 2,300 jobs.

Elsewhere in the world:

* Union and civic leaders in Zimbabwe protest over worsening hardship under President Robert Mugabe, and ask police not to beat them

* Thousands of Iranian workers demonstrate in Tehran over the growing use of short-term employment contracts

* Police in the Philippines and Indonesia are put on high alert amid fears the rallies could turn into anti-government protests

* Cambodia briefly arrests labour head Chea Mony as hundreds attempt to defy a ban on marches in the capital Phnom Penh

Tear gas

Russian police spokesman, Viktor Biryukov, said trade unionists marched peacefully through central Moscow calling for a "social state," according to Itar-Tass news agency.

A smaller group of Communist Party supporters marched from Lenin monument on October Square to their usual rally spot at the Karl Marx statue. They chanted "Putin resign!", "Our Homeland is the USSR".



The May Day march in the Belarus capital, Minsk - sanctioned by the city's officials - was nominally used to call for an end to short-term labour contracts.

But the main focus of the protest was to call for the release of opposition leader Alexander Milinkevich and other activists who were jailed for up to 15 days last week.

"Freedom for Milinkevich!" marchers shouted as they passed along the approved route, the AFP news agency reported.

"Not all our friends are here today. Many are behind bars," Alexander Dobrovolsky of the United Civic Party told protesters. "We need solidarity to keep us together every day."

In Istanbul, Turkish police arrested at least 20 left-wing protesters who had gathered in the city's Taksim Square without a necessary permit, according to reports.

Television footage showed the protesters resisting arrest and fighting with police officers who tried to disperse them using tear gas and pepper spray.

Meanwhile, in the city's Kadikoy district, thousands gathered for an approved rally, organised by trade unions and civic organisations. A large rally was also being held in the capital Ankara.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4962504.stm




Read More...

Monday, May 01, 2006

The Shadow Government

The Huffington Post
Cenk Uygur
The Shadow Government

The Boston Globe is now reporting that the president believes he has the authority to disobey over 750 laws passed by Congress. And those are just the laws passed on his watch. As we've already seen with the FISA statute, the president also feels he has the right to ignore laws passed by previous administrations as well.

If the president feels he is free to ignore a great number of laws - and he is on the record as implementing that belief by disobeying some long established laws - there is a whole different government running the country than we think there is.

There is the government with the laws we think we have. And the government with the laws the president secretly says we have. This secret set of decisions on which laws will and won't be applied is what makes up the new shadow government.

The idea that the president would say he has the authority to ignore the strictures of laws passed by the United States Congress might seem like some sort of liberal exaggeration to some. It seems so outlandish. But don't take anyone's word for it, ask the administration -- they readily confirm it.

In fact, they're proud of it. They think they are reinstating the real executive powers of the presidency. Powers that the Courts or Congress have never agreed to and that are outside of the plain, or any reasonable, reading of the Constitution, but nonetheless, the administration believes is owed to them.

This makes Nixon's imperial presidency look like child's play. In a democracy, we have a president who is literally saying he is above the law. There are 750 laws he does not have to faithfully execute.

Now, the media has a herculean task in front of it -- identify all the laws the president is actually breaking. He claims the right to break 750 of them, at least. We already know he's breaking one of them - the FISA statute on warrantless spying (which by the way was passed by a previous administration, so it is not even one of the 750 he claims the right to ignore).

Attorney General Gonzales has hinted in his testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee that there might be more laws the president is already violating, including warrantless spying on Americans in purely domestic communications.

Most of the implementation of these laws is done in secret under the guise (and sometimes reality) of national security. Though some are on domestic issues like affirmative action, which I can't imagine even this administration could argue is a national security matter. But the media now must pick through all these laws to uncover what is and is not being followed by this administration.

They must unearth what the shadow government is actually doing, not what we think they're doing based on laws we thought were being followed.

This is an extraordinary power grab. There is no precedent for it, or justification. It is grossly undemocratic. I cannot believe the President of the United States of America says he has the power to ignore laws passed by the people's representatives.

George Bush has crossed the Rubicon. These are not the powers of a president. They are the powers of a dictator. If that seems like an extreme statement, I assure you that it is not my words that are extreme but their actions. The words fit the gravity of the situation. As Sandra Day O'Connor warned recently on a similar issue:

"It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."

I do not subscribe to the school of thought that we are already at those ends. But we are also clearly past the beginning stages of this unprecedented power grab. And if we don't act soon on Justice O'Connor's warning, we might be at the end before we know it.

We have a president who says he doesn't have to follow all the laws of our democracy -- and who ironically claims to spread democracy throughout the world. We have a rubberstamp Congress that absolutely refuses to check this out of control president. We have an administration that assiduously avoids court review of its actions, as it continues to pack the court with right wing extremists (Sam Alito advocated using signing statements to exercise presidential power when he worked under Reagan, though even he didn't suggest going as far as this administration has).

Our final check in this democracy is the people. It might sound clichéd, but it is entirely true. But the people must have the right information so that they make the right decisions. This is where the press comes into play.

The media fell asleep at the wheel before the Iraq invasion and we had an electorate that believed Saddam Hussein was connected to the September 11th attacks against us. Forty percent of Americans still believed that going into the 2004 election and nearly ninety percent of our soldiers in Iraq still believe that today. If I believed Saddam had ordered 9/11, I'd want to attack Iraq, too.

Wrong information equals wrong decisions. People can't be blamed if they don't know. It is the job of the press to let them know. The 2006 elections are the last chance to check this imperial presidency. If the press fails our democracy at this critical juncture and the electorate doesn't know what we know by the time they step into that voting booth, we will have done great damage to our country and its principles.

We already know what laws this administration thinks it doesn't have to follow. Now, the press has six months to figure out exactly what laws they are and are not following in reality. We have six months to figure out what exactly this shadow government is up to.


Read More...

Terrorist Attacks Rose Sharply in 2005, State Dept. Says

washingtonpost.com
Terrorist Attacks Rose Sharply in 2005, State Dept. Says
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer

The number of terrorist attacks worldwide increased nearly fourfold in 2005 to 11,111, with strikes in Iraq accounting for 30 percent of the total, according to statistics released by U.S. counterterrorism officials yesterday.

Although only half of the incidents resulted in loss of life, more than 14,600 noncombatants were killed, a majority of them in Iraq alone and 80 percent in the Near East and South Asia. American nonmilitary deaths totaled 56.

The figures were compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and released with the annual State Department Country Reports on Terrorism.

Unlike those of previous years, the 2005 report included a "strategic assessment" of the war on terrorism, which concluded that while "al-Qaeda is not the organization it was four years ago," the group was "adaptive and resilient . . . and important members of its core cadre remained alive and were adjusting to our operational tempo."

"Overall," the 262-page report said, "we are still in the first phase of a potentially long war. The enemy's proven ability to adapt means we will probably go through several more cycles of action/reaction before the war's outcome is no longer in doubt. It is likely that we will face a resilient enemy for years to come."

The assessment was somewhat more grim than those offered by the White House in recent months. Although the struggle against global terrorism is far from over, President Bush said in a February speech at the Naval Academy that "we're winning."

The NCTC defines terrorist attacks as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets" but acknowledges that such terms are "open to interpretation." "Combatants" are defined as "military, paramilitary, militia, and police under military command and control in specific areas or regions where war zones or war-like settings exist."

Diplomats and other nonmilitary government "assets," as well as civilians, are considered noncombatants for counting purposes.

On the positive side, the report noted that al-Qaeda's leadership is "scattered and on the run," with its finances and logistics disrupted and its organizational networks increasingly decentralized.

But while Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, were said to be "frustrated" by their lack of direct control over terrorist operations, the fact that they remained at large allowed them to "symbolize resistance to the international community, demonstrate they retain the capability to influence events, and inspire actual and potential terrorists."

The apparent inability of bin Laden and Zawahiri to orchestrate large-scale attacks -- and al-Qaeda's increasing "emphasis on ideological and propaganda activity" -- was one of several emerging trends, said Henry A. Crumpton, State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, in a briefing.

The number of "high fatality incidents" around the world, excluding Iraq, was among the few statistics in the report that decreased from 2004 -- when attacks in places such as Russia and Madrid killed hundreds -- to 2005.

But in Iraq, such incidents -- defined as those resulting in 10 or more deaths -- increased from 65 to 150, with a doubling of fatalities. Overall, there were 3,500 attacks in Iraq, up from 866 in 2004.

