Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Report Assails C.I.A. for Failure on Iraq Weapons

The New York Times
March 29, 2005
Report Assails C.I.A. for Failure on Iraq Weapons
By DAVID E. SANGER and SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, March 28 - The final report of a presidential commission studying American intelligence failures regarding illicit weapons includes a searing critique of how the C.I.A. and other agencies never properly assessed Saddam Hussein's political maneuverings or the possibility that he no longer had weapon stockpiles, according to officials who have seen the report's executive summary.

The report also proposes broad changes in the sharing of information among intelligence agencies that go well beyond the legislation passed by Congress late last year creating a director of national intelligence to coordinate action among all 15 intelligence agencies.

Those recommendations are likely to figure prominently in the confirmation hearings in April of John D. Negroponte, whom President Bush has nominated to be national intelligence director and who is about to move to the center of the campaign against terror. [Page A14.]

The report particularly singles out the Central Intelligence Agency under its former director, George J. Tenet, but also includes what one senior official called "a hearty condemnation" of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, two of the largest intelligence agencies.

The unclassified version of the report, which is more than 400 pages long, devotes relatively little space to the holes in American intelligence about North Korea and Iran, the two nations now posing the largest potential nuclear challenge to the United States and its allies. Most of that discussion appears only in a much longer classified version.

In the words of one administration official who has reviewed the classified version, referring to the North Korean leader and the Iran clerical leaders, "we don't give Kim Jong Il or the mullahs a window into what we know and what we don't."

Mr. Bush is expected to receive the report officially on Thursday morning, White House officials said.

As early copies of the report circulated inside the government on Monday, officials said much of it went over ground already covered by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the two reports of the Iraq Survey Group, which was created by the government to search for prohibited weapons after the Iraq invasion, and came up basically empty-handed.

After Iraq's defeat in the Persian Gulf war in 1991, international inspectors dismantled an active nuclear program, along with biological and chemical weapons. Much of the flawed intelligence was based on a series of assumptions that Mr. Hussein reconstituted those programs after inspectors left the country under duress in 1998.

But in retrospect, those assumptions by American and other intelligence analysts turned out to be deeply flawed, even though some of Mr. Hussein's own commanders said after they were captured in 2003 that they also believed the government held some unconventional weapons. It was a myth Mr. Hussein apparently fostered to retain an air of power.

That forced Mr. Bush to appoint, somewhat reluctantly, the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, which has operated largely in secret under the direction of Laurence H. Silberman, a senior judge on the United States Court of Appeals, and former Governor Charles S. Robb of Virginia.

According to officials who have scanned the document, the unclassified version of the report makes a "case study" of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, the major assessment that the intelligence agencies produced at the White House's behest - in a hurried few weeks - in 2002.

After the Iraq invasion in March 2003, the White House was forced to declassify part of the intelligence estimate, including the footnotes in which some agencies dissented from the view that Mr. Hussein had imported aluminum tubes in order to make centrifuges for the production of uranium, or possessed mobile biological weapons laboratories.

The report particularly ridicules the conclusion that Mr. Hussein's fleet of "unmanned aerial vehicles," which had very limited flying range, posed a major threat. All of those assertions were repeated by Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other senior officials in the prelude to the war. To this day, Mr. Cheney has never backed away from his claim, repeated last year, that the "mobile laboratories" were probably part of a secret biological weapons program, and his office has repeatedly declined to respond to inquiries about whether the evidence has changed his view.

One issue the commission grappled with is whether the intelligence agencies failed to understand what was happening inside Iraq after the inspectors left in 1998, a period that David Kay, the first head of the Iraq Survey Group, referred to last year as a time when the country headed into a "vortex of corruption." Mr. Kay, who also testified before the commission, said Mr. Hussein's scientists had faked some of their research and development programs, and Mr. Hussein was reported by his aides to be increasingly divorced from reality.

One defense official who had been briefed on an early draft of the report said Monday that one of its conclusions was that "human intelligence left a lot to be desired" in the global war against terror.

The official also indicated that there was already considerable anxiety about the final report and its recommendations. "We're all wondering what it will say," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the report had not been publicly released yet. "We all know there were shortcomings before 9/11," the official said. "Will this report take into account what we've done since then?"

The commission's mandate was to examine the intelligence agencies' ability to "collect, process, analyze and disseminate information concerning the capabilities, intentions and activities of foreign powers." Besides Iraq, Iran and North Korea, that mandate covered terrorist groups and private nuclear black market networks created by Dr. A. Q. Khan, the Pakistani scientist.

The classified version of the report is particularly critical of American failures to penetrate Iran's program, and notes how much of the assessment of the size of North Korea's suspected nuclear arsenal is based on what one official called "educated extrapolation." Officials and outside experts who were interviewed by the commission or its staff said they had been asked at length about the absence of reliable human intelligence sources inside both countries.

The commission's conclusions, if made public, may only fuel the arguments now heard in Beijing, Seoul and the capitals of Europe that an intelligence system that so misjudged Iraq cannot be fully trusted when it comes to the assessments of how much progress has been made by North Korea and Iran. North Korea has boasted of producing weapons - but has never tested them - and Iran has now admitted to covering up major elements of its nuclear program, even though it denies that it is building weapons.

The nine-member commission has met formally a dozen times at its offices in Arlington, Va., and in November visited Mr. Bush at the White House to speak with him and his staff. It had formal meetings with most top administration intelligence and foreign policy officials and interviewed former C.I.A. directors and academic experts on weapons proliferation. The commission, which has a professional staff of more than 60 people, mostly longtime mid-level intelligence professionals, has had access to even the most secret government documents.

All the sessions have been closed to the news media and the public, and the commission members and staff have been tight-lipped about the contents of their report.

"We and the staff have made a commitment in blood not to discuss the report in advance," said Walter B. Slocombe, a former defense official and member of the commission.

David Johnston and Anne E. Kornblut contributed reporting for this article.

Read More...

DeLay Let Brain-Damaged Father Die

CBSNews.com
DeLay Let Brain-Damaged Father Die
LOS ANGELES, March 27, 2005

House Speaker Tom DeLay, who has helped lead a congressional effort to keep a brain-damaged Florida woman alive, joined family members nearly 17 years ago in allowing doctors not to take extraordinary measures to extend his father's life, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday.

DeLay had just been re-elected to a third term in Congress in 1988 when his father, Charles DeLay, was badly injured in the crash of a backyard tram he and his brother had built. As DeLay's vital organs began to fail, the family chose not to connect him to a dialysis machine or take other measures to prolong his life, according to the Times, which cited court documents, medical records and interviews with family members.

"There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old widowed mother, told the Times. "Tom knew, we all knew, his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way."

DeLay helped push through Congress a federal law allowing the parents of Terri Schiavo to go to federal court in an effort, so far unsuccessful, to have their brain-damaged daughter's feeding tube reinserted after state courts allowed it to be removed. The Texas Republican has also criticized Schiavo's husband and the courts for allowing what he called "an act of barbarism" against Schiavo, who doctors say is in a persistent vegetative state.

DeLay declined to be interviewed about his father's case, but a press aide said it was "entirely different than Terri Schiavo's."

"The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water we all need to survive. His father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain him," said DeLay spokesman Dan Allen.

The 65-year-old DeLay, his brother, Jerry, and their wives were trying out a tram the brothers had built to ferry their families up and down a 200-foot slope from their backyard home in Canyon Lake, Texas, to the edge of the lake when the tram roared out of control and jumped the tracks on Nov. 17, 1988.

Charles DeLay was pitched headfirst into a tree. Hospital admission records showed he suffered multiple injuries, including a brain hemorrhage and broken ribs.

Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay, who suffered a shattered elbow and broken bones in the crash.

Like Schiavo, DeLay had no living will but had reportedly expressed to others his wish not to be kept alive by artificial means.

"Extraordinary measures to prolong life were not initiated," according to his medical report, which cited "agreement with the family's wishes."

He died on Dec. 14, 1988.

During his hospitalization, DeLay never showed any signs of being conscious, said his widow, except when his younger son, Randall, walked into the room and "his heart, his pulse rate, would go up a little bit."

She said the decision to withhold extraordinary treatment fell to her and others in the family.

"Tom went along," she said of the congressman.

She called comparisons to her husband's case and Schiavo's "interesting," but added she agrees with her son that Schiavo might have a chance of recovering if her feeding tube is reinserted.

