Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends

The New York Times

Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends
By LOWELL BERGMAN, ERIC LICHTBLAU, SCOTT SHANE and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

This article is by Lowell Bergman, Eric Lichtblau, Scott Shane and Don Van Natta Jr.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.

President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."

But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.

"We'd chase a number, find it's a schoolteacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former F.B.I. official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

Intelligence officials disagree with any characterization of the program's results as modest, said Judith A. Emmel, a spokeswoman for the office of the director of national intelligence. Ms. Emmel cited a statement at a briefing last month by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the country's second-ranking intelligence official and the director of the N.S.A. when the program was started.

"I can say unequivocally that we have gotten information through this program that would not otherwise have been available," General Hayden said. The White House and the F.B.I. declined to comment on the program or its results.

The differing views of the value of the N.S.A.'s foray into intelligence-gathering in the United States may reflect both bureaucratic rivalry and a culture clash. The N.S.A., an intelligence agency, routinely collects huge amounts of data from across the globe that may yield only tiny nuggets of useful information; the F.B.I., while charged with fighting terrorism, retains the traditions of a law enforcement agency more focused on solving crimes.

"It isn't at all surprising to me that people not accustomed to doing this would say, 'Boy, this is an awful lot of work to get a tiny bit of information,' " said Adm. Bobby R. Inman, a former N.S.A. director. "But the rejoinder to that is, Have you got anything better?"

Several of the law enforcement officials acknowledged that they might not know of arrests or intelligence activities overseas that grew out of the domestic spying program. And because the program was a closely guarded secret, its role in specific cases may have been disguised or hidden even from key investigators.

Still, the comments on the N.S.A. program from the law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, many of them high level, are the first indication that the program was viewed with skepticism by key figures at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the agency responsible for disrupting plots and investigating terrorism on American soil.

All the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the program is classified. It is coming under scrutiny next month in hearings on Capitol Hill, which were planned after members of Congress raised questions about the legality of the warrantless eavesdropping. The program was disclosed in December by The New York Times.

The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. "There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States," the former F.B.I. official said.

Some of the officials said the eavesdropping program might have helped uncover people with ties to Al Qaeda in Albany; Portland, Ore.; and Minneapolis. Some of the activities involved recruitment, training or fund-raising.

But, along with several British counterterrorism officials, some of the officials questioned assertions by the Bush administration that the program was the key to uncovering a plot to detonate fertilizer bombs in London in 2004. The F.B.I. and other law enforcement officials also expressed doubts about the importance of the program's role in another case named by administration officials as a success in the fight against terrorism, an aborted scheme to topple the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch.

Some officials said that in both cases, they had already learned of the plans through prisoner interrogations or other means.

Immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration pressed the nation's intelligence agencies and the F.B.I. to move urgently to thwart any more plots. The N.S.A., whose mission is to spy overseas, began monitoring the international e-mail messages and phone calls of people inside the United States who were linked, even indirectly, to suspected Qaeda figures.

Under a presidential order, the agency conducted the domestic eavesdropping without seeking the warrants ordinarily required from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which handles national security matters. The administration has defended the legality of the program, pointing to what it says is the president's inherent constitutional power to defend the country and to legislation passed by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Administration officials told Mr. Mueller, the F.B.I. director, of the eavesdropping program, and his agency was enlisted to run down leads from it, several current and former officials said.

While he and some bureau officials discussed the fact that the program bypassed the intelligence surveillance court, Mr. Mueller expressed no concerns about that to them, those officials said. But another government official said Mr. Mueller had questioned the administration about the legal authority for the program.

Officials who were briefed on the N.S.A. program said the agency collected much of the data passed on to the F.B.I. as tips by tracing phone numbers in the United States called by suspects overseas, and then by following the domestic numbers to other numbers called. In other cases, lists of phone numbers appeared to result from the agency's computerized scanning of communications coming into and going out of the country for names and keywords that might be of interest. The deliberate blurring of the source of the tips caused some frustration among those who had to follow up.

F.B.I. field agents, who were not told of the domestic surveillance programs, complained that they often were given no information about why names or numbers had come under suspicion. A former senior prosecutor who was familiar with the eavesdropping programs said intelligence officials turning over the tips "would always say that we had information whose source we can't share, but it indicates that this person has been communicating with a suspected Al Qaeda operative." He said, "I would always wonder, what does 'suspected' mean?"

"The information was so thin," he said, "and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up."

In response to the F.B.I. complaints, the N.S.A. eventually began ranking its tips on a three-point scale, with 3 being the highest priority and 1 the lowest, the officials said. Some tips were considered so hot that they were carried by hand to top F.B.I. officials. But in bureau field offices, the N.S.A. material continued to be viewed as unproductive, prompting agents to joke that a new bunch of tips meant more "calls to Pizza Hut," one official, who supervised field agents, said.

The views of some bureau officials about the value of the N.S.A.'s domestic surveillance offers a revealing glimpse of the difficulties law enforcement and intelligence agencies have had cooperating since Sept. 11.

The N.S.A., criticized by the national Sept. 11 commission for its "avoidance of anything domestic" before the attacks, moved aggressively into the domestic realm after them. But the legal debate over its warrantless eavesdropping has embroiled the agency in just the kind of controversy its secretive managers abhor. The F.B.I., meanwhile, has struggled over the last four years to expand its traditional mission of criminal investigation to meet the larger menace of terrorism.

Admiral Inman, the former N.S.A. director and deputy director of C.I.A., said the F.B.I. complaints about thousands of dead-end leads revealed a chasm between very different disciplines. Signals intelligence, the technical term for N.S.A.'s communications intercepts, rarely produces "the complete information you're going to get from a document or a witness" in a traditional F.B.I. investigation, he said.

Some F.B.I. officials said they were uncomfortable with the expanded domestic role played by the N.S.A. and other intelligence agencies, saying most intelligence officers lacked the training needed to safeguard Americans' privacy and civil rights. They said some protections had to be waived temporarily in the months after Sept. 11 to detect a feared second wave of attacks, but they questioned whether emergency procedures like the eavesdropping should become permanent.

That discomfort may explain why some F.B.I. officials may seek to minimize the benefits of the N.S.A. program or distance themselves from the agency. "This wasn't our program," an F.B.I. official said. "It's not our mess, and we're not going to clean it up."

The N.S.A.'s legal authority for collecting the information it passed to the F.B.I. is uncertain. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires a warrant for the use of so-called pen register equipment that records American phone numbers, even if the contents of the calls are not intercepted. But officials with knowledge of the program said no warrants were sought to collect the numbers, and it is unclear whether the secret executive order signed by Mr. President Bush in 2002 to authorize eavesdropping without warrants also covered the collection of phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

Aside from the director, F.B.I. officials did not question the legal status of the tips, assuming that N.S.A. lawyers had approved. They were more concerned about the quality and quantity of the material, which produced "mountains of paperwork" often more like raw data than conventional investigative leads.

"It affected the F.B.I. in the sense that they had to devote so many resources to tracking every single one of these leads, and, in my experience, they were all dry leads," the former senior prosecutor said. "A trained investigator never would have devoted the resources to take those leads to the next level, but after 9/11, you had to."

By the administration's account, the N.S.A. eavesdropping helped lead investigators to Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver and friend of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Faris spoke of toppling the Brooklyn Bridge by taking a torch to its suspension cables, but concluded that it would not work. He is now serving a 20-year sentence in a federal prison.

But as in the London fertilizer bomb case, some officials with direct knowledge of the Faris case dispute that the N.S.A. information played a significant role.

By contrast, different officials agree that the N.S.A.'s domestic operations played a role in the arrest in Albany of an imam and another man who were taken into custody in August 2004 as part of an F.B.I. counterterrorism sting investigation. The men, Yassin Aref, 35, and Mohammed Hossain, 49, are awaiting trial on charges that they attempted to engineer the sale of missile launchers to an F.B.I. undercover informant.

In addition, government officials said the N.S.A. eavesdropping program might have assisted in the investigations of people with suspected Qaeda ties in Portland and Minneapolis. In the Minneapolis case, charges of supporting terrorism were filed in 2004 against Mohammed Abdullah Warsame, a Canadian citizen. Six people in the Portland case were convicted of crimes that included money laundering and conspiracy to wage war against the United States.

Even senior administration officials with access to classified operations suggest that drawing a clear link between a particular source and the unmasking of a potential terrorist is not always possible.

When Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, was asked last week on "The Charlie Rose Show" whether the N.S.A. wiretapping program was important in deterring terrorism, he said, "I don't know that it's ever possible to attribute one strand of intelligence from a particular program."

But Mr. Chertoff added, "I can tell you in general, the process of doing whatever you can do technologically to find out what is being said by a known terrorist to other people, and who that person is communicating with, that is without a doubt one of the critical tools we've used time and again."

William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting from New York for this article.

Read More...

Summary only...

In New Orleans' Shadow, Many on Mississippi's Coast Feeling Neglected

ABC News
Many on Miss. Coast Feel Overshadowed
In New Orleans' Shadow, Many on Mississippi's Coast Feeling Neglected
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
The Associated Press

GULFPORT, Miss. - Nicki Henderson has had plenty of reasons to be angry since Hurricane Katrina destroyed her Biloxi home, but it was a simple news item about dislocated dolphins that really made her blood boil.

Henderson lost her temper when she logged on to her computer and spotted this headline: "New Orleans Dolphins Find New Home." She knew the dolphins actually came from a hurricane-ravaged marine park in Gulfport, not New Orleans.

The headline writer's error reinforced her belief shared by many on Mississippi's Gulf Coast that New Orleans has gotten a disproportionate share of the news coverage and the nation's attention in the aftermath of the storm, now more than four months gone.

There is a growing sense the catastrophic damage along Mississippi's 70-mile stretch of coastline is being treated as a mere footnote to the story in New Orleans, which was ravaged by flooding.

Worse, some say the lack attention could hamper the recovery of an area that had experienced an economic renaissance in the past decade thanks to billions of dollars of investment by major casino and hotel companies.

"I am terrified the American people are going to forget about us," Henderson said.

