Sunday, December 03, 2006

The Republicans Lost Iraq

Huffington Post
Cenk Uygur
The Republicans Lost Iraq

Saying the Republican Party is responsible for losing the war in Iraq sounds overly partisan. Under normal circumstances, I'd be a lot more worried about how we are going to salvage Iraq, then which political party should be blamed. But these are not normal circumstances.

First, Iraq is irreversibly lost - so there will be no salvaging it.
Victory is a long lost goal. In fact, at this point, the problem is much deeper than that. If you read my articles on Iraq over the last three years, I have consistently made an effort to offer constructive solutions all along. But now there are no more solutions.

As Fareed Zakaria pointed out in his last column in Newsweek, there were two consecutive days in Baghdad recently where we protected the Mahdi Army one day and fought them the next. We are alternately protecting and fighting the Shiites and the Sunnis. We are clearly caught in the middle of a chaotic civil war. It is impossible to "win" in this situation.

Furthermore, training the Iraqi army is a complete waste of time. Everyone on the ground knows that they are not going to stay together and magically enforce a democracy in Iraq after we leave. All we're doing is training one or more sides in an internal fight. In a best case scenario, we're wasting our time. In a worst case scenario, we are training people to kill each other better.

And as I have pointed out before, if you think we won't have to one day fight the Iraqi army we are now training, you haven't paid any attention to our history in the Middle East. Simple logic dictates that in a country where an overwhelming majority of people believe it is appropriate to attack our troops, the army of that country will naturally be hostile to us one day. And our big plan is to make sure that army is trained before we leave? That's an awful plan.

The situation in Iraq has devolved so much that Muqtada al-Sadr taking over has gone from a worst case scenario to a best case scenario. Before we were rooting for Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani to serve as a moderating influence (re-read that sentence to understand how ridiculous our original plan was). We were concerned that Sadr would stir up the masses and seize power in the streets. Now, the situation is so out of hand and Sadr's minions so out of control that we are hoping that Sadr can corral them and avoid blood-drenched anarchy in the streets.

So, Iraq is lost. The Iraq Study Group, Pentagon suggestions, Bush conclusions are all irrelevant. We are whistling past the graveyard. The longer we stay now, the more panicked our exit will be. I can hear the helicopters now.

The second thing that makes this situation different than a normal foreign policy issue is that the political situation in America is so badly skewed now. The right wing spin machine has been so dominant for so long that only a colossal failure by the Republican administration opened up the eyes of the electorate. Of course, it has not done likewise for the media yet. In the wake of the historic 2006 elections where the Democrats swept the Republicans out of power, the media is still talking about how the Democratic win was actually a victory for conservatives.

And in the wake of these elections, the main discussion on television was whether to add troops to Iraq! Are they nuts? How gullible or complicit do the media have to be to interpret these election results as a mandate to add troops?

Why are we even having this discussion? Because the mainstream media loves John McCain and can't get enough of his terrible ideas. And because they have been spun by conservative talk show hosts into thinking that the American people have an appetite for a larger commitment to the Iraq War. We are assured that more troops might need to go in before they can come out. Sure. And George Bush is a compassionate conservative.

After the election, anyone who suggested going into Iraq with more American troops should have been laughed out of the room. Instead, it has been one of the most discussed ideas in the last couple of weeks.

So, I am concerned that if we don't get out ahead of it, the media will soon be spun into thinking that somehow the Democrats were responsible for the military defeat in Iraq.

Let's get this straight - once and for all. It was a Republican president, a Republican administration, a Republican Senate, a Republican House and entirely Republican government that started and lost the war in Iraq. No excuses. They screwed this thing up entirely. It is 100% their fault.

Now that we have lost in Iraq, I think the country would be better off listening to the Democrats on how to extricate us from this mess. But I will not stand by and watch Democrats get blamed for losing Iraq when Iraq is already lost.

Why am I so adamant about this? Is it because I am a lifelong Democrat and an incurable partisan? No, I was a Republican until Bush invaded Iraq. My party loyalty has been to the Republicans for almost my entire life. No, it must be made clear that the Republicans lost Iraq because if it is not clear, the country might be deluded into believing them again.

At this point, these Republicans are incapable of and uninterested in governing. I wanted limited government, not anarchy. These guys are completely incompetent. I don't know if they have a secret plan to show how government can't work, but I am not interested. I don't give a damn about their ridiculous secret plans. I care that they suck.

The media has to snap out of the Svengali mind lock that conservative talk show hosts have over them. The Republicans bungled our government, they bungled Iraq and they don't know what they're doing. How many former Republicans do you have to hear say that? How much overwhelming proof on the ground do you need?

They lost a whole country to a chaotic civil war. They lost an American city to Hurricane Katrina because they weren't prepared. And they didn't even leave vacation to protect us before we were attacked on 9/11. Now, they have gotten crushed in the 2006 elections.

Memo to media: Republicans have lost America. We can't stand them anymore. Turn around! Stop protecting their rear-ends. Start talking about real solutions. Give the Republicans the blame they so richly deserve so that no one will make the mistake of listening to them anymore.

Read More...

Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb is the rare Washington figure who doesn't suck up to power

Newsweek.com
Clift: Senator-Elect Webb Not to Be Toyed With
Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb is the rare Washington figure who doesn't suck up to power.
By Eleanor Clift

Dec. 1, 2006 - Every so often a politician comes along who doesn’t pander to the president. Fresh off a nasty campaign that centered on the war in Iraq, Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb had no interest in a picture of himself with President Bush, and he didn’t want to exchange small talk with the man whose war policies he opposes. So he skipped the receiving line at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, creating the first of what we should all hope will be many ripples in Washington.

Webb’s presumed snub of Bush is rare enough in a city where everybody who’s anybody has a glory wall, and social occasions are geared to a parade of picture taking. But what happened next is where the story really takes off. President Bush, spying Webb across the room, walked over to him and asked, “How’s your boy?” Webb’s son is a Marine in Iraq.

A more seasoned politician might have been flattered that the president knew his son was in the line of fire and bothered to ask about him. That wouldn’t be Webb, a best-selling author who got into electoral politics for primarily one reason, his opposition to the Iraq war. “I’d like to get them out of Iraq,” he replied, according to several published accounts. “That’s not what I asked you,” Bush said, repeating his question: “How’s your boy?” Webb’s reply: “That’s between me and my boy.” Afterward, a source told The Hill newspaper that Webb was so angered by the exchange he was tempted to slug the guy. That might have prompted the Secret Service to pull their weapons, which wouldn’t have been the first time Webb, a highly decorated Vietnam combat veteran, faced the barrel of a gun.