"There was no chance he was ever coming back," she said of her husband.

Read More...

BLOGGER WAS DOWN FOR OVER 24 HOURS - New temp location for Political Stuff

The reason there have been no posts for over 24 hours is that Blogger was out of service. A temporary alternate blog has been set up at
http://politicalstuff.myblogsite.com

Please make a note to check there if you do not see postings here over an extended period of time.

Read More...

Monday, March 28, 2005

When does the brain go blank?

Time Magazine

When does the brain go blank?

BY CHRISTINE GORMAN

Much of the ammunition in the battle over Terri Schiavo's fate has been medical language that's fairly new in the public realm. The terms can mean one thing to experts and another thing entirely when wielded by passionate partisans in the debate. On the basis of interviews with specialists in the fields of neurology and palliative care, we offer answers to some of the most perplexing questions:

WHAT IS A PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE? People who suffer enough brain damage that they are unaware of themselves or their surroundings, but still demonstrate certain reflexes and are able to breathe and pump blood on their own, are in what doctors call a vegetative state. If that condition lasts for at least a month without any sign of improvement, the diagnosis may be changed to persistent vegetative state (PVS).

IS THAT THE SAME AS BEING BRAIN DEAD? No. Brain death occurs when there is no activity anywhere in the brain. In PVS, certain primitive regions of the brain, including the brain stem, which controls autonomic functions such as breathing and the beating of the heart, are still alive. However, the cortex, which is the thinking part of the cerebrum, and/or the thalamus, which connects the brain stem to the cortex, are so badly damaged that they no longer function.

HOW IS A DIAGNOSIS OF PVS MADE? A neurologist examines the patient on several occasions, looking for signs of awareness. Are there consistent responses to simple requests—to move a finger, for example? Do the eyes follow the doctor across the room? The specialist often observes the patient in the presence of family to see if there is any response. Brain scans may show the extent of any damage, particularly after some time has passed and dead neural tissue is replaced by cerebrospinal fluid.

WHY DOES TERRI SCHIAVO OPEN HER EYES, BLINK AND APPEAR TO SMILE IN THE VIDEO HER PARENTS MADE? The most difficult thing to understand about a vegetative state is that it allows one to be awake but not aware. (In a coma, you are unresponsive and your eyes are closed.) Because the sleep-wake cycle and certain eye movements are not controlled by the cortex or the thalamus, they can continue without conscious awareness. Even acts of crying and smiling may be reflexive events that do not occur in response to specific stimuli.

HOW LONG CAN A PERSON IN A PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE LIVE THAT WAY? With sufficient medical care, including the use of feeding tubes, patients can survive for decades. They are, however, particularly susceptible to infections, including pneumonia and bed sores.

WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF RECOVERY FROM PVS? The prognosis is better when the condition results from a head injury, which is why in those cases, doctors usually wait at least a year before concluding that the patient is permanently vegetative. When the condition is triggered by a prolonged lack of oxygen to the brain, as was true for Schiavo, the chances of any kind of recovery diminish rapidly after three months.

HOW IS A VEGETATIVE STATE DIFFERENT FROM A MINIMALLY CONSCIOUS STATE? A comparatively new designation, minimally conscious state describes people who are not in a vegetative state but who don't show consistent evidence of awareness. For example, they may indicate yes-or-no responses even if they aren't accurate. (Schiavo's parents have argued that their daughter is minimally conscious.) A recent study using specialized brain scans found near normal activity levels in the cortical language centers of some such patients when their loved ones spoke to them, indicating they may retain the potential for cognitive function. Patients in a minimally conscious state are also more likely to improve and benefit from therapy than those in a vegetative state.

DOES A PERSON IN A VEGETATIVE STATE SUFFER AFTER NUTRITION AND HYDRATION HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN? No one knows for certain, of course, what it feels like to be unaware—hence the awful anxiety that is at the heart of the Schiavo debate. But it's quite possible for death under those conditions to be peaceful, at least as far as outside observers can tell. (Indeed, taking to one's bed and refusing to eat while drinking little or nothing was until recently a common way to die.) Moistening the lips and mouth will keep the skin in this area from cracking. The lack of fluid leads to a buildup of ketones that induces a coma, along with kidney failure or cardiac arrest—a deceptively dramatic-sounding breakdown that nonetheless can release a patient from life quite gently.

originally posted March 27, 2005

Read More...

Security no match for theater lovers

SearchSecurity.com

Security no match for theater lovers

By Anne Saita, News Director

Claire Sellick approached a woman in London's tony theater district with a clipboard and a chance to win tickets to an upcoming show. All the woman had to do was answer a three-minute survey on locals' theater-going habits. Or so she thought.
The first question was easy. "What's your name?" Next came questions about her attitude towards the theater, with more personal inquiries interjected now and then. For instance, the survey company needed the woman's date of birth (to prove she was legally able to win the seats) and her mother's maiden name (for later verification) and her address, of course, to mail the tickets if she won the drawing. What about a phone number? Her pet's name? The name of the first school she attended?
At some point, the woman began connecting the dots. "I work for a bank and this information could be used to open a bank account."

"Yes," Sellick responded.

The event director for the Infosecurity Europe trade show recalled with incredulity what happened next. "She then proceeded to give me all her details!"
That encounter is recounted in the conference's annual pulse-taking of people's susceptibility to social engineering. The results typically are released a few weeks
before Infosecurity Europe kicks off in London to drum up publicity and to track the public's propensity to easily divulge sensitive data. Last year, people at a transit station gladly gave up their passwords for a chocolate Easter egg. This year, they provided all the ingredients for their identities to be stolen for a chance to see a show. [Conference organizers did make good on their promise and sent ticket vouchers to three randomly drawn winners, then destroyed all the data they collected.]
"For the past 10 years, we have endeavored to highlight many of the common IT security concerns and vulnerabilities, such as information breaches via employees and consumers," Sellick said in a statement. "This survey showed how easy it is to steal a person's identity and breach a company's security. Security is only as good as the awareness of the people it protects."

It's difficult to say how many Americans would fall for the same ploy, given the recent non-stop news coverage of security breaches at college campuses and high-profile companies like data brokers Lexis-Nexis and ChoicePoint. Some high-profile cases involve hacking network servers; ChoicePoint's case had scam artists pose as customers to steal identities.

Regardless, the latest survey of 200 people at London High Streets does serve as yet another wake-up call that even the most hardened corporate networks can be breached by a loose-lipped employee. And that identity theft will continue to top the Federal Trade Commission's complaint list, as it has the last five years, so long as people are so easily conned.

Consider the following findings from the theater experiment:

• 100% provided their names upon request
• 94% provided pet's names (common passwords) and their mother's maiden name
(common second form of authentication) when told actors frequently use both
to create stage names.
• 98% gave their address in order to receive a winning voucher.
• 96% divulged the name of their first school. Combined with mother's maiden
name, the two are key pieces of information used by banks for verification.
• 92% provided their date of birth and the same number supplied their home
phone number.

There's always the possibility some gave bogus information. And it's promising that others did realize they gave away too much information, if belatedly.

One man "provided all his information without question, but returned five minutes later asking for it back, as he thought that we could use it to gain access to his online bank account," Sellick recalled. "We gave him back his survey form, but did not provide any evidence of who we were. If we had been fraudsters, he would have been too late."

originally published 24 Mar 2005

Read More...

Congress Ready to Again Debate End-of-Life Issues

The New York Times
March 28, 2005
Congress Ready to Again Debate End-of-Life Issues
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, March 27 - After a string of fruitless legal and legislative efforts, the central question in the Terri Schiavo case - Who makes end-of-life decisions when the patient's wishes are disputed? - is headed back to Capitol Hill, where debate over broader legislation has already begun.

On Sunday, lawmakers of both parties agreed that Congress has a role to play in such cases and should contemplate legislation that would give added legal recourse to patients like Ms. Schiavo. While it is difficult to predict whether such a measure could pass, the Schiavo case has clearly pushed thorny questions about end-of-life care to the fore on Capitol Hill, as well as in state legislatures around the nation.

The Republican-controlled House already passed a bill that would allow the federal courts to review cases like Ms. Schiavo's, in which the patient has left no written instructions, the family is at odds and state courts have ordered a feeding tube to be withdrawn. That bill evolved into one that was narrowly tailored to Ms. Schiavo.

