Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Hail to the chief

Boston Globe
Hail to the chief
By Charlie Savage

Dick Cheney's mission to expand -- or 'restore' --the powers of the presidency

ANN ARBOR, MICH. -- In July 1987, then-Representative Dick Cheney, the top Republican on the committee investigating the Iran-contra scandal, turned on his hearing room microphone and delivered, in his characteristically measured tone, a revolutionary claim.

President Reagan and his top aides, he asserted, were free to ignore a 1982 law at the center of the scandal. Known as the Boland Amendment, it banned US assistance to anti-Marxist militants in Nicaragua.

"I personally do not believe the Boland Amendment applied to the president, nor to his immediate staff," Cheney said.

Most of Cheney's colleagues did not share his vision of a presidency empowered to bypass US laws governing foreign policy. The committee issued a scathing, bipartisan report accusing White House officials of "disdain for the law."

Cheney refused to sign it. Instead, he commissioned his own report declaring that the real lawbreakers were his fellow lawmakers, because the Constitution "does not permit Congress to pass a law usurping Presidential power."

The Iran-contra scandal was not the first time the future vice president articulated a philosophy of unfettered executive power -- nor would it be the last. The Constitution empowers Congress to pass laws regulating the executive branch, but over the course of his career, Cheney came to believe that the modern world is too dangerous and complex for a president's hands to be tied. He embraced a belief that presidents have vast "inherent" powers, not spelled out in the Constitution, that allow them to defy Congress.

Cheney bypassed acts of Congress as defense secretary in the first Bush administration. And his office has been the driving force behind the current administration's hoarding of secrets, its efforts to impose greater political control over career officials, and its defiance of a law requiring the government to obtain warrants when wiretapping Americans. Cheney's staff has also been behind President Bush's record number of signing statements asserting his right to disregard laws.

A close look at key moments in Cheney's career -- from his political apprenticeship in the Nixon and Ford administrations to his decade in Congress and his tenure as secretary of defense under the first President Bush -- suggests that the newly empowered Democrats in Congress should not expect the White House to cooperate when they demand classified information or attempt to exert oversight in areas such as domestic surveillance or the treatment of terrorism suspects.

Peter Shane, an Ohio State University law professor, predicted that Cheney's long career of consistently pushing against restrictions on presidential power is likely to culminate in a series of uncompromising battles with Congress.

"Cheney has made this a matter of principle," Shane said. "For that reason, you are likely to hear the words 'executive privilege' over and over again during the next two years."

Cheney declined to comment for this article. But he has repeatedly said his agenda includes restoring the presidency to its fullest powers by rolling back "unwise" limits imposed by Congress after the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal.

"In 34 years, I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job," Cheney said on ABC in January 2002. "I feel an obligation...to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors."

Cheney's ideal of presidential power is the level of power the office briefly achieved in the late 1960s, the era of what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. called the "imperial presidency."

Early in the Cold War, presidents began invoking national security to seize greater power from Congress. This concentration of authority peaked under President Richard Nixon, who famously asserted that "when the president does it, that means it's not illegal." But Watergate reawakened Congress, which passed new laws to regulate presidential power.

Cheney was a close observer of that era. He landed his first job in the federal government in 1969, when Donald Rumsfeld hired him as an assistant at the Office of Economic Opportunity. The antipoverty agency, set up by Congress during the Johnson administration, was unpopular among conservatives, and Rumsfeld's and Cheney's job was to help Nixon impose greater political control over the office.

A chief target was the agency's legal aid program, headed by Terry Lenzner. Now a private investigator, Lenzner said in a recent interview that the White House pressured him to fire lawyers who filed class-action lawsuits on behalf of the poor. But Lenzner said he could not fire them because of the way Congress had written the agency's statute.

"I was being told, 'You have to put a stop to this, you have to control these lawyers,'" Lenzner recalled. "But I said that 'If I do what you want me to do, it will violate the law.'"

The orders to fire lawyers, Lenzner said, came from other White House aides, not Rumsfeld or Cheney personally. Still, in November 1970, Rumsfeld summoned Lenzner to his office, and, with Cheney at his side, fired Lenzner because he was unwilling to follow orders.

In August 1974, Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment by Congress. The new president, Gerald Ford, asked Rumsfeld to be his White House chief of staff, and Rumsfeld again made Cheney his deputy. A year later, Rumsfeld became secretary of defense, and Cheney replaced him as Ford's top aide.

In his new role, Cheney was exposed to national security issues from the perspective of a White House that wanted to preserve secrets in the face of congressional demands for more openness. Soon after Rumsfeld and Cheney took on their new posts, Congress passed a bill to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act. The bill allowed judges to review classified documents to determine if they were being shielded for political purposes.

In October 1974, Ford vetoed the legislation, telling Congress that the bill "would violate constitutional principles." Congress, however, overrode his veto, and lawmakers soon threatened to impose further limits on presidential power.

In December 1974, The New York Times reported that the CIA had engaged in an illegal domestic spying program for two decades, tapping phones, opening mail, and breaking into homes of antiwar protesters. The article, by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, prompted a congressional uproar.

In a memo to Ford, obtained at the Ford Presidential Library in Ann Arbor, Mich., Cheney urged the swift creation of a presidential commission to investigate the CIA. Cheney wrote that doing so was "the best prospect for heading off congressional efforts to further encroach on the executive branch."

Ford created the commission, but Congress moved in anyway. A Senate committee chaired by Idaho Democrat Frank Church began demanding access to secret documents. But Cheney soon saw a chance to convince the public that investigating intelligence operations was dangerous and unwise.

In May 1975, Hersh wrote an article discussing how US submarines eavesdropped on the Soviet Union's undersea cables. Fearing that the article had damaged national security, Cheney pushed the idea of indicting the reporter using the 1917 Espionage Act.

Making an example out of Hersh, Cheney wrote, would "create an environment" that might intimidate both the press and Congress. "Can we take advantage of it to bolster our position on the Church Committee investigation? To point out the need for limits on the scope of the investigations?" Cheney wrote. The idea, however, was scrapped to avoid attracting the Soviets' attention to Hersh's article.

The next spring, after revelations that the National Security Agency had monitored the phone calls of American civil rights and antiwar activists, Congress drafted legislation to require warrants for domestic surveillance. Cheney's allies, including Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and then-CIA director George H.W. Bush, opposed such a bill as a derogation of presidential power. But Ford decided not to fight it.

Congress passed the warrant requirement as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 -- the same law that the Bush-Cheney administration later bypassed with its warrantless wiretapping program.

After Ford lost the 1976 presidential election to Jimmy Carter, Cheney returned to Wyoming and in 1978 won a seat in Congress, where he specialized in intelligence matters. During the Iran-contra hearings, Cheney failed to convince a majority of his colleagues that the Reagan administration was justified in ignoring the Boland Amendment, but he moved quickly to block new congressional encroachments on what he saw as a president's exclusive turf.

When the Senate passed a bill forcing presidents to notify Congress of all covert operations within 48 hours, Cheney led a successful fight to defeat the bill in the House. He argued that Congress was prone to leaks and had no authority to force the commander-in-chief to share information about covert operations.

"The 48-hour bill would 'get back' at President Reagan by tying the hands of all future presidents," Cheney wrote in a May 1988 Wall Street Journal column. "That approach will achieve nothing useful."

The next year, Cheney became defense secretary under President George H.W. Bush. In his new position, Cheney again pushed for an expansive view of presidential power -- most dramatically in late 1990, when Cheney urged Bush to launch the Gulf War without asking Congress for authorization.

For all major overseas wars from 1789 to 1950, presidents obeyed the constitutional provision giving Congress alone the power to declare war. But in Korea and Vietnam, Presidents Truman, Johnson, and Nixon defied this constraint. They asserted that the commander-in-chief had "inherent" power to take the country to war on his own.

Seeking to restore its constitutional role, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973, requiring presidents to consult Congress when sending troops into battle.

After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Bush sent 500,000 US troops to Saudi Arabia. As they prepared to attack the Iraqi forces, Cheney told Bush that it was unnecessary and too risky to seek a vote in Congress.

"I was not enthusiastic about going to Congress for an additional grant of authority," Cheney recalled in a 1996 PBS "Frontline" documentary. "I was concerned that they might well vote 'no' and that would make life more difficult for us."

But Bush rejected Cheney's advice and asked Congress for a vote in support of the war. The resolution passed -- barely. Had Congress voted no, Cheney later said, he would have urged Bush to launch the Gulf War regardless.

"From a constitutional standpoint, we had all the authority we needed," Cheney said in the 1996 documentary. "If we'd lost the vote in Congress, I would certainly have recommended to the president that we go forward anyway."

As the Gulf War proceeded, Cheney fought with Congress on other fronts. After civilian Pentagon lawyers clashed with military attorneys over the handling of any bodies contaminated by biological weapons, Cheney asked Congress to change the law to place all military attorneys under the control of civilian political appointees. Congress rejected Cheney's proposal. But in March 1992, Cheney's deputy issued an administrative order defying the expressed will of Congress.

At the same time, Cheney was thwarting Congress by refusing to issue contracts for the V-22 Osprey, a plane that was plagued with technical problems. Cheney opposed the V-22 program, but Congress appropriated funds for it.

By refusing to issue contracts, Cheney revived a Nixon-era tactic of "impounding" funds -- refusing to spend money for programs that he didn't like. Congress had passed a law in 1974 to ban impoundment. Cheney, who later said he believes the anti-impoundment law unconstitutionally infringes on executive power, ignored it.

But Congress forced Cheney to back down in July 1992, when his top assistant, David Addington, was nominated to be the Pentagon's general counsel and came before a Senate confirmation hearing.

"How many ways are there around evading the will of Congress? How many different legal theories do you have?" Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, thundered at Cheney's aide.

"I do not have any, senator," said Addington. He was confirmed only after promising that the Pentagon would restore the military lawyers' independence and issue V-22 contracts as quickly as possible.

Cheney left government after Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, but he returned as a deeply influential vice president eight years later. His aide Addington became a dominant member of the administration's legal team, and together, Cheney and Addington made the assertion of sweeping executive powers a hallmark of George W. Bush's presidency.