A quirky individualist who wants no part of the phony collegiality of Washington, Webb was rightly insulted when Bush pressed him in that bullying way—“That’s not what I asked you”—trying to force the conversation back to Webb’s son. Webb could have asked how the Bush girls are doing, partying their way across Argentina. He could have told Bush he was worried about his son; the vehicle next to him was blown up recently, killing three Marines. Given the contrast between their respective offspring, Webb showed restraint.

But that’s not how much of official Washington reacted. Columnist George F. Will was the most offended, declaring civility dead and Webb a boor and a “pompous poseur.” Were the etiquette police as exercised when Vice President Dick Cheney told Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy to perform an anatomically impossible act on the Senate floor? Or is that amusing by Washington’s odd standards?

Webb told The Washington Post that his intention was not to offend Bush or the institution of the presidency but that “leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is.” By standing up to Bush, Webb became a hero to a lot of people who voted against this president and this war, and whose views have been sidelined for six years. Symbols matter. Bush certainly understands their importance, or he wouldn’t have jetted onto that carrier in a flight suit and stood in front of a banner that proclaimed MISSION ACCOMPLISHED more than a thousand days and thousands more deaths ago. A president snubbed by a junior senator-elect and then, more tellingly by the puppet prime minister in Iraq, should be wondering where he went wrong, not the other way around.

It’s justice long overdue for a president who has so abused the symbols of war to get his comeuppance from a battlefield hero who personifies real toughness as opposed to fake toughness. Bush struts around with this bullying frat-boy attitude, and he gets away with it because nobody stands up to him. Bush could have left Webb’s initial response stand, but no, he had to jab back—“That’s not what I asked you.” Webb is not one to be bullied. He knows what real toughness is, and it’s not lording it over people who are weaker than you, and if you’re president, everybody by definition is weaker.

The lords of Washington will say that Webb got off to a rocky start, but so did Paul Wellstone, another iconoclastic citizen turned politician who dared to violate social protocol. It was another Bush and another gulf war, but Wellstone’s initial impropriety set the stage for what turned out to be a distinguished and even inspirational career that was tragically cut short by a plane crash four years ago. A professor of political science at Minnesota’s Carleton College, Wellstone was antiwar even then and had run on a progressive platform. At a White House reception in 1991 for newly elected members, Wellstone used his time in the receiving line with President George H.W. Bush to press his opposition to the first gulf war that loomed on the horizon and to urge more attention to education and health care. After he moved through the line, Bush was overheard saying, “Who is this chickens--t?” It's a sentiment the son surely shares.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15990689/site/newsweek/



Read More...

If It Feels Like a Dollar ...

The New York Times
If It Feels Like a Dollar ...

Anybody who has ever handed over a $10 bill thinking it was a dollar knows the problem. Unlike the currency in 180 other countries, the American greenback comes in one size, and one dominant color — green. That can be so confusing for the 3.3 million Americans who are either blind or have very poor sight that a United States District Court judge in the District of Columbia ruled last week that the government had unlawfully denied them access to the nation’s paper money.

Changing United States legal tender would be expensive — the government says that redesigning its currency would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It would also pose problems for those who make or use machines that take money for tickets or soft drinks, or change at the Laundromat. And the government’s lawyers have argued that some changes could make it easier to counterfeit United States cash.

Judge James Robertson’s opinion makes it clear that the American government simply has not tried very hard to help those Americans who cannot see their money. The Treasury Department has revamped United States currency design twice in the last 10 years without making any real adaptation for the blind — despite numerous pleas. None of the other objections seem convincing. The machines that take dollars could be adapted; in Europe, they work with currency that comes in a variety of sizes. And some of the additions to bills that help the blind, like embossed dots or raised numerals, are used elsewhere as extra safeguards against counterfeiting.

Judge Robertson wisely resisted telling the Bureau of Engraving and Printing exactly how to make its bills more accessible to the visually impaired. He merely wants officials to return soon to his court and offer a plan. United States currency might come in slightly different sizes or textures for each denomination. Perhaps the money-printing machines in Washington could start on the larger-denomination bills first, leaving the most numerous ones — the singles — the same as ever. However it happens, the change could also be a boon to Americans who are not blessed with 20-20 vision.

Read More...

Blowing the Whistle on Big Oil

The New York Times
Blowing the Whistle on Big Oil
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

Honolulu

DURING a 22-year career, Bobby L. Maxwell routinely won accolades and awards as one of the Interior Department’s best auditors in the nation’s oil patch, snaring promotions that eventually had him supervising a staff of 120 people.

He and his team scrutinized the books of major oil producers that collectively pumped billions of dollars worth of oil and gas every year from land and coastal waters owned by the public. Along the way, the auditors recovered hundreds of millions of dollars from companies that shortchanged the government on royalties.

“Mr. Maxwell’s career has been characterized by exceptional performance and significant contributions,” wrote Gale A. Norton, then the secretary of the interior, in a 2003 citation. Ms. Norton praised Mr. Maxwell’s “perseverance and leadership” while cataloguing his “many outstanding achievements.”

Less than two years later, the Interior Department eliminated his job in what it called a “reorganization.” That came exactly one week after a federal judge in Denver unsealed a lawsuit in which Mr. Maxwell contended that a major oil company had spent years cheating on royalty payments.

“When I got this citation, they told me this would be very good for my career,” said Mr. Maxwell, smiling during an interview here. “Next thing I knew, they fired me.” Today, at 53, Mr. Maxwell lives on a $44,000 annual pension in a two-bedroom bungalow in the hills outside the Hawaiian capital.

But Mr. Maxwell has hardly disappeared. Instead, he is at the center of an escalating battle with both the oil industry and the Bush administration over how the federal government oversees about $60 billion worth of oil and gas produced every year on federal property. In the process, he has become one of the most nettlesome whistle-blowers Big Oil has ever encountered, a face-off that offers an inside look at how the industry and the government do business together.

Invoking a law that rewards private citizens who expose fraud against the government, Mr. Maxwell has filed a suit in federal court in Denver against the Kerr-McGee Corporation. The suit accuses the company, which was recently acquired by Anadarko Petroleum, of bilking the government out of royalty payments. It also contends that the Interior Department ignored audits indicating that Kerr-McGee was cheating. Three other federal auditors, who once worked for Mr. Maxwell and still work at the Interior Department, have since filed similar suits of their own against other energy companies.

Several of the nation’s biggest oil producers, including Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips, failed in an effort to block Mr. Maxwell’s suit, arguing before an appellate judge that his case would “open the floodgates” to suits by other federal auditors. But the court rejected their pleas, and a trial is set to start on Jan. 16.