Now some Democrats, prodded by advocates for the disabled, say Congress should consider whether such a law is needed.

"I think we should look into this and very possibly legislate it," said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who opposed Congressional action in the Schiavo case. Mr. Frank was speaking on Sunday on the ABC News program "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." Mr. Frank added: "I think Congress needs to do more. Because I've spoken with a lot of disability groups who are concerned that, even where a choice is made to terminate life, it might be coerced by circumstances."

In the Senate, Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, has also been consulting with advocates for disability rights and is preparing to introduce legislation along the lines of the bill that the House passed, a spokeswoman said. Senator Harkin, an author of the Americans With Disabilities Act, was one of the few Democrats in the Senate who spoke in favor of the so-called private relief measure that allowed a federal court to review Ms. Schiavo's case.

The question of Ms. Schiavo, who has lingered in what doctors describe as a "persistent vegetative state" for 15 years, has been characterized by the news media and politicians as a "right to life issue," fueled by Christian conservatives and opponents of abortion. But advocates for the disabled are also playing a strong role, enlisting Democratic lawmakers like Mr. Harkin.

"We very much wish that Congress would intervene on a broader level and create meaningful protections for people who are in guardianship," said Diane Coleman, president of Not Dead Yet, a disability rights group that is focused exclusively on end-of-life issues. "It's not a simple right and left issue, in spite of how it's being portrayed."

Ms. Coleman called the measure that was passed by the House "a step in the right direction."

Yet it is unclear whether Christian conservatives and disability rights advocates can agree on what action Congress should take. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Christian conservative group, said on Sunday that his organization was working with states to urge them to pass measures that would prevent the withdrawal of nutrition from patients like Ms. Schiavo.

Mr. Perkins said state action was "the preferred route," adding, "In certain circumstances there may need to be some federal action, but I would not advocate a broad brush stroke of the federal government to try to prevent this from happening again."

In pressing for the broader House bill, Representative Dave Weldon, Republican of Florida, who is the measure's chief author, has likened Ms. Schiavo to a death row inmate. Such inmates are automatically accorded a federal court review; so, too, he has said, should patients like Ms. Schiavo be.

Speaking on ABC opposite Mr. Frank on Sunday, Representative Weldon said, "I had some of the most liberal members of the House of Representatives tell me they were glad I brought this bill forward."

Mr. Frank, however, disagreed with the death penalty analogy. But when asked if he would like to see legislation in the area, he said: "Oh, yes, I think - but I would like it to be with hearings. I wouldn't like it rushed through without any chance to debate it."

He went on to say that one thing Congress could do would be to "stop cutting Medicaid and stop cutting housing for the people who are disabled and stop cutting back on disabled people, so that they don't feel the kind of economic pressures that disability groups tell me they sometimes feel."

As to Mr. Weldon's measure, whether it could pass in Congress is unclear; the bill attracted opposition in the Senate, which is why Congress passed the narrower bill. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, objected, in part because he feared the Weldon measure would interfere with an assisted-suicide law in his state.

In an interview last week, Mr. Wyden said he did not like the idea of "Congress playing medical czar" and added, "What I'm hoping for is that Congress will step back a little bit and let the passions cool."

Already, the Senate health committee has scheduled a hearing next week to debate the Schiavo case and discuss "the urgent need for Congress to examine current health care practices used in the care of non-ambulatory individuals," according to a statement by the chairman, Senator Michael B. Enzi, Republican of Wyoming.

The hearing was initially scheduled for Monday; in a fruitless effort to keep Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube from being withdrawn, Mr. Enzi called Ms. Schiavo and her husband, Michael, as witnesses, noting pointedly that it was a federal crime for anyone to impede their testimony. Later, when Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube was withdrawn, Mr. Enzi postponed the hearing until April 6.

Read More...

With Bush Safely Re-elected, Rove Turns Intensity to Policy

The New York Times
March 28, 2005
With Bush Safely Re-elected, Rove Turns Intensity to Policy
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

WASHINGTON, March 27 - Jack Kemp was causing problems for President Bush's drive to overhaul Social Security, and it naturally fell to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's strategist, enforcer and closet policy expert, to take him on.

Mr. Kemp, the 1996 Republican vice presidential nominee and a founder of a conservative advocacy group, was publicly attacking an idea floated by the White House to cut benefits in the retirement system and was rallying support for an alternative approach that, on paper, would be pain free. Mr. Kemp's statements exposed a split among Republicans and complicated the administration's efforts to prepare the public for possible benefit cuts.

After a ceremony several months ago in the White House East Room that Mr. Kemp attended, Mr. Rove sought him out, associates of the two men said. But their exchange was less a scolding by Mr. Rove, they said, than an assertive, detailed argument against Mr. Kemp's favored approach. Mr. Rove, they said, went through a point-by-point critique of the plan and left Mr. Kemp with the message that he considered it unworkable.

As Mr. Bush pushes doggedly ahead with his battle to add investment accounts to Social Security, he is betting heavily on Mr. Rove's well-chronicled political skills to build public support, hold Republicans together and overcome intense Democratic opposition.

But as the confrontation with Mr. Kemp suggests, Mr. Rove is assuming a more expansive role, bringing the same intensity to the big issues in Mr. Bush's second-term agenda that he brought to the president's re-election campaign. In naming Mr. Rove deputy White House chief of staff for policy last month, on top of his continuing catch-all title of senior adviser, the president formally recognized Mr. Rove's affinity for the nitty-gritty of governance and publicly acknowledged his influence over whatever deal might emerge on Social Security, his No. 1 domestic priority.

"All roads lead to Karl," said Kenneth J. Duberstein, a Republican lobbyist who was the White House chief of staff under President Ronald Reagan and is now part of Mr. Rove's vast network of informal advisers and intelligence gatherers.

Under one of his hats, Mr. Rove is running a sophisticated campaign on behalf of the president's Social Security proposals, employing all the components of the national political machine built to re-elect Mr. Bush. Under the other, he is overseeing policy meetings where the administration's senior officials analyze the competing Social Security proposals, bone up on arcane economic concepts and plot how to hit back at the substantive arguments made by people on the other side of the issue.

Other presidents have had powerful advisers with a hand in both politics and policy. The most-cited model in recent times is James A. Baker III, who had a wide-ranging portfolio in the administrations of Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush's father, and went from political operative to treasury secretary, to secretary of state, then back to overseeing a presidential campaign.

But the intensity of Mr. Rove's involvement in politics and policy makes his current status unusual and gives him remarkably broad authority inside the White House and out. And in giving Mr. Rove his new title, Mr. Bush, freed from the need to think about re-election, seemed to acknowledge what everyone in Washington knows: that in this administration, as in all others, politics and policy are inextricably intertwined.

"Karl Rove is the crossing guard at the intersection of policy and politics," said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, who previously observed Mr. Rove for years as an aide to Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, and as legislative director of the Christian Coalition.

"He blends political hack and propeller head in a way no one has ever achieved," Mr. Wittmann said. "No one is going to question his political expertise or his policy expertise. The question for him is always one of hubris."

The most concrete change stemming from Mr. Rove's additional title may be that he has moved to a prime piece of real estate on the first floor, down the hall from the Oval Office, from a small office on the second floor of the West Wing. Beyond that, at least as administration officials tell it, nothing fundamental has changed in his power or his role, and his additional title does not portend a more aggressive melding of political and policy concerns. Mr. Rove declined to be quoted for this article.

To outsiders, it is hard to know exactly what to make of Mr. Rove's new role as one of two deputy chiefs of staff (the other, Joe Hagin, is little known outside the White House but is also close to Mr. Bush). After years at Mr. Bush's side - they met in the 1970's and have worked together closely since before Mr. Bush first ran for governor of Texas in 1994 - Mr. Rove does not really need a new title to convey his power, especially after guiding the president to a convincing re-election last year. In retaining his title as senior adviser, he in any case has a job broadly defined enough to weigh in on big decisions whenever he wants.

But on the organization chart, the new post leaves him - or the half of him that is purely policy - beneath Andrew H. Card Jr., the chief of staff and one of only two people in the White House (Vice President Dick Cheney being the other) whose power and reach are in the same league as Mr. Rove's.

"I count on him to keep me well informed and have me get engaged at the right time to help drive policy recommendations to maturity so the president can consider them," Mr. Card said.