One of Cheney's first acts as vice president was to convene an energy policy task force, inviting energy company lobbyists to suggest a package of tax breaks and other incentives for their companies.

When Congress and watchdog groups requested his task force's records, Cheney successfully fought a court battle to keep them secret, arguing that presidents needed greater power to solicit candid advice. The decision gutted the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a 1972 law in which Congress tried to require such policymaking to be subject to public scrutiny.

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, military lawyers objected to the administration's assertion that a president has the power to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects outside the restrictions of the Geneva Conventions. In response, the administration renewed Cheney's attempt to put military lawyers under the control of civilian appointees.

Citing a need for secrecy, the administration also erected new roadblocks to Freedom of Information Act requests, restricted access to historic presidential records, and threatened to prosecute journalists who published classified information using the 1917 anti-spying law -- the same idea Cheney toyed with in 1975.

In signing statements and legal memos, the administration, with Cheney and Addington as its driving force, has repeatedly used the war on terrorism to advance the idea that the president has vast "inherent" authority to bypass laws enacted by Congress. Even when Congress voted, a week after the 9/11 attacks, to authorize the use of military force against Al Qaeda, the administration quickly seized the moment to lay down its marker.

"[Congress cannot] place any limits on the president's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response," the Justice Department asserted in a September 2001 memo solicited by the White House. "These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the president alone to make."

The following year, the administration drew up secret legal opinions informing military and CIA interrogators that the president has the power to authorize them to violate laws banning torture.

"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign against Al Qaeda and its allies, [the anti-torture law] must be construed as not applying to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority," said an August 2002 memo, which was leaked to the media only after the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib came to light.

Then, in December 2005, The New York Times revealed that the administration was wiretapping Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without warrants, violating the 1978 surveillance law.

Three days later, Cheney sat down with reporters and laid out his belief "in a strong, robust executive authority." Bypassing the warrant law, he asserted, was "consistent with the constitutional authority of the president."

Cheney also indicated that he hopes to establish further precedents for the expansion of presidential authority. Listing other statutory constraints on presidential power, he said they "will be tested at some point." When Cheney was asked whether he believed that the pendulum of executive power had swung back far enough in the direction he desired, or whether it needed to swing back further, he demurred.

"I do think that to some extent now, we've been able to restore the legitimate authority of the presidency," he replied.



Read More...

Treasury ordered to make bills recognizable to blind people

USA TODAY
Treasury ordered to make bills recognizable to blind people

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government discriminates against blind people by printing money that all looks and feels the same, a federal judge said Tuesday in a ruling that could change the face of American currency.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson ordered the Treasury Department to come up with ways for the blind to tell bills apart. He said he wouldn't tell officials how to fix the problem, but he ordered them to begin working on it.

READ THE RULING: Judge's memorandum order

The American Council of the Blind has proposed several options, including printing bills of differing sizes, adding embossed dots or foil to the paper or using raised ink.

"Of the more than 180 countries that issue paper currency, only the United States prints bills that are identical in size and color in all their denominations," Robertson wrote. "More than 100 of the other issuers vary their bills in size according to denomination, and every other issuer includes at least some features that help the visually impaired."

Government attorneys argued that forcing the Treasury Department to change the size of the bills or add texture would make it harder to prevent counterfeiting. Robertson was not swayed.

"The fact that each of these features is currently used in other currencies suggests that, at least on the face of things, such accommodations are reasonable," he wrote.

He said the government was violating the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in government programs. The opinion came after a four-year legal fight.

Electronic devices are available to help blind people differentiate between bills, but many complain that they are slow, expensive and unreliable. Visually impaired shoppers frequently rely on store clerks to help them.

"It's just frankly unfair that blind people should have to rely on the good faith of people they have never met in knowing whether they've been given the correct change," said Jeffrey A. Lovitky, attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Others have developed ways to cope with the similarly shaped bills. Melanie Brunson, a member of the American Council of the Blind, told the court that she folds her bills into different shapes: $1 bills stay straight, $5 bills are folded in half left to right, $10 bills in half top to bottom and $20 in quarters.

The Treasury Department had no comment on the ruling Tuesday. The government has 10 days to decide whether to appeal.

U.S. bills have not always been the same size. In 1929, the government standardized the size and shrank all bills by about 30% to lower manufacturing costs and help distinguish between genuine and counterfeit notes.

Since then, the Treasury Department has worked to stay ahead of counterfeiters. Security threads and microprinting were introduced in 1990. The portraits were enlarged in 1996, and an infrared feature was added to encourage the development of electronic readers for the blind.

The latest redesign is underway. New $10 bills, featuring splashes of orange, yellow and red, hit the market this year, following similar changes to the $20 bill in 2003 and the $50 bill in 2004. The $5 facelift is due in 2008.

In court documents, government attorneys said changing the way money feels would be expensive. Cost estimates ranged from $75 million in equipment upgrades and $9 million annual expenses for punching holes in bills to $178 million in one-time charges and $50 million annual expenses for printing bills of varying sizes.

Any change to the dollar's design could ripple into the vending machine industry, which participated in discussions regarding previous redesigns. The American Council of the Blind is not seeking changes to the $1 bill, according to court documents.

The Treasury Department spent $4.2 billion on printing over the past decade, Robertson said. Adding a raised number to the bills would have increased costs less than 5% over that period, he said.

"If additional savings could be gained by incorporating the new feature into a larger redesign, such as those that took place in 1996 or 2004, the total burden of adding such a feature would be even smaller," Robertson wrote.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-28-currency_x.htm?csp=34





Read More...

The meaning of the term “obvious” might not be obvious

The New York Times
Prior Art, Teaching, Skill? It Must Be a Patent Case
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 — To be eligible for a patent, an invention must be novel, useful and, according to the statute, not “obvious” to a person of “ordinary skill” in the field. While the meaning of the term “obvious” might appear to be obvious, a lively and surprisingly entertaining Supreme Court argument on Tuesday demonstrated that it is anything but.

The question was how patent examiners and judges should evaluate the obviousness of a new product that combines, albeit in a novel way, two or more existing products. Since most inventions use elements of what patent law calls “prior art,” this case presents the court with what is widely viewed as its most important patent case in years.

The patent in dispute is for an adjustable gas pedal, designed to work in vehicles equipped with electronic engine controls. In the past, gas pedals that could be adjusted for the driver’s comfort worked mechanically. The new version, produced by a Canadian company, the KSR International Company, under contract to General Motors, combined an adjustable pedal with an electronic sensor.

Claiming that it had already patented such a product, a rival company, Teleflex Inc., sued. KSR argued that Teleflex’s patent was invalid because the combination of the two elements was obvious. A federal district judge in Detroit agreed, and dismissed the infringement suit.

But the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has jurisdiction over all patent appeals, overturned that decision. It ordered the district court to reconsider the case under a test that makes obviousness harder to prove — and therefore makes patents easier to obtain and defend. It is the validity of that test that is at issue in the case, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., No. 04-1350.

The Federal Circuit’s test for obviousness is usually referred to as the teaching-suggestion-motivation test. Under the test, a patent cannot be rejected as obvious unless the party challenging it can show that at the time of the invention, there existed a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” that would have led a person familiar with the field to put existing products together. Meeting that test often requires a jury trial, making patent litigation prolonged and expensive.

James W. Dabney, the lawyer representing KSR, told the justices that the Federal Circuit had improperly displaced “skill and ingenuity” as the benchmark for obtaining a patent and replaced it with what amounted to an “entitlement” to patent protection. But the Supreme Court itself “has rejected time and time again the notion that someone who was the first simply to take advantage of the known capability of technology was entitled to a patent,” he added.

The federal Patent and Trademark Office agrees with the critique and entered the case on the side of KSR. Thomas G. Hungar, a deputy solicitor general, told the justices that “as the sole means of proving obviousness, the teaching-suggestion-motivation test is contrary to the Patent Act, irreconcilable with this court’s precedents, and bad policy.”

Mr. Hungar added, “It asks the wrong question and, in cases like this one, it produces the wrong answer.”

But as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. pointed out, the Federal Circuit had a rationale for adding its distinctive gloss to the concept of obviousness. “They say obviousness is deceptive in hindsight,” the chief justice observed to Mr. Dabney. “In hindsight, everybody says, ‘I could have thought of that,’ ” he said, adding that in the Federal Circuit’s view, “if you don’t have the sort of constraint that their test imposes, it’s going to be too easy to say that everything was obvious.”

The chief justice’s comment came early in the argument; any implication that he was sympathetic to the appeals court proved premature. When it came time for the lawyer for Teleflex, Thomas C. Goldstein, to take the podium, Chief Justice Roberts made clear his disdain for the Federal Circuit’s approach.

The test “adds a layer of Federal Circuit jargon that lawyers can then bandy back and forth,” he said, adding, “It seems to me that it’s worse than meaningless because it complicates the inquiry rather than focusing on the statute.”

When Mr. Goldstein noted that “every single major patent bar association in the country has filed on our side,” the chief justice interjected: “Well, which way does that cut? That just indicates that this is profitable for the patent bar.” And when Mr. Goldstein referred to experts who had testified that the Teleflex patent was not obvious, the chief justice asked: “Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something’s not obvious? I mean, the least insightful person you can find?”

Chief Justice Roberts made the comments with a smile, and the courtroom audience responded with laughter. Mr. Goldstein, an experienced Supreme Court advocate, was unfazed at finding himself the straight man in a courtroom comedy. He kept returning to his theme, which was that the Federal Circuit’s test, properly understood, served the function of focusing the inquiry.

“Invention isn’t at the end when you put the two things together,” Mr. Goldstein said. “Invention is finding the problem, deciding what pieces of the prior art to use, and deciding how to put them together.” He warned that there would be “genuine, dramatic instability” if the court disavowed the approach the Federal Circuit has used nearly since its creation in 1982.

Congress created the centralized court for the purpose of reducing instability in the patent system. Underlying the legal arguments was the deeper question of how patent law has fared in the court’s hands — whether, as Justice Stephen G. Breyer put it, “they’ve leaned too far in the direction of never seeing a patent they didn’t like.” There was, Justice Breyer said, “a huge argument going on.” With that observation, Mr. Goldstein readily agreed.





Read More...