On Dec. 14, The Sun Herald in Gulfport devoted its entire front page to an editorial, headlined "Mississippi's Invisible Coast," that argued the region is fading into a "black hole of media obscurity." Next to the editorial was a graphic tallying Katrina's toll on the region: $125 billion in estimated damage, 236 dead, 65,380 houses destroyed.

Louisiana's death toll stands at 1,078. More than 6,000 homes in New Orleans and neighboring St. Bernard Parish may have to be demolished.

The piece ended with a plea to the national media to "tell our story."

"The depth of the suffering and the height of the courage of south Mississippians is an incredible story that the American people must know. But, in the shadows of the New Orleans story, the Mississippi Coast has become invisible and forgotten to most Americans," the editorial read.

Sun Herald publisher Ricky Mathews said more balanced coverage would give Mississippi's residents a sorely needed morale boost. "They need to know they haven't been forgotten," Mathews said.

Mississippi residents are not the only ones feeling overshadowed by New Orleans. Larry Hooper, 63, has been living on a campground since Katrina destroyed his home in Empire, La., about 60 miles from New Orleans.

"Our town was wiped off the map," he said. "We feel as left out as the people in Mississippi and Alabama because of all the New Orleans reporting."

Rem Rieder, editor and senior vice president of the American Journalism Review, said it is obvious New Orleans has gotten the overwhelming share of headlines.

"Part of it has to do with the mythical status that New Orleans has in this country," he said. "It did become the focal point of national attention. The unfortunate byproduct is that the story on the Mississippi Gulf Coast can be backburnered."

Mathews said he worries that a "national obsession" with New Orleans will cost Mississippi its fair share of federal aid, private investment and help from volunteers.

"The government can help us get our important infrastructure rebuilt, but it's the private investment that's going to tell the story long term," he added.

Congress has approved tens of billions of dollars for recovery and rebuilding on the Gulf Coast. Only time will tell how the money is divided, but news coverage "does have an impact on what Congress does," said Biloxi native Jack Nelson, former Washington bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times.

"When it's off the screen of the media, it's off the screen of the federal government," said Nelson, who landed his first newspaper job at The Sun Herald.

Not everybody is clamoring for a brighter media spotlight, because bad news can be bad for business.

"I really think there's a downside to overexposure, if it's exposure that says things aren't working well," said Stephen Richer, executive director of the Mississippi Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau. "Yes, there has been less coverage here, but I think in the long term we may come out ahead, because there's been more focus on the constructive things we're doing."

Three casinos already have reopened in Biloxi and others have vowed to be back before Katrina's anniversary on Aug. 29. In 2004, the dozen casinos on the Mississippi coast generated $1.2 billion in gross revenue.

Read More...

Summary only...

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin Says God Mad at America, but Also at Blacks

ABC News
New Orleans Mayor Says God Mad at U.S.
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin Says God Mad at America, but Also at Blacks
By BRETT MARTEL
The Associated Press

NEW ORLEANS - Mayor Ray Nagin suggested Monday that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other storms were a sign that "God is mad at America" and at black communities, too, for tearing themselves apart with violence and political infighting.

"Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country," Nagin, who is black, said as he and other city leaders marked Martin Luther King Day.

"Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses. But surely he is upset at black America also. We're not taking care of ourselves."

Nagin also promised that New Orleans will be a "chocolate" city again. Many of the city's black neighborhoods were heavily damaged by Katrina.

"It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans," the mayor said. "This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."

Nagin described an imaginary conversation with King, the late civil rights leader.

"I said, `What is it going to take for us to move on and live your dream and make it a reality?' He said, `I don't think that we need to pay attention any more as much about other folks and racists on the other side.' He said, `The thing we need to focus on as a community black folks I'm talking about is ourselves.'"

Nagin said he also asked: "Why is black-on-black crime such an issue? Why do our young men hate each other so much that they look their brother in the face and they will take a gun and kill him in cold blood?"

The reply, Nagin said, was: "We as a people need to fix ourselves first."

Nagin also said King would have been dismayed with black leaders who are "most of the time tearing each other down publicly for the delight of many."

A day earlier, gunfire erupted at a parade to commemorate King's birthday. Three people were wounded in the daylight shooting amid a throng of mostly black spectators, but police said there were no immediate suspects or witnesses.

Read More...

Summary only...

Poll: Economic Concerns Recede at Start of Year; Worries About Iraq and Political Leaders Grow

ABC News
Poll: Concerns Shift From Economy to War
AP Poll: Economic Concerns Recede at Start of Year; Worries About Iraq and Political Leaders Grow
By WILL LESTER
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Economic worries have decreased over the last six months as the American public has shifted its concern more to the war in Iraq and problems faced by political leaders, AP-Ipsos polling found.

The economy has been showing signs of strength in recent months. But the violence in Iraq has continued, before and after the latest round of elections in mid-December. And high-profile politicians in this country have been ensnared by scandal.

When people were asked in an open-ended question to name the nation's top problem, 25 percent named war, close to the level in October, but up from 19 percent in July. The number of people who named political leaders as the most important problem has almost tripled, from 5 percent in July to 14 percent as the new year starts.

"The war is a problem that fouls up what we need to do in the world," said Peter Palys, a lawyer from Wheaton, Ill. "My feelings about Iraq have solidified over the last six months. ... We can't stay; we can't leave, and we can't win. Our success or failure is not in our hands."

American troops are still dying at a rate of about two per day and the insurgency has shown no clear signs of weakening in recent months.

But U.S. officials are heartened by progress they see in training Iraqi security forces a key step toward disengaging U.S. forces.

While violence continues in Iraq, scandals involving prominent politicians in this country have been growing.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is facing trial on felony charges in a Texas campaign finance investigation. He's one of several lawmakers who were close to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Abramoff lavished favors on lawmakers and is now cooperating with prosecutors after pleading guilty to corruption charges.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, sometimes mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential candidate, is under investigation by federal prosecutors in New York and by the Securities and Exchange Commission because of his handling of stock sales. U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., pleaded guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes.

"It's a steady drumbeat," said Walter Mebane, a professor of government at Cornell University. "People who aren't political junkies may not follow the names, but they're always hearing something about corrupt politicians in Washington."

Neal Bowser, a carpet technician from Westchester, Pa., said the bribery scandals are his top concern now.

"Money seems to be corrupting the whole bottom line," he said. "Our political leaders are not working for the people when they're working for their own pockets."

Public concern about the economy, while still relatively high, has been declining. About one in five, 21 percent, named economic issues as the top problem, down from 28 percent in July, according to the poll of 1,001 adults taken Jan. 3-5. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The economy has been bolstered by a strong housing sector, a rising stock market and relative strength in jobs. The Dow Jones Industrial Average crept above 11,000 last week before slipping a bit at week's end.

Some still worry about the economy, however.

"I think the economy is still struggling now, and I won't be surprised if it gets worse," said Wes Byers, an engineer from Wellington, Colo. "I don't think jobs are there like they used to be, especially better-paying jobs. There's getting to be a bigger and bigger gap between low-income and high-income people."

Associated Press writers Jeannine Aversa, Robert Burns and Larry Margasak contributed to this story.

On the Net:

Ipsos http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com

Read More...

Summary only...

Translator's Conviction Raises Legal Concerns - Trial Transcripts Show Lack of Evidence

washingtonpost.com
Translator's Conviction Raises Legal Concerns
Trial Transcripts Show Lack of Evidence
By Michael Powell and Michelle Garcia
Washington Post Staff Writers

NEW YORK -- For three years federal agents trailed Mohammed Yousry, a chubby 50-year-old translator and U.S. citizen who worked for radical lawyer Lynne Stewart. Prosecutors wiretapped his phone, and FBI agents shadowed and interviewed him. They read his books and notepads and every file on his computer.

This was their conclusion:

"Yousry is not a practicing Muslim. He is not a fundamentalist," prosecutor Anthony Barkow acknowledged in his closing arguments to a jury in federal district court in Manhattan earlier this year. "Mohammed Yousry is not someone who supports or believes in the use of violence."

Still, the prosecutor persuaded the jury to convict Yousry of supporting terrorism. Yousry now awaits sentencing in March, when he could face 20 years in prison for translating a letter from imprisoned Muslim cleric Omar Abdel Rahman to Rahman's lawyer in Egypt.

In June 2000, Stewart released to a reporter a version of the letter, which discussed a cease-fire between Islamic militants and the Egyptian government. Prosecutors said that the lawyer and the translator, by these acts, conspired to use Rahman's words to incite others to carry out kidnappings and killings. No attack took place.

"Kill who? What are they talking about?" Yousry asked recently as he sat alongside his wife, Sarah, an evangelical Christian, in their modest Connecticut condominium. "The words I'm looking for, it's insane."

The prosecution and conviction of Stewart, 66, on charges of aiding terrorist activity, drew international attention, overshadowing Yousry's case. But legal experts, civil liberties lawyers and a juror say Yousry's conviction raises many troubling questions, not least how a court-appointed translator working on instruction from lawyers could be held responsible for navigating complicated and dangerous legal waters.

The trial transcripts reveal that prosecutors advanced no evidence to back up certain claims, including the assertion that Yousry was in touch with Middle Eastern terrorists.

"You would expect a translator to take his lead from the defense lawyer and you would not expect that translator to understand the intricacies of a very broad criminal statute," said Neal R. Sonnett, a former federal prosecutor who chaired an American Bar Association task force that opposed the Bush administration's position on enemy combatants. "There is a real issue whether it's even fair to charge, much less convict, someone like him."

Yousry had no legal training and translated nothing without instruction from defense lawyers. He passed rigorous federal security clearance checks. A PhD candidate at New York University, Yousry harbored no affinity for Rahman, writing that the cleric promoted "Muslim totalitarianism."

Justice Department prosecutors said secret recordings of meetings in Rahman's prison showed that Yousry crossed the line between legal and illegal behavior. Yousry read letters to Rahman from radical supporters, even though he understood that they were violent men.

"He stuck his head in the sand and deliberately avoided knowing what would have been obvious," prosecutor Robin Baker told the jury. "We don't need to prove why."