Beyond his new bureaucratic chores, like allocating time on Mr. Bush's schedule for policy discussions, helping set the president's travel schedule and keeping track of daily policy developments for Mr. Bush and Mr. Card, Mr. Rove participates in a separate set of meetings devoted to Social Security. Twice a week he sits down to plot legislative strategy, and roughly as often participates in high-level meetings about the substantive issues in play.

The talk runs from what the latest public polls show to the latest proposals being floated in Congress, participants said. From time to time, they said, Charles P. Blahous, the White House economic team's resident expert on Social Security, gets so detailed and arcane in his presentations that only Mr. Rove can follow him.

"He can talk the specifics even with Chuck Blahous," Mr. Card said. "I've never actually seen him correct Chuck, but I have heard him tell Chuck how to explain what he's saying so the rest of us can understand."

But while Mr. Rove's policy acumen has helped him expand his portfolio, his influence is derived in large part from the political apparatus he has built up.

He plays an important role in deciding where Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and other administration officials go as they crisscross the country trying to win public support. He is overseeing an intelligence-gathering effort that closely tracks the positions of every Republican in Congress and makes sure they get phone calls, invitations to the White House, rides on Air Force One or other expressions of support if they come under pressure from the forces battling Mr. Bush over Social Security.

The work done inside the White House is augmented by the Republican National Committee, now run by Ken Mehlman, who managed Mr. Bush's re-election campaign under Mr. Rove. The committee holds a nationwide databank on Bush supporters that Mr. Rove's team amassed during the election, a treasure trove that Republicans said would be used to mobilize public pressure on Congress when Social Security legislation is taken up.

Additionally, Mr. Rove is calling on a handful of outside groups to play a substantial, loosely coordinated role in the effort.

Every Friday the Republican National Committee holds a meeting on Social Security that is often attended by Barry Jackson, Mr. Rove's deputy in his senior adviser role, who handles much of the day-to-day oversight of the Social Security campaign. Also in attendance are representatives of Progress for America, an advocacy group that is running television commercials supporting Mr. Bush's call for individual accounts in Social Security, and Compass, a business-backed group that is running a grass-roots campaign on behalf of the initiative.

Although those groups operate independently of the White House, they have close ties to the administration and to Mr. Rove. Compass's campaign is being run by Terry Nelson, who was one of Mr. Rove's top aides as political director of Mr. Bush's re-election campaign. Compass is an offshoot of the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security, which was once run by Mr. Blahous, the Social Security expert. Progress for America recently adopted an advertising strategy used by the Bush campaign, sponsoring traffic reports on radio stations in cities around the country.

Many Democrats say Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove have reached too far on Social Security and are headed for the first big defeat of their partnership. Republicans have yet to settle their own differences; Mr. Kemp, for one, continues to publicly support the approach Mr. Rove objected to, which is embodied in legislation sponsored by Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin and Senator John E. Sununu of New Hampshire.

And there is grumbling among some Republicans that Mr. Rove has mishandled the Social Security campaign. But Mr. Rove's allies and fans say that he anticipated the difficulties of moving the Social Security debate forward and that he and Mr. Bush remain convinced that they will win in the end.

"Anyone who thinks otherwise," said Charlie Black, a veteran Republican strategist, "they're underestimating Karl and they're underestimating the president."

Read More...

Some Creditors Make Illegal Demands on Active-Duty Soldiers

The New York Times
March 28, 2005
Some Creditors Make Illegal Demands on Active-Duty Soldiers
By DIANA B. HENRIQUES

Sgt. John J. Savage III, an Army reservist, was about to climb onto a troop transport plane for a flight to Iraq from Fayetteville, N.C., when his wife called with alarming news: "They're foreclosing on our house."

Sergeant Savage recalled, "There was not a thing I could do; I had to jump on the plane and boil for 22 hours."

He had reason to be angry. A longstanding federal law strictly limits the ability of his mortgage company and other lenders to foreclose against active-duty service members.

But Sergeant Savage's experience was not unusual. Though statistics are scarce, court records and interviews with military and civilian lawyers suggest that Americans heading off to war are sometimes facing distracting and demoralizing demands from financial companies trying to collect on obligations that, by law, they cannot enforce.

Some cases involve nationally prominent companies like Wells Fargo and Citigroup, though both say they are committed to strict compliance with the law.

The problem, most military law specialists say, is that too many lenders, debt collectors, landlords, lawyers and judges are unaware of the federal statute or do not fully understand it.

The law, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, protects all active-duty military families from foreclosures, evictions and other financial consequences of military service. The Supreme Court has ruled that its provisions must "be liberally construed to protect those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the nation."

Yet the relief act has not seemed to work in recent cases like these:

¶At Fort Hood, Tex., a soldier's wife was sued by a creditor trying to collect a debt owed by her and her husband, who was serving in Baghdad at the time. A local judge ruled against her, saying she had defaulted, even though specialists say the relief act forbids default judgments against soldiers serving overseas and protects their spouses as well.

¶At Camp Pendleton, Calif., more than a dozen marines returned from Iraq to find that their cars and other possessions had been improperly sold to cover unpaid storage and towing fees. The law forbids such seizures without a court order.

¶In northern Ohio, Wells Fargo served a young Army couple with foreclosure papers despite the wife's repeated efforts to negotiate new repayment terms with the bank. Wells Fargo said later that it had been unaware of the couple's military status. The foreclosure was dropped after a military lawyer intervened.

Little-Known Legislation

The relief act provides a broad spectrum of protections to service members, their spouses and their dependents. The interest rate on debts incurred before enlistment, for example, must be capped at 6 percent if military duty has reduced a service member's family income.

The law also protects service members from repossession or foreclosure without a court order. It allows them to terminate any real estate lease when their military orders require them to do so. And it forbids judges from holding service members in default on any legal matter unless the court has first appointed a lawyer to protect their interests.

The law is an updated version of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, which was adopted on the eve of World War II and remained largely unchanged through the Persian Gulf war of 1991. But in July 2001, a federal court ruled that service members could sue violators of the relief act for damages. And the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 prompted Congress to take up a long-deferred Pentagon proposal to update the old act. The revised statute, clearer and more protective than the old one, was signed into law in December 2003.

But the news was apparently slow in reaching those who would have to interpret and enforce the law.

"There are 50,000 judges in this country and God knows how many lawyers," said Alexander P. White, a county court judge in Chicago and the chairman of one of the American Bar Association's military law committees. "Are people falling down on the job - the judges, the bar, the military? Probably." And broad understanding of the law "is not going to happen overnight."

Military lawyers, credit industry organizations and some state courts and bar associations have also tried to spread the word about the new law. But these efforts are not enough, said Col. John S. Odom Jr., retired, of Shreveport, La., who is a specialist on the act. "What we need is a way to reach Joe Bagadoughnuts in Wherever, Louisiana," he said. "Because that's where these cases are turning up."

One reason they are surfacing in unlikely places is the Pentagon's increased reliance on Reserve and National Guard units that do not hail from traditional military towns, said Lt. Col. Barry Bernstein, the judge advocate general for the South Carolina National Guard. When these units are called up, he said, their members find themselves facing creditors and courts that may never have dealt with the relief act.

As a result, some service members heading off to war have confronted exactly the kinds of problems the law was supposed to prevent. The Coast Guard alone handled more than 300 complaints last year; military law specialists say the numbers are probably higher in the branches sending troops abroad.

Financial Difficulties

Sergeant Savage's lender eventually dropped its foreclosure against him after receiving repeated warnings from military lawyers at Fort Bragg, N.C. But damage was done. The foreclosure dispute remained on his credit history, hurting his ability to revive his struggling wireless Internet connection business when he returned home to Asheboro, N.C., he said. By then he had retired on full disability after being seriously injured while working on a sabotaged electrical system at the former Baghdad Convention Center.

Sergeant Savage has not let the matter end. Represented by Colonel Odom, he has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Greensboro, N.C. He says the EverHome Mortgage Company, a unit of the EverBank Financial Corporation in Jacksonville, Fla., violated the relief act by failing to cap his mortgage at 6 percent, wrongfully initiating foreclosure and, after dropping the foreclosure, failing to remove information about it from his credit history.

The mortgage company denied that it violated the act or treated Sergeant Savage unfairly. His case "has unique and extenuating circumstances" that will be raised when the dispute comes to trial, Michael C. Koster, EverHome's president, said in a written statement.