Mr. Maxwell’s self-interest is as much in play in the suit as is the public interest. If he wins, Kerr-McGee could be forced to pay more than $50 million in unpaid royalties and penalties, Mr. Maxwell said. Mr. Maxwell and his lawyers could be entitled to keep as much as 30 percent of any funds the government recovers — enough to make him a wealthy man.

Anadarko says that the government’s rules were followed and that it owes no money because the Interior Department never asked it to pay more. But it is now trying to negotiate a settlement before the trial begins.

“We believe the case is without merit,” said John Christiansen, an Anadarko spokesman. “However, as is a fairly common practice, both sides have agreed to meet with a mediator prior to trial.”

THE actions of Mr. Maxwell and the other auditors have coincided with broader investigations by Congress and the Interior Department’s own inspector general into whether the agency properly collects the money for oil and gas pumped from public land. Investigators say they have found evidence of myriad problems at the department: cronyism and cover-ups of management blunders; capitulation to oil companies in disputes about payments; plunging morale among auditors; and unreliable data-gathering that often makes it impossible to determine how much money companies actually owe.

In February, the Interior Department admitted that energy companies might escape more than $7 billion in royalty payments over the next five years because of errors in leases signed in the 1990s that officials are now scrambling to renegotiate. The errors were discovered in 2000, but were ignored for the next six years and have yet to be fixed.

Congressional investigators are worried about other problems, as well. The Interior Department’s inspector general told a House subcommittee in September that senior officials at the agency had repeatedly glossed over ethical lapses and bungling. “Short of crime, anything goes at the highest levels of the Department of the Interior,” declared Earl E. Devaney, the inspector general.

The Interior Department, which has described Mr. Maxwell as a renegade former employee motivated by the riches his lawsuit might bring, said its auditing efforts received a clean bill of health from an outside accounting firm in 2005. “The results are clear and irrefutable,” the agency said in a statement, adding that it was “accomplishing its job on behalf of the American public.”

But Republican leaders on the House Government Reform Committee, which has been reviewing the flawed leases, recently accused Interior officials of perpetuating a “culture of irresponsibility and lack of accountability” at the agency.

The committee ordered the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, to begin a broad examination of issues ranging from the agency’s rules and enforcement practices to the accuracy of its most rudimentary data.

The Interior Department “clearly doesn’t view their responsibility as maximizing revenue to the American people for resources that belong to the American people,” said Representative Darrell E. Issa, a California Republican who oversaw hearings on the flawed leases. “We don’t have a system that accurately tells us how much oil is being taken out of the ground.”

No one, says Mr. Maxwell, knows that better than he does.

BORN “Bobby,” not “Robert,” Mr. Maxwell is bald, burly and speaks with a back-country drawl that is occasionally punctuated by a cackling laugh. He said he thrived in the world of wells, pipelines and offshore rigs and meshed comfortably with the oil cultures of Texas and Oklahoma. Genial and unflappable, he describes his politics as “very conservative” and cringes at being labeled a rebel.

“I like the oil and gas industry,” he said, as he reminisced about his years as a federal auditor. “We are neither for nor against the profits they make. Our job is to make sure the American public gets a fair return on its assets.”

Mr. Maxwell grew up in a poor family in rural Tennessee. After serving in the Army in Hawaii, he earned a bachelor’s degree in business at Chaminade University here. He later became a certified public accountant and earned a master’s degree in business from Texas A&M. In 1983, after stints as an auditor with the Air Force and the Department of Energy, he joined the Minerals Management Service of the Interior Department.

The M.M.S. is responsible for collecting and overseeing the royalties for all the oil, gas, timber and coal that is produced on federal property. Last year, companies paid nearly $10 billion in royalties on oil and gas alone.

“I loved going to the oil companies,” Mr. Maxwell recalled, saying he spent about half of his time on the road — some of it at offshore drilling rigs. “Sometimes, there would be nothing more than a room and a helicopter pad to land on. But it was an education, and it was highly practical.”

Despite Mr. Maxwell’s placid demeanor, friends and former colleagues say he was a dogged auditor who sometimes rankled his own bosses. In 1988, he visited a coal mine on federal land in Montana even though, he says, his supervisors scoffed at the trip because they thought that the mine was too small to scrutinize. When Mr. Maxwell arrived, he found that the mine only looked small because it had been underpaying royalties for years. Within months, the company agreed to pay $43 million in back royalties, and it eventually paid more than $100 million.

In 1993, during the Clinton administration, officials in Washington told him to drop a complex dispute with ARCO because they thought his reasoning was dubious. But just as he was about to back down, ARCO executives volunteered to pay $20 million.

The Interior Department gave Mr. Maxwell an award that year, noting that he had “vehemently pressed his position” even though “support seemed lacking.” It attributed his success to both his “measured combatant style” and his personal rapport with ARCO executives.

“If he thought there was a case, he had a reason,” said Barbara Rothway, a retired Interior Department auditor. But, she added, “I could see how he might sometimes bother the people he worked for.”

Patient and stubborn, Mr. Maxwell spent years poring over the accounts of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe in New Mexico, which had long complained that companies were underpaying them for natural gas extracted on their tribal lands. Tribal officials said Interior Department officials had paid little heed until Mr. Maxwell came along. He collected and organized data going back 30 years and found pervasive errors by both oil companies and the government. The tribe eventually recovered more than $20 million in back royalties.

“Anyone knowledgeable about the way Interior processes payments knows there are all sorts of ways for companies to underpay,” said Alan R. Taradash, a lawyer in Albuquerque who has represented the tribe for years. “Bobby was one of the few who stood up with us and demanded that the auditing be done properly.”

MR. MAXWELL says his first serious doubts about the Interior Department originated in 1998, when the agency reluctantly began to investigate accusations of systematic cheating on royalties for oil.

Several of the nation’s biggest oil companies eventually settled that investigation by paying nearly $440 million. The investigation occurred only after outside whistle-blowers argued for years that the government was losing billions.

The cases had been sparked in part by a former oil trader at ARCO named J. Benjamin Johnson Jr., known as Benji, who contended that oil companies had used elaborate swapping schemes to cheat on royalties owed to private and state landowners, as well as the federal government.

Mr. Johnson and another former ARCO trader quit their jobs and became expert witnesses for landowners and state governments who wanted to sue oil companies for back payments. The two traders soon realized that the biggest case by far belonged to the federal government. But no federal officials were interested.