Yousry was tried alongside Stewart, who supports armed revolution, and Ahmed Sattar, a Rahman aide and sympathizer with fundamentalist causes, in Manhattan, five blocks from Ground Zero. All three were convicted. Prosecutors played a videotape of Osama bin Laden and mentioned al Qaeda attacks, even though the case had nothing to do with that group.

A month after the trial, a female juror wrote to U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl, complaining that fellow jurors talked of terrorist attacks and their desire to teach the defendants a lesson. "They had an agenda," Juror 39 told The Washington Post in her first interview. "People are so fearful that if you disagree with the government on one thing it makes you a terrorist.

"I have to plead guilty to being a coward," Juror 39, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said of her vote to convict. "It doesn't feel good, but I punked out."

Out of Egypt

Yousry has round cheeks and curly hair, wears baggy sweaters and jeans and has the aspect of an absent-minded professor. He's far removed from a privileged upbringing in Egypt, where his father was a military general, a physician and a supporter of President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Yousry came to New York City in 1980. He met Sarah, and they married in a church. Their daughter graduated from a Baptist college.

In 1995, Yousry's translation agency offered him a job with the legal defense team for Rahman, a prominent Egyptian radical who was accused of conspiring to blow up the United Nations building and the Holland and Lincoln tunnels. Yousry struck up a cordial if fractious relationship with Rahman, who speaks little English. "He liked to torture me about drinking and not praying and all that good stuff," Yousry recalled.

In October 1995, Rahman was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Stewart and former attorney general Ramsey Clark, a courtly Texan with decidedly left-wing politics, set about trying to persuade the United States to transfer Rahman to an Egyptian prison. They asked Yousry to return to the case in 1997.

Yousry declined -- he wanted to write his dissertation and teach. His adviser, historian Zachary Lockman, suggested a marriage of academics and work. "Knowing that he would have access to the FBI tapes and to Rahman, I suggested a biography of Rahman and his movement," Lockman said. "I guess I'm responsible in a very sad way for the trouble he's in."

In April 1997, Attorney General Janet Reno imposed unprecedented restrictions known as "special administrative measures" on Rahman, denying him access to mail, newspapers and any visitor except his wife and attorneys. Prosecutors argued that Rahman's words were so dangerous that they constituted a weapon. Theirs was not an idle worry: Egyptian militants had slaughtered 58 tourists in Luxor in 1997 in hopes of forcing Rahman's release.

Clark and Stewart signed the administrative measures. Prosecutors did not demand the same of Yousry. The defense attorneys repeatedly tested the regulations. Clark in 1997 told reporters of Rahman's support for a cease-fire with the Egyptian government without earning a rebuke from prosecutors.

Prosecutors argue that the translator should have balked when the lawyers skirted the legal edge. This notion bemuses Clark. "Mohammed would assume that the lawyers knew what they were doing," he said in an interview.

Prison Meeting

By 2000, Stewart had taken the lead in Rahman's defense. A grandmotherly Maoist, she was an accomplished trial lawyer who eschewed Clark's diplomatic speech.

But Stewart did not realize that a year earlier Justice Department lawyers -- under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- obtained permission to secretly videotape visits to Rahman in his maximum-security prison in Rochester, Minn. They also obtained wiretaps on Yousry and Sattar.

At the core of the government's case were two prison meetings with Rahman in May 2000. On May 19, Yousry read a note to Rahman from his radical followers, asking whether to maintain a cease-fire with the Egyptian government. Rahman dictated a response the next day. Contrary to prosecution claims, government tapes show the cleric did not favor ending the cease-fire.

"The militants," Rahman wrote to his attorney in Egypt, "should not cancel it altogether."

Stewart chattered to distract the guards and joked with Yousry that they could get in trouble. Prosecutors argued this was proof of a "red-handed" conspiracy. Yousry denied involvement, saying Stewart reveled in thumbing her nose at prosecutors.

On June 14, 2000, Stewart -- without Yousry's knowledge -- read a statement about the cease-fire to a Reuters correspondent. Misinterpreting Rahman's intent, she said he had withdrawn his support for it.

If this was a conspiracy, it was a remarkably uncoordinated affair. Four months later, Sattar, the postal clerk, released a fatwa, or religious edict, in Rahman's name urging followers to "kill Jews everywhere." Yousry, government tapes show, learned of the fatwa days later while reading the newspaper to Rahman. He immediately said he had to inform the lawyers.

"Mr. Yousry," Rahman snapped in a rare use of English, "this is none of your business!"

Later government tapes reveal Yousry upbraiding Sattar when he learned the postal clerk spoke to suspected terrorists after militants bombed the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. Yousry became worried. "I asked Ramsey what I should do," he recalled. "He told me: 'Listen to the lawyer and you'll be safe.' "

Indictment

A plume of black smoke rose from Ground Zero as four FBI agents knocked on the door of Yousry's home in Queens two days after Sept. 11, 2001. Yousry said little. Two more days passed, and he thought better of his reticence. He called the agents back and talked about Sattar and the USS Cole and Rahman. He met four more times with FBI agents over six months.

In the spring of 2002, a federal prosecutor suggested Yousry testify if the government indicted Stewart and Clark. This was confirmed by a federal law enforcement source. "They wanted me to entrap Lynne and Ramsey," Yousry said. "I said no."

On April 9, 2002, FBI agents and helmeted police officers with high-powered rifles came to arrest Yousry while his friends and neighbors peered behind cruisers and kitchen curtains. Stewart had been arrested that morning.

The FBI ultimately recorded thousands of hours of Yousry's telephone conversations and electronic activity over three years, but prosecutors introduced none of those tapes into evidence. Yousry never spoke to Rahman without the lawyers' permission, even when left alone with him. Nor, transcripts show, did the prosecutors offer evidence to back up assertions that Yousry talked to militants in the Middle East.

Prosecutors argued that Yousry metaphorically closed his eyes to the bad characters around him. They noted that he padded his résumé and suggested that he addressed Rahman as "spiritual master" to show allegiance; in fact, it's a common Arabic honorific. Prosecutors speculated that Yousry betrayed the nation in hopes of gaining a Harvard teaching position.

The jury began deliberations in early 2005 and conversation was not friendly to the defendants. "A woman was in tears she was so scared of terrorism," Juror 39 said. "Another kept asking why it took Yousry so long to finish his dissertation, that it was suspicious."

On Feb. 10, 2005, the jury foreman pronounced the defendants guilty on all counts. Yousry went ashen; his daughter, Leslie, dissolved in tears.

Afterward

Judge Koeltl recently rejected Yousry's legal appeal based on the account of Juror 39. The judge noted that juries are given great leeway. David Stern, Yousry's lawyer, cannot quite accept that. "I'm in the habit of defending bad people, and they've mostly done what they're accused of," he said. "This guy is flat-out innocent, and it's disgraceful he's going to prison."

Michael Gasper, who studied with Yousry and teaches at Yale, often visits the translator. The friends drink wine and laugh, and when Gasper leaves, Yousry presses another favorite history book into his guest's hands. The translator will have no use for them in prison. "The way he has taken it makes me cry, he's so gracious," Gasper said. "I try not to talk about it, but he keeps giving me those . . . books."

Yousry talks of hope. "I awake every morning and think: I will be vindicated," he said. "It just hasn't happened yet." But he passes the days until sentencing in his book-lined study. He figures it is the size of a prison cell and he wants to get used to it.

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrats Preparing Proposal on Congressional Code of Conduct, Including Ban on Lobbyist Gifts

ABC News
Dems Ready Proposal on Code of Conduct
Democrats Preparing Proposal on Congressional Code of Conduct, Including Ban on Lobbyist Gifts
By DAVID ESPO
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Democrats intend to unveil a sweeping plan this week to tighten Congress' code of conduct, officials said Saturday night, including a ban on lobbyists' gifts to lawmakers and a crackdown on special interest provisions slipped into legislation in the final moments before passage.

Eager to claim the mantle of reform in the wake of an election-year corruption scandal, Democrats also will propose doubling the current one-year cooling off period that former lawmakers or senior aides must observe before they are allowed to lobby without restriction.

The ban on lobbyist gifts would include meals and tickets to sporting or entertainment events as well as travel, according to officials familiar with the proposals.

The party's top leaders in Congress, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, are scheduled to announce the Democratic proposals on Wednesday.

The officials who described their plans did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to pre-empt the formal announcement.

Republicans hold a majority in both houses of Congress, and beginning last year, Democrats signaled their intention of making ethics an issue in the 2006 elections.

Their efforts have intensified since lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist with close ties to senior House Republicans, pleaded guilty earlier this month to federal charges of conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion in a wide-ranging corruption investigation.

Republicans responded rapidly to the guilty plea, hoping to limit the political fallout. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., have both announced plans to consider changes in rules or law to limit the impact lobbyists have on members of Congress. Both men are considering bans on gifts and privately funded travel, and waiting to hear recommendations from fellow Republicans on other measures.

At the same time, Republicans have yet to agree on a comprehensive approach, as Pelosi and Reid intend to do. Howard Dean, the Democratic party chairman, is scheduled to travel to Ohio on Wednesday to stress the same issue. The state's Republican governor, Bob Taft, pleaded no contest last summer to charges that he failed to report numerous golf outings since taking office in 1999.

The Democratic proposals would end practices that Abramoff used frequently to court members of Congress.

Investigators have said that at a Washington restaurant Abramoff once owned, for example, the staff had a list of lawmakers who were permitted to dine on the owner's tab whenever they were present.

Current rules permit lawmakers to accept gifts of up to $50 in value. But there is no aggregate annual limit on the gifts they are allowed to take.

The practice of making changes in legislation shortly before a final vote is a time-honored one in Congress. In the Senate, it is not unusual for key lawmakers seeking additional votes for their bill to insert last-minute changes.

Pelosi and Reid intend to call for curbs on the practice, requiring that printed copies of legislation, including last-minute amendments, be given to all lawmakers 24 hours before a vote, officials said.

The requirement could be waived under terms that effectively require the agreement of the minority party.

Read More...

Summary only...

Despite Budding Corruption Scandal, Congress' Ethics Committees Won't Commit to Action

ABC News
Ethics Committees Won't Commit to Action
Despite Budding Corruption Scandal, Congress' Ethics Committees Won't Commit to Action
By LARRY MARGASAK
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The leaders of Congress' ethics committees are not committing to any investigation of misconduct despite the growing revelations about the favors that lobbyist Jack Abramoff won for clients and the largesse he arranged for lawmakers.