"We are confident that court documents will reveal that EverBank treated Mr. Savage equitably and worked diligently to resolve this matter," Mr. Koster said.

Extent of Coverage

When Sgt. Michael Gaskins of Fort Hood, Tex., was sent to Iraq last April, his wife, Melissa, was left to cope with a dispute over a delinquent loan from the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital credit union; the couple took out the loan just before Sergeant Gaskins enlisted in November 2001. When the credit union took the couple to court in Texas last year, a military lawyer at Fort Hood alerted the local judge that the new relief act required that the case be deferred because Sergeant Gaskins was abroad.

But on Feb. 18, a county court judge in Gatesville, Tex., ruled that Mrs. Gaskins had lost the case by default. She was ordered to pay the credit union more than $6,000 and turn over the family truck, which secured the loan. Colonel Odom, who is also representing the couple, is trying to have the default judgment overturned, in part on the ground that the relief act protects spouses as well as service members.

The credit union in Tallahassee, Fla., disputes that. "It's our position the act does not protect her," said Palmer Williams, a lawyer for the organization. Judge Susan R. Stephens, the county judge who signed the default judgment, said she did not think that Mrs. Gaskins had ever invoked the relief act but said she would review the matter when it came before her.

The relief act was also supposed to prevent the kind of situation that the marines returning to Camp Pendleton faced when they discovered that their cars and other possessions had been sold to cover towing and storage fees.

"The act says you need a court order to do that, and you can't get a court order without notice to the service member," said Maj. Michael R. Renz, director of the joint legal assistance office there. "I've got six attorneys here, and each one of us has handled at least two or three of these cases within the last eight months."

'I'm Not Sleeping'

Stephen Lynch, a civilian lawyer for the Coast Guard in Cleveland, said he had stepped in repeatedly over the past year to help service members invoke their rights under the act.

One of them is a young soldier sent to east Asia, leaving a wife and two children at home in northern Ohio. His periods of unemployment and the death of a newborn daughter last July left the young family struggling financially. Their situation was aggravated by delays in the processing of his first military paychecks, said Mr. Lynch, who asked that the couple's name not be used because their debt problems could hurt the soldier's career.

The soldier's wife said she had tried for months to renegotiate their mortgage with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. But on March 8, just three weeks after paying the bank $3,000 that the U.S.O. had raised on her behalf, she was served with foreclosure papers.

"I'm having anxiety attacks," the wife said in an interview that night. "I'm not sleeping." She said she was especially worried about how much to tell her husband. "The other military wives I've spoken to all say, 'Don't let them know you're upset; don't let them hear you cry.' "

Kevin Waetke, a spokesman for Wells Fargo, said the foreclosure action was dropped as soon as Mr. Lynch contacted the bank's lawyers. The bank had not known the couple was eligible for relief, he said.

Different Experiences

A Coast Guardsman, Kevin Cornell, was baffled by his experience with Citigroup's credit card unit. When he enlisted, he had a Citibank card and another from Sears, whose credit card operations Citibank acquired in late 2003. When he applied last fall to have the interest rates on both cards capped at 6 percent, Citibank did even better: it cut the rate on his pre-enlistment balance to zero.

But the Sears card was another story; a different Citibank employee refused to make the interest rate cut on that card retroactive to his date of enlistment, as the new relief act requires. Again, Mr. Lynch intervened. But he said he wondered how many other service members had been misinformed.

Janis Tarter, a spokeswoman for the bank, said the company's policy was to go beyond the requirements of the relief act on all its credit cards. "We regret the difficulty that our customer encountered," Ms. Tarter said. "It is not representative of the level of service we work to provide."

Burden of Enforcement

Some problems that military personnel are confronting suggest that the new law may need more work by Congress. For example, although mandatory arbitration clauses are becoming increasingly common in credit agreements, arbitration is not even mentioned in the relief act.

But the biggest problem, both bankers and military lawyers say, is that the enforcement of the act rests initially on the shoulders of the service members themselves. They must notify their creditors or landlords of their military status to invoke their rights under the act. It is one more chore for a soldier getting ready for overseas duty, and it often does not get done properly.

And if a landlord or creditor, out of ignorance or intransigence, refuses to comply with the act, the service member may not have the time or money to fight back, said Capt. Kevin P. Flood, a retired Navy lawyer.

"Sure, if you take them to court and win, you can even collect damages," Captain Flood said. "But most of our people are not in that position. They are just regular Joes, and they don't have the money to hire a lawyer."

Read More...

Sunday, March 27, 2005

Minnesota school victims buried

BBC NEWS

Minnesota school victims buried

The first funerals have taken place for victims of the bloody high-school shooting which left 10 dead on a Native American reservation in Minnesota.

Among those buried was 15-year-old Chase Lussier, one of seven shot dead by Jeff Weise, 16, at his school before he turned the gun on himself.

The funerals were also held of Weise's grandfather and his grandfather's partner, his first two victims.

President George W Bush made his first comment on the "tragedy" on Saturday.

More funerals were due to be held on Sunday and Monday.

Government officials attended the services for the teenager Chase Lussier, himself a father, and Weise's grandfather Daryl Lussier and his grandfather's partner Michelle Sigana.

Mr Bush had faced criticism for leaving it until his weekly radio address on Saturday to make his first public comments on Monday's school shooting, the worst in the US since Columbine six years ago.

"We are doing everything we can to meet the needs of the community at this tragic time," Mr Bush said in his address, while on holiday at his ranch in Texas.

He praised school security guard Derrick Brun for trying to save the lives of students by confronting Weise before he was shot.

"Derrick's bravery cost him his life," he said.

A day earlier, Mr Bush had called Floyd Jourdain, chairman of the Red Lake Chippewa tribe, to offer his condolences.

But Clyde Bellecourt, another prominent Chippewa tribe member, told Reuters news agency Mr Bush's response came too late.

"He should have been the first one to reach out to the Red Lake Indian community," he said.

Mr Bellecourt pointed out that Mr Bush broke off his holiday to sign emergency legislation on Monday concerning the case of a brain-damaged woman, but did not comment then on the Minnesota deaths.

"He does not have any problems flying in to restore the feeding tube to Terri Schiavo," Mr Bellecourt said.

"I'm sure if this happened in some school in Texas and a bunch of white kids were shot, he would have been there too."

In his address, Mr Bush said the FBI and justice department were working with local and tribal authorities to co-ordinate relief, and expressed the condolences of the American people.

The FBI, which has been investigating the killings at Red Lake School, has tried to establish a motive for Weise's actions.

Theories range from the teen's reported neo-Nazi leanings to school bullying and a troubled family background.


RED LAKE VICTIMS
Daryl Lussier, 58, Jeff Weise's grandfather
Michelle Sigana, 32, Daryl Lussier's partner
Alicia Spike, 14, student
Thurlene Stillday, 15, student
Chase Lussier, 15, student
Chanelle Rosebear, 15, student
Dwayne Lewis, 15, student
Derrick Brun, 28, security guard
Neva Winnecoup Rogers, 62, teacher

Read More...

Blessed are the poor

Read More...

Premonition of War

Read More...

School Homework

Read More...

Jeb Bush Explains All

Read More...

Life

Read More...

What we've learned from the Schiavo circus...

What we've learned from the Schiavo circus...

(as found in a political chat group, taken from a comment in the Media Matters forum):

1) Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, and Tom Delay are all qualified
neurologists.

2) 22 successive court battles that all ended in exactly the same way
means there is something wrong with the courts, not the Schindler's
case.

3) Michael Schiavo is after money which is why he turned down 1 million
dollars and 10 million dollars to sign over guardianship.

3a - corollary) Michael Schiavo wants to go off and live the life of a
wild playboy, which is why he's spending every waking moment by Terri's
bedside.

4) Congress and the State Legislature of Florida has nothing better to
do than pry into the private medical affairs of others.

5) Pulling life support is bad in Florida when authorized by the legal
next-of-kin, but pulling life support is good in Texas when you run out
of money and the mother pleads not to pull the plug on her baby.

5a - corollary) Dying white women deserve special legislation to keep
them alive. Dying black babies don't.

6) Medical diagnoses are best performed by watching highly edited
videotape made by Randall Terry rather than in person by trained
physicians.

7) Minimum wage-making nursing assistants are more qualified to
diagnose
a persistent vegetative state than experienced neurologists.