Most fatalities were attributed to armed attacks and bombings. None occurred in the United States or used weapons of mass destruction, and "no attacks approached the sophistication of those on 9/11," the NCTC statistical analysis concluded.

But "2005 saw many attacks perpetrated by relatively unskilled operatives." The State Department report noted an increase in "small, autonomous cells and individuals [that] drew on advanced technologies and the tools of globalization such as the Internet, satellite communications, and international commerce."

These "micro-actors," the report said, "were extremely difficult to detect or counter." Increasing use of the Internet among individuals and small groups disposed to terrorist acts, such as last July's suicide bombings in the London transport system, no longer requires central leadership or on-the-ground training.

In addition to those trends, NCTC Deputy Director Russ Travers offered three reasons for the significant statistical increases in both attacks and fatalities. The 2004 report was initially assembled under a narrower definition of terrorism, confined to attacks involving citizens or territory of more than one country. In July, NCTC released revised 2004 figures compiled under the new definition, Travers said, but the hurried nature of the work and a lack of analysts at the then-fledgling NCTC meant that "we missed thousands of incidents."

"The bottom line is that 2005 is a far more comprehensive data set," Travers said, "and limits the comparability of 2004 and 2005." Travers also pointed out that the overall figure of 11,111 incidents includes acts by designated terrorist groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, and the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.

As in previous years, the report cited Iran as "the most active state sponsor of terrorism." This activity included the direct involvement of its intelligence service and Islamic Revolutionary Guard in planning and supporting terrorist acts, and Iran's backing and encouragement of terrorist groups operating in Syria and Lebanon and against Israel. In addition, the Revolutionary Guard was said to be "increasingly involved in supplying lethal assistance" to violent Shiite militias in Iraq.

There were no changes to last year's list of known terrorist groups or to the list of six countries considered "state sponsors" of terrorism: Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Cuba and Libya.

Libya, which has renounced weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, had made progress, Crumpton said, and "we're at the point right now of continuing our discussions, verifying some issues and moving forward." Only Iraq, which was removed last year, has ever been taken off the list.

Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.


Read More...

Tens of Thousands in New York March Against Iraq War

The New York Times
Tens of Thousands in New York March Against Iraq War
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

Thousands of people marched through Lower Manhattan yesterday to demand America's withdrawal from Iraq, the latest in a series of antiwar protests held in New York City and around the country during the past several months.

The march came a day after the State Department reported that insurgent attacks on civilians in Iraq surged last year, accounting for nearly half of the people killed in terrorism attacks across the world. It also came near the end of the deadliest month for American forces in Iraq since last November.

"I don't think the message has really changed, but the magnitude of the participation has grown," said Donald Morrill, 50, a college professor who journeyed from Florida to take part in the demonstration.

Several local politicians participated, notably the Rev. Al Sharpton, and some national figures, too, including Cindy Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq and who has become a symbol of the antiwar movement.

Yesterday's protest drew added urgency from the administration's recent saber rattling over Iran, and signs opposing possible United States military action there were almost as common as those urging a withdrawal from Iraq. But as at previous Iraq-related protests, yesterday's demonstration encompassed an array of causes, from immigrants' rights to low-cost housing.

Mark Hallinan, 47, a priest at St. Ignatius Loyola Church on the Upper East Side, led a group of about a dozen people from his parish under the auspices of Pax Christi, a lay Catholic peace organization.

"We've seen the impact in so many ways," Father Hallinan said. "It's taking away money for education, for balancing the budget."

For others marching, the mere fact that the United States remained in Iraq was reason enough to protest, said Laurie Goodstein, a physician from Manhattan. Dr. Goodstein said she was meeting her parents — both in their 80's — at the march's end. "They've been going to protests all their lives," she joked, "but now they're too old to walk all the way."

Yesterday's demonstration began on Broadway, north of Union Square, where thousands of protesters of all ages gathered between 17th and 23rd Streets. About half past noon, they lurched into motion, heading south toward Foley Square near City Hall.

One group carried a daisy chain of hundreds of pictures of United States troops who died in Iraq, strung out over many blocks; others waved signs, slapped drums or simply enjoyed the pleasant weather.

By 2 p.m., the protesters' vanguard had reached Foley Square, but the rear of the column still stretched more than a mile back.

The participating groups — led by United for Peace and Justice, the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and the National Organization for Women — set up more than a dozen tents in Foley Square, where T-shirts, pamphlets and petitions were distributed.

"We're here to deliver a message to the rest of the world that there are still Americans who strongly oppose these policies," said Daniel Einbender, 56, a musician and environmental educator from Wurtsboro, N.Y. "Someone asked me if I did it for love. I'm from the 60's, I'm one of those guys. I'm doing it out of habit. But it's a good habit."




Read More...

Powell advised Bush to send more troops to Iraq

Reuters
Powell advised Bush to send more troops to Iraq
By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday defended the Bush administration's Iraq war planning after her predecessor, Colin Powell, said he had made a case to send more troops to deal with the war's aftermath.

Rice also said she did not "remember specifically" what instance Powell was referring to on his recommending to President George W. Bush that more troops be sent.

In an interview with a private British television station on Sunday, Powell said there had been debates about the size of the force and how to deal with the aftermath.

"I don't think we had enough force there to impose order," he said on ITV's Jonathan Dimbleby program.

"The aftermath turned out to be much more difficult than anyone had anticipated," said Powell, adding he had favored a larger military presence to deal with the unforeseen.

"I made the case to General (Tommy) Franks, to (Defense) Secretary (Donald) Rumsfeld and to the president that I was not sure we had enough troops," Powell said. But he said the military leaders felt they had the appropriate number.

Powell's comments come amid concern about the rising death toll in Iraq, which has been a factor in driving Bush's approval ratings to the lowest of his presidency.

Since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, the U.S. military death toll in Iraq has grown to 2,400. Iraqi military deaths are estimated at up to 6,370 and Iraqi civilian deaths at up to 38,600.

Rice, appearing on several Sunday talk shows, was responding to the Powell's comments that fanned the controversy over the administration's plans for the invasion's immediate aftermath. Critics say violence and looting set the stage for a bloody insurgency and sectarian killings over the last three years.

Asked on CNN's Late Edition if she remembered Powell's dissent, Rice said, "I don't remember specifically what Secretary Powell may be referring to, but I'm quite certain that there were lots of discussions about how best to fulfill the mission when we went into Iraq."

She said Bush relied on his military advisers, and that he "asked time and time again" whether everything needed to execute the plan was available, "and he was told 'yes'."

Rice added that there would have been "potentially a lot of problems with a very, very big footprint of coalition forces at the time of the liberation of Iraq."

On CBS' Face the Nation, she said, "I'm quite certain that there are things that, in retrospect, we would do differently. But that's the nature of any big complicated operation."

After the invasion, Rumsfeld said U.S. military commanders believed there were sufficient troops to contain insurgents and establish peace.

However, troop levels were later increased amid escalating violence and to establish security in time for elections.

Bush has not set a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal, saying American soldiers will pull out as Iraqi forces take over fighting Sunni rebels and sectarian violence which has pushed Iraq to the brink of civil war.

Rice praised progress made by Iraq's own forces. But to start withdrawing troops, she said on CNN, "We really do want it to be based on conditions on the ground; so do the Iraqis. If there is anything that they recognize, it's that they are not quite ready for these tasks. But they want to take that responsibility, and we should want them to take it.

(Additional reporting by Madeline Chambers in London)




Read More...

ID Law Stirs Passionate Protest in N.H.

washingtonpost.com
ID Law Stirs Passionate Protest in N.H.
With Costumes and Quotations, State Opposes Federal Plan
By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer

CONCORD, N.H. -- Those concerned about a new federal plan to overhaul the issuing of driver's licenses have two fairly distinct ways of showing it. One of them involves task forces, letter-writing and groups such as the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. The other involves protesters dressed like Nazis and politicians quoting Patrick Henry.

Anyone familiar with the revolution-tinged politics of New Hampshire can guess which one is happening here.

"The war on our civil liberties is actually begun," New Hampshire state Rep. Neal M. Kurk (R) told his colleagues recently, borrowing from Henry's famous "Liberty or Death" speech to condemn the license plan and the U.S. government in place of the British crown. He continued: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"

Now, this state legislature is poised to formally reject the new license rules, which are aimed at screening out terrorists and illegal immigrants, but have been criticized as a logistical nightmare and the beginning of a national ID card. As a political circus has unfolded here in Concord, everyone, including libertarians, evangelical Christians and state bureaucrats, has been paying attention.