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Supreme Court to decide what makes an antitrust case

USA TODAY
Supreme Court to decide what makes an antitrust case

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court pressed both sides Monday in the opening arguments of a case that businesses of all stripes care deeply about: how hard should it be to get evidence that a company might be violating antitrust laws?

The case, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, stems from the deregulation of the telecommunications industry in the 1980s and 1990s, with some experts citing it as the most important antitrust case to reach the Supreme Court in 20 years.

The case is being closely watched by numerous companies, including airlines, credit card issuers and trade associations representing the wireless communications and pharmaceutical industries, all of whom have submitted or signed onto friend-of-the-court briefs.

The plaintiff in this case is represented by Milberg Weiss, known for its class-action lawsuits alleging securities fraud against major corporations. The firm filed a lawsuit in 2003 on behalf of William Twombly and all individuals in the continental United States who bought local telephone and Internet service between February 1996 and the present.

The suit alleged that the incumbent local telephone companies, or regional Bells, illegally conspired to prevent competition by excluding new local phone companies from their territories and agreeing not to compete against each other in each other's markets.

As part of the original court-ordered breakup of AT&T in 1982, seven regional telephone companies were created to provide local service. The 1996 Telecommunications Act allowed those regional Bells to offer long-distance calling, in addition to local service, in exchange for allowing competitors access to their networks.

The original seven incumbent local phone companies have been reduced to four through mergers and acquisitions: Verizon Communications (VZ), which was formed by the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE in 2000; BellSouth (BLS); Qwest Communications International (Q), which bought Pacific Bell; and AT&T (T), which was bought by local phone provider SBC Communications. AT&T has also offered to buy BellSouth, but that deal has not been approved.

A federal district court dismissed Twombly's case, finding that Twombly did not allege sufficient facts to indicate that a conspiracy would likely be proven during a trial. But Twombly argued that a conspiracy could be inferred from the so-called "parallel conduct," or behavior, of the defendants.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court, however, finding in October 2005 that a plaintiff must submit only a "short and plain statement of the claim" and not a detailed set of facts in order to survive a motion to dismiss.

The regional Bells appealed to the Supreme Court. A low standard, corporations say, would enable "meritless" and "abusive" cases to go forward, forcing many businesses to settle those cases rather than endure the expense of litigation, including the discovery process in which defendants must produce documentation of certain facts for the plaintiff.

Under the standard upheld by the appeals court, "you can go sue half the firms in the economy," Justice Stephen Breyer said Monday.

A higher standard, however, could make it too difficult for individuals to bring valid antitrust cases, Twombly argued, because the only way a plaintiff can get evidence of an agreement among companies to restrict competition is through the discovery process.

If antitrust cases are dismissed too quickly, evidence of such agreements will rarely end up in the hands of plaintiffs, Twombly argued.

Twombly's attorney also said that the telephone companies' refusal to compete against each in each other's territories went against their economic self-interest, which could imply a conspiracy.

Justice John Paul Stevens pressed Michael Kellogg, the attorney arguing the case for the phone companies, on why such allegations were not sufficient for the case to continue.

"How you can say this is not a statement of fact I find mind-boggling," Stevens said.


Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2006-11-27-scotus-antitrust_x.htm?csp=34




Read More...

Gates may take Pentagon job in December

USA TODAY
Gates may take Pentagon job in December

WASHINGTON (AP) — Robert Gates, the former CIA director who is President Bush's choice to replace Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, is likely to assume the Pentagon post before year's end if he is confirmed by the Senate as expected, officials said Monday.

Eric Ruff, the Pentagon press secretary, said Gates will have his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee early next week, with a vote expected by the full Senate by Dec. 12 or 13. In preparation for the hearing, Gates is receiving a series of briefings by senior Pentagon officials, Ruff said.

Even if Gates is confirmed as expected, it is unclear when he would be sworn in to his new duties, Ruff said.

"It's somewhat of a fluid situation," he said.

Another administration official, who would discuss the Gates matter only on condition of anonymity, said that if confirmation goes as expected, then Gates would be sworn in well before the end of the year. No date is set.

Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation and Gates' nomination on Nov. 8, the day after congressional elections that put the Democrats in control of both the Senate and the House. Bush faces heavy political pressure to find a way forward in Iraq; he said he chose Gates in hopes of gaining fresh ideas about war strategy.

Bush is scheduled to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki this week in Amman, Jordan, amid continuing violence, political turmoil and fear of civil war in Iraq. The president also awaits recommendations on possible new approaches to stabilizing the country from the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group.

Ruff said Gates, who is president of Texas A&M University, may have university business to attend to in the days following his confirmation hearing, but it was unclear whether this would delay his swearing in.

There has been speculation that the Pentagon transition would be put off until the end of December in order to give Rumsfeld the distinction of being the longest-serving secretary of defense since the post was created in 1947.

Rumsfeld is the only person to have held the job twice. The first time, he served for 14 months, from Nov. 20, 1975 to Jan. 20, 1977. His current tenure began Jan. 20, 2001. If he were to stay until Dec. 28, his combined tenures would surpass the longevity record held by Robert S. McNamara, who served from Jan. 21, 1961 to Feb. 29, 1968.

Ruff said, however, that the timing of Gates' takeover has nothing to do with the longevity record.

"I can assure you that is not a factor on the secretary's mind," Ruff said.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-27-gates-rumsfeld_x.htm?csp=34





Read More...

Justice Official Opens Spying Inquiry

The New York Times
Justice Official Opens Spying Inquiry
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 — After months of pressure from Congressional Democrats, the Justice Department’s inspector general said Monday that his office had opened a full review into the department’s role in President Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program and the legal requirements governing the program.

Democrats said they saw the investigation as a welcome step that could answer questions about the operations and legal underpinnings of the program, which allows the National Security Agency to monitor, without obtaining court warrants, the international communications of Americans and others inside this country with suspected terrorist ties.

“This is a long overdue investigation of a highly controversial program,” said Representative John Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat who will take over as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Last December, more than three dozen Democrats called for the Justice Department inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, to open an investigation.

Mr. Fine declined at the time, saying a review of the program’s legality fell outside his jurisdiction. He referred the matter to another arm of the Justice Department, the Office of Professional Responsibility. That office sought to examine ethical issues surrounding the roles played by Justice Department lawyers in the eavesdropping program. But its review was blocked this year when Mr. Bush personally refused security clearances for its investigators.

Democrats have since renewed their calls for a full Justice Department investigation, accusing the Bush administration of stonewalling. On Monday, Mr. Fine informed members of Congress in a letter that he was opening an investigation after the White House had agreed to approve the necessary security clearances for members of his staff.

The review will have a somewhat different scope than the investigation sought and rejected last year. The review, Mr. Fine said in his letter, will examine the controls in place at the Justice Department for the eavesdropping, the way information developed from it was used, and the department’s “compliance with legal requirements governing the program.”

Officials said the investigation could examine the legal authority given to the Justice Department under a secret executive order first signed by Mr. Bush in October 2001, as well as the laws and procedures governing intelligence wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was approved by Congress in 1978 after the Watergate scandal and required a special court warrant for wiretaps on Americans. The review could also look at how intelligence generated by the eavesdropping was used to seek traditional court warrants and to pursue criminal cases, the officials said.

An official with the inspector general’s office, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the office’s position had not changed since it declined to review the program in January. “It was beyond our jurisdiction, and it still is beyond our jurisdiction, to review the legality or the constitutionality of the program, and that’s not what we’re doing here,” the official said.

Congressional Democrats said they were eager to see what areas the inspector general would decide to review. Mr. Fine has a reputation as a strong and independent watchdog within the Justice Department, and he has issued a number of highly critical reports about the department’s policies and practices since the terrorism attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Still, several Democrats suggested that the timing of his review might be tied to their takeover of Congress in this month’s midterm elections as a way to pre-empt expected Democratic investigations of the N.S.A. program.

“It’s hard to ignore the fact that there is a correlation in the timing,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who helped lead the push for a Justice Department investigation.

“I don’t know why the White House would stonewall for a year, then within a month of the election, agree to these security clearances” for the inspector general’s staff, Ms. Lofgren said in an interview. “We don’t know what it means, but we’ll find out.”

Mr. Fine said in his letter to members of Congress that he decided to open his investigation after “conducting initial inquiries” into the eavesdropping operation. That initial inquiry was limited to Mr. Fine and two other supervisors in his office who had security clearance to review the program, but it will now be widened to include investigators and staff members, officials said.

The Justice Department said it welcomed the inspector general’s investigation. “We expect that this review will assist Justice Department personnel in ensuring that the department’s activities comply with the legal requirements that govern the operation of the program,” said Brian Roehrkasse, a department spokesman.

The administration has strongly defended the legality of the eavesdropping program, but a federal judge in Detroit ruled in August that the program was illegal and unconstitutional. The Bush administration is now appealing that decision.





Read More...

High Court Rules Against New York Times

CBSNews.com
High Court Rules Against New York Times

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27, 2006(CBS/AP) The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday, refusing to block the government from reviewing telephone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation concerning a terrorism-funding probe.

The one-sentence order came in a First Amendment battle that involves stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon. The stories revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to track down the reporters' confidential sources for the stories. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment on the Supreme Court's order.

The case marks the second refusal by the court in as many years to sort out a clash between the federal government and the Times over press freedom.

In June 2005, the Supreme Court refused to take up the Times' request to hear an appeal in the CIA leak investigation involving the outing of Valerie Plame. In that case, Miller, who retired from the Times a year ago, spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify before a federal grand jury. Fitzgerald, in a role as a special counsel, conducted that leak investigation as well.

Monday's rejection "is just further indication that we're getting absolutely nowhere with the court when it comes to protecting confidential sources," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The case points out a growing problem of reporters trying to protect their sources in the information age, press advocates say. Rather than threatening reporters with jail if they don't testify, the government can go through the back door to hunt down confidential sources by amassing phone records and credit-card receipts.

"It's impossible to operate on cash only and face-to-face and do your job as journalists," said University of Minnesota media ethics and law professor Jane E. Kirtley.

Dalglish said protection of phone record confidentiality is among the issues that should be addressed in federal shield law legislation she and other media advocates are urging Congress to consider.