8) Cerebral spinal fluid is a magical potion that can mimic the entire
functions of a missing cerebral cortex.

9) 15 years in the same persistent state is not really enough time to
make an accurate diagnosis.

10) A feeding tube that infuses yellow nutritional goop is not really
"life support".

11) Jesus was wrong when he said that a man and woman should leave
their
parents and cleave only to each other.

12) Marriage is the most sacred of all unions, except when it isn't.

13) Interfering in a family's private tragedy is a great reason to cut
short a vacation, but getting a memo that warns a known terrorist is
determined to strike inside the US isn't.

14) Right wing pro-lifers are the most compassionate people on Earth
...
which is why they are hoping that Michael Schiavo dies a horrible
painful death, and in some cases, robbing gun stores or offering money
online to make sure it happens.

15) The Supreme Court of the United States and the State Supreme Court
of Florida mean "Maybe" when they are saying "No!".

16) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a bleeding heart liberal.

17) 7 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican presidents, so
it's Clinton's fault.

18) A judge who makes rulings based on the law is obviously an atheist,
liberal, Democratic activist even though he is a conservative,
Republican, Southern Baptist.

19) Getting nominated for a Nobel Prize involves merely the
recommendation of an American politician.

20) Terri's parents were so overwhelmed that Terri tried to tell them,
on March 15, that "I waaaaaant to live," that they somehow forgot to
mention it to the courts until they filed a brief ten days later.

Read More...

Neither 'Starvation' Nor the Suffering It Connotes Applies to Schiavo, Doctors Say

The New York Times

Neither 'Starvation' Nor the Suffering It Connotes Applies to Schiavo, Doctors Say
By JOHN SCHWARTZ

The battle over Terri Schiavo is about life and death, but it is also a war of words - and one of the words most at issue is "starvation."

Ms. Schiavo's parents have repeatedly used the word, as have politicians like the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee.

Commentators have compared Ms. Schiavo's situation to that of starving children in Africa and abandoned animals in shelters.

That kind of language disturbs Dr. Douglas Nelson, a geriatrician in Hickory, N.C. "That is a gross medical error," Dr. Nelson said.

He argues that when a feeding tube is removed, death is caused by dehydration, not loss of nutrition. And despite the emotionally charged language, many doctors say that patients in a persistent vegetative state, like Ms. Schiavo, feel no discomfort when the flow of nutrients through a feeding tube stops.

They contend that the provision of fluids and nutrition should not even be called "feeding." A statement from the American Academy of Neurology states that it should be considered a medical procedure "analogous to other forms of life-sustaining treatment, such as the use of a respirator."

The dispute is not about nitpicking, said Dr. Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Interest groups and politicians are adept at "coordinating the use of key words and phrases" that send a consistent message and frame the debate. Scientists and doctors, he said, "are totally unprepared to deal with it."

Language shapes the debate on all sides, said Dr. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Those who want to reinsert Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube, Dr. Jamieson said, use language "that increases your perception of her as a sentient human being, whose capacity to tell you that she wants to stay alive is limited only by the fact that she lacks the capacity to speak."

The language of the other side, she said, tends toward the clinical, and suggests "that the person who was there is no longer there." What could provide guidance through the "competing narratives," Dr. Jamieson said, is "what science is able to know."

But many who are involved in the debate question the ability of science to determine the truth in such issues.

Evoking concepts like starvation is especially powerful, said Dr. Sean Morrison, a professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, because "we are so familiar with what it feels like to be hungry" and have experienced the heartbreak of images from famine-ravaged regions.

But in fact, Dr. Morrison said, removing a feeding tube for a patient in a persistent vegetative state, which the courts have determined Ms. Schiavo is in, based on scientific evidence, is vastly different from a conscious person's being refused meals.

"No one is denying this woman food and water," Dr. Morrison said. People in a persistent vegetative state, he said, "have no knowledge of food."

"They don't recognize food," he continued. "If you put food in their mouth, it would sit there until they took a breath, and then that food would go down into the lungs."

Withdrawal of nutrition is a common method for ending life, and many terminally ill patients choose that course, Dr. Morrison said.

"I have never had a patient who has stopped eating and drinking who has expressed that they are hungry," he added.

Conscious patients report discomfort from dehydration, doctors say, so they combat symptoms with lip balms, humidifiers, and ice chips or mouth swabs to prevent dry mouth.

Once doctors stop providing the nutrient paste and fluids that flow through the feeding tube, death usually comes in about two weeks. There is no timetable for such a process, however; every patient is different, and there has been little research.

As the days pass, organs begin to shut down, starting with the kidneys. Toxins build up in the body, and the patient slips into what is known as a uremic coma. The balance of electrolytes like potassium and sodium is upset, disrupting the electrical system that drives muscles. The heart eventually stops.

In the case of Ms. Schiavo, experts say, the potential for discomfort is nonexistent because higher functions like consciousness and the ability to sense pain were destroyed 15 years ago when she suffered the loss of oxygen to her brain.

Dr. Joseph Fins, chief of the medical ethics division of New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell hospital, said that "the window of opportunity to be diagnosed as even minimally conscious" closes within three months of oxygen-deprivation brain damage.

Based on evidence accepted by the courts that Ms. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state and not in a more conscious state, Dr. Fins added, "the part of brain that allows one to suffer is not functioning."

And that, he said, "should be reassuring to people who are concerned."

originally published March 25, 2005

Read More...

Is There Really a 'New Diagnosis' for Terri Schiavo?

techcentralstation.com

Is There Really a 'New Diagnosis' for Terri Schiavo?
By Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan

While we at American Council on Science and Health have been determined to remain on the sidelines of the raging national debate about the fate of Terri Schiavo (this is largely a legal and ethical issue, not a scientific one), we cannot remain silent about the outrageous misrepresentation of scientific facts about this case that has been occurring in the past ten days.

The medical reality of Ms. Schiavo's case is this: She has been in what is medically referred to as a "permanent vegetative state" for the past 15 years, ever since her heart temporarily stopped (probably due to the severe effects of an eating disorder), depriving her brain of oxygen. Brain scans indicate that her cerebral cortex ceased functioning -- probably just after she experienced cardiac arrest in 1990. Ms. Schiavo's CAT scan shows massive shrinking of the brain, and her EEG is flat. Physicians confirm that there is no electrical activity coming from her brain. While the family video repeatedly shown on television suggests otherwise, her non-functioning cortex precludes cognition, including any ability to interact or communicate with people or show any signs of awareness. Dozens of experts over the years who have examined Ms. Schiavo agree that there is no hope of her recovering -- even though her body, face and eyes (if she is given food and hydration) might continue to move for decades to come.

Those are the harsh facts.

Thus it was shocking that Sen. Bill Frist -- a heart surgeon before becoming Senate majority leader -- went to the Senate floor twice last week to argue that Florida doctors had erred in saying that Terri is in a "persistent vegetative state." How did Frist arrive at this diagnosis? From watching the family videotapes.

Frist's comments were picked up by journalists, including FoxNews's Fred Barnes, who cited Sen. Frist as an authority in a debate with Morton Kondracke on "The Beltway Boys" last week.

Yesterday, there was another public challenge to Ms. Schiavo's well-established diagnosis: Florida governor Jeb Bush announced that a "very renowned neurologist," Dr. William Cheshire, had concluded that Terri had been misdiagnosed and that she was really only in a state of "minimal consciousness" rather than a persistent vegetative state. He used this "new diagnosis" to argue that "this new information raises serious concerns and warrants immediate action."

As it turns out, Dr. Cheshire is not "renowned" as a neurologist -- his limited publications focus on areas including headache pain and his opposition to stem cell research. Dr. Cheshire never conducted a physical examination of Ms. Schiavo, nor did he do neurological tests. Dr. Cheshire is director of biotech ethics at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, a nonprofit group founded by "more than a dozen leading Christian bioethicists." Everyone is free to be guided by a personal agenda -- and it is clear that Dr. Cheshire has his.

Let's call tripe when tripe is served. All of us are entitled to our own personal views on the Schiavo case, what her fate should be, and who should make decisions for her. But all of us should be united in rejecting politically-generated junk science.

Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is president and founder of the American Council on Science and Health. She is a life-long Republican.

originally published 03/24/2005

Read More...