"Everybody's watching," said Jim Harper at the Cato Institute in Washington, who objects to the new rules as a federal intrusion into personal privacy. His hope: "Even one state refusing to participate basically will cause the system to crumble."

The controversy in New Hampshire surrounds a federal law called the Real ID Act, which was approved last year after it was tacked on to a bill funding the war in Iraq and relief for tsunami victims. Its principal backer, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), said he wanted to close the kinds of loopholes that allowed some of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers to obtain official identification.

The bill requires states to check whether driver's license applicants are in the country legally, and to require documents showing their birth date, Social Security number and home address. The act also requires that states find a way to verify that the documents are valid.

The deadline is May 2008. If states cannot meet the new requirements by then, the bill says, their licenses may not be accepted as identification at airport security screenings, federal buildings and nuclear plants.

Groups of state-level officials have protested that the act requires sophisticated computer networks that don't exist now and that meeting the deadline could be overwhelmingly expensive or simply impossible.

For now, their criticism has been measured while they wait for the Department of Homeland Security to work out key details of the license plan. It's still unclear, for instance, whether drivers who have a license already will have to be rescreened, or whether there will need to be a single federal computer database containing everyone's license information.

New Hampshire, though, is not the waiting kind of state.

In January, several legislators here introduced a bill that called the Real ID measure "contrary and repugnant" to both the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions, and vowed that "New Hampshire shall not participate in a national identification card system."

At first, the bill seemed destined to fail, voted down in committee. But then, in early March, Kurk stood up to defend it on the House floor, citing the new federal rules as the beginning of creeping federal intrusions.

"We care more for our liberties than to meekly hand over to the federal government the potential to enumerate, track, identify and eventually control," he said, before quoting Henry and his state's defiant motto, "Live Free or Die."

That brought the house down, and the bill up: State representatives voted 217 to 84 in favor.

Emboldened by that success, groups opposed to Real ID staged a rally last weekend in front of the statehouse where, according to a report in the Concord Monitor, some wore "666" on their foreheads -- indicating their belief that a national system of rules for driver's licenses is a step toward the "mark of the beast" prophesied in the Book of Revelation.

Lauren Canario dressed up in a Nazi-esque khaki uniform and helped run a fake checkpoint where she demanded people's identification.

Real ID "sounds a lot like the old Nazi movies, and we just wanted to illustrate that," she said in an interview last week.

Someplace else, a movement with this kind of stagecraft might be on the political fringe. Here, it has momentum: A spokeswoman for Gov. John Lynch (D) said this week that he will sign the anti-Real ID bill if it gets to him. And on Wednesday morning, a Senate committee unanimously approved the bill, electrifying its supporters in the audience. "This is a wave of freedom that's going to roll across the country," Joel Winters, a leader in the Real ID opposition movement, said afterward.

First, though, it has to roll across the full New Hampshire Senate. There, Senate President Theodore L. Gatsas (R) said he's worried about what will happen if the rest of the country doesn't follow New Hampshire's lead and his state's residents suddenly need a passport to get on domestic flights.

Arguments against the new federal licensing rules "are great things to say," said Gatsas. "But it's an awful jeopardy to put the state in."



Read More...

Antiwar Democrat Mounts a Major Challenge to Connecticut's 3-Term Senator

washingtonpost.com
Tough Primary Race Confronts Lieberman
Antiwar Democrat Mounts a Major Challenge to Connecticut's 3-Term Senator
By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer

NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- With his ruddy tan and dark gray suit, Ned Lamont is an antiwar liberal with a twist. Rather than targeting a Republican, the millionaire Greenwich businessman is challenging a fellow Democrat, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, one of President Bush's strongest supporters on the war in Iraq.

When Lamont announced his primary challenge in mid-March, he was viewed as the longest of long shots, a quixotic blueblood who was scratching a political itch. While many Connecticut Democrats had soured on Lieberman over his war stance, a poll showed that voters backed the three-term senator over Lamont by 5 to 1.

But in the space of six weeks, the newcomer has come on strong. Lamont raised $344,111 from 4,337 online donors and added $371,500 of his own money. He hired a staff of seasoned professionals and signed up several thousand volunteers. The 52-year-old cable television entrepreneur is blitzing the state, hitting as many as three events per evening.

Now, Lamont has turned the Democratic primary into a horse race, giving Lieberman his first real test since he joined the Senate 18 years ago, according to Democratic operatives and analysts in Connecticut. Party leaders were so rattled by the challenge that Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called Lamont asking him to back off.

"Some of the party brass said, 'Ned, don't jeopardize a safe seat,' " Lamont recently told students at Southern Connecticut State University, who gathered for a meet-and-greet session. "But you're not going to lose a senator. You're going to gain a Democrat."

The race is one of the few in the country in which a well-established incumbent is being threatened by a challenger from his own party. It suggests that no member of the House or Senate can take reelection for granted, given the voter disenchantment with Iraq and a Congress weakened by a corruption scandal and a meager record of accomplishments.

"I'm not surprised that there's a primary challenge," Lieberman conceded. According to a February poll by Quinnipiac University, 61 percent of state voters said invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do. But the former Democratic vice presidential nominee said he will not back down from his position.

"It's one that I believe is in the best interests of the country," Lieberman said recently, after a trip to the Middle East. If he has put his job at risk, he said, so be it. "We're having a good healthy debate up here," Lieberman said.

Lamont asserts -- usually to a sea of nodding heads -- that the United States should continue providing support to the Iraqis, but that "our front-line military troops should begin to be redeployed and our troops should start heading home."

Voters greet him with a mixture of curiosity and relief. "This is the first I've heard of him," said Kylie Welsh, a 27-year-old student who said she is tired of Lieberman's pro-war views. "I need to do some more research, but I think it's time for somebody new."

Despite Lamont's strong early push, Lieberman enjoys major advantages, including national name recognition and a formidable fundraising ability. Lieberman entered politics in 1970 and served as a state senator and attorney general before winning election to the U.S. Senate in 1988. He was Al Gore's vice presidential running mate in 2000, and he waged an unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination four years later.

With nearly $4.8 million of campaign funds in the bank as of March 31, Lieberman rolled out two statewide ads about a week ago, including one that directly confronts the war. "I already know that some of you feel passionately against my position on Iraq," Lieberman says in the ad. "I respect your views, and while we probably won't change each other's minds, I hope we can still have a dialogue and find common ground on all the issues where we do agree."

Mild-mannered and thoughtful, Lamont has a pedigree that blends old money with noblesse oblige. His great-grandfather Thomas W. Lamont, a chairman of J.P. Morgan & Co., commuted to Wall Street by yacht and helped to negotiate the Treaty of Versailles. His family tree also includes Corliss Lamont, a socialist philosopher and civil libertarian, and an assortment of ministers and adventurers. Lamont served as a Greenwich selectman during the 1980s and lost a 1990 state Senate bid.

In his official biography, Lamont describes the lively, politically charged family dinner conversations that punctuated his childhood. "The underlying theme was public service," he recalled.

His main challenge is to get his name on the Aug. 8 Democratic ballot. Lamont has two ways of doing that: collect 15,000 voters' signatures or persuade 15 percent of the state's 1,608 Democratic delegates to support him at the party's May 20 nominating convention. Even Lieberman's camp has little doubt that Lamont will clear at least one of the hurdles.

Lieberman caused a stir recently by floating the possibility that he might enter the general-election race as an independent, were he to lose the Democratic primary. To do that, he would have to collect 7,500 signatures and file them by Aug. 9, a day after the primary. That means he would have to start the petition process even as he is campaigning for the Democratic nomination against Lamont.

But now Lieberman describes speculation of an independent candidacy as "greatly overblown." He said his focus is to win "a good solid victory at the convention."

Lamont said he supported Lieberman for years but that he grew irritated with the senator for supporting federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo right-to-die Senate debate. "To me, that was symbolic of someone who was fundamentally off," Lamont explained.

Then came Lieberman's Nov. 29 Wall Street Journal opinion piece, titled "Our Troops Must Stay." It scolded Democrats for focusing "on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq," instead of on how "we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead." The senator also took Democrats to task for saying the Bush administration has no strategy for victory in Iraq. "Yes, we do," Lieberman wrote.