In other cases:

# The Supreme Court pressed both sides in the opening arguments of a case that businesses of all stripes care deeply about: how hard should it be to get evidence that a company might be violating antitrust laws? The case, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, stems from the deregulation of the telecommunications industry in the 1980s and 1990s, with some experts citing it as the most important antitrust case to reach the Supreme Court in 20 years. The case is being closely watched by numerous companies, including airlines, credit-card issuers and trade associations representing the wireless communications and pharmaceutical industries, all of whom have submitted or signed onto friend-of-the-court briefs.

# The court decided not to plunge into the issue of school choice, passing up a dispute over a Maine law that bars the use of public funds to send students to private religious schools. A conservative group, the Institute for Justice, had asked the justices to take the case. The group is representing eight Maine families who would receive public tuition funds but for the fact that their children attend religious schools.

# The court also let stand a ruling that dismissed a $10.1 billion verdict against Philip Morris USA, ending a case that became a windfall for the county where it originated but helped feed its reputation as a "judicial hellhole." In its order Monday, the high court upheld without comment last year's Illinois Supreme Court ruling throwing out the massive fraud judgment against Philip Morris USA, a unit of New York-based Altria Group Inc., in a class-action lawsuit involving "light" cigarettes.

# The Supreme Court hears arguments this week in a case that could determine whether the Bush administration must change course in how it deals with the threat of global warming. A dozen states as well as environmental groups and large cities are trying to convince the court that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate, as a matter of public health, the amount of carbon dioxide that comes from vehicles.

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer for the Times, said the current case is part of a larger dispute over the public's right to information.

"We remain hopeful that in the end, whether in the courts or in Congress, that right will be vindicated," Abrams said.

The current dispute stems from Shenon and Miller calling the two charities for comment after learning of the planned freeze on their assets from confidential sources.

The Justice Department says the reporters' calls tipped off the charities of upcoming government raids. A federal judge who ruled in the Times' favor said there is no evidence in the case even suggesting that the reporters tipped off the charities about the raids or that the reporters even knew the government would raid either charity.

In August, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that federal prosecutors could see the two reporters' phone records.

The government says the fact that the reporters relayed disclosures from a government source to "targets of an imminent law enforcement action substantially weakens any claim of freedom of the press."

At issue are 11 days of phone records the government plans to review from 2001 — for the dates Sept. 27-30, Dec. 1-3 and Dec. 10-13. In a declaration this month, Fitzgerald said the statute of limitations "on certain substantive offenses that the grand jury is investigating" will expire on Dec. 3 and Dec. 13 of this year.

The current leak probe is in Fitzgerald's capacity as U.S. Attorney in Chicago. The Libby prosecution is in Fitzgerald's role as a special counsel who was selected by a Justice Department superior to conduct that investigation.




Read More...

It's Wrong to Censor O.J.

Huffington Post
Jeff Norman
It's Wrong to Censor O.J.

When news broke on June 12, 1994 that Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson had just been killed in the Brentwood section of Los Angeles, countless media organizations began to cover this double-murder relentlessly. Although the reportage has since become less ubiquitous, it never completely stopped, even though much of the attention has probably been very upsetting to the next of kin.

So nobody should believe News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch's claim that it was out of respect for the Brown and Goldman families he squashed "If I Did It," the television/book combo which was to have been marketed as O.J. Simpson's confession. The notorious mogul reversed his plans only to remedy a public relations crisis, and because he realized a flight of sponsors and affiliates would financially impair his Fox Broadcasting Company if Judith Regan's interview with Simpson were to air. Murdoch's decision, a shrewd response to a barrage of shallow complaints by influential elitists, indicates no new trend toward excellence in journalism.

It would be nice if the masses weren't so obsessed with O.J. and his worldview, but those who crave constant Juice shouldn't be deprived of their fix simply because the dictators of decency are offended. Yes, Fred Goldman and Denise Brown endured a terrible tragedy. No, their grief does not entitle them to be gatekeepers of public information. Likewise, celebrity commentators who for years profited from this ongoing soap opera, possess no moral authority to shriek in indignation over a book based on the leading man's perspective. Nonetheless, now that he has entered their field, pundits who gladly accept generous wages for producing sordid infotainment and sensationalism, are openly conspiring to deny Simpson a livelihood, as if he is beneath them, and they are official stewards of an honorable profession. What could be more unctuous than Geraldo Rivera, who conducted an infamous TV interview with convicted murderer Charles Manson, calling for O.J. to be silenced in the name of good taste?

Like it or not, O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder charges. The judgment in a subsequent civil lawsuit obligates him to pay $33.5 million to the Brown and Goldman families, but it does not authorize anyone to blacklist the famous defendant or suppress his speech. Even so, self-appointed arbiters of propriety have managed to severely restrict Simpson's mass communication options, citing his receipt or potential receipt of cash as the factor that somehow distinguishes "If I Did It" from lowbrow material deemed acceptable. Of course the financial terms of O.J.'s book deal are mostly unknown, but vague rumors about an unusual payment scheme are enough for disparagers to insist this project is where the line should be drawn.

Those who now advocate blocking Simpson's revenue source haven't bothered to articulate a standard that could be applied to other situations. Without revealing how the former star might be eligible for income, detractors have announced only their disapproval of him making money from one particular book most of them haven't read. Apparently, these vigilantes are holding him accountable for breaking a rule, but it's not clear what the rule is, or what Simpson needs to do to be in compliance. May he receive funds for labor performed under some circumstances? May he discuss his criminal and civil trials in any way? For whom may he work?

The stifling of "If I Did It" is nothing to cheer. No matter how much the relatives of murder victims engender sympathy, it is not the role of media professionals to censor or otherwise punish O.J. Simpson, especially when the cognoscenti aren't even forthright about the code of conduct they wish to enforce.


Read More...

Senior Rice aide, Philip Zelikow resigns from post

Reuters
Senior Rice aide, Philip Zelikow resigns from post
By Sue Pleming

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Philip Zelikow, one of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's closest advisers on Iraq and the Middle East, will quit his post to return to university teaching, a State Department official said on Monday.

In his resignation letter to Rice which was made available to Reuters, Zelikow said "family and professional concerns" led to his decision to return to the University of Virginia next year.

Zelikow, who was counselor to Rice and had an office down the hall from the top U.S. diplomat, was involved in many of the major issues facing the United States and also acted as a trouble-shooter for Rice.

He spent months examining U.S. policy toward Iraq and the reconstruction effort, saying in a confidential memorandum after a visit to Iraq that it had the potential to be a "catastrophic failure," according to the recent book "State of Denial" by Washington Post editor Bob Woodward.

In addition to Iraq and the Middle East, Zelikow also helped craft U.S. policy on terrorism suspects held without trial at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

"To an extent that few can appreciate, you have given me an extraordinary opportunity to contribute what I could on many matters of high importance," said Zelikow in the letter.

But that contribution was not without its controversy.

In September, Zelikow caused some ripples in the Bush administration when he suggested during a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy that to build a coalition for dealing with Iran, the United States needed to make progress on solving the Arab-Israeli dispute.

"For the Arab moderates and for the Europeans, some sense of progress and momentum on the Arab-Israeli dispute is just a sine qua non for their ability to cooperate actively with the United States on a lot of other things that we care about," he said in the speech.

The Bush administration sought afterward to reassure the Israelis that there had not been a change in policy.

Asked whether his speech had contributed to the decision to leave on January 2, a State Department official said this was not the case. "This is one of those rare cases in Washington where someone is leaving on their own terms," said the official.

Before joining Rice's staff last year, Zelikow was director of the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs. He was also executive director of the commission investigating the September 11 attacks against the United States.




Read More...

Justice Department eyes spy program

Yahoo! News
Justice Department eyes spy program
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

The Justice Department has begun an internal investigation into its handling of information gathered in the government's domestic spying program. However, Democrats criticized the review as too narrow to determine whether the program violated federal law.

The inquiry by Glenn A. Fine, the department's inspector general, will focus on the role of Justice prosecutors and agents in carrying out the warrantless surveillance program run by the National Security Agency.

Fine's investigation is not expected to address whether the controversial program is an unconstitutional expansion of presidential power, as its critics and a federal judge in Detroit have charged.

"After conducting initial inquiries into the program, we have decided to open a program review that will examine the department's controls and use of information related to the program," Fine wrote in a letter dated Monday to House Judiciary Committee leaders. The four-paragraph letter was obtained by The Associated Press.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the agency welcomes the review: "We expect that this review will assist Justice Department personnel in ensuring that the department's activities comply with the legal requirements that govern the operation of the program."

In January, Fine's office rejected a request by more than three dozen Democrats to investigate the secret program, which monitors phone calls and e-mails between people in the U.S. and abroad when a link to terrorism is suspected.

Fine's letter outlining his review was welcomed by congressional Democrats. At the same time, they said it falls short of examining issues at the heart of the debate — how the spying program evolved, and whether its creation violated any laws.

"A full investigation into the program as a whole, not just the DOJ's involvement, will be necessary," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.

The review could include whether the spying program complies with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical searches of people suspected of espionage or international terrorism on behalf of a foreign power. The Justice Department requests surveillance approval from the FISA court.

Democrats also questioned the timing of the review. Fine's letter noted that his office asked the White House on Oct. 20 for additional security clearances that were approved just last week — following the Nov. 7 elections that gave Democrats control of Congress.

Noting Democrats' renewed power to subpoena Bush administration officials next year, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., questioned that Fine's investigation "is only coming now after the election as an attempt to appease Democrats" who have been critical of the NSA program.

The letter was sent to House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and the panel's top Democrat and incoming chairman, Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich. Sensenbrenner had no comment. Conyers called the review "a long overdue investigation of a highly controversial program."

The Justice Department has called the program a necessary tool in the fight against terrorism, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is pushing congressional Republicans to authorize it by law before they cede power at the year's end — a prospect with at best a slim shot of approval.

Former Reagan administration national security official Robert F. Turner, now associate director at the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia, said congressional demands for sensitive information about the program puts them at odds with long-standing presidential powers over the collection of foreign intelligence.

"It's good that the executive branch, on its own, is making sure that someone's not abusing this power," Turner said. "But when Congress usurps power vested in the president by the people through the Constitution, then it becomes the lawbreaker."