Geo-Greening by Example

The New York Times
March 27, 2005

Geo-Greening by Example
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

How will future historians explain it? How will they possibly explain why President George W. Bush decided to ignore the energy crisis staring us in the face and chose instead to spend all his electoral capital on a futile effort to undo the New Deal, by partially privatizing Social Security? We are, quite simply, witnessing one of the greatest examples of misplaced priorities in the history of the U.S. presidency.

"Ah, Friedman, but you overstate the case." No, I understate it. Look at the opportunities our country is missing - and the risks we are assuming - by having a president and vice president who refuse to lift a finger to put together a "geo-green" strategy that would marry geopolitics, energy policy and environmentalism.

By doing nothing to lower U.S. oil consumption, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism and strengthening the worst governments in the world. That is, we are financing the U.S. military with our tax dollars and we are financing the jihadists - and the Saudi, Sudanese and Iranian mosques and charities that support them - through our gasoline purchases. The oil boom is also entrenching the autocrats in Russia and Venezuela, which is becoming Castro's Cuba with oil. By doing nothing to reduce U.S. oil consumption we are also setting up a global competition with China for energy resources, including right on our doorstep in Canada and Venezuela. Don't kid yourself: China's foreign policy today is very simple - holding on to Taiwan and looking for oil.

Finally, by doing nothing to reduce U.S. oil consumption we are only hastening the climate change crisis, and the Bush officials who scoff at the science around this should hang their heads in shame. And it is only going to get worse the longer we do nothing. Wired magazine did an excellent piece in its April issue about hybrid cars, which get 40 to 50 miles to the gallon with very low emissions. One paragraph jumped out at me: "Right now, there are about 800 million cars in active use. By 2050, as cars become ubiquitous in China and India, it'll be 3.25 billion. That increase represents ... an almost unimaginable threat to our environment. Quadruple the cars means quadruple the carbon dioxide emissions - unless cleaner, less gas-hungry vehicles become the norm."

All the elements of what I like to call a geo-green strategy are known:

We need a gasoline tax that would keep pump prices fixed at $4 a gallon, even if crude oil prices go down. At $4 a gallon (premium gasoline averages about $6 a gallon in Europe), we could change the car-buying habits of a large segment of the U.S. public, which would make it profitable for the car companies to convert more of their fleets to hybrid or ethanol engines, which over time could sharply reduce our oil consumption.

We need to start building nuclear power plants again. The new nuclear technology is safer and cleaner than ever. "The risks of climate change by continuing to rely on hydrocarbons are much greater than the risks of nuclear power," said Peter Schwartz, chairman of Global Business Network, a leading energy and strategy consulting firm. "Climate change is real and it poses a civilizational threat that [could] transform the carrying capacity of the entire planet."

And we need some kind of carbon tax that would move more industries from coal to wind, hydro and solar power, or other, cleaner fuels. The revenue from these taxes would go to pay down the deficit and the reduction in oil imports would help to strengthen the dollar and defuse competition for energy with China.

It's smart geopolitics. It's smart fiscal policy. It is smart climate policy. Most of all - it's smart politics! Even evangelicals are speaking out about our need to protect God's green earth. "The Republican Party is much greener than George Bush or Dick Cheney," remarked Mr. Schwartz. "There is now a near convergence of support on the environmental issue. Look at how popular [Arnold] Schwarzenegger, a green Republican, is becoming because of what he has done on the environment in California."

Imagine if George Bush declared that he was getting rid of his limousine for an armor-plated Ford Escape hybrid, adopting a geo-green strategy and building an alliance of neocons, evangelicals and greens to sustain it. His popularity at home - and abroad - would soar. The country is dying to be led on this. Instead, he prefers to squander his personal energy trying to take apart the New Deal and throwing red meat to right-to-life fanatics. What a waste of a presidency. How will future historians explain it?

Read More...

U.S. Is Examining Plan to Bolster Detainee Rights

The New York Times
March 27, 2005
U.S. Is Examining Plan to Bolster Detainee Rights
By TIM GOLDEN

The Defense Department is considering substantial changes to the military tribunals that the Bush administration established to prosecute foreign terror suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, military and administration officials say.

The proposed changes, many of which are detailed in a 232-page draft manual for the tribunals that has been circulating among Pentagon lawyers, come after widespread criticism from the federal courts, foreign governments and human rights groups.

Those changes include strengthening the rights of defendants, establishing more independent judges to lead the panels and barring confessions obtained by torture, the officials said.

The draft manual has renewed a sharp debate within the Bush administration between military and civilian lawyers who are pushing to overhaul the tribunals and other officials who have long insisted that suspected terrorists held at Guantánamo are not entitled to many of the basic rights granted defendants in United States courts.

Military officials said the draft, which is modeled after the Manual for Courts-Martial, was written under the auspices of the Pentagon official in charge of the tribunals, Maj. Gen. John D. Altenburg Jr., who is now retired. The proposals gained momentum after high-level discussions late last year that included officials at the Pentagon, the office of the White House Counsel and the National Security Council.

The proposals would generally move the tribunals - formally known as military commissions - more into line with the judicial standards applied to members of the American military in traditional courts-martial, officials said. Many military lawyers have privately urged such a shift since President Bush first authorized the commissions after Sept. 11.

The administration's willingness to restructure the commissions, which have been a central part of its strategy for fighting terrorism, is uncertain. Some officials said they considered the proposals premature because a lawsuit challenging the legality of the commissions is now in a federal appeals court.

In addition, some of the White House aides who supported changes to the commissions have recently moved to new jobs, leaving behind a small but powerful group of officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney and his staff, who have opposed changing the commission rules unless forced to do so by the courts, officials said.

"There are a number of folks who would like to make changes," one Pentagon official said of the rules governing the military commissions. But, the official added, "Cheney is still driving a lot of this."

At an interagency meeting earlier this month on detainee policy, officials said, the State Department's designated legal adviser, John B. Bellinger III, who was formerly the legal adviser on the National Security Council staff, raised the question of possible modifications to the commission procedures and was quickly rebuffed by Mr. Cheney's counsel, David S. Addington.

"We don't need any changes in the commissions," the officials quoted Mr. Addington as saying.

A spokesman for Mr. Bellinger, who was traveling, declined to comment. A spokesman for the vice president's office did not respond to requests for comment on Mr. Addington's views.

A spokeswoman for General Altenburg, Lt. Susan McGarvey, said, "We are always considering ways to improve the commissions process," but she declined to discuss the draft manual.

The plan to use military commissions to try terrorism suspects emerged in the weeks following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, from a small group of White House and Justice Department lawyers who consulted closely with Mr. Cheney, current and former administration officials have said.

By their own accounts, those officials sought to use the presidency's war powers to allow the military to detain, interrogate and prosecute terrorism suspects who might be harder to question or convict in the federal justice system.

A military order signed by Mr. Bush on Nov. 13, 2001, promised that the tribunals would be "full and fair." But the order and subsequent Pentagon regulations denied defendants some due-process guarantees of civilian and military courts, including the right to hear and contest all of the evidence against them.

After more than two years of delays, the commission hearings began last August but were marred by disorganization and other problems. For a time, Pentagon officials said, they considered removing the presiding officer chosen to lead the first four trials.

Those proceedings were halted after a federal district judge in Washington ruled on Nov. 8 that the commissions could not legally try one of the first defendants, Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

The judge, James Robertson, said the administration had improperly bypassed Congress in setting up the commissions and violated binding international law when it refused to screen prisoners like Mr. Hamdan in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Judge Robertson also held that commission rules allowing the defendant to be excluded from some proceedings and denied access to some of the evidence against him were "fatally contrary to or inconsistent with" the standards of American military and civilian courts.

Rather than push forward with other trials, General Altenburg chose to regroup. Several weeks earlier, he had asked a senior lawyer on his staff, Col. Lee Deneke, to oversee a group of lawyers in drafting a manual that would address procedural shortcomings of the tribunals and some of the criticisms made by legal experts, foreign governments and human rights groups, officials said.

"There has been a push for some time to address some of the outstanding issues on military commissions," said one administration official, who like others insisted on anonymity because of the secrecy of the process. "But now it is no longer just a few voices advocating changes. Now you have the courts saying that some things need to be done."

Several officials who have read the draft manual said it would address only some of the criticisms raised by Judge Robertson, a former civil rights lawyer and naval officer appointed by President Bill Clinton.