The column was published shortly after Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), one of the Democrats' most respected voices on military issues, called the war "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion" and advocated that U.S. troops be withdrawn from Iraq. Lamont applauded Murtha's pronouncement as an opening for Democrats to start publicly criticizing the war, and was angered by Lieberman for chastising his own party.

Lieberman's op-ed piece became the focus of a rallying cry for disillusioned liberals, and Lamont participated in conversations around the state about a possible primary challenge. So did Lowell P. Weicker Jr., the former GOP senator and governor who is now a staunch antiwar independent. Weicker had been weighing his own challenge to Lieberman but, for now, says, "I want to do everything I can to help Ned Lamont win."

Nancy DiNardo, Connecticut's Democratic Party chairman, worries that the Lieberman-Lamont battle will detract from the primary showdown between two Democrats vying to challenge the state's popular Republican governor, M. Jodi Rell. "I think we should focus on beating Republicans," DiNardo said.

For the next three weeks, Lamont and Lieberman will be concentrating on wooing state delegates. Lamont has been greeted warmly at Democratic town committee meetings.

John McNamara, who heads the New Britain Democratic Town Committee with its 31 delegates, is a big Lamont booster. Lieberman, he said, has "been a good senator for most of 18 years." But McNamara prefers Lamont's stance on the war and likes his economic development ideas for Connecticut.

Lieberman showed his political resilience in Manchester, where earlier this year the Democratic Town Committee passed a resolution criticizing his war views. About two weeks ago, a majority of members supported the senator in an informal vote, which tested where delegates stand before the convention. Chairman Ted Cummings urged the town's 27 delegates to split their votes. "We have our self-respect to come to grips with," Cummings said after the meeting, according to local news reports. "Joe Lieberman ought to have to work."



Read More...

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Thousands rally against Darfur killing

Reuters
Thousands rally against Darfur killing
By Karey Wutkowski

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Thousands of Americans, led by religious leaders, entertainers and politicians, rallied on Sunday to urge the United States to halt "genocide" in Sudan's Darfur region.

"Darfur deserves to live. We are its only hope," Nobel Peace Prize winner and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel told the crowd that converged on the National Mall in Washington, near the U.S. Capitol.

Other speakers at the rally included Washington's Roman Catholic Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, and actor George Clooney, who visited Darfur last week.

"If we turn our heads and look away and hope that it will all disappear, then they will, all of them, a whole generation, and we will only have history to judge us," Clooney told the protesters.

Beating African drums and waving posters saying "Stop Genocide Now," the mostly white crowd had responded to a call from 160 religious, political and humanitarian organizations representing virtually all shades of U.S. opinion.

Smaller rallies also took place in 18 other U.S. cities, making this the largest public demonstration on the issue since the conflict in Darfur began three years ago.

"We know the march is not the beginning and end of it but it's an improvement," said Rabbi Shawn Zevit, director of outreach for the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation.

"It is a show of solidarity, given the United States is one of few countries trying to exert pressure. There is momentum right now and the feeling we can influence things," he said.

DEATH AND DISPLACEMENT

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complained on the ABC's television show This Week that Washington was not getting enough support from some other members of the U.N. Security Council to take more decisive action against Sudan.

"We also do need more support, frankly, from members of the international community -- from China, from Russia," she said.

Arab militia, backed by the Sudanese government, have terrorized non-Arab tribes in the region in western Sudan over the past three years, murdering and raping tens of thousands, burning villages and driving more than 2 million people into squalid camps in Darfur and neighboring Chad.

Peace talks on the conflict in Abuja, Nigeria, which faced a deadline on Sunday to reach an agreement, appeared to be at an impasse, after two Sudan rebel groups said they would refuse to sign a proposed Darfur peace agreement in its current form.

"We are not going to accept this document for signature unless there are fundamental changes made to the document," Ahmed Tugod, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) chief negotiator, told Reuters.

The African Union said it would not reopen substantial negotiations on the proposed text after Sunday, following two years of talks.

The government of Sudan has said it was ready to sign the agreement.

A faction of another rebel group, the Sudan Liberation Army, said it would not sign the proposed deal unless its demands were met in full.

The United States has labeled the violence in Darfur a genocide of the mainly African Muslim tribes by the government-backed militias known as Janjaweed.

President George W. Bush on Thursday issued an executive order freezing the assets of four Sudanese deemed to have posed a threat to the peace process in Darfur. But demonstrators called on the administration to do more.

Elamin Wadi, a refugee from Darfur who came to the United States in 2004, said: "We hope to send a message to the American government and then have the American government send a message to the Sudan government," he said.

Public pressure on Sudan has been building in recent months, with several universities and some states divesting assets from companies doing business with Sudan.

Jewish organizations had been particularly active in speaking out and some rabbis preached on the subject on Saturday. At B'nai Tzedek conservative congregation in Potomac, Maryland, just outside Washington, Rabbi Stuart Weinblatt told worshipers that Jews, as victims of the Nazi Holocaust, owed it to the world to stand up for the victims.



Read More...

You Can't Afford It!

Read More...

You Build Them, They'll Come

Read More...

Hand Over Your Wallet

Read More...

Pretend You Don't Know Me

Read More...

They've Just Shrunk A Bit Over The Last 5 Years

Read More...

Government Business: Jack Anderson Professional Files

Read More...

Cheap Chinese Arms Flood African Genocide Wars

Read More...

New Tony Snow Column

Read More...

The First Stone

Read More...

Saturday, April 29, 2006

"Had Enough? Vote Democratic!"

The New York Times
Enough Already
By TIM ROEMER

Washington

AMERICANS have clearly had enough of the Bush administration's record: 7 in 10 say the nation is headed in the wrong direction. But with the 2006 Congressional elections fast approaching, Democrats must not get so irrationally exuberant that they lapse into old, bad habits.

In January, President Bush's adviser Karl Rove outlined the issues he believes will lead Republican candidates to victory in November: national security, the economy and taxes, and the courts. Democrats cannot allow Republicans to define the terms of the debate. Instead, they should take a page from history and from a different Karl.

In 1946, Karl Frost, an advertising executive, suggested a simple slogan to the Massachusetts Republican Committee: "Had Enough? Vote Republican!" Frost recognized that these simple words could unite his national party and blame its opponents, who controlled Congress, for causing or failing to solve the many problems facing the country, including meat shortages, economic difficulties and labor unrest. The strategy worked: in 1946, both houses of Congress flipped.

Sixty years later, Democrats would be smart to turn Karl Frost's slogan on Karl Rove's strategy.

"Had Enough? Vote Democratic!" is a slogan that spotlights the many mistakes in Iraq, the mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina and the mangling of fiscal responsibility with "bridges to nowhere." Indeed, you can see and hear Democratic candidates rallying their voters at Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinners with a passionate and rhythmic chorus:

"The administration said Iraqis would greet us with roses as liberators, yet our soldiers are attacked with homemade bombs and rocket-propelled grenades. Had Enough? Vote Democratic.

"The administration said it was prepared for a hurricane in New Orleans, yet our government's feeble response prompted Bangladesh to offer us $1 million in aid. Had Enough? Vote Democratic!

"The administration said it would bring competency to our federal budget, yet our nation faces catastrophic deficits. Had Enough? Vote Democratic!"

And if you want to fire up the base, you can string together references to Jack Abramoff, Abu Ghraib and the Dubai ports deal. "Had Enough?" works well on classic campaign materials like buttons and bumper stickers while its simplicity makes it a cinch to "go viral" on the Internet.

"Had enough?" will speak to both Democrats and disillusioned Republicans. Liberals can use "Had Enough?" to reach out to voters enraged over the incompetent management of Iraq. Moderates might use "Had Enough?" to persuade swing voters on fiscal issues. And the implicit rejection of neoconservative politics will appeal to all voters who seek to spurn tainted Republican candidates.

"Had Enough?" also pre-empts Democrats' worst habits. Too often we've made campaigns complicated and policy-heavy. We love to unveil 40-page position papers and wonky diagrams. "Had Enough?" clears a broad path through such minutiae. "Public sentiment is everything," Abraham Lincoln said 150 years ago. "With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed."

Karl Frost's simple words can serve as the cavalry charge to help win the coming electoral battles — something Democrats are in an incredibly strong position to do. But make no mistake: new ideas matter. Democrats will also need the artillery of a disciplined, focused set of core proposals to complement their criticism of Republican excesses.