Countering, Caroline Fredrickson, the director of the ACLU's office in Washington, urged Fine "to seek the hidden truth about this program. ... No one, not even the president, is above the law."

___

On the Net:

Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov/




Read More...

Monday, November 27, 2006

Stress disorders, drug abuse, little help for troops

Austin American-Statesman
Stress disorders, drug abuse, little help for troops

As repeat tours of Iraq wear on U.S. forces, government struggles to provide mental health care; many say they take refuge in drugs.

By Anne Usher

WASHINGTON — Military personnel on multiple and extended tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan are being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder at rates that probably will match or exceed the rate among Vietnam veterans, government officials and veterans groups say.

The war in Iraq, with often-hidden enemies and explosives, has left many service members particularly vulnerable to combat stress and is driving the abuse of drugs and alcohol both in Iraq and at home, military health experts say.

Yet many veterans and on-duty troops are not getting the treatment they need.

As of August, more than 184,500 returning veterans had sought care of all kinds through the Department of Veterans Affairs, and about one in six of those had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, a rate expected to climb since it can take months and sometimes years for the condition to manifest itself.

Symptoms include anxiety, sleeplessness, flashbacks and extreme wariness, a recipe that can strain relationships and make it hard for those suffering to get or keep jobs.

Jesus Bocanegra, a 24-year-old former Army sergeant with an infantry company based at Fort Hood, says he is haunted by countless shots he fired at Iraqis while serving as a scout in Tikrit in 2003-04.

The McAllen native says he lost track of how many civilians died in the crossfire when he squeezed off rounds at Iraqi insurgents.

"How the hell was I capable of that?" he says now.

Back home and plagued with anxiety attacks, he said he tried to close himself off from the world by drinking to the point of passing out. He said he progressed to marijuana use and then cocaine.

"The only way to sustain yourself day to day is to keep yourself drugged up," he said. But "it made it worse."

Eventually, he said, he stopped taking drugs and visited a VA clinic. Seven months later, a psychiatrist there diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder and gave him pills, dispensing medications in five-minute meetings every three to four months. A clinic employee verified his diagnosis and said that with 400 to 600 patients a day, "every doctor is overbooked."

With no VA psychotherapists in his area at the time — one has since been added — Bocanegra sought help from a support group called Vets for Vets.

"It's good to have someone to talk to," he said. "It's the only thing that keeps me going."

Married for just under a year, he is unemployed but hopes to return to school.

He said he is focused now on his mental health and on touring with other veterans to push for improved services for vets, many of whom he says are also suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Disability benefits of $2,500 a month help keep him afloat.

Up to 29 percent of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan will suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, predicts Col. Charles Engel, a clinician at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. As of August, the VA had diagnosed 63,767 discharged veterans with a mental disorder and 34,380 with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Experts say the rate of the disorder among Iraq veterans could well eclipse the 30 percent lifetime rate found in a 1990 study of Vietnam veterans because military personnel are being deployed longer and more often to Iraq and because greater awareness of the disorder among doctors will lead to more diagnoses.

Some statistics show the cases climbing fast. The number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who have sought help for readjustment concerns including post-traumatic stress disorder doubled between October 2005 and June 2006, according to a recent survey of 60 VA-run centers by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs.

That increase has made it only more difficult to get quality care, the survey found.

Among active-duty military personnel who served in Iraq, 35 percent used military mental health care services in the year after coming home and 12 percent were diagnosed with a mental health problem, a study published in March in the Journal of the American Medical Association found.

Veterans groups fear that the VA won't be able to handle the high proportion of service members seeking such help once they are discharged. They note studies showing that though post-traumatic stress disorder can resolve itself in some people over time, its symptoms can worsen if not treated quickly.

The Department of Veterans Affairs says it has enough resources to offer treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse to all of the roughly 160,000 service members now in Iraq and Afghanistan once they are home.

Dr. Ira Katz, deputy chief patient care officer for mental health for the VA, noted that there are 200 veteran readjustment centers nationwide and that mental health counseling is available over the Internet.

As part of unprecedented efforts on its part, the military in September 2005 began giving returning troops a questionnaire aimed at catching early signs of the disorder. Questions include whether they have nightmares, are feeling emotionally numb or super alert, or have physical reactions such as breathing trouble when reminded of a stressful experience. In January, the military put in place a secondary screening test to check for similar symptoms.

But nearly four in five returning troops who may have been at risk for post-traumatic stress disorder were not referred for further mental health evaluation, according to a study released in May by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. About half of those diagnosed with a mental health problem got care, but fewer than 10 percent were referred through the military's new screening program, the JAMA study in March showed.

The Pentagon told the GAO that it generally concurred with the its recommendations and that a systemic evaluation of referrals is planned. After the study's publication, however, the Pentagon said it was flawed because it did not include troops referred to chaplains, primary care physicians and group counseling. The GAO says the Defense Department was not able to provide any evidence that those referrals occurred and still has not provided figures on personnel who may have since received treatment.

After his first Iraq tour ended in August 2005, former Pfc. Josh Revak said, a large number of soldiers in his 1st Battalion, 37th Armor Regiment reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder on the test, but the commanders "just took it as a joke, and I think barely anybody received treatment."

The 25-year-old said he asked for help but didn't get psychological counseling until after a 120 mm mortar landed near him on his second tour in Iraq in June, sending him back to their base in Germany with shrapnel through his foot.

By that time, Revak said, several men in his unit had been disciplined for Valium use.

Medical experts say mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse are often intertwined.

"When they don't get the kind of mental health screening — or physical — history tells us they will turn to coping mechanisms," said Steve Robinson, director of government relations for Veterans for America, a 35,000-member organization.

He says many of the hundreds of troops he has interviewed at post-deployment sites are addicted to medications given to them in the field, such as painkillers and sleeping pills. But they are not getting the therapy that normally goes with such medications, Robinson said.

Adam Reuter, a 23-year-old former Army specialist, said that after he was tossed out of a Humvee in an accident in Iraq, a medic handed him a plastic bag filled with pills and gave him no instructions.

The bag contained four kinds of painkillers, an anti-inflammatory drug and a muscle relaxant, said Reuter, an Atlanta native who served with the 3rd Squadron of the 3rd Armored Company from May 2003 until February 2004. He said he went back for more and developed a dependency that he is still trying to shake.

Military personnel said they used banned substances as a way to mentally escape the violence around them. Drugs ranging from marijuana to prescription anti-depressants are easily accessible in Iraq, according to interviews with more than a dozen soldiers who served there.

John Crawford, a 28-year-old former Florida National Guardsman with the Army's 101st Airborne Division, said soldiers in his unit drank alcohol, some took steroids, "pretty much everyone took Valium," and "some did all three."

Crawford said he bought 200 to 300 Valium pills on the street in Baghdad for $2 as a way to get some sleep between patrols. After eight months, he built up a tolerance and was taking seven or eight at a time.

The extent of alcohol and drug abuse among combat veterans is difficult to quantify. The Pentagon declined to release the results of announced drug tests specifically for Iraq. The tests are usually done just once a year.

Army Maj. James Weeden directed a team of 200 specialists dealing with combat stress in Iraq until he left the country in September.

He says senior officers recognize the strain their troops are under and in the past year have assigned specialists to address the issue at remote forward operating bases.

But seeking treatment in a combat environment is difficult. All travel is risky, and asking for help is seen as a sign of weakness.

Weeden and other medical specialists say that they can treat only the symptoms of combat stress — with anti-depressant drugs and rest, for example — and that troops are sent out of Iraq only when they have clearly disabling cases of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Commanders want to keep troops in the field, and most service members say that they don't want to abandon their units.

"We strengthen (combat readiness) because we get them back," Weeden said.

That desire to keep medicated troops in combat troubles Joyce Raezer, director of government relations at the National Military Family Association.

She says U.S. troops — some now on their fourth or fifth tour — are bringing "all the baggage from the last deployment into the next."

"The stress is cumulative," she said.

Families are alarmed by military statistics showing that 80 percent of soldiers who have been flagged with mild symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder have been sent back to Iraq and Afghanistan, many with anti-depressant pills aimed at ensuring they can still fight. Experts say repeated exposure to combat is the greatest predictor of whether a person will get post-traumatic stress disorder and how severe it will be.

When they come home, many seeking treatment say they face steep hurdles getting help from the government. With a wave of post-traumatic stress disorder cases arriving, outreach groups fear the VA will not have adequate resources to treat them and to pay disability benefits.

The VA is proposing a $339 million increase in mental health care spending next year, Katz said Tuesday. That would bring total annual spending on those programs to about $3.2 billion.

Implementation is another question. As of late September, about $42 million of $200 million directed for initiatives to close gaps in VA mental health care in 2006 had not been spent, the GAO found.

"Requesting more money is a step in the right direction," said Paul Sullivan, director of programs for Veterans for America, who was a senior analyst at the VA until he left six months ago.

But he added, "The VA's problems are systemic, and the solutions must be more comprehensive than simple increases in funding."

He noted the GAO findings that the VA lacked a comprehensive plan to implement the funding in last year's budget.

About 144,000 of the 589,000 veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have already been seen at VA-run Vet Centers for "readjustment concerns" ranging from depression and marital problems to full-blown post-traumatic stress disorder.

Forty percent of the 60 centers surveyed in the study by the Democratic House staff have directed veterans for whom individualized therapy would be appropriate to group therapy instead.

Dr. Frances Murphy, undersecretary for Health Policy Coordination at the VA, told a mental health commission in March that the growing numbers of veterans seeking mental health care has revealed areas in which improvement is needed.

Some VA clinics, she said, do not provide mental health or substance abuse care, or if they do, "waiting lists render that care virtually inaccessible."

"The VA needs more capacity so that vets can get treatment and don't have to wait," Sullivan said.

If they are able to see a VA doctor, hundreds of veterans with severe symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder are being denied disability benefits because their condition is obscured by drug or alcohol abuse, which is labeled "willful misconduct," said Elinor Roberts, legal director for Swords to Plowshares, a San Francisco-based veterans organization.

The military maintains a zero tolerance policy for drug use on all but prescription medications.

Some service members have lost their military benefits, regardless of their combat citations, after they have been found to have used banned substances.