“It was unbelievably difficult,” Mr. Johnson recalled in a recent interview. “They brought me to Denver, to the M.M.S. office, in a room with about 30 auditors and managers from the solicitor’s office. Their reaction was that I was crazy, that it was impossible, that there was no way they could have actually missed this.”

But Mr. Johnson found a way to recover the federal royalties on his own. In 1995, he filed suit under the False Claims Act, a longstanding law intended to encourage whistle-blowers. Under the act, best known for its use against overbilling by military contractors, a private citizen can sue a company, contending that it defrauded the federal government. Companies found guilty have to pay as much as three times the amount of their fraudulent gains, and any person who files a suit is entitled to keep up to 30 percent of the money recovered.

The Justice Department initially refused to join Mr. Johnson’s suit, but it eventually did so, in 1998 after concluding that he and other whistle-blowers — including a nonprofit group called the Project on Government Oversight — were on to something. That was when Mr. Maxwell became involved. Working for the Interior Department, he collected data on a number of oil companies, pooling his material with that of Mr. Johnson.

“Bobby was with us,” Mr. Johnson recalled. “He was a straight-shooter, and he saw it.” Mobil was the first to settle and paid more than $40 million in 1998. Chevron paid $95 million. Shell paid $110 million. By 2002, 15 oil companies had paid a total of almost $440 million.

The Johnson lawsuit taught Mr. Maxwell three lessons. One was that Mr. Johnson became a wealthy man. (The oil trader and his lawyers received more than $30 million, while two other groups of whistle-blowers received more than $40 million.) The second was that top Interior officials had been obstinately blind to the oil industry’s practices. The third was about the power of the False Claims Act. Until Mr. Johnson came along, no one had used it to go after royalty underpayments.

Created in 1849 to manage the nation’s publicly owned natural resources, from national forests to parks and waterways, the Interior Department oversees timber, grazing, mining and oil drilling operations over many tens of millions of acres. And while the agency has often tried to increase drilling and mining under Democrats and Republicans alike, current and former officials say the Bush administration elevated that goal above almost all of the department’s other mandates.

Mr. Maxwell says his frustrations with the Interior Department escalated after the Bush administration took office in 2001. The Interior Department’s top priorities became increasing domestic oil and gas production, offering more incentives to drillers in the Gulf of Mexico and pushing to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other wilderness areas to drilling. The department trimmed spending on enforcement and cut back on auditors, and sped up approvals for drilling applications.

The agency’s senior ranks also became more heavily populated with officials friendly to the energy industry. For example, its new deputy secretary, J. Steven Griles, worked as an oil industry lobbyist before joining the department, and Chevron and Shell had paid him as an expert witness on their behalf in the Benji Johnson case. Mr. Griles declined to comment.Auditors, according to Mr. Maxwell and many others, were told to devote less energy to time-consuming audits and rely more on a computerized monitoring system called “compliance review.” Auditors complained that the new system was superficial and riddled with technical problems. Even when the new system flagged potential underpayments, Mr. Maxwell said, it often failed to supply conclusive information.

“We were getting shut down on all kinds of cases,” he said. “We started to wish that someone would come along and file a False Claims suit, so we could jump onboard.”

Auditing and compliance review had generated an average of about $176 million annually in the 1990s, with an extraordinary peak of $331 million in 2000, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Interior Department. But from 2001 through 2005, a period when energy prices soared to new highs, enforcement revenue averaged about $46 million a year.

In 2004, the Interior Department’s inspector general issued a blistering report about the auditing system, saying that many auditors were unqualified, that essential documents were being lost and that the internal review process was “ineffective.”

BY 2002, Mr. Maxwell was fed up. He and a team of auditors had worked for months to dissect a complicated marketing deal by Kerr-McGee that they believed was cheating the government. He concluded that Kerr-McGee was selling all its oil at below-market prices to another company that compensated Kerr-McGee by assuming many of its marketing and administrative costs.

Simply put, Kerr-McGee seemed to be getting paid in both cash and services, but it was calculating its royalties only on the cash it received. Mr. Maxwell calculated that the company had underpaid the government by as much as $12 million between 1997 and 2002. State auditors in Louisiana had been investigating exactly the same issue in 2001, and ordered Kerr-McGee to pay an extra $2 million in royalties on oil from state lands.

According to Mr. Maxwell and Interior Department officials, when Mr. Maxwell presented his findings to his superiors, agency lawyers told him to drop the case. When he continued to argue, he recounts in his lawsuit, the agency’s chief of enforcement warned him that the director of the M.M.S., Johnnie M. Burton, would be “very upset” if he persisted.

“The word came down from the top, not to issue this order,” Mr. Maxwell said in an interview, speaking about the Interior Department. “There have always been people who don’t want to pursue things. But now it’s grown into a major illness. It’s dysfunctional.”

In a written response to questions from The New York Times, the Minerals Management Service said it was “rare” to overrule an auditor but that Mr. Maxwell’s contentions involved a “questionable application of M.M.S. regulations.”

The matter might have ended there, except that Mr. Maxwell decided to retire in June 2003. As soon as he left the agency, he began researching the possibility of emulating Benji Johnson and filing his own suit under the False Claims Act. As it happened, Mr. Maxwell’s “retirement” was brief. In October, the Interior Department rehired him to fill a management gap in its Denver office, and it put him in charge of a 120-person auditing team monitoring the Gulf of Mexico.

Despite rejoining the government, Mr. Maxwell filed his suit against Kerr-McGee in June 2004. The case was unsealed on Jan. 20, 2005; a week later, Mr. Maxwell lost his job.

Arriving at his office shortly before 8 a.m. on Jan. 27, Mr. Maxwell said he was summoned to a meeting with a senior M.M.S. official, who had flown in from Washington. The official handed him a memo, explaining that his job responsibilities were being moved to Houston and that his position would be eliminated.

To this day, Interior officials say they never fired Mr. Maxwell. They say, according to court papers, that he was merely a “re-employed annuitant” who was no longer needed. “The position disappeared,” said Ms. Burton, the M.M.S. director, in a meeting with energy reporters in September.

Mr. Maxwell protested. He said he would have relocated or taken a different job. He added that he was a certified public accountant and had a master’s degree in business administration; his successor lacked those degrees. But the fight did not last long. When Interior officials offered Mr. Maxwell a confidential financial settlement to leave without a fight, he took the deal and moved to Hawaii.

And he continued to press his case against Kerr-McGee. The company tried and failed to have the suit dismissed, arguing that a federal auditor should not be allowed to take information from work and file a lawsuit under the False Claims Act. In October, eight major oil companies including Chevron and Exxon Mobil weighed in on Kerr-McGee’s side.