As we head into the midterm elections, Democrats should finally understand, as Lincoln and Frost did before, that you must win the majority before you can make public policy.

Tim Roemer is a former Democratic congressman from Indiana.





Read More...

Bush approves Dubai defense purchase

Reuters
Bush approves Dubai defense purchase
By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush approved Dubai's $1.24 billion takeover of Doncasters, a British engineering company with U.S. plants that supply the Pentagon, the White House said on Friday.

The decision, announced by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, followed a congressional uproar over security fears that scuttled another Dubai state-owned company's plan to acquire operations at major U.S. ports.

The interagency Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States sent its confidential recommendation on the Dubai takeover of Doncasters to Bush on April 13.

"The president this morning accepted the committee's recommendation," McClellan said. "The committee recommended approval of the transaction after closely scrutinizing it and concluding that it would not compromise our national security."




Read More...

President Bush Nixes Calls for Tax on Oil Profits, Says It's Not the Way to Calm U.S. Anxieties

ABC News
Bush Rejects Calls for Tax on Oil Profits
President Bush Nixes Calls for Tax on Oil Profits, Says It's Not the Way to Calm U.S. Anxieties
By JENNIFER LOVEN
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Friday that taxing enormous oil industry profits is not the way to calm Americans' anxieties about pain at the gas pump, and that his "inclination and instincts" are that major oil companies are not intentionally overcharging drivers.

Bush's remarks suggested the former Texas oilman is unlikely to take harsh action against oil companies despite public anger about the rising cost of fuel. Gasoline is averaging $2.92 a gallon across the country, up 69 cents from a year ago, according to AAA's daily fuel gauge report.

With politicians concerned the issue could tilt what are expected to be close midterm elections this fall, the president and many in Congress have been rushing to offer solutions, most of which would offer little immediate relief.

Some Democrats have viewed this week's announcement by major oil companies of huge first-quarter profits as a chance to renew their push for a windfall profits tax. But though a few Republicans, including Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, have said the idea ought to be examined, Bush and most GOP lawmakers strongly oppose it.

"The temptation in Washington is to tax everything," the president said in a wide-ranging news conference.

Instead, Bush called on Congress to ease regulations that make it difficult to expand the nation's refining capacity. He also urged oil companies to plow their profits into finding and producing more energy, such as by building natural gas pipelines or pursuing renewable energy sources all ventures that could further boost the companies' bottom lines.

Three days ago, the president announced a series of steps, including calling on his administration to investigate possible price gouging. But he admitted Friday that he thinks it's probably not happening.

"I have no evidence that there's any rip-off taking place," Bush said. "It's the role of the Federal Trade Commission to assure me that my inclination and instincts is right."

The president has supported the rolling back of some oil industry tax breaks that were enacted with his support just eight months ago. That tax break recission is part of a broader gas price-relief plan offered by the Senate GOP leadership, but House Republicans signaled this week they won't go along.

Bush called reporters to the Rose Garden to trumpet recent positive economic reports. But, aware that high gas prices are one of the reasons that good news hasn't sunk in with much of the public, he acknowledged fuel costs threaten to derail economic progress and used a driving metaphor to make the point that tax cuts are the key to continued strength.

"With gas prices on the minds of Americans, we need to keep our foot on the pedal of this strong economy," the president said.

Iran's suspected desire to build nuclear weapons dominated the president's half-hour session with reporters, during which Bush and his two top economic advisers stood facing a blazing sun.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday that Tehran had ignored the U.N. Security Council's deadline for it to stop all activities related to enriching uranium. But Iran pledged anew to continue with its nuclear program, which it insists is only for peaceful energy production, with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying his nation "won't give a damn" about Security Council resolutions.

"Today's IAEA report should remind us all that the Iranian government's intransigence is not acceptable," Bush said.

The Bush administration wants the Council to impose economic or political sanctions on Iran for its defiance. But with Council members Russia and China opposing such a move, the president would not discuss sanctions.

He merely stressed that "the diplomatic process is just starting" on devising a strategy for dealing with Iran, and noted he talked earlier Friday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is also due back at the White House next week. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns plans to meet in Paris next Tuesday with counterparts from Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is to confer at U.N. headquarters May 9 with those countries' foreign ministers.

Bush also declined an opportunity to be directly critical of Ahmadinejad's escalating rhetoric. Bush's aides believe Iran is digging an international hole for itself with such statements, and that it will help the U.S. case with its allies to let it do so without reciprocating.

Turning to problems at home, Bush promised his administration is using the lessons of Hurricane Katrina to prepare for June 1 start of the next hurricane season. "I feel pretty good about the coordination," he said.

Though his advisers have rejected, at least for now, abolishing FEMA as a Senate panel proposes, Bush left the door open. Of the numerous recommendations from White House and congressional inquiries, Bush said "we ought to take them all seriously. The objective is to respond to these natural disasters as well as we possibly can. ... My attitude is, let's make it work."




Read More...

Federal Govt's disastrous handling of the Katrina housing crisis is looking more and more like an attempt to force displaced families into the streets

The New York Times
Still Battering the Katrina Homeless

The federal government's disastrous handling of the Katrina housing crisis is looking more and more like an attempt to force displaced families into the streets. The latest chapter came when the Federal Emergency Management Agency informed many families who had expected to have their rent paid for a year that they would soon be forced to assume their own housing costs or to leave their homes and apartments.

This is not the first time the families and the communities that have struggled to house them have been whipsawed by the federal government. They have been peppered with policy changes and letters written in clotted bureaucratese.

Things got off to a disastrous start soon after the hurricane, when the federal government concentrated on grotesquely expensive trailer parks and hotel housing — and then on short-term leases for private housing that frightened away potential landlords. The common-sense approach would have been to furnish displaced families with at least 12 months' worth of rent vouchers through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as was done after other disasters. That way, the families could have settled into functioning communities, where they could have found schools for their children and perhaps gotten jobs.

The Bush administration avoided making HUD the star of the resettlement effort because that would have built a constituency for the voucher program, which ideologues in Congress have been busy trying to destroy. This result was on display this week in a Times article by Shaila Dewan, which showed deepening confusion among already devastated families who fear that the next stop will be a homeless shelter.




Read More...

U.S. Steps Into Wiretap Suit Against AT&T

The New York Times
U.S. Steps Into Wiretap Suit Against AT&T
By JOHN MARKOFF

SAN FRANCISCO, April 28 — The government asked a federal judge here Friday to dismiss a civil liberties lawsuit against the AT&T Corporation because of a possibility that military and state secrets would otherwise be disclosed.

The lawsuit, accusing the company of illegally collaborating with the National Security Agency in a vast surveillance program, was filed in February by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group.

The class-action suit, which seeks an end to the collaboration it alleges, is based in part on the testimony of Mark Klein, a retired technician for the company who says Internet data passing through an AT&T switching center in San Francisco is being diverted to a secret room. There, Mr. Klein says, the security agency has installed powerful computers to eavesdrop without warrants on the digital data and forward the information to an undisclosed place.

The foundation has filed documents obtained by Mr. Klein that ostensibly show detailed technical information on N.S.A. technology used to divert Internet data. He has also said in a deposition that employees of the agency went to the switching center to oversee special projects.

The company has declined to address the suit publicly, saying it will have no comment on matters of national security or customer privacy.

In its action Friday, the government filed a statement of interest asserting military and state secret privilege in asking the judge, Vaughn R. Walker, to dismiss the suit. Separately on Friday, AT&T also filed two motions to dismiss.

The government's filing said the authorities "cannot disclose any national security information that may be at issue in this case." The document went on to say that the filing should not be construed as either a confirmation or a denial of any of the claims made by the civil liberties group about government surveillance activities.

Elsewhere in the document, however, the government said President Bush had explained that after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he authorized the security agency to intercept communications into and out of the United States by people linked to Al Qaeda and related organizations. The agency is ordinarily prohibited from intercepting the telephone and digital communications of American citizens without a warrant from a special intelligence court.

Responding to the filing, Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said, "We think the government's right to conduct this program should be considered separately from the issue of whether a telecommunications firm has the right to break the law."

The government's interest, Ms. Cohn said, is an indication that the lawsuit is not frivolous.

The court plans to hear the various motions on May 17.

Earlier this year, the foundation asked the government to examine the documents that the group was preparing to submit to the court related to Mr. Klein's testimony. At the time, the government chose not to intervene, and the documents were filed under seal.

