==> The Truth About Political Stuff <==

Sunday, April 23, 2006

findlaw.com
If Past Is Prologue, George Bush Is Becoming An Increasingly Dangerous President
By JOHN W. DEAN

President George W. Bush's presidency is a disaster - one that's still unfolding. In a mid-2004 column, I argued that, at that point, Bush had already demonstrated that he possessed the least attractive and most troubling traits among those that political scientist James Dave Barber has cataloged in his study of Presidents' personality types.

Now, in early 2006, Bush has continued to sink lower in his public approval ratings, as the result of a series of events that have sapped the public of confidence in its President, and for which he is directly responsible. This Administration goes through scandals like a compulsive eater does candy bars; the wrapper is barely off one before we've moved on to another.
Click here to find out more!

Currently, President Bush is busy reshuffling his staff to reinvigorate his presidency. But if Dr. Barber's work holds true for this president -- as it has for others - the hiring and firing of subordinates will not touch the core problems that have plagued Bush's tenure.

That is because the problems belong to the President - not his staff. And they are problems that go to character, not to strategy.

Barber's Analysis of Presidential Character

As I discussed in my prior column, Barber, after analyzing all the presidents through Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, found repeating patterns of common elements relating to character, worldview, style, approach to dealing with power, and expectations. Based on these findings, Barber concluded that presidents fell into clusters of characteristics.

He also found in this data Presidential work patterns which he described as "active" or "passive." For example, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were highly active; Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan were highly passive.

Barber further analyzed the emotional relationship of presidents toward their work - dividing them into presidents who found their work an emotionally satisfying experience, and thus "positive," and those who found the job emotionally taxing, and thus "negative." Franklin Roosevelt and Reagan, for example, were presidents who enjoyed their work; Thomas Jefferson and Richard Nixon had "negative" feeling toward it.

From these measurements, Barber developed four repeating categories into which he was able to place all presidents: those like FDR who actively pursued their work and had positive feelings about their efforts (active/positives); those like Nixon who actively pursued the job but had negative feelings about it (active/negatives); those like Reagan who were passive about the job but enjoyed it (passive/positives); and, finally, those who followed the pattern of Thomas Jefferson -- who both was passive and did not enjoy the work (passive/negatives).
Column continues below ↓

Interestingly, the category of presidents who proved troublesome under Barber's analysis is that of those who turned out to be active/negatives. Barber placed Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in this class.

In my prior column, I found that the evidence is overwhelming that George W. Bush is another active/negative president, and the past two years, since making that initial finding, have only further confirmed my conclusion.

Because active/negative presidencies do not end well, it is instructive to look at where Bush's may be heading.

Bush's "Active/Negative" Presidency

Recent events provide an especially good illustration of Bush's fateful - perhaps fatal - approach. Six generals who have served under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have called for his resignation - making a strong substantive case as to why he should resign. And they are not alone: Editorialists have also persuasively attacked Rumsfeld on the merits.

Yet Bush's defense of Rumsfeld was entirely substance-free. Bush simply told reporters in the Rose Garden that Rumsfeld would stay because "I'm the decider and I decide what's best." He sounded much like a parent telling children how things would be: "I'm the Daddy, that's why."

This, indeed, is how Bush sees the presidency, and it is a point of view that will cause him trouble.

Bush has never understood what presidential scholar Richard Neustadt discovered many years ago: In a democracy, the only real power the presidency commands is the power to persuade. Presidents have their bully pulpit, and the full attention of the news media, 24/7. In addition, they are given the benefit of the doubt when they go to the American people to ask for their support. But as effective as this power can be, it can be equally devastating when it languishes unused - or when a president pretends not to need to use it, as Bush has done.

Apparently, Bush does not realize that to lead he must continually renew his approval with the public. He is not, as he thinks, the decider. The public is the decider.

Bush is following the classic mistaken pattern of active/negative presidents: As Barber explained, they issue order after order, without public support, until they eventually dissipate the real powers they have -- until "nothing [is] left but the shell of the office." Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all followed this pattern.

Active/negative presidents are risk-takers. (Consider the colossal risk Bush took with the Iraq invasion). And once they have taken a position, they lock on to failed courses of action and insist on rigidly holding steady, even when new facts indicate that flexibility is required.

The source of their rigidity is that they've become emotionally attached to their own positions; to change them, in their minds, would be to change their personal identity, their very essence. That, they are not willing to do at any cost.

Wilson rode his unpopular League of Nations proposal to his ruin; Hoover refused to let the federal government intervene to prevent or lessen a fiscal depression; Johnson escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam while misleading Americans (thereby making himself unelectable); and Nixon went down with his bogus defense of Watergate.

George Bush has misled America into a preemptive war in Iraq; he is using terrorism to claim that as Commander-in-Chief, he is above the law; and he refuses to acknowledge that American law prohibits torturing our enemies and warrantlessly wiretapping Americans.

Americans, increasingly, are not buying his justifications for any of these positions. Yet Bush has made no effort to persuade them that his actions are sound, prudent or productive; rather, he takes offense when anyone questions his unilateral powers. He responds as if personally insulted.

And this may be his only option: With Bush's limited rhetorical skills, it would be all but impossible for him to persuade any others than his most loyal supporters of his positions. His single salient virtue - as a campaigner - was the ability to stay on-message. He effectively (though inaccurately) portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry as wafflers, whereas he found consistency in (over)simplifying the issues. But now, he cannot absorb the fact that his message is not one Americans want to hear - that he is being questioned, severely, and that staying on-message will be his downfall.

Other Presidents - other leaders, generally - have been able to listen to critics relatively impassively, believing that there is nothing personal about a debate about how best to achieve shared goals. Some have even turned detractors into supporters - something it's virtually impossible to imagine Bush doing. But not active/negative presidents. And not likely Bush.

The Danger of the "Active/Negative" President Facing A Congressional Rout

Active/negative presidents -- Barber tells us, and history shows -- are driven, persistent, and emphatic. Barber says their pervasive feeling is "I must."

Barber's collective portrait of Wilson, Hoover, Johnson and Nixon now fits George W. Bush too: "He sees himself as having begun with a high purpose, but as being continually forced to compromise in order to achieve the end state he vaguely envisions," Barber writes. He continues, "Battered from all sides . . . he begins to feel his integrity slipping away from him . . . [and] after enduring all this for longer than any mortal should, he rebels and stands his ground. Masking his decision in whatever rhetoric is necessary, he rides the tiger to the end."

Bush's policies have incorporated risk from the outset. A few examples make that clear.