“Government employees who uncover suspected fraud in the course of carrying out their jobs will receive a tacit invitation” to sue as private citizens, the companies argued in their brief. After the appellate court rejected the industry’s plea, Mr. Maxwell’s trial was rescheduled for January. Settlement talks are scheduled to begin in Denver this week.

Interior officials contend that Mr. Maxwell and other auditors have a conflict of interest when they stand to gain personally from their enforcement work. “These people could be entitled to collect 30 percent of the money that is owed to the government, for work they were already being paid to do,” Ms. Burton told reporters in September.

If Mr. Maxwell had not acted, of course, the government would have had no chance of recovering any money at all. James W. Moorman, president of Taxpayers Against Fraud, a nonprofit organization that specializes in the False Claims Act, acknowledged that it was less than ideal for federal investigators to have a financial stake in rebelling against their bosses. But he said the alternatives might be worse.

“You’re talking about a situation where there seems to be complete breakdown in the system,” Mr. Moorman said. “If they’ve got evidence of fraud, why shouldn’t a court hear it?”

STANDING in his garage recently, Mr. Maxwell pointed to six big cartons stacked along the wall. They contained 60,000 pages of documents that Kerr-McGee and the Interior Department had provided as part of the discovery process in his lawsuit. Mr. Maxwell, true to form, has gone through every page, and distilled his case into seven modestly sized binders he keeps in his living room. He says he is ready for trial, and even for the possibility of losing.

If he does lose, his lawyers will not charge for their work but he will have to pay about $125,000 to expert witnesses he has hired. “I can manage it,” he said. He has saved money all his life, he said, and can live on his savings and his pension.

“He’s thought about all the options, and none of them seem life-threatening to him,” said his daughter, Angela Maxwell Horn. “What can they do him? They’ve already fired him.”




Read More...

Supreme court to confront school racial diversity

Reuters
Supreme court to confront school racial diversity
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court confronts whether race can be used in deciding where students to go to school on Monday, testing the willingness of President George W. Bush's two newest court appointees to overturn programs to foster racial diversity.

In a pair of cases that could affect millions of students nationwide, the high court will consider whether the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equality allows public elementary, middle and high schools to use race as a factor in admissions.

A sharply divided Supreme Court voted 5-4 in 2003 when it last addressed similar issues and ruled that racial preferences can be used in university admission decisions.

Oral arguments on Monday should offer insights into the views on this hot-button social issue from the court's newest members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, conservatives who joined the nine-member court last term.

Alito replaced the more moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, author of the 2003 ruling that left unresolved whether race also can be used as a factor in deciding admissions to elementary and high schools.

As U.S. Justice Department lawyers in the early 1980s during Ronald Reagan's presidency, both Roberts and Alito strongly opposed quotas and some affirmative action programs designed to benefit minorities.

In one case before the high court, Seattle used race as a tie-breaking factor in deciding who gets into which of the city's public high schools when too many students seek admission to the same school.

School officials there aim for each school to have about 40 percent white students and 60 percent racial minorities, reflecting the city's overall racial composition.

In the other case, the Louisville, Kentucky-area school district used racial guidelines to keep black student enrollment at most elementary, middle and high schools at between 15 percent and 50 percent to maintain diversity.

A group of parents in Seattle and the parent of a white student in Louisville who had been denied entry into his neighborhood school challenged the use of race.

Their lawyers said the Supreme Court has yet to decide a case involving a school district's voluntary use of race-based pupil assignments for a purpose other than to remedy the effects of past segregation.

Both supporters and opponents of the programs cited the Supreme Court's historic Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954 that outlawed racial segregation in the nation's public schools.

'PRESERVE DESEGREGATED EDUCATION'

Theodore Shaw of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., a civil rights group in New York, urged the court to "preserve and pursue the soul of desegregated education enshrined in Brown and its progeny."

"The Orwellian arguments that voluntary integration efforts constitute racial discrimination in violation of the ... (Constitution), if validated by this court, would be an unwarranted and tragic reversal of historic proportions," he said in written arguments.

The Bush administration's top courtroom lawyer, Solicitor General Paul Clement, also invoked the 1954 ruling in urging the court to strike down both programs.

Clement argued the two race-based student assignment plans are just as unconstitutional as the school segregation policy struck down in 1954.

"The promise of this court's landmark decision in Brown and its progeny was to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system and thus achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis," he said.

Clement and lawyers for the parents will argue against the plans. Attorneys for the two school districts will defend the programs as constitutional.



Read More...

Democrats tap religious leader for radio talk

Reuters
Democrats tap religious leader for radio talk

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats turned to an evangelical Christian to give their weekly radio address on Saturday, citing a desire to avoid partisanship after last month's elections that gave them control of Congress.

"I want to be clear that I am not speaking for the Democratic Party, but as a person of faith who feels the hunger in America for a new vision of our life together, and sees the opportunity to apply our best moral values to the urgent problems we face," the Rev. Jim Wallis said in his remarks.

Wallis, author of 2005's "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It," highlighted issues that he said required a new direction, including U.S. policy in Iraq. He also called for new efforts to combat poverty and protect the environment.

"We need serious solutions, not the scapegoating of others," Wallis said. "The path of partisan division is well worn, but the road of compassionate priorities and social justice will lead us to a new America."

In a statement, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he chose Wallis to give the address, usually reserved for politicians, "in the spirit of bipartisanship."

Wallis heads a ministry in Washington called Sojourners and has been widely viewed as part of the religious left. He rejects that label and preaches the need to bring the nation to "a moral center."

Reid called Wallis nonpartisan.

In recent months, Democrats have been trying to reach out more to the religious community in an effort to build up public support for their priorities.

About a year ago, Wallis was one of more than 100 religious activists arrested on Capitol Hill during a peaceful demonstration against health care and social welfare cuts proposed by Republicans.




Read More...

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Illegal Immigration Hardliner Mitt Romney Hires Undocumented Workers To Tend His Lawn

ThinkProgress.org
Illegal Immigration Hardliner Mitt Romney Hires Undocumented Workers To Tend His Lawn

The Boston Globe reports today that for the past decade, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) has employed a landscaping company that relies heavily on undocumented Guatemalan immigrants. The company, Community Lawn Service with a Heart, also tended to the lawn at Romney’s son’s house.