The committees, for now, are poised to remain on the sidelines.

The House committee, stymied by partisan disagreements, launched no investigations in 2005 even after former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, requested an inquiry into his foreign travel arranged by Abramoff.

The lack of commitment to investigate issues about lawmakers' conduct with Abramoff, his lobbying team and his clients is raising anew the question of whether Congress adequately can discipline its own.

"There have always been questions about whether Congress can police itself," said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in ethics. "The situation in the House removes all doubt. The House is not policing itself."

The Associated Press asked the four lawmakers who lead the ethics committees whether they would make a commitment to investigate ethical wrongdoing if, as expected, the information Abramoff supplies in a plea agreement exposes misconduct by a number of members of Congress. Each of the four two Republicans and two Democrats declined, through his spokesmen, to do so.

The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is headed by Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash.; the top Democrat is Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia.

The Senate Select Committee on Ethics is led by Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio; the ranking Democrat is Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota.

While the committees have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, forging a bipartisanship consensus in ethics investigations often has proved difficult.

After the House levied a $300,000 fine against former Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., for ethical violations in 1997 payment for part of the cost of investigating his conduct weary members of both parties declared an ethics truce. For several years, there were no major cases for several years.

The House committee revived itself in 2004, admonishing DeLay on three separate issues. The House Republican leadership reacted by refusing to extend the term of the chairman at that time, Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo. He had asked to stay on.

Last year, Hastings and Mollohan feuded for months over investigative rules, and then for additional months over the composition of the staff. The entire year was gone before the leaders finally chose the committee's top staff member; he started work only recently.

Abramoff pleaded guilty this month to conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud in Washington and to additional charges in Miami. He has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

The committees traditionally defer to prosecutors and do not interfere with criminal investigations. But they can investigate violations of standards of conduct that are separate from criminal violations.

Committee actions can range from a critical letter to recommendations of serious punishment by the full House all the way to expulsion.

The Abramoff criminal inquiry raises numerous issues. Lawmakers, for instance, are prohibited from accepting trips from lobbyists.

One way Abramoff lavished favors on lawmakers was through free travel that he arranged through nonprofit organizations that got money from the lobbyist's clients. DeLay has said he was unaware that Abramoff may have paid for some of his travel.

Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio, who has been implicated in the Abramoff investigation, announced Sunday that he will step aside temporarily as chairman of the House Administration Committee with jurisdiction over many of the rules governing lobbyists and travel.

More than four dozen lawmakers from House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., to Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. sent to federal agencies letters that were favorable to Abramoff clients or took official actions in Congress to help them.

Around the same time, those lawmakers received large political donations or used Abramoff's skybox or restaurant for fundraising. Some lawmakers didn't provide reimbursement until years later.

Ethics watchdog groups have written the committees alleging those activities violate congressional ethics standards that require lawmakers to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Congress' response to the budding scandal so far, especially in the House, has been a flurry of proposals to write new laws to control lobbyists' relations with lawmakers. Some experts believe that without an investigation that can lead to discipline, ethics violators get a free pass.

"You have to publicly reprimand someone," said Judy Nadler, the former mayor of Santa Clara, Calif., and now a senior fellow at Santa Clara University. "If there are no consequences, things will not change. This is drive-by ethics."

Former Sen. Warren Rudman, a Republican who served on the Senate ethics committee, said, "The amount of politics that intruded into the House committee is discouraging."

Rudman said the ethics leaders have an obligation to follow up on any potential violations of standards of conduct. "It would be impossible not to address some of these issues," said Rudman, who served during the Keating Five investigation that suffered through partisanship in the Senate panel.

That investigation had similarities to the Abramoff case. It involved donations to five senators from a savings and loan operator, who persuaded the lawmakers to intervene with federal regulators on his behalf. The timing of the donations and official actions was a key issue with both the Keating Five and the Abramoff cases.

Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, said the Abramoff case is "likely to raise the issue of how well Congress does in keeping track of its own behavior."

But he said the public will not really get interested until more lawmakers are publicly named in the criminal investigation.

Read More...

Summary only...

Murtha Details His Exit Strategy

CBSNews.com
Murtha Details His Exit Strategy

Jan. 15, 2006(CBS) The vast majority of American troops will be out of Iraq by the end of this year. Who says so? Congressman John Murtha says so, and he explains his plan to make that happen to correspondent Mike Wallace.

The 73-year-old Democrat from Pennsylvania is a much-decorated war hero from Vietnam and Korea; a heavyweight in military matters in the Congress who stunned the Bush White House last November by calling for the withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq.

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence," Rep. Murtha says. "My plan calls for an immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."

And now he tells 60 Minutes the withdrawal is going to happen sooner than we think.

"I think the vast majority will be out by the end of the year. And I’m hopeful it’ll be out sooner than that," the congressman says.

And here’s how it will happen: Murtha tells 60 Minutes that mounting pressure from constituents in this election year will force Congress to pass his withdrawal plan, or something similar to bring troops home.

Asked if he is going to press for a new debate on Iraq during this session of Congress, Murtha says, "I think you’ll see not only debate, I think you’ll see some changes."

Does Murtha think Congress is going to insist upon a major withdrawal from Iraq before election day in November?

"Sure," he says. "You’re gonna see a plan for withdrawal."

And how does he think he will get that plan through the Congress and impose a withdrawal plan on President Bush?

"I think the political people who give him advice will say to him, 'You don’t want a Democratic congress. You want to keep the Republican majority. And the only way you’re gonna keep it, is by reducing substantially the troops in Iraq,'” Murtha explains.

Apparently, the president hasn’t gotten that message yet. This past week, here’s what he told a veterans group about future decisions to withdraw troops from Iraq:

"All of my decisions will be based upon conditions on the ground, not artificial timetables set by Washington politicians," President George W. Bush said on Jan. 10.

But it’s those conditions on the ground – most Iraqis wanting the U.S. occupation to end, and insurgents killing or maiming Americans – that has convinced the congressman that it’s now time to get troops out.

"Troops I talk to and they say to me, 'In the daytime, they wave at us. At nighttime, they throw hand grenades,'" says Murtha.

Asked who these insurgents are, Murtha says they are Iraqis. "Ninety-three percent of the insurgents are Iraqis. A very small percentage are foreign fighters. The Iraqis know who they are. Once we’re out of there, they’ll eliminate ‘em,” he says.

The White House isn’t as confident that Iraqis will drive out the foreign fighters, but Murtha says U.S. troops are now caught in the middle of an Iraqi civil war, not the fight against terrorists that the White House keeps talking about.

"They take Iraq and then they talk about terrorism," Murtha says. "We’re diverting ourselves away from the war, the war on terrorism, when we’re fighting an insurgency in Iraq."

Murtha’s criticism prompted the president to launch a series of speeches to regain public support.

The president says the congressman is wrong. Two days after Murtha's Nov. 17 speech, Mr. Bush said, "The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. If they’re not stopped, the terrorists will be able to advance their agenda to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, and to break our will and blackmail our government into isolation. I’m going to make you this commitment. This is not going to happen on my watch."

"He’s trying to fight this war with rhetoric," Murtha responds. "Iraq is not where the center of terrorism is. So when he says we’re fighting terrorism over there, we’re inciting terrorism over there. We’re encouraging terror. We’re destabilizing the area by being over there ‘cause we’re the targets. He said before there’s weapons of mass destruction. He said there’s an al Qaeda connection. There’s many things he said turned out not to be true. So why would I believe him when he says the things he just – made that statement.


Murtha believes that all along the White House has been long on spin and short on truth.

"They need to be honest with the public. They need to admit they’ve made mistakes," Murtha says. "The admin — the president himself - needs to be honest with the public. He’s getting bad information from somebody. And I’ve been arguing with him now for several months."

Asked if he has talked to Mr. Bush face-to-face, Murtha says no, saying he hasn't been invited.

Asked what he thinks of the president, Murtha says he is isolated. "The most isolated president that I’ve served with," he says.

Murtha has served with seven presidents starting with Richard Nixon. He has been in congress for 32 years representing Johnstown, Pa. Most of his constituents back the war, but the congressman is king there, so his stand has led a shift in some local opinion about Iraq.

Murtha, who has two purple hearts, tells 60 Minutes that if George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld had been in combat themselves, they’d have been more reluctant to send young Americans into battle.

"War’s a nasty business. It sears the soul. The shadow of friends killed, the shadow of killing people lives with you the rest of your life. So there’s no experience like being in combat," says Murtha.

Murtha wants all the troops home within six months, except for a quick reaction force of about 20,000 who would be based nearby in Kuwait. But he admits that when the Americans leave, a civil war in Iraq will intensify.

"If we leave, it’s gonna continue and somebody will prevail, just like in our Civil War in the United States. Somebody’s gonna prevail. It’s up to them. They want democracy, they gotta fight for that democracy," says Murtha.

But President Bush believes U.S. troops can stop a civil war and implies that John Murtha is a defeatist.

"Now, there are only two options before our country: victory or defeat," the president has said. "To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor and I will not allow it."

"Victory versus defeat is not a policy at all. What is the definition of victory?" Murtha questions. "There’s two policies. The one policy is you stay with an open-ended policy and Iraqis determine when we leave. And the other policy, is my recommendation, where we redeploy as quickly as possible."

Why has his policy not been endorsed by potential Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or John Kerry?

"Because," says Murtha laughing, "they’re afraid. They’re afraid. They don’t understand it. They think there’s a safe way to work their way through this. And they’re afraid to get out there and make a statement that later on might come back to haunt ‘em."

But Murtha’s stand could come back to haunt him, if President Bush turns out to be right about Iraq.

Murtha, who left college to fight in the Korean War and stayed in the Marines for 37 years, said last week he would not have enlisted to fight in Iraq, and wouldn’t encourage others to enlist.