He took the risk that he could capture Osama bin Laden with a small group of CIA operatives and U.S. Army Special forces - and he failed. He took the risk that he could invade Iraq and control the country with fewer troops and less planning than the generals and State Department told him would be possible - and he failed. He took the risk that he could ignore the criminal laws prohibiting torture and the warrantless wiretapping of Americans without being caught - he failed. And he's taken the risk that he can cut the taxes for the rich and run up huge financial deficits without hurting the economy. This, too, will fail, though the consequences will likely fall on future presidents and generations who must repay Bush's debts.

What We Can Expect From Bush in the Future, Based on Barber's Model

As the 2006 midterm elections approach, this active/negative president can be expected to take further risks. If anyone doubts that Bush, Cheney, Rove and their confidants are planning an "October Surprise" to prevent the Republicans from losing control of Congress, then he or she has not been observing this presidency very closely.

What will that surprise be? It's the most closely held secret of the Administration.

How risky will it be? Bush is a whatever-it-takes risk-taker, the consequences be damned.

One possibility is that Dick Cheney will resign as Vice President for "health reasons," and become a senior counselor to the president. And Bush will name a new vice president - a choice geared to increase his popularity, as well as someone electable in 2008. It would give his sinking administration a new face, and new life.

The immensely popular Rudy Giuliani seems the most likely pick, if Giuliani is willing. (A better option for Giuliani might be to hold off, and tacitly position himself as the Republican anti-Bush in 2008.) But Condoleezza Rice, John McCain, Bill Frist, and more are possibilities.

Bush's second and more likely, surprise could be in the area of national security: If he could achieve a Great Powers coalition (of Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, and so on) presenting a united-front "no nukes" stance to Iran, it would be his first diplomatic coup and a political triumph.

But more likely, Bush may mount a unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear facilities - hoping to rev up his popularity. (It's a risky strategy: A unilateral hit on Iran may both trigger devastating Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks in Iraq, with high death tolls, and increase international dislike of Bush for his bypass of the U.N. But as an active/negative President, Bush hardly shies away from risk.) Another rabbit-out-of-the-hat possibility: the capture of Osama bin Laden.

If there is no "October Surprise," I would be shocked. And if it is not a high-risk undertaking, it would be a first. Without such a gambit, and the public always falls for them, Bush is going to lose control of Congress. Should that happen, his presidency will have effectively ended, and he will spend the last two years of it defending all the mistakes he has made during the first six, and covering up the errors of his ways.

There is, however, the possibility of another terrorist attack, and if one occurred, Americans would again rally around the president - wrongly so, since this is a presidency that lives on fear-mongering about terror, but does little to truly address it. The possibility that we might both suffer an attack, and see a boost to Bush come from it, is truly a terrifying thought.

John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.

As Iraq fractures along multiple religious and ethnic lines, only one force seems to be holding it together: American involvement.

Newsweek
'Compassionate Colonialism'
As Iraq fractures along multiple religious and ethnic lines, only one force seems to be holding it together: American involvement. So what might this future look like?
By Michael Hirsh

April 19, 2006 - When most Americans look at Iraq, they see a frightening faraway chaos, howling on the horizon like a desert dust storm. But U.S. Army Spc. Rocio Lucero has been in the eye of the storm, and she knows its nature as well as anyone. As we sit in an Iraqi police station in the Bab al Sheikh district of Baghdad, she looks around and notes casually, without a smidgeon of nostalgia, that this dingy office was her home for a year. From the beginning of the invasion in March 2003 until March of the following year, her military police unit was based here 24-7, ducking mortars and regularly taking fire.

Now her platoon comes here to check on things every few days. Their mission has been narrowed to backing up Iraqi police patrols that drive out in front, 100 yards ahead, while trying to persuade the locals that their own government, not Washington, now supplies their guns and uniforms. The insurgents and the Shiite death squads still grip many neighborhoods, but in between bombings and shootings, the throngs on Palestine Street—a main boulevard through Baghdad—continue to crowd into well-stocked shops that are open late into the evening. It's a far cry from Lucero's early days, when there were no police at all. "It's coming along," she says.

Yes, America's remaking of Iraq is a mess. But it's a mess with a slight forward motion; nothing about it is pretty or safe. To get to the Bab al Sheikh police station—this little patch of order surrounded by concrete chicanes—our convoy wends a crooked path through several "hot" zones, nerves on hair-trigger alert. At one point Staff Sgt. Ruben Diaz, looking to me very much like a fearless lion tamer entering a cage full of man-killers, gets out and leads the convoy on foot through a large Iraqi crowd. This is Diaz's fourth overseas deployment, beginning with Kosovo. When we get back to the Green Zone the veneer of courage-under-fire gives way to hoots of relief. Another day, another reprieve from death or maiming. "Whoooo!" Diaz shouts. "It's like Russian roulette, every day." As we pass through the well-lit checkpoint, Lucero says, "The lights of hope.”

What's clear to me after two weeks here is that despite some success at handing off matters to the Iraqis, progress is so frustratingly slow that we Americans may never be able to leave. The new Iraq is growing up around our presence and is as dependent as a child. Nothing illustrates this better than the endless bickering over the new Iraqi government. This is what the Americans and British have been calling for, agitating for, and banking all their hopes on. If only the Iraqis would "get governing," President Bush said recently, then the U.S. withdrawal timetable and hopes for a Mideast model could still be borne out.

Yet the more the parliamentary stalemate drags on—and make no mistake, even if a new prime minister is announced soon, the haggling will continue over myriad cabinet posts—the more it becomes clear the center may not hold in Iraq without a long-term American presence. Not necessarily the 140,000 troops we have now, but at least a core force that's left behind. Why? Because the centrifugal forces that are tearing the country apart are moving faster than our laggard efforts to keep up. On the ground here, you can feel this society fissuring every day, as you watch the Americans desperately try to paper over the cracks. And what the American people need to understand is that there is really only one dominant cohering force left in the country: the American presence.

We need to adjust our expectations accordingly. After a four-month political vacuum, what we're seeing is no longer just "sectarian war"—the catchword of the day—between Shiites and Sunnis, with the Kurds sitting it out for the moment. The new emerging issue (it's always something) is tensions within the sects, among Shiite groups and Sunni groups, or intra-sectarian war. Hence the badly misnamed United Iraqi Alliance, the group of Shiite parties that won nearly half the votes in last December's election, has been at each other's throats for months, unable to agree on a prime minister. The Sunni community too is engaged in vicious infighting (and in some cases actual firefights) over support for the insurgency. The different government ministries are devolving into mini-fiefdoms, each protected by its own mysterious Facilities Protection Service, a guard force that the Americans intended to be about 4,000 in number but has mushroomed on its own to an estimated 150,000.