The documents, which include affidavits, lists of equipment and technical specifications related to tapping fiber-optic network links, have been obtained independently by a number of news organizations. They refer to a similar installation in an AT&T facility in Atlanta, and Mr. Klein has said he believes there are related eavesdropping facilities attached to AT&T centers in San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego and Seattle.





Read More...

Ohio lawmaker Robert Ney focus of probe

Reuters
Ohio lawmaker focus of probe: paper

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal prosecutors this week indicated they would pursue a wide range of allegations involving Republican lawmaker Robert Ney of Ohio and his dealings with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the Washington Post reported in its Saturday edition.

The lawmaker also faces another challenge next week because for the first time since his 1994 election to Congress, he will have to compete for his party's nomination, the paper wrote.

Ney, of the eastern district of Ohio, has been under investigation by federal authorities in Florida and in Washington, D.C., over business that helped Abramoff and two partners buy a Fort-Lauderdale-based casino cruise line.

The congressman has not been named, but law enforcement sources have confirmed that he is the "Representative No. 1" identified in plea agreements with Abramoff and others.

In those court documents, the unnamed lawmaker, who denies any wrongdoing, is accused of accepting "a stream of things of value" in exchange for official actions," the Post reported.

Read More...

Army colonel charged in Abu Ghraib scandal

Reuters
Army colonel charged in Abu Ghraib scandal
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army on Friday charged Lt. Col. Steven Jordan, who headed the interrogation center at Iraq's Abu Ghraib jail, with maltreatment of detainees, interfering with investigators and other counts, making him the highest-ranking person charged in the scandal.

The Army Military District of Washington said Jordan faced 12 criminal counts relating to seven different charges. Prosecutors said he subjected detainees to forced nudity and intimidation by military working dogs and later lied about it to investigators.

Ten low-ranking soldiers have been convicted in military courts in connection with the physical abuse and sexual humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraib. Two officers senior to Jordan at Abu Ghraib have been disciplined by the Army, but neither faced criminal charges.

The charges against Jordan include cruelty and maltreatment of detainees, dereliction of duty, wrongful interference with an investigation, making false official statements, willfully disobeying a superior officer and others. Jordan is a reservist currently on active duty assigned to the Army Intelligence and Security Command, the Army said.

Images of the abuse, including naked detainees stacked in a pyramid and others cowering before snarling dogs, first became public on April 28, 2004 -- two years ago to the day before the charges were brought against Jordan.

Jordan was in charge of the military's Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center at Abu Ghraib in the fall and winter of 2003 at the height of the detainee abuse. It was a chaotic time when the jail's detainee population was ballooning and the insurgency was intensifying.

WIDER PROBE URGED

"It's gratifying that the military is beginning to focus on the role of more senior officers in the torture scandal. But this is but a step. The problems are just so clearly systemic that they need to be looked at more comprehensively," said Hina Shamsi, a lawyer with the rights group Human Rights First.

The Abu Ghraib scandal triggered international condemnation of the United States and undermined America's public image as it waged the war in Iraq. Abu Ghraib, located outside Baghdad, previously was a notorious torture center under deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Prosecutors said Jordan disobeyed orders from generals during the investigation not to have contact with others involved in the scandal, failed to properly train and supervise subordinates and ensure that they acted lawfully, and used methods on prisoners without higher approval. They also accused him of filing fraudulent receipts for car repairs.

Shamsi called for close scrutiny of the roles of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon civilian leaders in crafting policies that may have led to torture and abuse, as well as on Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. commander in Iraq at the time whom last year the Army cleared of wrongdoing in the Abu Ghraib scandal.

"One of the critical remaining questions is the doctrine of command responsibility that says that commanders are responsible for the acts of their subordinates if they knew or should have known that wrong was occurring and didn't do anything to prevent it," Shamsi said.

The Army last year removed from command, fined and reprimanded Col. Thomas Pappas, former military intelligence chief at Abu Ghraib. Also last year, it demoted to colonel and relieved of her command former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the former top officer at the prison.

The next step in the military justice system for Jordan is a hearing to decide whether the case should proceed to a court-martial.



Read More...

Public pressure mounts on US to act on Darfur

Reuters
Public pressure mounts on US to act on Darfur
By Sue Pleming

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Public pressure is growing on the Bush administration to work harder to stop atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region, even as options narrow over how to tackle what the United States labels genocide.

In the build-up to "Save Darfur" rallies across the United States this Sunday, five lawmakers were arrested in the capital on Friday for protesting outside Sudan's Embassy.

President Bush endorsed this weekend's rallies and met Darfur advocacy groups organizing the demonstrations, which will draw Hollywood's elite, musicians, religious leaders and politicians from all sides.

"They agree with thousands of our citizens -- hundreds of thousands of our citizens -- that genocide in Sudan is unacceptable," said Bush after meeting rally organizers.

"I want the Sudanese government to understand the United States of America is serious about solving this problem," he said.

The rallies are organized by a coalition of more than 160 religious and humanitarian groups. They coincide with a Sunday deadline for the warring factions in Darfur to reach agreement at peace talks dragging on in Abuja, Nigeria.

Political analysts are pessimistic there will be a deal by the deadline set by the African Union, which has about 7,000 struggling troops in Darfur that the United States would like to augment with U.N. peacekeepers.

Sudan's government has said it will accept U.N. peacekeepers only if there is a deal in Abuja. If the talks fail, political analysts caution there will be even fewer options over how to handle Darfur.

"The options on Darfur are definitely running out," said Africa expert Princeton Lyman of the Council on Foreign Relations, a former U.S. ambassador to South Africa.

Sudan is accused by U.N. and U.S. officials of arming militias, who have raped, pillaged, and killed tens of thousands, and driven some 2 million villagers into camps. Sudan has denied the charge and says there is no genocide.

State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli told Reuters he was still hopeful of a deal in Abuja. "We have a fighting chance, folks are at the table and working hard," he said.

The Bush administration says it has taken the international lead on Sudan, but many experts say it has not been tough enough on Khartoum or in enlisting other major powers such as Russia or China.

Bush announced new sanctions on Thursday against people suspected of aiding genocide in Darfur.

A Zogby International poll of U.S. voters last month showed that 70 percent would support a U.S.-backed no-fly zone in Sudan, to prevent aerial attacks on civilians, and 59 percent believed more could be done diplomatically.

Sudan expert John Prendergast said Washington needed to push Sudan's government harder to accept a U.N.-led force for Darfur, and he predicted Sunday's rallies would have "a decisive impact" in pressuring Bush to take a stronger line.

"There is a growing network of citizen groups which is trying to get change. We will see in the next few weeks who wins this battle," he said.

Lyman said the Bush administration should push the African Union to do more.

"The African Union has to be confronted and told that it is not toeing the line," Lyman said. "Khartoum is not feeling any pressure at the moment. None."

The Darfur conflict has attracted activists from all sides of the political and religious spectrum -- from Jewish leaders such as Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel to evangelicals and liberals and conservatives alike.

Darfur has also become a major rallying cry on campus. The University of California in March voted to pull out of funds that invest in nine firms doing business in Sudan.

MTV's college network is participating in Sunday's Washington rally and introducing a video game on Darfur. "Our campaign is powered by college students who are not about to let the first genocide of the 21st century happen on their watch," said network representative Ross Martin.




Read More...

US radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh charged with fraudulently obtaining prescription drugs; gets off easy

BBC NEWS
US radio pundit on drugs charge
US radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been charged with fraudulently obtaining prescription drugs.

The move comes after an investigation into the commentator that began over two years ago.

Mr Limbaugh admitted on air in October 2003 he was addicted to prescription painkillers after Florida authorities began an investigation into him.

The problem stemmed from spinal surgery several years ago and he has sought treatment for it, he said.

Mr Limbaugh, 55, was charged with illegally obtaining prescriptions, or "doctor shopping", after presenting himself at the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office.

He was later released on $3,000 (£1,643) bail, according to his lawyer, Roy Black.

Deal with prosecutors

Mr Black said his client had filed a written plea of not guilty and denied the charge.

But under a deal with prosecutors, the charge will be dropped in 18 months if Mr Limbaugh continues to seek treatment for his addiction.

Mr Limbaugh has also agreed to make a $30,000 payment to the state of Florida to offset the public cost of the investigation.

"The prosecutors and I agree that there shouldn't be a criminal prosecution, and we agree there shouldn't be any court proceedings," Mr Black told Reuters news agency, adding that his client was pleased the case was over.