"Yeah, that’s because I disagree with the policy. I mean, when I was in college I remember vividly, I stood in my dormitory room and I looked down at - it was in the wintertime and I said I can’t stay here. This is not right, for me to be here. We’re fightin’ communism. And I oughta be in the military," Murtha recalls. "And I remember my mother cried. She was upset. My goodness, I left college. And after that three of my brothers joined the Marine Corps. My dad, three of his brothers served in World War II. So, you know, we know what it’s all about."

General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Murtha's comments are damaging to recruiting and hurting the troops.

"It’s damaging the morale of the troops who are deployed and it’s damaging the morale of their families who believe in what they are doing to serve this country," Gen. Pace said.

Murtha says Pace is frustrated. "He’s frustrated because he can’t meet the goals. Here’s what hurts recruitment. They’re rotated four and five times. They have no clear mission. It’s not what I say that hurts morale. This is long before I said anything that their recruiting had a problem."


"One of the problems they have with enlistment is because they continually say how well things are going and the troops on the ground know better," Murtha adds.

To prove his point, he reads 60 Minutes a letter he received from a soldier in Iraq.

“I’m a soldier currently stationed in Talafar. It’s frustrating to me and many other soldiers to be fighting a war with no goal for victory, with no end in sight. Iraq is a country that’s never going to stand on its own until we leave and give them a chance to do so. Our presence is no longer beneficial to anyone,” Murtha reads. "Now this is an ordinary soldier that’s saying this," he says.

But while working on a story about soldiers wounded in Iraq, 60 Minutes heard from many of them with a very different opinion.

"In talking to these various people who have lost legs and arms and traumatic brain injury and so forth, I was astonished. They’re not taking any punches at the people who sent them there," Wallace says.

"Now, obviously the troops themselves have to believe in what they’re doing," Murtha replies.

"Why do the generals who speak publicly all say that the U.S. is on the right track in Iraq? And that you, in effect, are off your rocker?" Wallace asks.

"Well, they don’t say that to me privately, I’ll tell ya," Murtha says, laughing. "You know, they’re gonna be fired if they speak out."

Murtha tells 60 Minutes that 80 percent of his mail has been positive, but he also got this:

"Congratulations! You are now an honorary member of al Qaeda. Your words have emboldened the enemy and endangered our troops on the ground. You have become the new Hanoi Jane," the sender wrote.

But Murtha has a thick hide.

"When I don’t agree with a policy, I have to speak out," Murtha says.

But a year ago, Murtha argued against what he is arguing for now. “A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance,” he stated.

Murtha says he was wrong a year ago and that times have changed since that statement.

But the change Murtha wants, pulling all troops out, could embolden the terrorists. When President Bush announced he would withdraw just 20,000 troops after Iraq’s recent election, al Qaeda claimed victory.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s number two leader, said in a video message this month, “America’s plan to withdraw troops from Iraq proves the victory of Islam in Iraq.”

"I think they’re trying to get this administration to stay. I think they want us there. Because we have united the Iraqis against us. We’re spending all this money and diverting our resources away from the war on terrorism because we’re involved in a civil war in Iraq," says Murtha.

And al-Zawahiri also says al Qaeda is growing and increasing in strength.

"If it is increasing in strength, I think it’s because it actually helps terrorists to be in Iraq because it united the world against us," says Murtha.

"Hasn’t the occupation done a lot of good in Iraq? Look, Saddam’s dictatorial reign, over. Democracy has begun. Schools and factories are reopening. The economy’s coming back," Wallace says.

"That election of course is being trumpeted as being so important to democracy. When I came back from Vietnam in 1967, they had an election. It was supposed to set the stage. It was supposed to legitimize the government, if you remember. And we lost 38,000 people after that. Now, I don’t say that this has the same intensity and that we’re gonna lose 38,000 people. But I’m just saying there’s a lot more things have to be done if you’re going to have a democratic government," says Murtha.

Murtha says 13 of his constituents from Pennsylvania have been killed in Iraq. Do their families think Murtha is dishonoring their memory by speaking out against the war that they gave their lives for?

"Well I hope they understand it’s my job, my responsibility, to speak out when I disagree with the policy of the president of the United States. All of us want this president to succeed," Murtha says. "But you just can’t sit back and allow this war to continue on without a clear exit strategy. That’s the reason I’m so strong about this. I feel a mission here, with my experience, that, that I have to help the president find a way out of this thing."

Read More...

Summary only...

Specter says no 'blank check' for Bush on spying

Reuters
Specter says no 'blank check' for Bush on spying

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee promised a thorough investigation on Sunday into President George W. Bush's secret domestic eavesdropping program and said there would be no blank check for Bush.

Sen. Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, said Bush in theory could face impeachment charges if found to have violated the law by authorizing the program, but he did not endorse that approach and had heard no serious talk of it.

News of the covert domestic spying program last month sparked an outcry by both Democrats and some members of Bush's Republican party. Many lawmakers and rights groups questioned whether it violates the U.S. Constitution.

The judiciary committee has scheduled hearings on the issue and U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said he will testify on the administration's legal justification. The operation includes eavesdropping on U.S. phone calls and reading e-mails. The hearings are expected next month.

"We're going to explore it in depth," Specter said on ABC television's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos."

"I don't see any talk about impeachment here," Specter said. "I don't think anybody doubts that the president is making a good faith effort, that he sees a real problem as we all do, and he's acting in a way that he feels he must."

Still, the senator insisted, "we're not going to give him a blank check, and just because we're of the same party doesn't mean we're not going to look at this very closely."

POST SEPT. 11

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without the approval of a special, secret court. Bush secretly gave the National Security Agency authority to intercept communications without such approval.

Bush and senior officials have contended that the eavesdropping on Americans suspected of links to terrorism is legal and necessary to help defend the country after September 11.

Gonzales has said the authorization of military force by the U.S. Congress after the September 11 attacks also gave the president the right to conduct the domestic surveillance.

Specter reiterated his view that the vote did not allow domestic spying, although he said presidential war powers under the U.S. Constitution might supersede the law.

Asked if he might be willing to amend the law to accommodate the spying program, Specter did not rule it out. "I'm prepared to listen, but I'd be very dubious," he said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a Democrat on the committee, said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that the president's exercise of power must be examined.

She said she does not believe Bush's constitutional powers "allow him to simply avoid the law when he can do it (authorize domestic spying) by following the law."

Bush only acknowledged the program after it was reported by The New York Times, and called its disclosure to the newspaper "a shameful act." The Justice Department has announced an investigation into who disclosed the NSA operation.

Read More...

Summary only...

Laura Bush Backs Domestic Spying Program As Criticism Continues on Capitol Hill

ABC News
Laura Bush Backs Domestic Spying Program
Laura Bush Backs Domestic Spying Program As Criticism Continues on Capitol Hill
By DEB RIECHMANN
The Associated Press

ACCRA, Ghana - First lady Laura Bush said Sunday that the U.S. government is right to eavesdrop on Americans with suspected ties to terrorists, but a top Senate Republican joined a chorus of lawmakers who think domestic spying is on shaky legal ground.

"I think the American people expect the United States government and the president to do what they can to make sure there's not an attack by foreign terrorists," Mrs. Bush said just before landing here to begin a four-day stay in West Africa.

President Bush is concerned that media disclosure of the program will cripple work to foil terrorists, she said. "I think he was worried that it would undermine our efforts by alerting terrorists to what our efforts are," Mrs. Bush said.

Bush's secret order gave the National Security Agency permission to listen in on international phone calls and peek at e-mails between Americans and suspected terrorists.

Administration officials claim a congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 a resolution that authorized him to use force in the fight against terrorism gave the president the authority to order the program.

"I thought they were wrong," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on ABC's "This Week."

Specter is one of several Republicans and Democrats who are questioning the administration's authority to engage in domestic spying without court warrants. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has agreed to testify at hearings next month before the Judiciary Committee, which Specter chairs.

Committee members, including GOP Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, have expressed doubt about Bush's legal argument for the program.

"We're not going to give him a blank check, and just because we're of the same party doesn't mean we're not going to look at this very closely," Specter said. "And I moved immediately when the matter was disclosed to say that I would use my authority as chairman of the Judiciary Committee to have hearings, and we're going to pursue it."

Speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she too does not think Bush had the legal authority to order the program. She lamented the administration's decision to bypass checks and balances provided by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Under the act, the attorney general can authorize a warrantless wiretap for up to 72 hours. But he must give the presiding judge of an 11-member FISA court a head's up and justify the surveillance later. If the attorney general fails to do so, the court has discretion to notify the target of the surveillance.

"If you're going to wiretap Americans, if you may wiretap whomever an American might call, if you're going to put that information in a database and I said if, because we don't exactly know what happened follow the law, and do it legally," Feinstein said.

On her second trip to Africa, Mrs. Bush plans to join Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Monrovia, Liberia, on Monday to attend the inauguration of President-elect Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the first woman president on the continent.

"The centerpiece of this trip is women's empowerment, with Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf as an example, a shining example for all of us, for women around the world," she said.

Mrs. Bush also is highlighting U.S.-backed education and HIV-AIDS programs in Ghana and Nigeria.

In a 12-minute exchange with reporters on the plane, Mrs. Bush rebuffed criticism that too much of U.S. assistance for battling AIDS in Africa is focused on abstinence programs. She said abstinence, the use of condoms and being faithful to one's sexual partner are all important in curbing the spread of disease.

"I'm always a little bit irritated when I hear the criticism of abstinence, because abstinence is absolutely 100 percent effective in eradicating a sexually transmitted disease," she said.

In countries where girls feel obligated to comply with the wishes of men, girls need to know that abstinence is a choice.

"When girls are not empowered, when girls are vulnerable ... their chances of being able to negotiate their sexual life with their partners and to encourage or make their partners use a condom are very low," she said. "So it's really important for all three to be part of a successful eradication of AIDS, and that is ... abstinence, be faithful to your partner, and then use condoms, correctly and consistently."

Read More...

Summary only...

Sick Find Their Insurance Doesn't Exist; Regulators Shut Down Dozens of Insurance Companies Deemed Fraudulent

ABC News
Sick Find Their Insurance Doesn't Exist
Regulators Shut Down Dozens of Insurance Companies Deemed Fraudulent

Jan. 15, 2006 — - Zoraida Gonzales was frightened to learn she had breast cancer, but thought the one thing she could count on was her medical insurance.