Arab commentators typically raise fears of the "Lebanonization" of Iraq, or prolonged civil war. But that's not quite what is happening here. The difference is that Lebanon, like Bosnia, was a small space, and each group fought over the same tract of land. Iraq has a large space into which there's plenty of room for separation (except for Baghdad itself, which could in fact come to resemble Beirut). What may be a bigger fear than Lebanonization—groups fighting for the same space—is atomization, a breakdown to the warlord and fief level. "You could have Iraq 1914," says a U.S. military analyst, referring to the old Mesopotamia that was organized around three major cities, Mosul, Baghdad and Basra, before the British created Iraq out of whole cloth in the aftermath of World War I. "But you could also have Somalia in the 1990s." The danger in other words is that Iraq's devolution into "regionalization" doesn't stop there but keeps on going, breaking up slowly like fractured glass.

The logical conclusion is that Iraq may no longer be able to exist, as Iraq, without the glue of American involvement—in politics, in security, in Iraq's very sense of national identity. This is especially true considering that any new unity government is virtually doomed to be weak. The prime ministerial candidate, a compromise choice, is certain to be hamstrung as well by the vested interests that chose him. Only if he were a charismatic figure with extraordinary persuasive powers could he transcend that fate. But no one currently in the running for the job fits that description.

So perhaps this isn't going to be a model of democracy after all. Instead it's more likely to be—if it works out—a model for post-colonial imperialism. It's a new kind of colonialism, in other words, one that dare not speak its name. But let's give it one anyway: "compassionate colonialism." Perhaps this is the inevitable evolution of Bush's world view from a stay-at-home "compassionate conservative"—which is how he began his presidency—to a change-the-world neocon convert.

How does compassionate colonialism work? First, you create an Iraqi army that will never be able to stand on its own (the postwar Japan and Germany model)—an army as addicted to U.S. logistical support and know-how as any junkie on heroin. Washington just recently awarded humvees to the Iraqi Army as its "heavy armor." But forget about tanks ("[The Iraqis] shoot at everything and anything," says a frustrated Sgt. Diaz). American helicopters and planes rule the skies here, and that's not going to change for many years. Then, you insist on a friendly government, while letting the Iraqis think it is they who are deciding to be friendly (though this "good will" is driven by the always hovering threat of a withdrawal of support). And finally, you give your companies an inside track on long-term oil contracts—again by noting that their presence in Iraq guarantees U.S. support—without actually expropriating the oil.

It is an interesting, but too little noted, fact that Iraq's borders were always defined by oil—today more than ever. (Some geologists now say the biggest potential fields may not lie in the oil-producing south and north but in the Sunni middle). After World War I, the British, French and Russians were all scrambling to grab the land where the stuff was thought to exist. Kurdistan, especially, was on the verge of being granted independence by the British after World War I. But as historian William R. Polk writes in his fine 2005 primer, "Understanding Iraq," "What would ultimately decide the fate of Kurdistan had little to do with Kurds; it would be decided by the fact that a huge deposit of oil was known to exist in what might have become a separate Kurdish state." As a result, the British at the last minute simply lumped Kurdistan into British-controlled Iraq. "Oil made Kurdistan Iraqi," Polk writes. And oil, while it was not the reason for this latest war (or perhaps only a small part of the reason), may end up being the reason we too decide to stay and force Iraq to remain Iraq. That's OK with me, I guess, as long as it's OK with Spc. Lucero and Staff Sgt. Diaz and the others who are putting their lives on the line for this cause.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12390631/site/newsweek/?rf=nwnewsletter

Afghans' Uneasy Peace With Democracy; In Discord Over Convert's Trial, Muslims Say They Identify With Islamic Law First

washingtonpost.com
Afghans' Uneasy Peace With Democracy
In Discord Over Convert's Trial, Muslims Say They Identify With Islamic Law First
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service

KABUL, Afghanistan, April 21 -- The Herati Mosque stands in one of the Afghan capital's most modern neighborhoods. Its imam, Abdul Rauf, was one of the few local clerics to criticize the rigid Islamic views and harsh punishments of the Taliban movement when it ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.

But last month, when an Afghan man was put on trial here for converting to Christianity, Rauf led the emotional charge to demand his execution under Islamic law. The public would "cut him into pieces" if the authorities failed to act, Rauf said.

The convert, Abdul Rahman, was hastily flown to Italy on March 29 after prosecutors declared him mentally incompetent to stand trial. That averted a showdown between the Afghan government and the Western powers that have financed and defended it for the past four years.

Since then, though, the incident has resonated bitterly among Afghan Muslims and put President Hamid Karzai on the defensive, highlighting the difficulties of trying to establish a modern democracy in a Muslim society where deeply held religious values stress submission and conformity over individual rights.

"You must understand how shameful it is for us that a Muslim would become a Christian," said Rauf, a cheerful man who rides a bicycle to his mosque each day. "If other people want to join Islam, we encourage and appreciate them. But ours is the complete and final religion. If you leave it, that is like throwing God away."

Sitting cross-legged in his tiny office, Rauf proudly showed an itinerary of a trip he made to the United States two years ago, visiting mosques and churches in several states. Then he opened a copy of the Koran and read in Arabic a verse saying that Allah is the God of all creation.

"It is true, I criticized the Taliban because they were so harsh and tortured people," Rauf said. "But if you leave Islam, our law says you must be killed. If Abdul Rahman stood before me right now, I would kill him myself."

Ask most Afghans about the potential conflicts between Islam and democracy, such as those exposed by the Rahman case, and they vigorously deny the questions' premise. Many point out that Afghanistan now has a freely elected president and parliament, an independent judiciary and press, and a new constitution that says no laws shall contradict the principles of Islam.

Members of the clergy, traditionally the most influential segment of this tribal, largely illiterate society, tend to add a major caveat. The Western world, they say, has no right to interfere in Afghanistan's religious affairs, and outsiders should not confuse Afghan desires for political freedom with a shift to permissive views on personal behavior.

"We have no enmity with the West, but if the West wants us to live in democracy, it must let us make our own decisions," said Enayatullah Balegh, imam of the large Pul-I-Khishti mosque. "Islam is everything to us. It is more powerful than our constitution. We appreciate honest help, but we ask that you not interfere, or else we will have no choice but to become suicide bombers."

In public, few Afghans are willing to question the authority of the clergy or the inviolability of Islamic law. But some, including college students, journalists, human rights advocates and government officials, say they support a more moderate interpretation of their religion.

Some suggest that extremists may have provoked controversies such as the Rahman case to incite religious fervor or weaken the Karzai government. Islamic insurgents are trying to destabilize the country, and Muslim sensitivities have been aroused by the publication of anti-Islamic cartoons in Europe and the mistreatment of Muslim detainees in U.S. military custody.