But many commanders offer leeway in such cases, choosing nonjudicial punishments such as demotions to keep soldiers on duty, said Army Col. Bill Buckner, a public affairs officer at Fort Bragg, N.C.

The VA is allowed to give benefits to veterans dealing with alcohol abuse but not illicit drugs, and only if a clinician finds that the veteran also has post-traumatic stress disorder. VA officials say many vets with the condition have trouble making appointments to get that diagnosis in the first place.

Amy Fairweather, who has counseled about 50 Iraq vets for Swords to Plowshares, said the impact of repeated deployments "is enormous."

"It contributes to all the elements for substance abuse, mental illness and family dissolution," she said. "There's only so many times you can be uprooted from family and work. Not to mention that they're over there in hell."



Read More...

Lawmakers Criticize Training And Deployment of Iraqi Forces; Report Casts Doubt on Ability to Replace U.S. Troops

Washington Post
Lawmakers Criticize Training And Deployment of Iraqi Forces
Report Casts Doubt on Ability to Replace U.S. Troops
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer

Two senior members of the House Armed Services Committee and several former Defense Department officials yesterday criticized poor U.S. training and deployment of the Iraqi army and police as a major reason the Baghdad government cannot provide security to its people.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the panel, said that 33 trained Iraqi army battalions, now serving in provinces that are relatively peaceful, should be moved into Baghdad or other areas where there is fighting. "Saddle those guys up, move them into the fight," Hunter said on NBC's "Meet the Press." He added, "Nothing trains a combat unit better than actually being in military operations."

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), who next year will take over as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, focused on the Army training of Iraqi units. He said that in many instances "the wrong types" of trainers were given the job.

"I would hope we could stand up their brigades, their battalions, and that they would be effective, and the way to do this is for us to train them better, to have advisers that understand them," Skelton said on NBC.

"What's really fallen down . . . has been the police," said retired Gen. Wayne A. Downing, who headed the Army's Special Operations Command and briefly served after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the Bush White House handling counterterrorism.

"We reconstituted the Iraqi police pretty much in their old image," he told NBC's Tim Russert. "They are corrupt, they are feared by the people, and we recognize this." Downing said that once a Baghdad neighborhood is cleaned up, "we turn it over to the Iraqi police, Tim, and within weeks it's right back to the way it was before."

"We've got to get the Iraqi army and police better equipped, better trained, and into the fight. And I think we've got 24 months," said retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, also on "Meet the Press." He said the Iraqis, now armed with light trucks and small arms, need armored vehicles and air force and support helicopters "to sustain a major internal battle."

Yesterday's criticisms were expanded upon in the latest study by Anthony H. Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. A Pentagon official in the Reagan administration and a specialist in Middle East intelligence and military matters, Cordesman just returned from Iraq, where he received briefings from military and civilian officials.

One of Cordesman's central issues is that public statements by the Defense Department "severely distorted the true nature of Iraqi force development in ways that grossly exaggerate Iraqi readiness and capability to assume security tasks and replace U.S. forces." He also writes that "U.S. official reporting is so misleading that there is no way to determine just how serious the problem is and what resources will be required."

Cordesman says the Pentagon's Aug. 31 status report, which was sent to Congress, lists 312,400 men "trained and equipped" among the Iraqi army and national and regular police. But it adds that "no one knows how many . . . are actually still in service." At the same time, he writes, "all unclassified reporting on unit effectiveness has been cancelled."

Criticizing statements about how many Iraqi army units are "in the lead," Cordesman notes that the Iraqi army "lacks armor, heavy firepower, tactical mobility and an Iraqi Air Force capable of providing combat support" -- the same points McCaffrey made yesterday.

"No administration official has presented any plan to properly equip the Iraqi forces to stand on their own or give them the necessary funding to phase out U.S. combat and air support in 12 to 18 months," Cordesman says. He writes that the Iraqi army could need U.S. support through 2010.

The August Pentagon report says that the Iraqi Ministry of Interior (MOI), which controls the National Police, does not have "an effective management system" and therefore "it is unknown how many of the forces . . . are still employed by the MOI."

Cordesman says attrition is put at "at least 20 percent per year." The Pentagon report also notes problems with the police having ties to militias and warns about "unprofessional and at times criminal behavior" by some units.

Cordesman described the situation as "far worse" with the regular police, where "desertion rates are far higher than with the regular [Army] forces and National Police. He cites the Pentagon report as saying "there is currently no screening process to ascertain militia allegiance" and "no method exists to track the success rate of these or other police officers."

As with the army, Cordesman says he believes it will take three to five years to adequately train Iraqi police officers. He notes, though, that the Pentagon report "makes clear there is no meaningful database on where the maintained and equipped for the regular police actually are, or on the effectiveness of individual units."




Read More...

Scalia the Civil Libertarian?

The New York Times
Scalia the Civil Libertarian?
By SCOTT TUROW

The conservative ideological majority on the U.S. Supreme Court that determined the 2000 election in favor of President Bush should have grown stronger when Bush chose Justice Samuel Alito to replace the moderate Sandra Day O’Connor. Yet in carrying out its first priority, the war on terror, the White House has encountered unwelcome resistance from the court. Objections to Bush’s sweeping view of executive power have come not only from liberals and centrists, like Justice Anthony Kennedy but, more remarkably, from Justice Antonin Scalia, who may end up playing a pivotal role in future war-on-terror cases.

Scalia has long been regarded as an administration favorite. Bush suggested during the 2000 campaign that Scalia was his idea of a model justice. In the court’s Bush v. Gore decision, which brought that campaign to an end, Scalia ventured the opaque claim that candidate Bush would experience “irreparable harm” if the recount continued in Florida. Not long after, the justice’s son was appointed by the president to a top position in the Labor Department. In January 2004, Scalia took a free ride on Vice President Cheney’s plane to go duck hunting with him; later he refused to step aside in a major case involving Cheney.

Even beyond these affiliations, Justice Scalia’s flamethrowing rhetoric and his hostility to whole chapters of 20th-century jurisprudence have made him a conservative icon and a favorite face on liberal dart boards. The justice has declared that the Constitution not only creates no right to abortion but does not even protect private adult sexual conduct, blasting the court’s 2003 decision to strike down a Texas sodomy law as “largely sign[ing] on to the so-called homosexual agenda.” He has scaled back the exclusionary rule, which bars evidence obtained by unlawful police searches, and made it clear that he would like to do away with Miranda warnings.

Less noted, however, is the fact that Justice Scalia, especially in the last decade, has frequently taken an expansive view of the Bill of Rights, thus supporting defendants in criminal cases. Scalia is one of the intellectual godfathers of a strand of Supreme Court decisions, crystallized by Apprendi v. New Jersey, that revolutionized sentencing laws. Following a strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law and the Sixth Amendment’s right to trial by jury, Scalia has insisted that any fact used to extend punishment beyond normal statutory limits must be specified and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite his fevered support for capital punishment, Scalia also joined a court majority in holding that the Constitution requires a death sentence to be decided by a jury, rather than by a judge, effectively setting aside every capital sentence still on direct appeal in five states.

Nor are Scalia’s pro-rights decisions limited to one arcane area.

In Kyllo v. U.S. (2001), Justice Scalia, writing for the court, deemed police use of heat-seeking technology to detect whether marijuana was being grown inside a house a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches. In a 2004 opinion, Scalia spoke for a court majority in finding unconstitutional the widespread practice of using recordings or prepared statements to the police as a substitute for the testimony of unavailable witnesses. And last term, supported by the court’s four more liberal justices, Scalia held that a defendant wrongly deprived of the lawyer of his choice gets a new trial, no matter how overwhelming the evidence of his guilt.

Justice Scalia is led to these seemingly divergent positions by his unyielding adherence to a school of constitutional interpretation called originalism. To Scalia, the Bill of Rights means exactly what it did in 1791, no more, no less. The needs of an evolving society, he says, should be addressed by legislation rather than the courts.

In all of this, Scalia is first and foremost a legal formalist — meaning that to him, the rules are the rules. He did not sign on to the Apprendi cases out of any special sympathy for criminal defendants — indeed, he once wrote an opinion refusing to uphold an acquittal on the grounds that the defendant’s motion for acquittal was filed one day too late. Rather, he was motivated by the assumption that, as he put it in the capital-punishment case, “the right of trial by jury is in perilous decline.” In other words, over the years the right had come to be interpreted more narrowly than in 1791.

In adjudicating the war on terror, Scalia has come down strongly on behalf of the administration and its prisoners in a number of cases. The extensive powers claimed by the Bush administration would seem to pose a problem for originalists, because the Bill of Rights was indubitably added to the Constitution to keep the new American executive from repeating the monarchal abuses of King George. Yet in a speech in suburban Cleveland in March 2003, just before the invasion of Iraq (where one of his sons would serve), Justice Scalia told his audience that “most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires” and predicted that in war time “the protections will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum.” In one of the first war-on-terror cases to reach the court, Rasul v. Bush, a majority agreed that the foreign detainees at Guantánamo had a right to file habeas corpus petitions. Scalia strongly dissented, as one might have expected given the fact that the Constitution’s protections are generally intended for only American citizens.

It thus verged on the breathtaking when Justice Scalia wrote in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: “Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis. ... Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it.”

Hamdi, an American citizen, was supposedly captured among Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Four justices thought that the Congressional resolution passed immediately after 9/11, authorizing the use of force against Al Qaeda, permitted the president to detain Hamdi as an enemy combatant. A majority ruled, however, that Hamdi could not be held indefinitely simply on the president’s say-so and was entitled to a meaningful hearing. Justice Scalia would not even concede the first point. Instead, he declared Congress has not given the president the power to hold any American, even one who has taken up arms against his country, as an enemy combatant and instead must press criminal charges or let him go.

Now the looming question is where Scalia will settle as future war-on-terror cases come before the court, and whether his unique jurisprudence will accord him a leading role. The court’s centrists, most notably Justices Kennedy and Breyer, are inclined to apply nuanced balancing tests. Weighing, for example, the need to hold battlefield captives like Hamdi against the reality that such a detention could last most of the detainee’s lifetime, both justices voted to create a right to a hearing for citizen-combatants. Yet their war-on-terror decisions have been so factbound that they offer little future guidance on the meaning of the rights involved. For instance, what happens when a citizen who is a supposed enemy combatant is captured in this country rather than on the battlefield? The other conservatives on the court — Justice Thomas and, in their limited times, Justices Alito and Roberts — have shown an inclination to defer blankly to executive power. Scalia’s originalism, too, tends to view executive power expansively, but only when it is applied to the many areas beyond the narrow preserves created by the Bill of Rights. As the Apprendi cases demonstrate, Scalia is more like the court’s liberal members in seeing the Bill of Rights as a constitutional trump when it collides with government power.