"When you have cancer or some other deadly disease, all you can do is trust -- trust that things are going to work out," she said.

Gonzales thought she had full health insurance. While working at a human resources firm in Denver, she always paid her premiums. But halfway through her cancer treatment, the doctor's office told her that her insurance company didn't exist.

"It's painful," she said. "It just hurts."

As Americans struggle with growing health care costs, many will do anything to get insurance coverage, making them easy targets for sales pitches from shady health plans. While health insurance scams are nothing new, regulators say operators are more sophisticated and increasingly national in reach.

"Health insurance scams are a huge problem," said Mila Kofman of the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute. "We've seen huge increases in health insurance premiums, and that makes consumers very desperate for affordable alternatives."

Over the past five years, state and federal regulators have identified more than 150 fake health insurance companies and have shut down more than 50 of them. Beyond that, there isn't much they can do. The victims often are stuck with the costs.

'It's Very Hard'

Gonzales now is in remission, but she owes more than $100,000 in medical bills.

"Just to be afraid they're going to come knock on your door and put a lien on your home and try to take things away from you because someone cheated you out of something?" she said. "It's hard. It's very hard."

The U.S. Department of Labor shut down Gonzalez's insurance company, Employers Mutual of Nevada. And two months ago, its principal operator was convicted of conspiracy and fraud for bilking nearly 20,000 victims out of more than $20 million in unpaid medical bills.

Gonzales wishes she had done more homework about her insurance options. She's praying she'll figure out how to pay her bills.

"I have no way," she said. "There's no way in the world I could ever pay that money."

The Department of Labor has brought a civil case against Employers Mutual. Until the case is resolved, a federal judge has put an injunction against debt collectors from seeking payment from the victims.

But there is no guarantee Gonzalez won't be held responsible for at least part of the debt.

Check Your Provider

When consumers are looking for new health insurance, experts say they should make sure …

that the insurance company is licensed in their state.
to be skeptical if insurance premiums are much lower than what they are used to.
to be wary of health plans that eagerly accept people with preexisting medical conditions.

ABC News' Gigi Stone and Kathleen Hendry originally reported this story for "World News Tonight."

Read More...

Summary only...

Analysts Fear Expanding U.S. Deficits Endanger Economic Health, Lead to Higher Borrowing Costs

ABC News
Analysts: Growing Deficit Hobbles Economy
Analysts Fear Expanding U.S. Deficits Endanger Economic Health, Lead to Higher Borrowing Costs
By JEANNINE AVERSA
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Like a person packing on pounds, the United States keeps adding to its flabby budget deficits, endangering the nation's economic health and the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans. Here's the worry: Persistent deficits will lead to higher borrowing costs for consumers and companies, slowing economic activity.

As Uncle Sam seeks to borrow ever more to finance those deficits, rates on Treasury securities would rise to entice investors. That would push up other interest rates, such as home mortgages, many auto loans, some home equity lines of credit and some credit cards.

"That's the pocketbook risk to the American consumer," said Greg McBride, a senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com, an online financial service.

For businesses, rates on corporate bonds would climb. It would become more expensive to borrow to pay for new plants and equipment and other capital investments.

With a succession of budget deficits, "you do expect to see higher interest rates. Where we fight about this is over how big the effects are. But they are definitely there," said James Feyrer, assistant economics professor at Dartmouth College.

The government's budget deficit last year was $319 billion. While smaller than the record $413 billion in 2004, it still was the third-highest ever.

A White House budget official now predicts that the deficit in the current budget year will top $400 billion, pushed up by the costs of the Gulf Coast hurricanes. The red ink is expected to keep flowing for years.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecasts deficits every year through 2015; that is as far out as the office projects. The White House forecast, which runs to 2010, also expects annual shortfalls.

"The budget deficit is like gaining weight. You are not really aware of it until at some point, all of a sudden you can't do what you want to do because you are heavier. Interest rates go up and slow things down," said Brian Bethune, economist at Global Insight. "Then you go to your check up and the doctor tells you you got to lose 25 pounds."

America's economic doctor is Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Greenspan, who retires Jan. 31 after 18-plus years at the central bank, repeatedly has urged Congress and the Bush administration to get the country's financial house in order.

Bloated budget deficits, if not curbed, could endanger the economy over the long term, Greenspan warned. Increased government borrowing would drive up interest rates and weigh down economic activity.

"In the end, the consequences for the U.S. economy of doing nothing could be severe," he said recently.

The looming retirement of 78 million baby boomers will put massive strains on the country's finances, Greenspan said.

In 2008, the oldest of the boomers will reach 62, the earliest age at which they can tap Social Security retirement benefits. Three years after that, in 2011, they will reach 65 and become eligible for Medicare.

Ben Bernanke, chosen by President Bush to succeed Greenspan, also believes the situation is troubling and that the deficits need to be controlled.

"Budget deficits are a problem," he said. "I think it's important to continue to reduce budget deficits."

The administration has a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 and plans to do that by restraining spending. The president, meanwhile, is continuing to press Congress to make his tax cuts permanent.

Democrats mostly blame Bush's tax cuts for the government's red ink. The last time the government recorded a surplus was in 2001.

In a worst-case scenario, foreigners who finance the U.S. budget and trade deficits would sour on U.S. investments and unload their holdings. The prices of U.S. stocks and bonds could plunge. Interest rates, including those for mortgages, could soar. A financial crisis could confront the country.

Economists are troubled by the prospects of budget deficits as far as the eye can see and want to see them trimmed. But the size of the current budget deficits, while unwelcome, do not signal that a crisis is imminent, they said.

An important barometer is the size of the federal debt now about $8 trillion relative to the overall economy, as measured by gross domestic product. Under that measure, this debt accounts for around 63.2 percent of GDP, Bethune said.

"Generally speaking, when it is over 75 percent of GDP, then the yellow flag goes out. I would say 95 percent of GDP and over is definitely a red flag," Bethune said.

The government produces a budget deficit when its total spending exceeds its total revenues. Budget deficits cause the government to borrow more money by selling Treasury securities to domestic and foreign investors. That additional borrowing increases the government's debt.

Despite the recent string of large budget deficits, long-term interest rates in the U.S. have behaved well. In fact, relatively low long-term rates around the world have puzzled economists and spawned a number of theories. Some experts believe too little investment worldwide may be behind this; others believe too much savings is the reason.

From an economic point of view, there is more concern about higher borrowing costs over time crimping business investment and ultimately the production of goods and services, economists said.

"Low investment is bad. That's going to mean lower productivity and lower production in the future, which has a cost on society," said Erik Hurst, associate professor of economics at University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business.

People who save would benefit, assuming inflation stayed under control. If the deficits fanned inflation, then the Fed would need to boost interest rates, pushing a whole range of borrowing costs even higher.

Read More...

Summary only...

In Ga., Abramoff Scandal Threatens a Political Ascendancy

washingtonpost.com
In Ga., Abramoff Scandal Threatens a Political Ascendancy

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer

DAWSONVILLE, Ga. -- Ralph Reed, candidate for lieutenant governor, had just finished his opening statement to the Dawson County Republican Party when retired pulp paper executive Gary Pichon sprang from his seat with a question that cut to the chase:

"Did you accept any gifts, commissions or other payments of any kind from Mr. Abramoff, and are you likely to be a party in the unfolding investigation?"

Silence enveloped the 60 or so Republicans in the auditorium, and Reed's cheerful manner turned tense. "No," he replied. "No to all these."

As everyone knew, Pichon was referring to Jack Abramoff, whose outsize Washington lobbying scandal has reached down to Georgia. Abramoff and Reed -- the former executive director of the Christian Coalition -- have been friends for 25 years, and until recently it had been a mutually profitable association. Now it is proving highly inconvenient for Reed, and threatens to stall a career that has been emblematic of the modern GOP.

Reed served as executive director of the College Republicans from 1983 to 1985 and led a revival of the Christian right in the 1990s. He founded a grass-roots lobbying firm in 1997, bringing in millions of dollars in fees, chaired the Georgia Republican Party in 2002 when the GOP took over the state, and served as Southeast director of the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign.

At age 44, he still has the choirboy looks that have been noted in dozens of profiles over the past 20 years. But the first major dent in Reed's carefully cultivated image came with the disclosure in the summer of 2004 that his public relations and lobbying companies had received at least $4.2 million from Abramoff to mobilize Christian voters to fight Indian casinos competing with Abramoff's casino clients.

Similarly damaging has been a torrent of e-mails revealed during the investigation that shows a side of Reed that some former supporters say cannot be reconciled with his professed Christian values.

"After reading the e-mail, it became pretty obvious he was putting money before God," said Phil Dacosta, a Georgia Christian Coalition member who had initially backed Reed. "We are righteously casting him out."

Among those e-mails was one from Reed to Abramoff in late 1998: "I need to start humping in corporate accounts! . . . I'm counting on you to help me with some contacts." Within months, Abramoff hired him to lobby on behalf of the Mississippi Band of Choctaws, who were seeking to prevent competitors from setting up facilities in nearby Alabama.

In 1999, Reed e-mailed Abramoff after submitting a bill for $120,000 and warning that he would need as much as $300,000 more: "We are opening the bomb bays and holding nothing back."

In 2004, when the casino payments to Reed were disclosed, Reed issued a statement declaring "no direct knowledge of their [Abramoff's law firm's] clients or interests." In 2005, however, Senate investigators released a 1999 e-mail from Abramoff to Reed explicitly citing the client: "It would be really helpful if you could get me invoices [for services performed] as soon as possible so I can get Choctaw to get us checks ASAP."

One of the most damaging e-mails was sent by Abramoff to partner Michael Scanlon, complaining about Reed's billing practices and expenditure claims: "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him." Scanlon and Abramoff have pleaded guilty to defrauding clients.

Reed's records have been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors, and neither he nor his staff will discuss whether Reed has been interviewed or has been called as a witness to grand jury proceedings. No evidence has emerged that he is a target in the federal inquiry.

The controversy has confronted Reed with a fierce headwind here. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has published 48 articles and editorials on the Reed-Abramoff connection. The paper's main circulation area includes the suburban and exurban areas surrounding Atlanta, which provide more than half the votes cast in statewide Republican primaries.