"He's just happy that it's finally ended and he can go back to his normal life," he said.

The case attracted widespread attention in 2003 because the popular radio commentator had been a tough critic of drug offenders.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4957154.stm




Read More...

Ex-Head of F.D.A., Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Faces Criminal Inquiry

The New York Times
Ex-Head of F.D.A. Faces Criminal Inquiry
By GARDINER HARRIS

WASHINGTON, April 28 — Dr. Lester M. Crawford, the former commissioner of food and drugs, is under criminal investigation by a federal grand jury over accusations of financial improprieties and false statements to Congress, his lawyer said Friday.

The lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder, would not discuss the accusations further. In a court hearing held by telephone on Thursday, she told a federal magistrate that she would instruct Dr. Crawford to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination if ordered to answer questions this week about his actions as head of the Food and Drug Administration, according to a transcript of the hearing.

Dr. Crawford did not reply to messages seeking comment, and Kathleen Quinn, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, declined to comment.

Dr. Crawford resigned in September, fewer than three months after the Senate confirmed him. He said then that it was time for someone else to lead the agency.

The next month, financial disclosure forms released by the Department of Health and Human Services showed that in 2004 either Dr. Crawford or his wife, Catherine, had sold shares in companies regulated by the agency when he was its deputy commissioner and acting commissioner. He has since joined a Washington lobbying firm, Policy Directions Inc.

The criminal investigation was disclosed at a court hearing in a lawsuit over the F.D.A.'s actions on the emergency contraceptive Plan B, a subject of bitter contention during Dr. Crawford's tenure as acting commissioner and commissioner. After the pill's maker, Barr Laboratories, applied three years ago to sell the pill over the counter, the agency repeatedly delayed making a decision on the application.

While many lawmakers, abortion rights advocates and former F.D.A. officials said the delays had resulted from politics, Dr. Crawford and other agency officials said their concerns were scientific and legal.

An advocacy group, the Center for Reproductive Rights, sued the agency in federal court in New York over the delays. Many such suits are quickly dismissed, but a federal judge allowed the case to proceed, giving the center the right to interview top F.D.A. officials, including Dr. Crawford.

Dr. Crawford was scheduled to be questioned under oath on Thursday, but on Wednesday Ms. Van Gelder, who is his personal lawyer, asked for a delay, saying she would instruct him to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. Dr. Crawford previously declined to answer questions from the Government Accountability Office about Plan B.

Ms. Van Gelder told Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Thursday that Dr. Crawford had been represented by Justice Department lawyers in the reproductive rights center's suit.

According to the transcript, she said that Dr. Crawford was under criminal investigation and that the issue of his financial disclosures "is within the grand jury."

Before Dr. Crawford's confirmation, the secretary of health and human services, Michael O. Leavitt, promised that the F.D.A. would act on the Plan B application by September 2005, a promise that led two Democratic senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Patty Murray of Washington, to relent in their efforts to delay the nomination. But after he was confirmed, Dr. Crawford announced an indefinite delay that has remained in effect.

Simon Heller, a lawyer for the reproductive rights center, noted that the F.D.A. had long insisted that its actions regarding Plan B were not unusual.

"It would be remarkable if the Justice Department was conducting a criminal investigation of Plan B and at the same time asserting in a civil case that everything done was normal," Mr. Heller said.



Read More...

FBI Probes Whether Defense Contractor Provided Prostitutes, Limos, Hotel Suites to Ex-Lawmaker

ABC News
FBI Probes Contractor, Ex-Lawmaker Ties
FBI Probes Whether Defense Contractor Provided Prostitutes, Limos, Hotel Suites to Ex-Lawmaker
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - FBI agents are investigating whether a defense contractor provided prostitutes, limousines and hotel suites to a lawmaker who has been convicted on bribery charges, two federal officials said Friday.

Investigators have contacted Washington-area escort services, two hotels and a limousine company in recent weeks, one official said.

The allegations were raised by Mitchell Wade, another defense contractor who also has pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the bribery conspiracy involving former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the officials said. Cunningham is serving a prison term of eight years, four months after pleading guilty in November to taking $2.4 million in homes, yachts and other bribes.

Wade is cooperating with investigators as part of his plea agreement in February. He has told them that Brent Wilkes, a San Diego defense contractor who has been identified as a co-conspirator, secured prostitutes, limousines and suites at two Washington hotels for Cunningham, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing.

Wilkes, founder of ADCS Inc., has not been charged. Mike Lipman, his attorney, did not return messages left seeking comment. Reginald Brown, Wade's attorney, declined comment Friday.

One official said agents have been checking out investigative leads, but so far have been unable to confirm that, even if true, the prostitutes were part of the bribery scheme. Investigators have not turned up evidence that other lawmakers were involved, the official said.

The investigation, spawned by reports of the former California congressman's extravagant lifestyle, is continuing both in Washington and San Diego, the officials said.

Justice Department and FBI spokesmen declined to comment on the investigation.

The allegations involving prostitutes have previously been reported by The Wall Street Journal and The San Diego Union-Tribune.



Read More...

Friday, April 28, 2006

No Outcry About Lobby Scandal, Lawmakers Say; Republicans See Little Risk In Pushing Modest Ethics Bill

washingtonpost.com
No Outcry About Lobby Scandal, Lawmakers Say
Republicans See Little Risk In Pushing Modest Ethics Bill
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writers

The scandal surrounding disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff has been a Washington obsession for months, but Republican lawmakers who returned from a two-week recess this week said they felt free to pass a relatively tepid ethics bill because their constituents rarely mention the issue.

The House is scheduled to vote today on ethics legislation to increase lobbyists' disclosures and require lawmakers to own up to the earmarks, or narrow projects, that they insert into appropriations bills. But the measure would not restrict the gifts or meals provided by lobbyists as House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) had proposed in January, nor would it expand the number of enforcers of lobbying rules and laws.

Lawmakers acknowledge that the bill is more limited in its scope and impact than the provisions promised by congressional leaders immediately after Abramoff's guilty plea to federal charges of bribery, conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud nearly four months ago. But they say they do not feel compelled to push more stringent measures partly because voters do not appear to be demanding them. "We're all being rushed into a bill," said Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio). "We panicked, and we let the media get us panicked."

Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), a former ethics committee chairwoman, said passage of the bill will have no political consequences because "people are quite convinced that the rhetoric of reform is just political."

Some Republican leaders assert that lawmakers are hearing little from constituents about the congressional corruption scandal, even though it has received considerable media attention. Jo Maney, spokeswoman for Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), a chief architect of the House ethics bill, said: "Many members have told him [Dreier] that they are not hearing about corruption and lobbying reform at home. They hear more about immigration, gas prices." Still, Dreier and Hastert "feel strongly" that the ethics bill "is the right thing to do" and that it will "improve the public's perception of the integrity of the House of Representatives," Maney added.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll this month showed that 63 percent of Americans called "corruption in Washington" important to their vote. Democrats are eager to use the lobbying controversy as part of their campaign to win back control of Congress this year, and they contend that the corruption issue can be a powerful Election Day weapon.

A poll this month by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed the public giving Democrats an edge on the ethics issue. Twenty-eight percent of Americans said they think the Republican Party governs in an honest and ethical way, compared with 36 percent who said the Democrats are more ethical, according to the survey. By a ratio of 45 percent to 28 percent, respondents said that Republicans are influenced more by lobbyists and special interests than are Democrats.

Democratic strategists say that the ethics issue does not carry a lot of weight by itself. They say that, to win over voters, they must link Republicans' alleged coziness with lobbyists to failures in Washington to address specific public needs, such as health-care coverage and economic security. "It is up to us to show the public what this means to them," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). For example, she said: "If [we] want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and therefore improve our national security situation, you can't do it if you are a Republican because you are too wedded to the oil companies."

Republicans won back control of the House and the Senate in 1994 after making Democratic political corruption part of the larger issue of arrogance of power and poor performance in government, according to Michael J. Malbin, executive director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute. The Democrats' burden now, he said, is to make that larger connection to voters.

Republicans counter that Democrats have ethical problems of their own that blunt their effort to portray the GOP as the party of corruption. Two Democratic congressmen are facing separate, official inquiries about their connections to private pleaders: Reps. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.) and William J. Jefferson (La.). Both say they have done nothing wrong.

"The Democrat party runs a real risk here of being the pot that calls the kettle black," said Tracey Schmitt, press secretary of the Republican National Committee.