This month, the Karzai administration is attempting to solidify its power by naming a new cabinet and Supreme Court. The high court appointments are especially sensitive because the chief justice, an elderly Muslim cleric, has used his office to battle all forms of liberalization, including women singing on TV and editorials questioning Islamic law.

Karzai, seeking change through compromise, has reappointed the chief justice but nominated several justices known to have more moderate views. One is Qasim Hashimzai, the deputy justice minister, an articulate man who wears pinstriped suits and returned several years ago from long exile in the West.

"The principles of Islamic jurisprudence are perfectly logical and consistent with democratic political institutions, and the Koran gives people lots of freedom," Hashimzai said. "But it all depends who interprets Islam -- a rigid person, a moderate person or a one-eyed person."

He said that severe legal punishments, such as execution for converting to another faith, stemmed from earlier times, when Islam was under threat, and made less sense today. In the case of Rahman's high-profile prosecution, he said, "I think political hands were behind it. Someone wanted to test the system, to put the government in confrontation with Islam and with the West."

Day to day, there is little friction between politics and religion here. Most Afghans seem eager to choose leaders and express political opinions, but they are careful to adhere to Islamic cultural customs, such as arranged marriages, and say they would not dream of converting.

The government, for its part, invokes Islam at every turn but has so far refrained from carrying out extreme physical punishments reminiscent of Taliban rule. On the other hand, some legislators say Afghanistan's post-Taliban democracy is too young to withstand disruptive assaults on its official religion.

Shahzada Shahid, a member of parliament and Muslim cleric from Konar province, said he tried to calm his colleagues during two days of emotional debate last month over the Rahman case.

"I told them, 'We are a new democracy, our government is weak, and we need the international forces here to defend us,' " Shahid said. "But the West has to be very careful." It should not encourage people such as the novelist Salman Rushdie, the target in 1989 of an Iranian death order, or other people who speak against Islam. "These simple issues could bring about a real crisis in our society," Shahid said.

A few younger, educated Afghans said they strongly disagreed with executing a convert or enforcing harsh punishments, but they said they could not afford to be quoted for fear they would be ostracized and possibly hounded.

One young man, who works as an interpreter for a foreign government office, said he was the only one among his friends who thought Rahman's life should be spared. "It was shocking to see how obsessed people became over this," he said. "There are some moderate Afghans who think the way I do, but our mullahs are very strict, and many people are not educated, so they follow them."

He said many Afghans were upset with the president for allowing Rahman to leave the country. "They think Karzai has become a symbol of the West," he said.

At the Herati Mosque on Friday, several hundred men crammed into the sanctuary for weekly prayers. They included blue-jeaned teenagers, uniformed soldiers, middle-aged men in business attire and graybeards in robes and turbans. Afghan women are not permitted to worship in mosques.

After the service, worshipers offered nearly identical opinions, saying Islam was a democratic and beneficent faith -- but that no one had the right to leave it.

"Islam is the most perfect religion in the world. We have accepted it, and we should stick to it," said Mahmad Humayun, 35, a clean-shaven science instructor at Kabul University. "Islam is the basis for democracy. It gives rights to all people. Therefore, we must all think very carefully and never do anything to cause Islam problems."

Data exposure: Counties across the U.S. posting sensitive info online; Social Security numbers, driver's license data, bank account numbers posted

ComputerWorld

Data exposure: Counties across the U.S. posting sensitive info online
Social Security numbers, driver's license data and bank account numbers are all easily available
News Story by Jaikumar Vijayan

APRIL 12, 2006 (COMPUTERWORLD) - Broward County, Fla., Maricopa County, Ariz., Fort Bend County, Texas. Three counties separated by hundreds of miles with something in common: They’re among potentially hundreds of counties in several states that in recent years have made Social Security numbers, driver's license information, bank account numbers and a variety of other personally sensitive data belonging to residents available to anyone in the world with Internet access.

The exposure follows the failure to redact sensitive information from land records and other public documents posted on the Internet and makes county Web sites a veritable treasure trove of information for identity thieves and other criminals, according to a number of privacy advocates.

“These sites are just spoon-feeding criminals the information they need,” said B.J. Ostergren, a privacy advocate based in Richmond, Va. “But no one appears to be seeing it and nobody’s changing the laws,” she said.

Among the pieces of personally identifiable information from county Web sites made available to Computerworld by Ostergren and other privacy advocates were: Rep. Tom Delay’s Social Security number on a tax lien document; the Social Security numbers for Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and his wife on a quit claim deed from 1999; driver’s license numbers, addresses, vehicle registration information, height and race of individuals arrested for traffic violations; names and dates of birth of minors from final divorce decrees and family court documents; and even complete copies of death certificates with Social Security numbers, dates of birth and cause of death. (The Social Security numbers for Bush and his wife have been redacted and are no longer available online.)

“All of this information is available to anyone sitting in a cafe in Nigeria or anywhere else in the world,” said David Bloys, a retired private investigator who publishes a newsletter called "News for Public Officials" in Shallowater, Texas. “It’s a real security threat.”

Those concerns follow news that personally identifiable information belonging to an unknown number of current and former residents of Florida are available online because sensitive information has not been removed from public records posted on county Web sites in that state.

It’s unclear exactly how many of the 3,600 county governments in the United States do the same thing, said Mark Monacelli, president of the Property Records Industry Association, a Durham, N.C.-based industry group set up to facilitate the recording of, and access to, public property information.

But it’s safe to assume that many of them are posting sensitive data online, based on the trend by local governments to provide Web-based access to public records, said Darity Wesley, CEO of Privacy Solutions, a privacy consultancy for the real estate industry based in San Diego. “I think a lot of [county] recorders have been putting [images of] public land records on the Internet without any concern about who has access to it,” Wesley said.

But while the public access efforts raise privacy concerns, those worries need to be tempered with an understanding of the benefits from easier access to public land records, according to both Wesley and Monacelli.

“This whole topic of access to information is an issue that we as a nation are facing,” Monacelli said. “We have real estate professionals, title companies, attorneys and lenders who need this information for commerce purposes.” He argued that easier information-sharing enables more efficient mortgage and loan processes, for example.

“There’s a real need to keep the information flowing,” Wesley said, adding that while there’s a real need to protect data “at all costs,” there’s little evidence so far that the public availability of personal information on government sites has contributed to identity theft. For most identity thieves, the effort involved in sifting through millions of public records for sensitive information is simply not worth it, she said.

“There’s a lot of value in public records, and shutting down access to them” over privacy concerns would be a step backward, she said. “Rather than wrap a lot of fear and sensationalism” around the issue, what is needed is an informed discussion of the issue by legislators and privacy advocates.