Apparently unsure about what the future holds, the administration recently has been trying to sidestep the Supreme Court altogether. It persuaded Congress to remove the habeas corpus rights the court had previously granted foreign detainees at Guantánamo. The White House also wants to rewrite the wiretapping laws to bolster the president’s assertions that he had the constitutional power to wiretap certain calls without a warrant. The president has asked the lame-duck Republican Congress to push through the change, but the newly emboldened Senate Democrats say they will block it. It appears most likely that when the wiretapping program inevitably reaches the court, the justices will have to weigh the president’s claim of inherent authority against the statute in place when the program began. The statute explicitly says its warrant procedure is “the exclusive means” to wiretap calls to or from the U.S. for national security reasons.

Scalia has seldom been a consensus builder on the court, preferring to stick with his own views rather than troll for votes. But his occasional alliance with the court’s more liberal justices could be struck again in future terror cases. The result would be an unequivocal declaration that executive power must yield to constitutional liberties, even when the nation is on the prolonged war footing we seem to have adopted.

Scott Turow is the author most recently of the novella “Limitations,” which first appeared in a different form as a serial in the magazine.





Read More...

CNN Iraq Correspondent: Iraq Is "An Absolute Mess"...TV, Print "Can't Fully Capture The Scope"

Huffington Post
CNN Iraq Correspondent: Iraq Is "An Absolute Mess"...TV, Print "Can't Fully Capture The Scope"...
From youtube.com

Excerpted from a transcript of CNN's "Reliable Sources":

KURTZ: If you're sitting at home watching it on TV, you see mass kidnappings, suicide bombings, mosque bombings, death squads. When you're there as a journalist, does the situation seem as chaotic to you as it does to a viewer?

ROBERTS: You know, Howie, I had a perception of Iraq going in, and it was the first time I'd been there in three-and-a-half years. I got out a couple of days after the Saddam statue fell, after the initial invasion. So it was quite a shock to go back and see the chaotic state that the country was in. And as -- I guess you could say as realistic as my perceptions were about going in there, the reality on the ground far exceeded that.

The place is a mess. It's an absolute mess. There is nowhere you can go in the Baghdad area as a Western journalist without an escort, where you could feel safe from being kidnapped, shot at, whatever. The amount of death that's on the streets of Baghdad for U.S. forces and for the Iraqi people is at an astronomical level...

ROBERTS: Because television can't -- and even print -- can't fully capture the scope of what's going on in Iraq. And to some degree, too, over the last three-and-a-half years, Howie, it's become the daily traffic report, the daily drumbeat.

Read the full transcript here.

Read More...

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Iraqi Minefield

Read More...

McCain's Plan

Read More...

John McCain's Hair of the Dog Strategy

Read More...

Hot Air

Read More...

Food Insecurity

Read More...

If I Did It

Read More...

On the Move to Outrun Climate Change; Self-Preservation Forcing Wild Species, Businesses, Planning Officials to Act

Washington Post
On the Move to Outrun Climate Change
Self-Preservation Forcing Wild Species, Businesses, Planning Officials to Act
By Blaine Harden and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers

SEATTLE -- As the Bush administration debates much of the world about what to do about global warming, butterflies and ski-lift operators, polar bears and hydroelectric planners are on the move.

In their separate ways, wild creatures, business executives and regional planners are responding to climate changes that are rapidly recalibrating their chances for survival, for profit and for effective delivery of public services.

Butterflies are voting with their wings, abandoning southern Europe and flying north to the more amenable climes of Finland. Ski-lift operators in the West are lobbying for leases on federal land higher up in the Rockies, trying to outclimb snowlines that creep steadily upward.

Polar bears along Hudson Bay are losing weight and declining in number as the ice shelf melts and their feeding season shrinks. Power planners in the Pacific Northwest, which gets three-quarters of its electricity from hydroelectric dams, are meeting in brainstorming sessions and making contingency plans for early snow melts, increased wintertime rainfall, lower summertime river flows and electricity shortfalls during hotter, drier summers.

With the issue of a warming planet shifting rapidly from scientific projection to on-the-ground reality, animals and plants are being compelled, along with businesses and bureaucracies, to take action aimed at self-preservation. They are doing so even as the Bush administration eschews regulations, laws or international treaties that would require limits on carbon dioxide emissions, which scientists say are the main cause of global warming.

A newly published synthesis of 866 peer-reviewed studies of the effect of climate change on wild plants and animals has found what its author, Camille Parmesan, an assistant professor of integrative biology at the University of Texas at Austin, describes as a "clear, globally coherent conclusion."

Flora and fauna are migrating north or climbing to higher ground if they can, said Parmesan, whose paper appears in the December issue of the Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. If they cannot move, she said, their numbers are often declining, their health is getting worse, and some are disappearing altogether.

"Wild species don't care who is in the White House," Parmesan said. "It is very obvious they are desperately trying to move to respond to the changing climate. Some are succeeding. But for the ones that are already at the mountaintop or at the poles, there is no place for them to go. They are the ones that are going extinct."

Among the most affected species, Parmesan said, are highland amphibians in the tropics. She said more than two-thirds of 110 species of harlequin frogs, which occupy mountain cloud forests in Central America, have become extinct in the past 35 years.

Meanwhile, many pest species -- including roaches, fleas, ticks and tree-killing beetles -- are surviving warming winters in increasing numbers. "We are seeing throughout the Northern Hemisphere that pests are able to have more generations per year, which allows them to increase their numbers without being killed off by cold winter temperatures," said Parmesan.

Federal scientists say that the first six months of this year were the warmest on record in the United States and that the five warmest years over the past century have occurred since 1998. In her review of studies measuring the impact of climate change on wild plants and animals, Parmesan said this "sudden increase" in temperatures appears to have been a tipping point, triggering substantial responses from a broad range of species.

"The magnitude of impacts is so overwhelming that many biologists are now calling this the single most important problem they need to work on," said Parmesan. "You can save all the habitat you want, but if it is not any good climatically, what is the point?"

Though President Bush has said that human activity has contributed to climate change, he has consistently rejected the idea of imposing mandatory curbs on carbon dioxide emissions.

In an interview shortly after this month's congressional elections, James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the country would be better off setting a voluntary goal -- such as increasing the use of renewable fuels -- than dictating industrial greenhouse-gas emission levels.

"Setting a reasonably ambitious target and then exceeding it is a good way to make reasonable progress," Connaughton said.

The Bush administration has outlined a strategic plan that calls for developing technology that would reduce carbon dioxide pollution. It now spends $3 billion a year on energy research and development. But when adjusted for inflation, this money is a fraction of what the federal government spent in the past. Researchers such as Reuel Shinnar and Francesco Citro, two chemical engineers at the Clean Fuels Institute at the City College of New York, estimate the country would have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to make the transition to a carbon-free society.

From the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Northwest, the effects of global warming -- along with the responses of animals, people, businesses and bureaucracies -- are being woven into the fabric of everyday life.

On Cape Sable, on the far southwestern edge of Florida, boaters, sportsmen and scientists have watched as a rising sea level has transformed a freshwater marsh into a portion of the sea.

Where there had been saw grass, the distinctive vegetation of the Everglades, there are now mangrove trees, which thrive in salt water and open water. Redfish inhabit areas that once had been wetland. The endangered bird named after the area, the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, has fled northward.

Using historic photos and tidal gauge records, University of Miami professor Harold Wanless, chairman of the geology department, has studied the changes. Between the sinking of the land and the rise of the seas since the 1930s, the relative water level has risen nine inches, he said.

"Freshwater marshes on Cape Sable are now evolving into more or less open marine waters," he said. "We're not talking about global warming as something that will happen in the future. Its happening right now. All the king's horses and all the king's men won't be able to put Cape Sable together again."

In the high country of western Montana, ski resort manager Tom Maclay is trying to outrun climate change by persuading the U.S. Forest Service to lease 12,000 acres across Carlton Ridge and Lolo Peak. The land, which lies above property he owns, would allow his resort to reach a top elevation of 9,100 feet.

Maclay is well aware how climate change is transforming his business and how nearby resorts have suffered from a lack of snow in recent years. At nearby Glacier National Park, the U.S. Geological Survey quantifies the change, noting that there has been a 73 percent decline since 1850 in the area of the park covered by glaciers. Many smaller glaciers are now gone, it says, and larger ones have shrunk by about two-thirds.

Maclay and his resort's chief executive, Jim Gill, are negotiating with snowmaking manufacturers who are asking for tens of millions of dollars for their services.

"Now with the snowline creeping up the hill, it's tougher and tougher for the areas that are struggling at the margins to keep their base areas full of snow," Gill said. "If you don't have a good snowmaking operation, you're not going to be able to compete."

In the Pacific Northwest, which depends far more on hydroelectricity than any region of the country, research findings on global warming from the University of Washington's Climate Impacts Group have prompted utilities, federal agencies and regional planning groups to convene brainstorming sessions in the past year.

They are looking at possible ways of mitigating power shortages as the summer flows of the region's rivers decline -- a result of less snow in the mountains and early melt.

For decades, the Pacific Northwest has had a surplus of power to send south to California during hot summer months. But if Northwest rivers run low as summers get hotter, the region could end up competing with California for power, said John Fazio, a senior power systems analyst for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a regional planning group.

"More and more, global warming is becoming a serious part of the planning process," said Fazio.

Eilperin reported from Missoula, Mont. Staff writer Peter Whoriskey in Miami contributed to this report.




Read More...

Robert Kupperman, Expert on Terrorism, Is Dead at 71

The New York Times
Robert Kupperman, Expert on Terrorism, Is Dead at 71
By TIM WEINER

Robert H. Kupperman, who more than 30 years ago was among the first officials to tell the White House of the dangers of a terrorist attack on the United States, died Friday at his home in Washington. He was 71.