When asked by a reporter about his use of Community Lawn Service with a Heart, Romney said, “Aw, geez,” and walked away. But in the past, Romney has been a vocal hardline critic of illegal immigration:

“You have to have a wall or a fence or electronic surveillance. And you have to have a tamper-proof document to make sure that people who are here are aliens are identified and registered, and people can not hire them unless they’re here legally.” [Fox News, 9/19/06]

Governor Mitt Romney is seeking an agreement with federal authorities that would allow Massachusetts state troopers to arrest undocumented immigrants for being in the country illegally. … “It’s one more thing you can do to make this a less attractive place for illegal aliens to come to work,” said Romney. [Boston Globe, 6/21/06]

Read More...

Congress to look at voting problems

Congress to look at voting problems
By Jeremy Wallace
Herald-Tribune

Sarasota's voting controversy has given new life to election reform advocates in Congress, prompting the incoming leader of the House to make the issue a top priority for the new year and triggering hearings in the U.S. Senate.

More than being just a battle over who won the 13th Congressional District, officials on Capitol Hill say what happened in Sarasota has wider implications for the nation, giving a more substantive edge to what previously was mostly a theoretical debate over the reliability of touchscreen voting machines.

"What happened in Sarasota really does highlight the issue," said Howard Gantman, communications director for U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, a Democrat from California who is already vowing to hold hearings on the voting issues early in 2007.

With Democrats winning control of the House and Senate this year, Feinstein is in line to become the chairwoman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over federal election regulations.

Gantman said he is certain Sarasota officials will be called in to testify.

Feinstein also intends to re-introduce legislation in the new year to require all voting systems to have verifiable paper trails, Gantman said.

In the House, two members have called for new legislation mandating paper trails and a spokesman for incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the issue is high on her agenda for the new Congress. Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said what happened in Sarasota underscores why the need for paper trails will be a priority for the speaker-elect.

The national attention on the voting machines and the upcoming hearings on the matter are critical if the public is to be reassured that the machines can be trusted for the 2008 presidential elections, said Larry Sabato, Director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

Congress needs to find out exactly what happened to the 18,000 undervotes in the 13th District race between Republican Vern Buchanan and Democrat Christine Jennings. Buchanan was certified the winner by 369 votes, but the unusually high undervote has prompted Jennings to challenge the results in court.

"We need to know what happened to those 18,000 votes," Sabato said.

But while Democrats are pushing for reforms, it doesn't mean they are anxious to inject themselves into the legal dispute between Jennings and Buchanan.

Federal law gives Pelosi, as House Speaker, the power to seat Jennings over Buchanan, citing the disputed election. But political experts say such a move would be toxic politically for her relationship with the GOP.

When Democrats sat a Democrat over a Republican in a disputed election in the early 1980s, the bad will from the move lingered for years afterward and made it hard for the parties to work on anything, said former U.S. Rep. Bill Paxon, R-N.Y.

Sabato said he doubts Pelosi would want to start the Democrats' first week in power in a dozen years in such a partisan way.

Pelosi's spokesman said the California Democrat is watching the legal process in Sarasota, but isn't prepared to comment further on what she will do on Jan. 4, the first day of the new Congress.

Although Sen. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, was a supporter of Jennings, his staff says the issue is bigger than who won the Jennings-Buchanan contest. Nelson has already signed on to help Feinstein and has offered to testify before her committee when it revs up in early 2006.

"There is a broader issue here," said Bryan Gulley, a Nelson spokesman. "There were 18,000 undervotes. How can this be? What needs to be done to make sure that it doesn't happen again."

Republicans aren't dismissing the call for reform outright even though they are fighting for Buchanan to hold the seat in Congress. U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Florida, is willing to "take a look" at the reform measures, but isn't ready to commit one way or the other, said his spokesman, Ken Lundberg.

Even before election day, Feinstein was trying to bring attention to the problems with touchscreen voting. Based partly on some of the early problems that were reported in Sarasota during early voting and a handful of other states, Feinstein put out a statement to the media warning of bigger problems to come.

"It is imperative that Congress does everything it can to help ensure that votes cast by American citizens are recorded accurately," Feinstein said in a statement on Oct. 27, the end of the first week of early voting in Florida.

Sarasota could prove to be the "canary in the mineshaft," for the nation, Sabato said.

He also said if investigators can pin down what happened with the undervote it will help reassure voters who will still be using the machines in some counties and around the nation in 2008 if Congress can't act fast enough.



Read More...

TSA's revealing X-ray screening raises privacy concerns

USA TODAY
TSA's revealing X-ray screening raises privacy concerns
By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The federal government plans this month to launch the nation's first airport screening system that takes potentially revealing X-ray photos of travelers in an effort to find bombs and other weapons.

Transportation Security Administration screeners at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport will test a "backscatter" machine that could vastly improve weapons detection but has been labeled a "virtual strip search" by the American Civil Liberties Union. Backscatter can show clear images of nude bodies.

At Phoenix and another yet-to-be-decided test airport, the machines will blur or shade images to obscure body parts and medical devices. The TSA also will look at using the machines in subways.

"It's time to get them out and get feedback from [screeners] and the traveling public," said Randy Null, TSA assistant administrator. The TSA has been considering the machines since 2002 while struggling with privacy issues.

Null said the TSA is now "very comfortable" with privacy protections manufacturers have built into the machines, which scatter low-intensity X-rays to peer under clothing for hidden items.

Barry Steinhardt, head of the ACLU's technology and liberty program, said operating the backscatter machines at airports will pave the way for widespread use — and abuse. "As this technology becomes commonplace, you're going to start seeing those images all over the Internet," Steinhardt said. "These images are going to have high commercial value."

In the upcoming airport tests, the machines will be used only on travelers who require extra screening beyond a metal detector. Those passengers will be offered the option of being photographed from the front and back by the backscatter machine or undergoing the customary pat-down by a screener.

Null said the machines could some day replace metal detectors if they can operate faster than the 15-20 seconds backscatter takes to screen one passenger.

Backscatter machines, used in prisons and at Customs checkpoints to find drugs, have been touted as an improvement to metal detectors, which don't sound alarms for plastic or liquid explosives or ceramic knives. The Homeland Security Department inspector general singled out backscatters last year as a way to close a loophole at checkpoints.

The Phoenix airport, the nation's eighth busiest, will get a machine made by American Science and Engineering of Massachusetts. In a nod to privacy considerations, the machines will show only blurred outlines of travelers but will enable screeners to see weapons.

The blurred images "trade off detection for a level of privacy," said Richard Mastronardi, company vice president. The fuzzier photos "start to lose the ability to see … C4" plastic explosives, he said.

The TSA will test a similar machine that generates blurred images using electromagnetic waves. Using the machines on suspicious subway passengers is "a ways off," the TSA's Null said. The TSA could recommend but not require them in subways.