The list of document images posted on county Web sites as part of the public record includes copies of property and tax records, motor vehicle information and court files. In some cases, documents relating to military discharges, family court records, juvenile court records, probate law documents and death certificates are also available. Much of the information has been freely available for public purchase and inspection at county offices for a long time, said Sue Baldwin, director of the Broward County Records Division.

“Professional list-making companies have always purchased copies of records and data from recorders to use in the creation of specialized marketing lists, which they sell,” she said. So, too, have title insurance underwriters and credit-reporting agencies. “Land records are public all over the country. This is not a new situation.”

Even so, privacy advocates say the move to post public records on the Web without removing personally identifiable information has greatly broadened access to sensitive data and the potential for misuse. “The simple truth is these records were safe in the courthouse for 160 years,” Bloys said. Now, all it takes is Internet access and a very rudimentary idea of how to look for data to find all sorts of information, he said.

Ostergren, for instance, claims to have harvested more than 17,000 Social Security numbers simply by “messing around” in county Web sites over the past two years. Among the countless nuggets Bloys turned up was the complete medical history of a terminally ill county official.

“I understand people’s concerns, but a lot of this information has been freely available for public inspection since Plymouth Rock,” said Carol Fogelsong, the assistant comptroller for Orange County, Fla.

She argued that the number of documents containing sensitive information may be lower than people assume. Orange County, for example, is in the midst of inspecting about 30 million pages dating back to 1970 for Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers and debit card numbers. So far, 7 million pages covering 2.2 million documents recorded between June 1, 2002, and April 30, 2005, have been inspected: Out of those pages, 119,000, or 1.63%, have information that needed to be redacted.

Fogelsong noted that people who want information removed can request that it be redacted. Very few documents filed in the public realm require sensitive data anyway -- but it is up to inviduals to make sure that it doesn't get into these records to begin with. "I would love if people would check their records on their own" to ensure no private information is publicly disclosed, she said.

Most counties around the country allow residents to immediately have their personal information expunged from public records on the Web. But indviduals have to usually make a written request and provide details on the Book and Page number where the information exists. In fact, consumers have a responsbility to ensure that public records do not carry Social Security numbers and other personally identifiable information, she said.

It is not always necessary to search for data, since online records often can be purchased in bulk for a fraction of what it would cost to buy them from a courthouse, Bloys said. One example: Fort Bend County, Texas, last year sold to a Florida company every document ever filed with the county clerk’s office -- estimated to be around 20 million -- for roughly $2,500. Bloys wrote about the transaction in his newsletter in December. Fort Bend County officials did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

The company that purchased the information is one of a large number of companies -- including firms in India, China and the Philippines -- that routinely download records directly from county Web sites, sometimes invoking the Freedom of Information Act, Bloys said.

Bloys is concerned that identity thieves and other criminals appear to be taking advantage of the easy availability of information. He pointed to a sharp increase in deed fraud in Florida and identity theft in Arizona. “A signature and notary seal extracted from an online county is all that is needed to take your home,” he said.

Ostergren, who runs a Web site called The Virginia Watchdog, has for the last two and a half years been fighting to keep images of public records off her county’s Web site -- and has so far succeeded. Nonetheless, about 14 of Virginia's 121 counties post images of public records. Several counties and other local governments in states such as Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, Arizona, Texas and New York -- including all five boroughs in New York city -- currently post document images with sensitive information on the Web, she said.

Wesley, of Privacy Solutions, said there is a growing awareness of privacy concerns among state officials. Florida, for instance, has enacted a new law that requires county governments to redact all sensitive information from posted images by Jan. 1, 2007. On that date, Florida’s county recorders will also have the authority to redact sensitive information from documents before posting them -- something they are forbidden to do now.

County governments in several other states, including Texas, New Jersey, California and Washington, are redacting Social Security numbers and personally identifiable information from public records being posted online. Broward County, for instance, has selected a vendor named Aptitude Solutions Inc. to help automate the process of removing sensitive information from documents, Baldwin said. “I do not know how long the actual process will take, but we intend to comply with the statutory requirements, including deadline.”

In Orange County, Fogelsong said she hopes to complete the redaction process by the end of August. Despite initial concerns about the technology challenges involved, that process has been going better than expected, she said.

All images of documents recorded by the county have been copied, downloaded and shipped to Austin-based Hart InterCivic, which is scanning them for Social Security information as well as bank account, credit card and debit card numbers. Pages with any of such data are redacted and shipped back to Orange County, which then replaces the original image with a redacted one. The original copies are not deleted, but instead taken off-line, Fogelsong said. Roughly 2 million pages are being inspected every month in this fashion.

“I will not be able to stop everything,” Fogelsong conceded, adding that it is quite likely that even after the redaction process sensitive information might still make it online. “But I’m doing the best I can.”

Saturday, April 22, 2006

RNC Ad Mischaracterizes Democratic Stance On Immigration

FactCheck.org
RNC Ad Mischaracterizes Democratic Stance On Immigration

Spanish-language ad says Democrats voted to "treat millions of hardworking immigrants as felons."

Summary

The RNC mischaracterizes the Democratic stance on immigration legislation in a radio ad running in Arizona and Nevada and aimed at Hispanics. The Spanish-language ad says (as translated) that Democrats "voted to treat millions of hardworking immigrants as felons."

In fact, it was a Republican-sponsored House bill, passed in December with a heavy Republican majority, that would make it a felony either to enter the US without official permission, or to overstay a visa. Under the House bill an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants could face penalties of up to a year and a day in prison.

What the ad refers to is a vote that killed a White House-inspired measure to downgrade the proposed felony to a misdemeanor. Most Democrats opposed the softening amendment, but said they did so because it still would have been too harsh – criminalizing the overstaying of a visa, which is now only a civil offense and not subject to imprisonment.

The Spanish-language ad also says the President and Republican leaders are working for legislation that will "honor our immigrants." Opinions differ on that. An immigration reform project of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called the Republican-backed House measure "cynical," and said that it will punish immigrants and harm their families.

On the Senate side, the Judiciary Committee cleared a bipartisan immigration bill that doesn't make it a felony to enter illegally or overstay permission. Efforts to pass that measure broke down before the Easter recess, and may resume when the Senate returns April 27.
Analysis

The Republican National Committee released a radio ad on April 17 titled “Protect Border & Honor Immigrants.” The 60-second ad is in Spanish and will be broadcast throughout the week on Hispanic radio stations in Phoenix, Tucson, Reno and Las Vegas.