Although polling this many months before an election is not as reliable as surveys closer to November, a recent Zogby poll performed for the paper had troubling findings for Reed: When voters were asked to pick between "Republican Ralph Reed" and "a Democrat," the generic Democrat won 36 percent to 33 percent, although the state leans strongly Republican. When voters were asked to pick between "Republican Casey Cagle," a state senator running against Reed for the GOP nomination, and "a Democrat," Cagle won, 35 percent to 30 percent.

Similarly, Reed raised an impressive $1.4 million in the first six months of 2005, before local coverage of the Abramoff scandal had heated up; his total for the second half of 2005 dropped to $404,258, below Cagle's $667,692. Overall, Reed retains an advantage in cash on hand.

The problem vexing the Reed campaign is that even if the federal investigation clears him of wrongdoing, his status is likely to remain uncertain at least through the July 18 primary.

Without the prospect of a quick resolution of his role in the Abramoff controversy, Reed is in a political limbo -- hardly a selling point for Republicans eager to keep their four-year-old hold on state government.

Whit Ayres, one of the state's best-known Republican consultants and pollsters, said the best way to determine Reed's political future would be to "ask Jack Abramoff. Only [the former lobbyist] and some prosecutors know what he has to say about Reed." Pichon, the Dawson County Republican, said: "If Reed ends up winning the primary, we might be at the point where we blow our brains out over that issue."

Random interviews on Main Street in heavily Republican Alpharetta -- a rapidly growing town of 37,850 on the far northern suburbs of Atlanta -- suggested that even many people who follow politics casually are aware of the linkage between Reed and Abramoff.

"Ralph Reed? He's a politician," said David Loudenflager, a Republican who retired after working 32 years for the Arrow Shirt Company. "He was involved with Jack Abramoff and the Indians and all those."

Loudenflager does not like the Democratic Party -- "they give away everything" -- but he puts no stock in the Christian Coalition: "All these people running around telling you how good they are, and how right they are. You better be careful and hold on to your wallet."

Todd Guy, owner of Trader Golf, said succinctly in response to an inquiry: "Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition? My God! Abramoff."

After Reed first entered national politics as executive director of the Christian Coalition, he described to the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot his tactics in mobilizing Christian conservatives to sway elections: "I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night."

When it came to himself, however, Reed hardly worked at staying invisible. He was a familiar figure and a ready quote for political journalists. Republicans running for offices high and low sought his blessing. He made the cover of Time on May 15, 1995, in a stark black-and-white photo with the headline "The Right Hand Of God."

These days, Reed rarely grants interviews, and he declined a request to speak for this article. And Georgia Republicans are openly wondering whether Reed is a blessing or a curse. On Friday, the Journal-Constitution prominently displayed a story headlined: "Supporters ask, is Reed worth the gamble? Lobbying, casino stories take a toll."

Over time, as new disclosures about his dealings with Abramoff have emerged, Reed has subtly moderated his response to inquiries. At the Dawson County GOP meeting, he told activists, "I was building my small business in 1999 when I was approached by a friend of almost 20 years from one of the most respected and prestigious law firms in the nation," without naming Abramoff.

Of the work he did for Abramoff's firm, Reed said, "I agreed to do so having been assured that none of the funds used to pay my firm were derived from gambling activities."

Reed said he helped close an illegal casino in Texas and prevented casinos from coming to Alabama. "Many marriages and lives were saved" and "many children were spared the consequences of gambling because of the work I did."

But, he added, "if I had known then what I know now, I would not have done that work."

Researcher Zachary Goldfarb contributed to this report.

Read More...

Summary only...

I, I, Sir: The Alito Hearings, Annotated

washingtonpost.com
I, I, Sir: The Alito Hearings, Annotated

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee observed with some pride last week that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito answered more than 700 questions during his confirmation hearings. But what did he say?

To answer this question, The Washington Post asked Adrian Holovaty, who holds the position of boy genius/computer wiz at Washingtonpost.com, to run a computer analysis of the transcripts of the four-day hearing to see what phrases came out of the judge's -- and the senators' -- mouths most often.

By the numbers, Judge Alito's language was painfully cautious. He mentioned " stare decisis " -- respect for precedents (i.e., Roe v. Wade ) 68 times. But he mentioned "abortion" only 23 times and hardly used the word "overturn" at all. Among his top three-word phrases: "I don't know" (29 times). Among his top four-word phrases: "I would have to" -- as in, "I would have to know the arguments that are made" before answering the question (21 times).

The nominee relied heavily on the language of law books, mentioning "Humphrey's Executor" (whoever he is) 10 times, "undue burden" 10 times, and "jurisdiction" 25 times.

The senators spent less time in the legal gobbledygook and more time scoring political points. Democrats mentioned "Vanguard," a reference to a conflict-of-interest for Alito, 68 times. They invoked Roe 59 times, and "CAP," a controversial group Alito joined, 29 times. "Above the law" came up a dozen times, and "the unitary executive" -- an extreme view of presidential power -- 14 times.

Republicans, defending Alito, countered with flattering and upbeat terms: "integrity" (43 times), "fair" (41), "confirmed" (36), "respect" (34), and "balance" (26). "American Bar Association," which gave Alito its top rating, got 16 GOP mentions.

But one thing united lawmakers on both sides: reverence for the first person. Republicans used the "I" word 1,180 times. Democrats used it 1,123 times. Combined, they used it well more than the nominee, who said "I" 1,907 times.

Read More...

Summary only...

Medicare official acknowledges problems

USA TODAY

Medicare official acknowledges problems

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tens of thousands of elderly poor people may have had trouble getting their medicine during the first two weeks of the government's prescription drug benefit, and about 20 states have been forced to step in to help them, the top Medicare official acknowledges.

In some cases, people are not showing up in databases as being enrolled in a Medicare plan.

The problems will be fixed, pledged Mark McClellan, administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in an interview with The Associated Press.

In some cases, people are not showing up in databases as being enrolled in a plan. When they do show up, many people are being told they need to pay hundreds of dollars before they can get their medicine. Instead, they should owe only nominal amounts.

"I'm working with the states, with the plans, with all of our partners to make sure people get the prescriptions they need," McClellan said Friday.

Under the program, about 42 million disabled and older people are eligible to enroll in private plans that will subsidize their prescription drug costs. Millions of prescriptions have been filled without trouble, McClellan said, but there is growing concern that some of the poorest beneficiaries cannot get their medicine.

Some advocacy groups say they believe McClellan underestimated the problems.

"We could see the problems coming. We expressed concern, and it was just pooh-poohed. Now, our worst fears have been realized," said Jeanne Finberg, a lawyer with the National Senior Citizens Law Center, which is based in Oakland

The problems go beyond technical difficulties, such as when computer databases fail to note that a beneficiary is enrolled in a plan. In some cases, private plans are just not following guidelines established for their participation.

The plans are not issuing emergency supplies as required and they have set up prohibited restrictions on the types of medicine that beneficiaries can get during the first weeks of the program, according to the American Psychiatric Association.

"Relapse, re-hospitalization and disruption of essential treatment are some of the consequences of the bureaucratic nightmare," said the association's president, Steven S. Sharfstein. "I commend those states and other jurisdictions that have taken steps to assure that patients receive their medications in a timely manner."

McClellan said he has directed plans providing drug coverage to make it easier for pharmacists to resolve questions about a beneficiary.

"I've been in touch with the health plans today and they are setting up expedited processes for pharmacists to contact a plan without waiting in a long queue. The plans are setting up those systems right now," he said.

McClellan said plans were required to provide a 30-day supply of drugs, even if their plan does not cover a particular drug. In cases when a drug is not on the list, plans require pharmacists to get pre-authorization before dispensing the drug. Many plans are waiving the pre-authorization requirements, he said.

The agency also updated information on Friday so pharmacists can more quickly reach plans, McClellan said.

McClellan also said he contacted several governors and the staff of the National Governor's Association this past week on how best to help beneficiaries. Some lawmakers have demanded that the federal government reimburse states for those efforts, but McClellan said the insurers and other businesses offering coverage would do that.

"The plans are getting paid additional amounts to provide the extra coverage for the dual eligible beneficiaries. It's a matter of reconciliation," he said. "If the state works with us ... we can send that information onto the plan so the plan reimburses the state for the difference."

Democratic lawmakers wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt on Friday with dozens of questions about the new program.

"We want to know why so many of our constituents have fallen through the cracks during implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and we urge you to take immediate action to correct the problems," the lawmakers said.

A spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., sounded a more optimistic note.

"We are pleased with the successes of the program and are working with (the Health and Human Services Department) to resolve the problems, which will naturally occur when implementing a program of this magnitude," spokeswoman Amy Call. "But at the end of the day seniors will have better access to prescription drugs."

McClellan said Medicare also has caseworkers on hand for beneficiaries or pharmacists who are having trouble navigating the new benefit. They can call 1-800-Medicare for help, he said.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-14-medicare-problems_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Summary only...

Nation deserves new, honest leadership, Durbin says

USA TODAY

Nation deserves new, honest leadership, Durbin says

WASHINGTON (AP) — America deserves honest leadership in Washington to replace the current Republican-dominated government, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said Saturday in the Democrats' weekly radio address.

America deserves honest leadership in Washington, says Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.

Mark Wilson, Getty Images

The concentrated power of the current GOP-controlled Congress and executive branch has produced "a culture of corruption that is preventing government from dealing with the real needs of our nation," Durbin said.

In his broadcast, Durbin made several references to civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., who was slain in 1968 and would have turned 77 on Sunday.

Durbin said that in his last book, King wrote: '"There is nothing wrong with power. The problem is that, in America, the power is unequally divided.'"

That's true in Washington today, Durbin said.

"Powerful corporate special interests control the agenda and people who don't have paid lobbyists really don't have much of a voice," he said. "To these power players, the challenges facing America are not problems to solve, but opportunities to exploit."

Those challenges include the lack of affordable health insurance, dwindling pension plans and rising energy costs, Durbin said.

Honest leadership will help all Americans, and the Democratic Party will introduce a reform package that includes increasing government accountability and enforcing ethics rules, Durbin said.