Some lawmakers and political analysts believe that voters could punish incumbents during the November elections if Congress passes a minimalist ethics bill. The chances of such a backlash could rise, these critics say, if there are more indictments or guilty pleas later this year. Abramoff and two former aides to Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) are cooperating with federal authorities in a wide-ranging investigation of political favors done in return for gifts, trips, payments and campaign contributions. DeLay, a once-powerful House majority leader, is fighting a criminal indictment in Texas on charges of political money laundering.

Some congressional historians assert that GOP leaders would be taking a risk in assuming that the lobbying bill is of such low voter priority that they could push through a modest plan without paying a political cost. "When you combine [the ethics issue] with the general dissatisfaction with the way in which we are governed," said L. Sandy Maisel, a professor of government at Colby College, "I think the breaking point might be near."

Today, the House plans to vote on a bill that would require lobbyists to file quarterly instead of semiannual disclosures and to include in those reports the donations they give to federal candidates and political action committees. Lobbyists would also have to make public the amount of any gift that they give to lawmakers or congressional aides. In addition, appropriations bills would have to list any earmarks that they contain, as well as the sponsors of those projects. Ethics training would become mandatory in the House under the legislation.

Government watchdog groups have complained that the legislation would not change much about how lawmakers and lobbyists interact. "It's a reform bill in name only, and they're hoping no one will notice," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest organization, said one reason for the bill's weakness is that the public is not riled up about lobbying abuses. "The American people take the view that both parties are involved and there's not much surprising about it," he said.

Staff writer Jonathan Weisman contributed to this report.




Read More...

Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared; Katrina Report Rips Bush Administration

ABC News
Katrina Report Rips the White House Anew
Katrina Report Rips Bush Administration Anew; Senators Say Changes Unlikely Before Storm Season
By LARA JAKES
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A Senate inquiry into the government's Hurricane Katrina failures ripped the Bush administration anew Thursday and urged the scrapping of the nation's disaster response agency. But with a new hurricane season just weeks away, senators conceded that few if any of their proposals could become reality in time.

The bipartisan investigation into one of the worst natural disasters in the nation's history singled out President Bush and the White House as appearing indifferent to the devastation until two days after the storm hit.

It said the Homeland Security Department either misunderstood federal disaster plans or refused to follow them. And it said New Orleans for years had neglected to prepare for large-scale emergencies.

"The suffering that continued in the days and weeks after the storm passed did not happen in a vacuum; instead, it continued longer that it should have because of and was in some cases exacerbated by the failure of government at all levels to plan, prepare for and respond aggressively to the storm," concluded the report.

It was titled "Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared," sober words for the future.

The Senate inquiry is the third major federal report on the government failures exposed by the Aug. 29 storm, which killed more than 1,300 people and which the Senate Budget Committee says has so far cost the federal government $103 billion.

The report follows similar inquiries by the House and White House and comes in an election year in which Democrats have pointed critically to the administration's Katrina response.

The senators concluded that only by abolishing the Federal Emergency Management Agency which Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, called a "bumbling bureaucracy" and replacing it with a stronger authority could the government best respond to future catastrophes.

But the two lawmakers who led the inquiry, Collins and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said such an overhaul could not be completed by the June 1 start of the hurricane season.

"As a practical matter, that's just five weeks away, and it's not going to happen," Collins told reporters. "But that doesn't mean that we should continue in the long term to operate with a system that's failed, that is so clearly flawed."

Looking ahead to approaching hurricane season, Collins added: "We're clearly better prepared than last year, but are we prepared enough? No, we're not."

Underscoring the hurdles the proposals face, eliminating FEMA got a cool reception from the White House as Bush traveled to the still-ravaged Gulf Coast to view rebuilding efforts in New Orleans and Mississippi.

"My thoughts are is that we've got to make sure it functions well. We're coming into a hurricane season," he said in an interview with "NBC Nightly News."

Earlier, White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend, said, "Now is not the time to look at moving organizational boxes around."

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco said: "FEMA is injured. It's going to take more than surgery and a cast to mend it. To restore the nation's confidence in times of crisis, the call for help must be answered and it must be answered quickly."

Besides dumping FEMA, the report makes 85 other recommendations, from clarifying who's responsible for maintaining New Orleans levees to demanding better plans for protecting or evacuating elderly and poor victims.

The report calls for more funding for disaster planning and response, but does not specify how much or where the money would come from.

The Bush administration says it has been working to prepare for what the National Hurricane Center has predicted will be an active decade for hurricanes. It is rebuilding New Orleans levees, prodding local governments to update evacuation plans and hire emergency workers, and creating databases to order and track food and other supplies needed during disasters.

Though the new report singles out officials from New Orleans to Washington for blame and lambastes Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in particular it gives Bush a mixed review for his performance. It credits the president for declaring an emergency before the hurricane's landfall, but faults him for waiting until two days after it hit to return to Washington and convene top officials to coordinate the federal response.

Lieberman, in an addendum, took sharper aim at Bush, who he said appeared distracted from the disaster as it unfolded. "The president is, after all, the commander in chief not only in terms of international crises, but in terms of catastrophes here at home," he said.

Not all the senators who participated in the seven-month inquiry agreed with its central recommendation to create a National Preparedness and Response Authority but keep it within the oversight of Homeland Security Department to draw on the larger department's resources.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said FEMA needs to be stripped out of the larger department and restored as an independent Cabinet-level agency. "That's how it was done in the past and it worked as we hoped," said Lautenberg, a member of the Senate panel.

But Robert Latham, director of Mississippi's emergency response efforts, said lingering funding and manpower problems should be addressed before such a drastic step is taken.

"Changing the name of something doesn't fix a problem, other than maybe fixes a perception," Latham said. "Maybe FEMA has taken such a bashing that the name recognition itself will be hard to overcome."

On the Net:

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee: http://hsgac.senate.gov/




Read More...

Bush Set to Approve Takeover of 9 Military Plants by Dubai

The New York Times
Bush Set to Approve Takeover of 9 Military Plants by Dubai
By JIM RUTENBERG and DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, April 27 — President Bush is expected on Friday to announce his approval of a deal under which a Dubai-owned company would take control of nine plants in the United States that manufacture parts for American military vehicles and aircraft, say two administration officials familiar with the terms of the deal.

The officials, who were granted anonymity so they could speak freely about something the president had not yet announced, said that the final details had not yet been set and that Mr. Bush might put conditions on the transaction to keep military technology in the United States.

But his action is almost certain to attract scrutiny in Congress, because of the political furor that erupted over the administration's approval of a deal earlier this spring that would have given another Dubai-owned company, Dubai Ports World, leases to operate several American port terminals through its acquisition of a British company, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

Dubai Ports agreed to drop the port deal after it became clear that Republicans were abandoning Mr. Bush and opposing the takeover.

In this case, the plants in question are owned by Doncasters Group Ltd., a British company that is being purchased for $1.2 billion from the Royal Bank of Scotland Group by Dubai International Capital, which is owned by the United Arab Emirate government.

Because the plants make turbine blades for tanks and aircraft, the deal was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which sent it on to Mr. Bush himself for a decision, a step used only when the potential security risks or political considerations are particularly acute.

Administration officials alerted Congress that the deal would go through the committee's review process in an effort to head off the kind of public debate that surrounded the ports deal.

Opponents of the ports transactions argued that the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks had filtered money through the United Arab Emirates, where Dubai is the major shipping center. Mr. Bush argued that blocking the deal would have sent the wrong message to a friendly Arab state. His support, however, was not enough to quell the political furor.

One official who was briefed on the Doncasters transaction said there would be provisions in the agreement protecting American military secrets. But it was unclear whether that would satisfy Congressional objections. With nine Doncasters plants in Georgia and Connecticut making parts for American military contractors, the prospect of a takeover by the Dubai company has already caused nervousness among some lawmakers.

Representative John Barrow, Democrat of Georgia, likened the Doncasters deal to "outsourcing" part of the nation's industrial-military complex.

But Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security and one of the foremost critics of the ports deal, said on Thursday that he would not necessarily have a problem this time around, in large part because the White House had given the deal a thorough review.

"It's a significant improvement over what happened before," Mr. King said. "It's been much more thorough, much more detailed."

A senior Republican Congressional aide who was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the matter, said he did not believe the president's approval of the deal would cause quite the same stir as the ports deal.




Read More...