RNC Ad: "Protect Border & Honor Immigrants"
(English Translation)

Announcer: Terrorists coming across our border...drugs smuggled to America's shores...But just last week, there was hope. Congress was working on immigration reform...to secure our border and protect American families.
But Democrat Leader Harry Reid let us down. Harry Reid played politics and blocked our leaders from working together. Reid's Democrat allies voted to treat millions of hardworking immigrants...as felons.
While President Bush and Republican leaders work for legislation that will protect our border and honor our immigrants.
Call Harry Reid at (702) 388-5020 tell him to stop playing with our futures.
Paid for by the Republican National Committee not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

“Treat…Immigrants as Felons?”

The ad says that Democrats “voted to treat millions of hard working immigrants as felons,” which is misleading. In fact, a large majority of Democrats voted against a Republican-sponsored bill to make it a felony – punishable by up to a year plus one day in prison – to enter the US without legal permission, or to overstay a visa.

The ad refers to an amendment to that bill which would have lessened the proposed prison penalty to six months, making a misdemeanor of either offense. Currently, illegal entry is a misdemeanor but overstaying a visa is a civil offense, not criminal at all.

Most Democrats did vote against that softening amendment, but the three who spoke against it said they did so because it criminalized unlawful presence in the US, not because they wish to "treat...immigrants as felons."

For example, Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois said:

Gutierrez: I do not think we should criminalize it (overstaying a visa) at any level. We have administrative review now. We have civil penalties. We have a process…I said we should not criminalize this in the first place just on principle .

Gutierrez said he was speaking on behalf of the 20-member Congressional Hispanic Caucus, all Democrats.

Amendment Killed; Bill Passed

In opposing the penalty-softening measure, Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California said:

Lofgren: The amendment before us changes the degree of punishment, but it does not alter the underlying issue of criminalizing being alive in the country without documents.

The immigration bill's principal sponsor, Republican James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, sought to reduce the penalties in his own bill at the request of the White House but couldn't get unanimous Republican support for the change, and Democrats mostly lined up against any increase in penalties compared to present law. "I see some games being played here," Sensenbrenner complained. "The people who are saying that this bill is too harsh want to keep these penalties as felonies."

When it came to a vote on Dec. 16, the penalty-softening amendment was defeated 164 to 257. Those in favor included 156 Republicans and eight Democrats. Those opposing included 65 Republicans, 191 Democrats and one Independent.

The Republican immigration bill then passed the House 239-182 on the same day. Most of the Republicans who had voted to soften the penalty supported the final bill, which still contained the felony provision: 203 Republicans voted in favor and only 17 opposed. Democrats voted 36 in favor, 164 against. One Independent also opposed.

"Honor our immigrants?"

The ad says President Bush and Republican leaders are working "for legislation that will protect our border and honor our immigrants." That opinion isn't shared by advocates for immigrants, however.

After the House passed its bill with a big Republican majority, the Catholic Campaign for Immigration Reform, a project of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, said of it: "The legislation is extremely punitive and will unduly harm immigrants and their families in this nation."

The campaign's Jan. 15 newsletter also said:

Catholic Campaign for Immigration Reform, Jan. 15: This bill represents one of the most punitive, mean-spirited legislative proposals passed on the question of immigration and, if enacted into law, would hark back to the days of the "Know Nothing" political party's anti-immigrant proposals in the mid-nineteenth century. What a cynical Christmas gift from our Congress.

The ad's language about honoring immigrants may refer to efforts in the Senate , where a push to pass a less restrictive, bipartisan bill stalled recently. The RNC ad blames Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid of Nevada for "playing politics" with that measure, saying he "blocked our leaders from working together." It is true that Reid and other Senate Democrats refused to allow the bipartisan compromise to come to a vote when they couldn't agree on which proposed amendments would be allowed to come to a vote.

The Senate measure, which would not criminalize overstaying a visa or make illegal entry a felony, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee April 6 by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 6.

The measure was then introduced on the Senate floor. Some Senators then proposed hundreds of amendments, and Republicans and Democrats could not agree on how many or which amendments they should vote on. So before the Senate voted to end debate Reid backed away from the measure:

Reid: Virtually all Democrats supported the Specter bill that came before the Senate...So the majority must explain to the American people why they are permitting a filibuster of immigration legislation, a filibuster by amendment .

Frist responded to Reid saying,

Frist: Over the last 9 days, on complex issues based on a very good, solid product generated by the Judiciary Committee, about 400 amendments have been filed and only 3 of the 400 have been allowed by the other side of the aisle to come to the floor to be voted upon...Why are we shutting down the amendment process because some Members might not agree with everything in that 425-page bill?

On April 7 a vote to end debate on the compromise measure failed, 38-60, in the Senate, with 6 Democrats joining 54 Republicans in opposition.

The compromise has not been killed, however, and according to an April 7th CongressDaily report the Senate is scheduled to resume debate on April 27th.

- by Emi Kolawole and Brooks Jackson
Sources

Congressional Record. H11951-H11953. 16 Dec 2005.

Congressional Record. S3357-S3358. 7 April 2006.

Heil, Emily. "Immigration Deal Fails As Its Supporters Eye A Comeback," CongressDaily. 7 April 2006.

The House of Representatives. Roll Call Vote No. 655.

The House of Representatives. Roll Call Vote No. 661.

"RNC Releases New Radio Ad Entitled "Protect Border & Honor Immigrants," News Release. 17 April 2006.

The Senate. Roll Call Vote No. 89.

"About the Campaign" and "Legislative Update," The Catholic Campaign for Immigration Reform 15 Jan 2006:1-2.

NEW WESTCHESTER COUNTY NY LAW REQUIRES BUSINESSES TO SECURE WIRELESS NETWORKS

westchestergov.com

COUNTY TO REQUIRE BUSINESSES TO SECURE WIRELESS NETWORKS
Law signed by Spano is first of its kind in the U.S.

A groundbreaking proposal requiring local businesses to secure their wireless networks to protect their customers against identity theft and other computer fraud has just become law.

County Executive Andy Spano signed a bill into law today that mandates commercial businesses that offer public Internet access and/or maintain personal information on a wireless network to take “minimum security measures.” The Board of Legislators passed the bill unanimously on April 10.

The law, which appears to be the first of its kind in the U.S. (and perhaps the world), applies to all commercial businesses that collect personal customer information such as social security numbers, credit card or bank account information, and also have a wireless network. In addition, businesses that offer public Internet access must also “conspicuously post a sign” advising customers to “install a firewall or other computer security measure when accessing the Internet.”

“We know there are many unsecured wireless networks out there, and any malicious individual with even minimal technical competence would have no trouble accessing information that should be kept confidential,” Spano said. “It would be nice if these businesses took the necessary steps on their own to ensure their networks were kept secure, but the sad fact is that many don’t. That’s why we’re taking it one step further and making it a law.”