Read More...

Treasury Undersecretary's Dual Roles Raise Questions

Treasury Undersecretary's Dual Roles Raise Questions
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer

Robert K. Steel is a Washington oddity. He holds two high-powered jobs, one inside and the other outside government.

As the new undersecretary of the Treasury in charge of domestic finance, Steel supervises thousands of federal employees and helps oversee the nation's multi-trillion-dollar financial markets. At the same time, he moonlights as the unpaid chairman of the Board of Trustees of Duke University, a major recipient of federal funds and one of the country's most richly endowed colleges.

Experts say it is rare for a senior executive branch official -- in this case a Treasury official ranked just below the department's No. 2 -- to hold a significant position outside government. Top federal executives customarily drop their nongovernmental posts to devote themselves to their time-consuming federal tasks and to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest with their public responsibilities.

"This situation is unusual," said Paul C. Light, a professor of public service at New York University and an expert on federal bureaucracy.

Steel insisted that he keep his chairmanship at Duke -- his alma mater and that of his parents -- as a condition of taking the Treasury job. Government and university ethics officials approved the combination as long as Steel did nothing that had a "direct and predictable effect" on Duke's finances, a stipulation that he accepted.

The Senate Finance Committee was also informed about the pact, a Steel spokeswoman said.

Still, watchdog groups and others have expressed concern about Steel's situation. They worry that he will inevitably have to choose between his fiduciary duty to Duke, which has an endowment of $4.5 billion and about $3 billion in other investments, and his role at Treasury. His position there makes him privy to often-sensitive price-moving information about U.S. markets, especially those involving management of the government's $8.6 trillion in debt.

They also doubt that a senior Treasury official, whose hours are grueling, would have enough spare time to also chair a major research university. In addition, they question the propriety of allowing a top federal official to head an organization that in fiscal 2006 alone, according to Duke, received $1.1 billion in federal funds, including $45,543 from Treasury for a clinic for low-income taxpayers.

"It's a conflict of interest," said Thomas J. Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group. "In his role as the chairman of the Board of Trustees, there will be decisions he will make that will be in conflict with his role as a high-level government official."

Melanie Sloan, executive director of the left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, agreed. "The concept of having a government job is that you work only on behalf of the American people, and being a trustee creates a divided loyalty," she said.

Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America, added: "He's creating the very real possibility that he will face situations where he has not just the appearance of a conflict but the reality of a conflict and then will have to decide how to behave. There will always be questions about whether he handled that kind of situation appropriately."

The Senate is keeping a close watch on the Steel-Duke arrangement. "I intend to monitor this situation," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over Treasury. "I also want to make sure that serving as Duke's board chairman doesn't take time away from Treasury duties. I've learned from my review of nonprofit organizations that serving on a board can be very time-consuming if the board takes its responsibilities seriously."

Steel, a former vice chairman of the investment banking firm Goldman Sachs, does not foresee trouble. His spokeswoman, Jennifer Zuccarelli, said Steel's deal was blessed at Treasury and the Office of Government Ethics and was disclosed to the Senate, which confirmed him in October. Steel has agreed not to raise funds for Duke and is no longer directly involved in its endowment or investments. Any effort he puts into Duke, she said, comes out of his private time.

Duke's trustees were consulted about Steel's new job and decided to retain him as chairman. According to minutes of the board's executive committee meeting in August, Steel explained what his role in Washington would be and said he would have to step away from direct dealings with Duke's funding. After a discussion without Steel in the room, the executive committee "agreed that Mr. Steel's service in Washington would not have a negative impact on his service to Duke."

Still, the board requires plenty of his attention. It meets four times a year for two days each time, usually Friday and Saturday. In addition, the board's executive committee, which Steel also chairs, meets seven times a year between board meetings.

The board is responsible for the school's well-being, financial and otherwise. "In essence, the Board of Trustees owns Duke University," said John F. Burness, a Duke senior vice president. "The trustees have ultimate responsibility for the university in all of its aspects, including financial."

As undersecretary, Steel has one of the largest portfolios at Treasury. He supervises the assistant secretary for financial markets, the assistant secretary for financial institutions, the fiscal assistant secretary, the deputy assistant secretary for community development policy and the director of the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. He also oversees the Bureau of the Public Debt and, through the fiscal assistant secretary, the Financial Management Service.

The Bureau of the Public Debt borrows the money needed to operate the federal government and services the debt by issuing trillions of dollars in Treasury securities. The Financial Management Service receives and disburses all public monies, maintains government accounts and oversees a daily cash flow of $50 billion. The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund was created to expand credit in distressed communities.

Steel is not the first Duke chairman to hold federal office. In the 1990s, John Koskinen kept his Duke post when he became deputy director for management of the White House budget office. He removed himself from all higher-education issues and did not raise money for Duke. But even with those restrictions, he said, the double duty was unusual. "Generally, you have to give up everything if you get into a high position," he said.

Light, the NYU professor, said that there is good reason for the rule and that Steel should resign from Duke's board. "The potential conflicts are significant," he said. "His positions violate the spirit of the law that separates public and private service."




Read More...

Security Of Electronic Voting Is Condemned; Paper Systems Should Be Included, Agency Says

Security Of Electronic Voting Is Condemned
Paper Systems Should Be Included, Agency Says
By Cameron W. Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer

Paperless electronic voting machines used throughout the Washington region and much of the country "cannot be made secure," according to draft recommendations issued this week by a federal agency that advises the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

The assessment by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, one of the government's premier research centers, is the most sweeping condemnation of such voting systems by a federal agency.

In a report hailed by critics of electronic voting, NIST said that voting systems should allow election officials to recount ballots independently from a voting machine's software. The recommendations endorse "optical-scan" systems in which voters mark paper ballots that are read by a computer and electronic systems that print a paper summary of each ballot, which voters review and elections officials save for recounts.

Voters in Maryland cast ballots on electronic machines that produce no paper record of each vote; in the District and Loudoun County, voters can choose between using such machines and optical-scan systems. Other Northern Virginia jurisdictions, and many counties across the state, use electronic voting systems exclusively.

NIST's recommendations are to be debated next week before the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, charged by Congress to develop standards for voting systems. To become effective, NIST's recommendations must then be adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, which was created by Congress to promote changes in election systems after the 2000 debacle in Florida.

If the commission agrees with NIST, the practical impact may not be felt until 2009 or 2010, the soonest that new standards would be implemented. The standards that the Election Assistance Commission will adopt are voluntary, but most states require election officials to deploy voting systems that meet national or federal criteria.