The cause was complications of Parkinson’s disease, first diagnosed in 1990, said his daughter, Tamara Kupperman Thorp.

From 1975 onward, as an author of top-secret studies, a chairman of task forces and a lonely voice of warning, Mr. Kupperman consistently predicted that the United States would someday be the target of a major terrorist attack.

David M. Abshire, a founder of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, wrote in an August 2002 letter to Mr. Kupperman that “we might have prevented 9/11” had presidents and policymakers listened more closely to him.

Airplane hijackings and transnational terrorism were on the rise when Mr. Kupperman became the chief scientist at the federal Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in 1975. In that role, he led a task force that produced two top-secret studies, at the end of that year and in early 1976.

The studies looked at the likely effects of a spectacular terrorist assault on the United States. They investigated the possible consequences of an attack with a weapon of mass destruction and the readiness of the government to deal with a cascade of conventional terrorist assaults.

No one at the White House paid any attention, according to a study by the 9/11 Commission.

For the next 20 years, Washington “essentially ignored the issue of domestic terrorism,” Mr. Kupperman wrote in 1995. Nevertheless, the question of preventing terrorist attacks preoccupied him for the rest of his life. From 1979 on, he pursued answers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, one of Washington’s leading research institutions.

“Terrorists are undergoing a dangerous metamorphosis — from technological clods relying on fanaticism to skilled tacticians,” he warned in a 1988 Op-Ed article in The New York Times, written with a journalist, Jeff Kamen. “The Reagan administration and its successor should prepare themselves and the public for devastating attacks.”

Seven years later, Mr. Kupperman told a Senate committee that the nation was “only marginally prepared to deal with one major terrorist incident, let alone a cascading sequence of events.”

Born in New York City on May 12, 1935, Robert Harris Kupperman was educated at New York University, where he received his doctorate in applied mathematics in 1960. His first wife, Helen Slotnick, died in 1966. Besides his daughter, Tamara, of Alexandria, Va., a White House producer for NBC News, he is survived by his wife, Barbara Norris Kupperman, and a sister, Ina Brown of Bradenton, Fla.

He taught at the California Institute of Technology and worked at the Institute for Defense Analyses before becoming the assistant director for the federal Office of Emergency Preparedness from 1967 to 1973. That year, President Richard M. Nixon abolished the office. It was resurrected in 1978 as the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

In 1992, Mr. Kupperman wrote that FEMA’s “lackluster response” to the devastations of Hurricane Andrew in Florida had made it clear that it, too, should be abolished. He proposed to replace it with a small and highly professional group with the power to mobilize the American military to meet a catastrophe on American soil.




Read More...

Democrats promise "new direction" in Iraq

Reuters
Democrats promise "new direction" in Iraq
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats on Saturday promised to help "forge a new direction" in the Iraq war when they take control of the U.S. Congress in January from President George W. Bush's Republicans.

They also vowed to clean up the scandal-rocked Congress, raise the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade and address such concerns as the rising cost of education, health care and energy.

"This we will do, and much more -- not because we believe in the infinite wisdom of government, but because we believe in the innate goodness of our people and the promise of a brighter future in the land that we all love," Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland said in delivering his party's weekly radio address.

Hoyer, elected by Democratic colleagues to be House majority leader in the 110th Congress that convenes on January 4, said his party would reach out to Republicans as it seeks to help all Americans.

"More than 40 years ago, our 35th President -- John F. Kennedy -- perhaps said it best: 'Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future,'" Hoyer said.

Democrats won control of the House and Senate on November 7 in elections that saw voters demand change, particularly in Iraq, which slid further toward civil war this week after bombs killed 202 people in a Shi'ite area.

Democrats have promised to push for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq beginning within months. Bush has opposed any timetables, but has agreed to consider a new approach.

Hoyer said, "We will work with the president and our Republican colleagues in Congress to forge a new direction in Iraq -- because, clearly, the current strategy is not working."

"Sectarian violence continues to rage," Hoyer said. "Our brave servicemen and women continue to be maimed and killed. And the war is not making our nation safer or more secure."

"In the days ahead, the Iraqis must make the tough decisions and accept responsibility for their future. And, the Iraqis must know: Our commitment, while great, is not unending," Hoyer said.




Read More...

Saturday, November 25, 2006

GOP's Specter On Unchanged Bush Wiretapping Program: "For Every Day That Passes, There's An Invasion Of Privacy That Could Be Cured"

The New York Times
Despite a Year of Ire and Angst, Little Has Changed on Wiretaps
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 — When President Bush went on national television one Saturday morning last December to acknowledge the existence of a secret wiretapping program outside the courts, the fallout was fierce and immediate.

Mr. Bush’s opponents accused him of breaking the law, with a few even calling for his impeachment. His backers demanded that he be given express legal authority to do what he had done. Law professors talked, civil rights groups sued and a federal judge in Detroit declared the wiretapping program unconstitutional.

But as Democrats prepare to take over on Capitol Hill, not much has really changed. For all the sound and fury in the last year, the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program continues uninterrupted, with no definitive action by either Congress or the courts on what, if anything, to do about it, and little chance of a breakthrough in the lame-duck Congress.

While the Democrats have vowed to press for more facts about the operation, they are of mixed minds about additional steps.

Some favor an aggressive strategy that would brand the program illegal and move to ban it even as the courts consider its legality. Others are more cautious, emphasizing the rule of law but not giving Republicans the chance to accuse them of depriving the government of important anti-terrorism tools.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who will take over as House speaker in January, favors an investigation to determine how the security agency’s program actually operated and what its legal framework is under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, a senior aide to Ms. Pelosi said. Administration officials said they were concerned they could have to shut down a program they deemed vital to national security.

The 1978 law requires counterterrorism officials to obtain court orders to eavesdrop on people inside the United States. But the security agency’s program involved eavesdropping without warrants on the international telephone and e-mail communications of Americans and others in this country suspected of links to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Congressional Republicans, for their part, see a missed opportunity to resolve the many questions hovering over the operation during a year in which they still commanded majorities in the House and Senate.

“We could’ve fixed this early on,” said Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a believer that the surveillance program violates the 1978 law.

“For every day that passes,” Mr. Specter said in an interview, “there’s an invasion of privacy that could be cured.”

To understand the helter-skelter nature of the debate over the wiretapping program, one need look no further than Mr. Specter.

After the program was publicly disclosed last Dec. 15, the senator called it an “inappropriate” usurpation of presidential authority that “can’t be condoned.” He signed onto a bill last summer written by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, that would effectively ban the program as it is now operated and require a court order for all wiretapping of Americans.

Then, after a series of confidential meetings with the White House, Mr. Specter worked out a compromise to bring the program before a secret intelligence court to test its constitutionality. He was promptly pummeled by Democrats and editorial writers for giving away too much to the White House.

Mr. Specter changed course again last week and submitted yet another proposal that would require warrants for eavesdropping on communications coming out of, but not into, the United States, and would put the whole issue on a fast track to the Supreme Court. Its fate, like its predecessors’, is unclear.

Along the way, Mr. Specter has clashed with politicians on the left and the right. He got into a public spat with Vice President Dick Cheney when the latter succeeded in keeping Mr. Specter from subpoenaing telecommunications executives to testify about cooperation with the security agency, and he traded terse words with Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, over Mr. Feingold’s efforts to have the Senate vote to censure the president over the wiretapping.

“It’s always difficult,” Mr. Specter said, “to get legislation on a controversial issue that has such political overtones.”

The lack of a resolution has left many shaking their heads. Some officials said the unanswered questions had cast doubt on the public credibility of broader intelligence operations and created occasional confusion among intelligence agents over what was and was not allowed in tracking terrorism suspects.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty over this program,” said a former senior intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the wiretapping program is classified.

“We’ve had a wasted year at this point,” the former official said, “and nothing has been done to try to really figure out how or whether we should amend the process.”

The program was secretly approved by Mr. Bush weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks. Since then, the security agency, which has historically been restricted from spying within the United States, has monitored thousands of international telephone calls and e-mail messages to and from people in this country, people with knowledge of the operation say. Senior administration officials say it has been critical in helping to identify previously unknown plots, but other government officials involved in the operation have said that it has often led to dead ends and to people with no clear links to terrorism.

The administration has steadfastly defended the program and has warned of a serious threat to national security were it stopped.

In a speech last week, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales labeled as “myth” the idea that the program “is an invasion of privacy and an unlawful eavesdropping tool.” The program, he said, “does not invade anyone’s privacy, unless you are talking to the enemy in this time of war.”

The legal authority, the administration argues, rests on both the president’s inherent constitutional authorities as commander in chief as well as a Congressional resolution passed days after Sept. 11 that authorized the use of military force against Al Qaeda.

The only judge to rule directly on the question, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Federal District Court in Detroit, rejected the administration’s claims to broad executive authority, ruling the program illegal in August and ordering it shut down.

“There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” the judge wrote.

The Justice Department is appealing that decision, as well as a separate ruling in San Francisco allowing lawsuits against telecommunication companies to proceed. In that case, Judge Vaughn Walker of Federal District Court rejected the government’s assertion that the lawsuits should be quashed because they touched on “state secrets” and risked harming national security.

Justice Department officials said they were hopeful they would succeed in overturning the Detroit ruling, but they acknowledged they were concerned over where the courts would ultimately come down.

“It would certainly be good to have clarity on this,” said a senior Justice Department official, who was given anonymity to discuss the department’s internal thinking. “Do people want resolution on a program this important? Sure.”

Even after the Democrats won control of Congress this month, Mr. Bush pushed the passage of wiretapping legislation as a priority for the lame-duck session that concludes next month. During that brief window before Democrats take power, administration officials also hope to push through related measures that would effectively insulate telecommunications and government officials from legal liability growing out of the wiretapping.

But Republicans and Democrats alike give the White House virtually no chance of moving substantive wiretapping legislation before January.

An aide to Ms. Pelosi noted that the White House has until now agreed only to limited briefings on the program.

“There is bipartisan interest in seeing whether the administration’s claims that the program can’t comply with F.I.S.A. are indeed so,” the aide said. “We were legislating on an issue where the full parameters were not known or well understood.”





Read More...