As part of the new law, the County has also published a new brochure and website (www.westchestergov.com/idtheft) to educate consumers about how to prevent identity theft. The brochure, which is also posted on the website and will be distributed to local business organizations, outlines five basic steps that even non-technical users can take to make a wireless network more secure.

“Internet cafes are a part of an increasingly mobile marketplace and this will help create a safer environment for people conducting their personal business on the go,” said Legislator Clinton I. Young, Jr., whose Committee on Legislation reviewed the new law. “Businesses will also begin to realize how vulnerable their networks can be if not secured and go one step further in protecting their customers.”

When the law was being proposed last fall, a team from the Department of Information Technology showed how easy it was to find vulnerable networks by taking a drive through downtown White Plains. Using a laptop computer equipped with easily available software, they came across 248 wireless hot spots in less than a half an hour. Out of those, 120, or almost half, lacked any visible security at all. Many users failed to even provide a name for their network and instead using the standard name used as a default in the product. This clearly marked them as a potential target to hackers.

“While we stopped short of hacking into anyone’s private network, others might not be as considerate,” Spano said. “Someone sitting in a car across the street or in a nearby building could invade any of these networks and steal unprotected confidential information.”

As the law reads, it affects “any commercial business that stores, utilizes or otherwise maintains personal information electronically” to take minimum security measures to “secure and prevent unauthorized (wireless) access to all such information.” Security measures can be as simple as installing a network firewall, changing the system’s default SSID (network name) or disabling SSID broadcasting – all of which can be achieved with minimal effort and little or no additional cost to the system operator.

For example, a retail establishment that uses a wireless network to process credit card transactions could install a firewall, one of the easiest and least expensive ways to guard a network from attack.

The law will be enforced by the Department of Consumer Protection’s Division of Weights and Measures. A first violation will result in a warning giving the offender 30 days to remedy the situation. A second violation will result in a $250 fine and any further violations will mean a $500 fine.

The law, which will go into effect 180 days after the signing, doesn’t apply to individual home users.

In a related effort, but taking another tack in combating computer crime, the Department of Public Safety recently created the state’s first accredited Digital Crime and Investigation Unit. Two investigators are now dedicated to searching the Internet for “techy criminals” involved in identity theft, fraud (phishing), pedophilia and cyberbullying. The unit will also recover digital evidence that can be used by prosecutors in seeking convictions.

www.westchestergov.com

Friday, April 21, 2006

White House Decries Report on Iraqi Trailers

washingtonpost.com
White House Decries Report on Iraqi Trailers
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer

The Bush administration yesterday denounced a Washington Post report that questioned the handling of postwar intelligence on alleged Iraqi biological weapons labs. A White House spokesman acknowledged that President Bush's assertions about the suspected labs were in error but said this was caused by flawed intelligence work rather than an effort to mislead.

Bush press secretary Scott McClellan criticized the article as "reckless" for what he said was an "impression" that Bush had knowingly misled the American public about the two Iraqi trailers seized by U.S. and Kurdish fighters weeks after the Iraqi invasion began. On May 29, 2003, Bush described the trailers in a television interview as "biological laboratories" and said, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The Post reported yesterday that a Pentagon-appointed team of technical experts had strongly rejected the weapons claim in a field report sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency on May 27, 2003. That report, and an authoritative, 122-page final report by the same team three weeks later, concluded that the trailers were not biological weapons labs. Both reports were classified and never released. The team's findings were ultimately supported by the Iraq Survey Group, which led the official search for banned weapons, in a report to Congress in September 2004, about 15 months later.

Whether White House officials were alerted to the technical team's finding is unclear, The Post article reported. In any case, senior administration and intelligence officials continued for months afterward to cite the trailers as evidence that Iraq had been producing weapons of mass destruction -- the chief claim used to justify the U.S.-led invasion.

McClellan dismissed the news article as "rehashing an old issue," saying Bush has repeatedly acknowledged "the intelligence was wrong." The spokesman said Bush's comments on the trailers reflected the intelligence community's dominant view at the time.

"The White House is not the intelligence-gathering agency," he said.

McClellan indicated he did not know when, or if, the White House was briefed on the technical team's report. And he declined to respond when asked if the technical team's report would be declassified and released.

Prominent Democrats demanded yesterday that the report be immediately released.

"Given that the president has been willing to declassify information for his own political purposes, he should declassify this report so the American people can know if they were misled," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said in a statement. "Was this incompetence, meaning that he did not know something that he clearly should have known, or is this an instance of dishonesty where information was misused or withheld to support a political agenda?"

The White House sought to further rebut the Post article with a series of "Setting the Record Straight" statements e-mailed to reporters. In the statements, the White House does not deny the existence of the technical team's report but portrays it as a preliminary finding, contrasting that report with a public white paper put out by the CIA on May 28, 2003. The CIA paper described the trailers as the "strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program."

The White House provided a "link" to a CIA Web site where the white paper is still posted, nearly 18 months after its conclusions were refuted by the Iraq Survey Group.

The White House statement also cites the 2005 Robb-Silberman commission report on intelligence failures related to Iraqi weapons. That report criticizes the intelligence agencies for "bureaucratic resistance to admitting error" as evidence showed Iraqi weapons claims to be unfounded.

Lawmakers Plan Ambitious Agenda as Voter Anger Rises

washingtonpost.com
Lawmakers Plan Ambitious Agenda as Voter Anger Rises
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer

Members of Congress will return to Washington next week to face deep challenges including a budget morass in the House and an immigration quagmire in the Senate, while new polls indicate that voters increasingly view the legislative branch as dysfunctional.

How well Republican leaders navigate their way through the legislative mess could greatly influence the outcome of the midterm elections in November, suggests a poll released yesterday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

"The American public is angry with Congress, and this is bad news for the Republican Party," the authors of the poll concluded.

With a backdrop of skepticism and discontent, Republican leaders have laid out an ambitious agenda for the coming months, from health-care legislation to the most sweeping immigration changes in a generation. But they will have just 72 legislative days to achieve it before the scheduled date of adjournment. And they will have to overcome divisions in their own ranks to secure even the basics, such as a budget.

The House left town on April 7, having failed to pass a budget blueprint for the coming fiscal year. Republican moderates said the House budget plan would spend too little, especially on health, education and workforce programs. House conservatives said the plan spent too much, and members of the Appropriations Committee objected to new budget rules that they said would tie their hands and diminish their authority.

The Senate headed for its spring break under circumstances that were no less acrimonious. Republicans charged Democrats with obstructionism on a major immigration bill, and conservatives accused Republican leaders of capitulation on the immigration issue.