In his 45-page ruling, Judge Robertson also noted other discrepancies between the military commission rules and the courts-martial regulations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including the lack of speedy trial provisions or guarantees against self-incrimination and the smaller size of a commission panel and the comparative ease with which it can vote a life sentence.

The draft manual affords defendants more power to challenge the evidence against them, even when that information is classified, officials said. Another proposal raises the minimum number of military officers on a tribunal to five from three. In a capital case, as many as 12 panel members might be required, one military lawyer said.

The manual would also bar any "confession or admission that was procured from the accused by torture," according to portions of a draft read to a reporter. The definition of torture in the draft is fairly broad, covering any act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain and suffering."

The draft manual includes a legal analysis of each provision. Without the analysis, the 232-page draft runs just over 100 pages, an official said.

One of the most significant proposals would make the commissions' presiding officer more like the judge in a general courts-martial. Officials said that change was intended to solve procedural problems created by rules that now require all commission members to rule on questions of the law, as well as on the facts of a case, even though the members are generally active-duty or reserve officers without legal training.

But the problem might also be one of the most difficult to fix, officials said.

In order to change the scheme, military lawyers, including General Altenburg, would now like to amend the presidential order, a step that would probably be opposed by some in the White House and that might take months to move through the bureaucracy even if it were fully endorsed, officials said.

Administration officials also appear to be divided over the wisdom of changing any of the commission rules before the federal lawsuit is resolved.

Although many officials are optimistic about the administration's chances before three Republican-appointed judges who are scheduled to hear arguments in the case on April 7 in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, many of those officials also expect the matter to reach the Supreme Court regardless of the outcome.

"People who think that it will be full steam ahead for the commissions after the appeals court rules fail to appreciate how much litigation might be ahead of us," said a military lawyer who advocates changes to the commissions. "A manual like that might make the courts more reluctant to intervene."

Read More...

Saturday, March 26, 2005

Even as Doctors Say Enough, Families Fight to Prolong Life

The New York Times
March 27, 2005
Even as Doctors Say Enough, Families Fight to Prolong Life
By PAM BELLUCK

BOSTON, March 26 - For years, when families and hospitals fought over how to treat critically ill patients, families often pressed to let their loved ones die, while hospitals tried to keep them alive.

But in the last decade or so, things have changed.

Now, doctors and ethicists say that when hospitals and families clash, conflicts often pit families who want to continue life support and aggressive medical care against doctors who believe it is time to stop.

"The most common case that comes before the ethics committees," said Dr. John J. Paris, a bioethicist at Boston College, "are families now insisting on treatment that the doctors believe is unwarranted."

Extraordinary medical advances have stoked the hopes of families. Also, more patients and families feel empowered to make medical decisions, and some are skeptical of doctors' interpretations or intentions.

When asked in polls about Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman, 60 percent to 70 percent of respondents said they would remove Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube and, in similar circumstances, would choose not to keep themselves or a spouse alive.

Many right-to-die requests would not cause conflict with a hospital these days because they are more likely to be in sync with doctors' assessments. When there is a conflict, it typically involves families who feel their loved one would not want to endure surgery or treatment that might not succeed.

But even families who say they believe in removing life support may find that position untenable when their own relatives are involved.

"About 15 years ago, at least 80 percent of the cases were right-to-die kinds of cases," said Dr. Lachlan Forrow, the director of ethics programs at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, who handles 50 to 100 end-of-life conflicts a year. "Today, it's more like at least 80 percent of the cases are the other direction: family members who are pushing for continued or more aggressive life support and doctors and nurses who think that that's wrong."

Dr. Lisa Anderson-Shaw, co-chairwoman of the ethics committee at University of Illinois at Chicago hospital, said that in 1998 she consulted on 2 such cases, while last year, she fielded 11.

Chuck Ceronsky, a co-chairman of the ethics committee of Fairview University Medical Center in Minneapolis, said, "The right-to-die families find a more receptive audience in the hospital, as opposed to years ago when a doctor might say, My job is not to end life."

Mr. Ceronsky added, "We have a disproportionate number of cases where people come in with something they think ought to be tried, or that they've read on the Internet ought to be tried."

Ethics committees resolve most cases, often through repeated family discussions over weeks or months.

But at least three states, Texas, Virginia and California, have laws that let doctors refuse treatment against the wishes of a family, or even a patient's advanced directive in certain circumstances. In other states, like Wisconsin, doctors are seeking such laws.

"When they're asking for things that become absolutely nonsensical, then you don't have to do it anymore," said Dr. Kay Heggestad, who is the chairwoman of the ethics committee of the Wisconsin Medical Society and is helping draft a "futile care" bill in her state. "If someone marches into my office with normal kidney function and demands dialysis, I am not required to offer that."

Recently, several life-support requests have landed in court.

In October, when doctors at a hospital in Salt Lake City declared 6-year-old Jesse Koochin brain dead and planned to remove life support, Jesse's parents, Steve and Gayle Koochin, went to court. A judge ruled against the hospital and granted the Koochins the right to take Jesse home, where they kept him on a ventilator and said they were convinced that he could get better with alternative medical treatments. A month later, Jesse died.

In Boston, doctors considered it so inhumane to keep alive Barbara Howe, a 79-year-old woman with Lou Gehrig's disease, that the chairman of the ethics committee wrote in June 2003, "this is Massachusetts General Hospital, not Auschwitz."

When Ms. Howe's daughter, Carol Carvitt, said her mother would not want to disconnect life support, the hospital sued. A judge said it was Ms. Carvitt's decision, but urged her to think about her mother's best interests. This month, Ms. Carvitt agreed to terminate life support by June 30.

And last November in Orlando, Fla., Alice Pinette insisted that her husband, Hanford, stay on life support even though his living will said he would not want to. A judge sided with the hospital, which removed the ventilator, and Mr. Pinette, 73, died.

"Medical advances give people greater expectations, and they're not willing to accept that death is inevitable; somebody somewhere can save Mom," said Dr. Forrow, of Beth Israel in Boston. "They have way more belief that the decision about that is partly up to them: my business, my body, my mom's body. Fifteen years ago, it was the doctor's purview alone."

Some are wary that doctors may be truncating treatment because of soaring medical costs, and Dr. Dianne Bartels, associate director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota, said: "Sometimes there's also mistrust of the medical system. A doctor might have said, 'Your husband's never going to make it,' and he's already survived two or three times, so why should they believe the doctor?"

Thomas W. Mayo, an associate professor at Southern Methodist University law school and an author of the Texas law, cited another reason.

"There are more specialists with less contact with the family," Mr. Mayo said. "As patient volumes have increased and reimbursement rates cut to the bone, there's less incentive for everyone in the system to provide that. When a stranger says, 'Well, there's nothing we can do other than turn things off,' you're hearing that from someone you have no reason to believe other than he's wearing a white coat."

The Texas law, signed in 1999 by Gov. George W. Bush, allows doctors to remove life-sustaining treatment over the objections of families, provided an ethics committee agrees and the hospital gives the family 10 days to see if another facility will accept the patient.

Dr. Robert L. Fine, an author of the law and the chairman of the clinical ethics committee at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, said that life support could be withdrawn even if a patient's living will specified otherwise, but that ethics committees would give great weight to such a document.

Virginia's law is similar; California's is much vaguer, saying physicians cannot be required to provide health care contrary to generally accepted health care standards.

Now, in most disputes in Texas, "families look for an alternative willing to provide care and if none is available they say, 'O.K., it's time to stop,' " Dr. Fine said.

There have been two recent exceptions. Last week, Sun Hudson, a 5-month-old, died after a judge gave Texas Children's Hospital in Houston permission to disconnect his ventilator over the objections of his mother.

And last Sunday, the case of Spiro Nikolouzos, 68, was resolved when his family, who fought a Houston hospital's plan to remove his ventilator, found a nursing home to accept him.

In the absence of laws like Texas's, hospitals often accede to a family's wishes because they fear being sued. They are reluctant to go to court because judges often rule that even if the hospital's assessment is correct, families' claims of what patients would have wanted take precedence. And doctors and ethicists in many states have not lobbied for a Texas-style law because of expected opposition from right-to-life advocates.

There is also discomfort with determining when health care is futile.

"It is controversial even within the bioethics community," Mr. Mayo said. "There are times when medicine has nothing more to offer and we're not obligated to offer it, but when you go to implement that, it gives people the heebie-jeebies."

Read More...