"As Dr. King reminded us, America has no second- or third-class citizens," he said. "We should all have an equal voice and an equal chance to succeed."

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-14-durbin-address_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Summary only...

Al Qaeda takes aim at Israel

The Christian Science Monitor - csmonitor.com

Al Qaeda takes aim at Israel
Zarqawi's group said a December rocket attack was just the beginning.

By Ilene R. Prusher and Nicholas Blanford

JERUSALEM AND BEIRUT - Al Qaeda, which originally announced its presence on the global scene in 1998 as "The World Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders," for the first time has claimed an attack on the Jewish state from neighboring Lebanon.

Abu Musab Zarqawi, the commander of Al Qaeda's Middle East branch, issued a warning to Israel on the group's website, boasting that Katyusha rockets fired two weeks ago from southern Lebanon were just the "beginning of a welcome operation to strike deep in enemy territory, at the instructions of Osama bin Laden."

The statement was posted earlier this week on Internet sites associated with Jemaat al-Tawahid wal Jihad, Mr. Zarqawi's Sunni fundamentalist insurgents who are fighting the US in Iraq.

The claim of responsibility and its accompanying threat of more to come seem to realize concerns in Israel that over time Al Qaeda might step up attacks from neighboring Arab countries or from regions under control of the Palestinian Authority, analysts say.

After Israel withdrew its troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip in August, ending a 38-year-long occupation, Israeli officials expressed concern that Al Qaeda operatives had slipped in from Egypt during the course of several days of uncontrolled border crossings.

Moreover, the development also follows what may be a shift in strategy for Al Qaeda: While not giving up attempts to inflict massive attacks on major targets in the US and in Europe, it will take advantage of opportunities to hit targets in the Middle East.

These include the ongoing suicide bombings in Iraq's deadly insurgency and attacks on pro-Western forces in the Arab world - from international targets in Saudi Arabia to the triple bombing attack on three major hotels in Amman, Jordan on Nov. 9, 2005.

The attempt to ratchet up tensions on the Israel-Lebanon border comes at a time when the Israeli security establishment is concerned about the perception abroad of the country being in a state of political crisis, given that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been in critical condition for the past week.

"Zarqawi has tried to attack Israeli targets for a long time. We know for a fact that Al Qaeda has been pondering attacking inside the Israeli border, so it's nothing new, but we should see it as part of a trend," says Yoram Schweitzer, an expert on Al Qaeda at the Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University.

"The reaction in Lebanon shows that even Hizbullah is a little bit frustrated," he adds, "not that they mind Israel being attacked, but they don't like anyone else trying to control their territory."

Indeed, the attempt of Al Qaeda operatives to gain ground in southern Lebanon, which has long been a magnet for militant groups, appears to have irked Hizbullah, or the Party of God, the primary military and political organization controlling the south of the country.

Hizbullah has moved toward a sort of hostile quiet with Israel during the more than five years since Israel withdrew from its occupied "security zone" in Lebanon.

It appears likely, many observers say, that the attacks were perpetrated by Palestinian militants who would like to link their agenda with Al Qaeda's.

Although Shiite Hizbullah, backed by Iran, tends to have good relations with mainstream Sunni groups in Lebanon, it is very worried about the emergence and spread of militant Sunni ideology and has been keeping a close eye on its presence in Lebanon.

"There are some [operatives] in Lebanon," says Sheikh Naim Qassem, Hizbullah's deputy secretary-general in an interview with The Monitor. "We don't know how many and we don't know their plans or if they intend to do [military] operations here," he says.

"It's important to caution everyone not to make Lebanon an arena for settling scores," he adds. "It will be a dangerous development if that happens."

Hizbullah, which maintains tight control of the border district, is opposed to outside actors staging attacks into Israel in case it upsets the delicate balance. Still, Hizbullah admits it is difficult to fully control the border region to prevent other militants from launching their own operations.

"I have read articles saying that attacks can only happen [in the border district] with Hizbullah's knowledge. This is not true," says Mr. Qassem, who says his organization is still investigating the Al Qaeda claim.

"Small groups can infiltrate in and out very quickly. Weapons are available everywhere. It's not complex. These are not large groups of people. Just two or three who plan for a while and then launch several rockets," he says.

The statement attributed to Al Qaeda used language that is similar to that employed in leaflets written by Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

"The rockets fired at the grandchildren of monkeys and pigs from the south of Lebanon was only the start of a blessed in-depth strike against the Zionist enemy," the group said in a statement, which was posted on several different militant Islamic websites and picked up by both Western and Middle Eastern media outlets.

"All that was on the instructions of the sheikh of the mujahideen, Osama bin Laden, may God preserve him," said a taped voice that is reported to be Jordan-born Zarqawi's.

The tape also said that Israelis should not enjoy security as long as Muslims were not safe.

The Israeli Army could not comment in depth on the issue at this time. "As far as we are concerned, we hold the Lebanese government responsible for any activity that happens in its territory," a spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces said.

"If the Lebanese won't move [against such operatives] and the Syrians won't do anything, we might run into a pattern," says Zeev Schiff, a top military affairs columnist for the Haaretz newspaper. "I can guess that if Sharon were really in power, this could be the time to act against" militants in southern Lebanon.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bomb Hits Canadian Convoy in Afghanistan

Yahoo! News
Bomb Hits Canadian Convoy in Afghanistan

A suicide car bomb hit a Canadian military convoy in a southern Afghan city Sunday, killing two civilians and wounding 13 people, officials said.

The blast occurred as the convoy was driving near the Canadian base in Kandahar city, a former Taliban stronghold, said Interior Ministry spokesman Dad Mohammed Rasa.

He said at least two civilians were killed and 10 were wounded. He said an unspecified number of Canadian troops were also hurt.

U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Jerry O'Hara said three soldiers were wounded in a bomb attack on a U.S.-led coalition convoy, but declined to identify their nationalities.

Calls to a spokesman for the Canadian force in Kandahar went unanswered. Canada has about 650 troops in Afghanistan, nearly all in Kandahar.

Shopkeeper Rahim Gul said he saw a sedan vehicle blow up as it was passing the convoy.

"The explosion was so big. It destroyed one jeep and blew it totally to the other side of the road," he said, adding that he saw at least three wounded soldiers.

The blast is the latest in a string of suicide attacks that represent a new and disturbing security threat in Afghanistan.

Violence across southern and eastern Afghanistan spiked last year, leaving about 1,600 people dead, the most since U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban in 2001 for hosting Osama bin Laden.

The fighting normally eases during the winter months, when snow blankets the region, but the past few weeks have seen a string of suicide attacks and other assaults.

Read More...

Summary only...

Conan's Endorsement No Joke to Some Finns

Yahoo! News
Conan's Endorsement No Joke to Some Finns

By KARL RITTER, Associated Press Writer

HELSINKI, Finland - Finland's president finds her traditional support among women and the Social Democratic Party base, but lately to the surprise of many Finns — and her opponents in Sunday's election — she has gotten an endorsement of a different sort.

The redheaded late-night talk show host Conan O'Brien has been promoting President Tarja Halonen's re-election bid as part of a long-running joke about their supposed physical similarities.



"Why do I support Tarja Halonen? Because she's got the total package: a dynamic personality, a quick mind, and most importantly — my good looks," the comedian, whose show is broadcast on cable in Finland, said in a statement to The Associated Press.

Whether O'Brien has a real interest in Finnish politics is uncertain, but his gags and mock campaign ads for Halonen have not gone unnoticed in this Nordic country of 5.2 million.

"Late Night with Conan O'Brien" airs five days a week on SUBTV, a Finnish cable channel, with a few days' delay. Every time he mentions Finland or Halonen, local tabloids report it prominently.

The Halonen camp is laughing all the way to the polls.

"Of course, when she is mentioned so many times it's positive for our campaign," said Halonen's campaign manager, Markku Jaaskelainen.

Halonen's supporters quickly saw an opportunity, and her campaign started running real ads before the O'Brien's show on Finnish TV.

Halonen was hugely popular even before O'Brien discovered their similarities, but Jaaskelainen said hits on the campaign Web site have quintupled partly because of O'Brien's shows.

In one show, O'Brien presented a mock ad for Halonen in which he and two Finns were discussing the election while fishing on a frozen lake.

When they talk about rival candidate Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen, a dead fish shoots out of the hole in the ice, prompting a joke about how the mere mention of his name causes fish to commit suicide.

"Fish recognize a bad leader," O'Brien says in broken Finnish to laughter from his studio crowd.

Halonen's opponents are not amused.

"He's just making fun of the whole election," said Harri Jaskari, campaign manager for former Finance Minister Sauli Niinisto. "If this decides the election, then we're in trouble. It gives a very poor picture of Finnish democracy."

Markus Haapamaki, Vanhanen's campaign manager, was less worried.

"It's not really affecting our campaign," he said. "Personally, I'm fed up with it, and it's continued too long to offer anything interesting."

In Helsinki, people did not seem to take offense at O'Brien's use of their presidential election for comic relief.

"I think it's quite funny," said Mia Myllymaki, a 28-year-old elementary school teacher. "Of course we are proud that Conan O'Brien talks about Finland and Finnish people. ... People in the USA don't even know where Finland is, so maybe it helps if he talks about it."

Anu Linnus, a 22-year-old economics student, said O'Brien's backing could indirectly affect the election.

"I don't think people are going to vote for Tarja because she's on the show, but it helps her image," she said.

Polls showed Halonen with a solid lead on the eve of the election, but it was not clear whether she would get the more than 50 percent needed to avoid a runoff.

NBC, which runs Conan's show in the United States, said the popular host is planning a trip to Finland in February. It was not clear whether he would meet with Halonen, 62, who apparently does not mind being compared to the 42-year-old O'Brien.

"She thinks that it's very nice that she looks the same as Conan O'Brien because Conan O'Brien is so much younger than she," said Jaaskelainen, the campaign manager.

As for their similarities, he was not as convinced.

"They have red hair," Jaaskelainen said. "And same kind of nose."

___

Associated Press reporter Matti Huuhtanen in Helsinki contributed to this report.

Read More...

Summary only...

More Bush Lies

Read More...

Summary only...