Andrew Kohut, the Pew Center's director, said voters are beginning to focus on congressional activities, and they do not like what they see.

"We see people engaged about Washington and not in a positive way," he said. "To be honest, I was surprised by these numbers."

About 41 percent of those polled said Congress has accomplished less than usual, compared with 27 percent who said so just before the midterm elections in 2002 and 16 percent who believed that in 2000.

Fifty-six percent of those polled said they would consider which party controls Congress when they vote in November. Previous polls back to 1998 never cracked 50 percent on that question. And 53 percent said they do not want to see most lawmakers reelected this year. In 2002 and 2004, fewer than 40 percent responded that way.

On the positive side for Republicans, 57 percent of respondents say they would like to see their member of Congress reelected, but 28 percent do not -- a level of personal opposition not seen since October 1994, on the eve of the Republican congressional landslide.

House leaders are "determined to get a budget done," said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).

But that is only one issue on a crowded plate, leadership aides cautioned. Next week's priorities will be reauthorizing the law that governs the nation's intelligence agencies and approving changes to rules governing lobbying and the funding of home-district pet projects, known as earmarks.

There should be action the first week of May on revamping telecommunication laws, and the next week will be given to the annual defense policy bill. Sometime in May, House leaders would like to act on energy legislation to ease voter concerns over soaring gasoline prices, and changes to the nation's emergency management system ahead of the hurricane season, which will begin June 1.

A bill to extend some expiring tax cuts from President Bush's first term could come up next month as well. House and Senate negotiators have been at an impasse over that measure since late last year.

In June, the House hopes to take up several health-care bills that would allow small businesses to pool together to buy health insurance, expand tax-free health savings accounts and improve the portability of health insurance from one employer to another.

"It's a robust agenda," said Kevin Madden, spokesman for House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). "There are significant challenges that the House is focused on."

The Senate's plate appears equally full, but Senate leaders must contend with an increasingly partisan atmosphere that has dragged out even routine procedural motions. Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), said Senate leaders intend to reconsider the immigration bill, but not immediately.

Next week will be devoted to a $106.5 billion emergency spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as ongoing Gulf Coast hurricane relief. The measure almost certainly will not be completed before the Senate moves on to its "health-care week," featuring legislation on small business health plans and limits on medical malpractice suits.

Frist would like to revisit the immigration bill, complete the emergency spending measure and take up the tax cut extensions in May, then move on in June to votes on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and a permanent repeal of the estate tax, Call said. He could also bring two controversial judicial nominations to the floor next month: U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit and White House aide Brett M. Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

All of those plans could be thwarted by assertive Democrats hoping to pursue their own agenda, Call conceded. Republicans are even braced for Democrats to push for a vote of no confidence on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

The Hamas-led Palestinian government has announced the formation of a new security force comprised of members of Palestinian militant groups

BBC NEWS
Hamas reveals new security force

The Hamas-led Palestinian government has announced the formation of a new security force comprised of members of Palestinian militant groups.

The new Hamas Interior Minister Said Siyam said the force would help the police enforce law and order.

Mr Siyam also put a leading militant, Jamal Abu Samhadana, in charge of Palestinian police and security forces.

A BBC correspondent says the decision will not please Israel, which has tried to kill Mr Samhadana several times.

Israel will see the appointment as yet more proof that the new Hamas government has absolutely no intention of reining in militants committed to attacking Israel, says the BBC's Alan Johnston in Gaza.

The moves appear to be in defiance of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' attempts to take a firmer grip on Palestinian security forces.

He recently appointed an old ally, Rashid Abu Shbak, to head the security services.

Volunteers

Mr Samhadana is the head of the Popular Resistance Committees, a group responsible for many attacks on Israel, including homemade rockets launched from Gaza in recent weeks.

He is a former officer in the Palestinian security forces who was dismissed for refusing to report for duty.

The new security force would be answerable only to Mr Siyam, an interior ministry spokesman said.

We are going to beat with an iron fist all the people and the groups who are acting illegally
Said Siyam,
Interior minister

It would be a volunteer force, and members would not be paid by the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority, he said.

"This force is going to include the elite of our sons from the freedom fighters and the holy warriors and the best men we have," said the spokesman.

"It's going to include members of all the resistance branches."

Mr Siyam said: "We are going to beat with an iron fist all the people and the groups who are acting illegally."

Palestinian police have been struggling to deal with chaos and lawlessness, particularly since Israeli forces were withdrawn from Gaza last year.

As well as criminal activity and clan violence, police have often had to deal with challenges by unruly elements within the militant factions.

Mr Siyam's move is an attempt to draw all the armed factions into the effort to maintain law and order, says our correspondent, by making them part of the system instead of having them challenge it from the outside.
Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4928152.stm

Published: 2006/04/20 17:38:28 GMT

Court: Schools can ban hurtful T-shirt slogans

Reuters
Court: Schools can ban hurtful T-shirt slogans

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Public schools can bar clothing with slogans that are hurtful, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday in the case of a student who wore a T-shirtsaying "Homosexuality is shameful."

The 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals backed a San Diego-area high school's argument that it was entitled to tell a student to remove a T-shirt with that message.

The officials were concerned the slogan could raise tension at the school, where there had been conflict between gay and straight students.

The student sued, claiming the school's dress code violated his free speech, religious freedom and due process rights.

Writing for the panel's majority, Judge Stephen Reinhardt affirmed a lower court's decision against an injunction against the school and said schools may bar slogans believed to be hurtful.

Students "who may be injured by verbal assaults on the basis of a core identifying characteristic such as race, religion, or sexual orientation, have a right to be free from such attacks while on school campuses," Reinhardt wrote.

"The demeaning of young gay and lesbian students in a school environment is detrimental not only to their psychological health and well-being, but also to their educational development," Reinhardt added.

In his dissent, Judge Alex Kozinski said the majority would gag campus dissent to Poway High School's policies.

"The types of speech that could be banned by the school authorities under the Poway High School hate policy are practically without limit. Any speech code that has at its heart avoiding offense to others gives anyone with a thin skin a heckler's veto - something the Supreme Court has not approved in the past," Kozinski wrote.

Reinhardt rejected this argument.

"Perhaps our dissenting colleague believes that one can condemn homosexuality without condemning homosexuals. If so, he is wrong. To say that homosexuality is shameful is to say, necessarily, that gays and lesbians are shameful," Reinhardt.

"There are numerous locations and opportunities available to those who wish to advance such an argument. It is not necessary to do so by directly condemning, to their faces, young students trying to obtain a fair and full education in our public schools," Reinhardt added.