State election officials in Maryland and Virginia declined to comment yesterday on the NIST report, which they were reviewing.

Alice P. Miller, executive director of the District's Board of Elections and Ethics, said through a spokesman that she would not comment because she is a member of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee.

NIST says in its report that the lack of a paper trail for each vote "is one of the main reasons behind continued questions about voting system security and diminished public confidence in elections." The report repeats the contention of the computer security community that "a single programmer could 'rig' a major election."

Fears about rigging have animated critics for years, but there has been no conclusive evidence that such fraud has occurred. Electronic voting systems have had technical problems -- including unpredictable screen freezes -- leaving voters wondering whether their ballots were properly recorded.

Computer scientists and others have said that the security of electronic voting systems cannot be guaranteed and that election officials should adopt systems that produce a paper record of each vote in case of a recount. The NIST report embraces that critique, introducing the concept of "software independence" in voting systems.

NIST says that voting systems should not rely on a machine's software to provide a record of the votes cast. Some electronic voting system manufacturers have introduced models that include printers to produce a separate record of each vote -- and that can be verified by a voter before leaving the machine -- but such paper trails have had their own problems.

Printers have jammed or otherwise failed, causing some election directors to question whether a paper trail is an improvement. Maryland state elections administrator Linda Lamone, in an undated video snippet that her critics have circulated on the Internet, says that voter verification is unnecessary. "I'm not going to put this paper on my machines -- it'll be over my dead body, because I just don't think it works. It really is a false sense of security," she said.

For critics of paperless electronic voting, the report is vindication. "I think I got it right," said Aviel Rubin, a Johns Hopkins University computer scientist who has long questioned the security and reliability of some electronic voting systems.

Linda Schade, a founder of TrueVoteMD, which has pressed for a system that provides a verifiable paper record of each vote, said, "These strong statements from a credible institution such as NIST add yet another voice to the consensus that paper electronic voting as used in states like MD is not secure. We hope that the [Election Assistance Commission] formally adopts these improved standards."

Even critics of paperless electronic voting have grown disenchanted with the practical problems of adding printers to electronic "touch-screen" voting machines.

"Why are we doing this at all? is the question people are asking," said Warren Stewart, policy director of VoteTrustUSA, a group critical of electronic voting systems. "We have a perfectly good system -- the paper-ballot optical-scan system."



Read More...

GSA Chief Seeks to Cut Budget For Audits; Contract Oversight Would Be Reduced

GSA Chief Seeks to Cut Budget For Audits
Contract Oversight Would Be Reduced
By Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writers

The new chief of the U.S. General Services Administration is trying to limit the ability of the agency's inspector general to audit contracts for fraud or waste and has said oversight efforts are intimidating the workforce, according to government documents and interviews.

GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan, a Bush political appointee and former government contractor, has proposed cutting $5 million in spending on audits and shifting some responsibility for contract reviews to small, private audit contractors.

Doan also has chided Inspector General Brian D. Miller for not going along with her attempts to streamline the agency's contracting efforts. In a private staff meeting Aug. 18, Doan said Miller's effort to examine contracts had "gone too far and is eroding the health of the organization," according to notes of the meeting written by an unidentified participant from the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The GSA is responsible for managing about $56 billion worth of contracts each year for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security and other agencies.

Doan compared Miller and his staff to terrorists, according to a copy of the notes obtained by The Washington Post.

"There are two kinds of terrorism in the US: the external kind; and, internally, the IGs have terrorized the Regional Administrators," Doan said, according to the notes.

Through a spokesman, Doan said she respects the inspector general's role and is not doing anything to undercut his independence. She also denied that she had referred to Miller, a former terrorism prosecutor, or his staff as terrorists.

"She's trying to reduce wasteful spending," said GSA spokesman David Bethel. "Just like any other office within GSA, she has asked the OIG to live within his budget, and she's hopeful that the IG is going to embrace that concept. She is not singling him out for this attention. She's not challenging the IG's independence. This is about fiscal discipline and reducing wasteful spending and creating a business environment that can be embraced by everyone.

"By law, she can't reduce the IG's independence, and she's aware of that."

Doan, who was confirmed as administrator May 26, has publicly criticized Miller on other occasions. In her Nov. 10 annual report, Doan stated there was only one GSA manager unwilling to "confront programs and policies that had outlived their usefulness and were wasting taxpayer money." She later told Miller that she was referring to him, according to officials familiar with Doan's statement who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution.

Doan also complained in the annual report that Miller was being "unsupportive of recent changes" and said vendors and government contracting officials had reported that his auditors and investigators were exerting "undue pressure."

Bethel said yesterday that Doan's statement in her annual report "speaks for itself," and he declined to elaborate.

Miller declined to discuss his relationship with Doan.

"Let's keep our eyes on the larger picture, which is that GSA's $60 billion operations need to have objective and independent scrutiny," Miller said. "My office provides that public scrutiny. Not everyone is happy with this level of scrutiny. Nevertheless, my task is to keep our office focused on fulfilling our mission of working with GSA to enhance the quality and effectiveness of the services it provides, protect the integrity of GSA operations, and to keep fraud, waste and abuse away from its doorstep."

Before joining the GSA in August 2005, Miller served as a federal prosecutor and worked on the government's case against al-Qaeda terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has written to Doan expressing his concerns.

"The primary mission of the IG in your agency and every other government agency is to be a sentry standing guard against fraud, waste, and abuse wherever it occurs regardless of circumstances," Grassley wrote on Oct. 20. "This cannot be accomplished if the IG's independence is impaired or hindered by the agency in any way, shape, or form."

Doan responded by acknowledging his concerns and saying she was mainly focusing on balancing her agency's budget.

"Please be assured that I do not -- and should not -- decide which audits or investigations the IG pursues," she wrote to Grassley. "That would be inappropriate."

Inspector general's offices were given by Congress a mandate to operate as independent watchdogs in the executive branch, working on behalf of taxpayers to guard against wasteful spending. The Inspector General Act of 1978 stated: "Neither the head of the establishment nor the officer next in rank below such head shall prevent or prohibit the Inspector General from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation."

The GSA inspector general's office's audits have helped the agency recover billions of dollars in recent years from flawed or fraudulent contracts. Some vendors and government workers have complained that the audits have made contracting more cumbersome than necessary.

Soon after Doan was nominated to lead the GSA this spring, she promised outside vendors that she would make contracting with the agency much easier for both government bureaucrats and corporations. After she assumed the post, she began trimming the budget proposal of the inspector general's office. She wrote in her annual report that the office's budget and staff had "grown annually and substantially" in the past five years.

Since 2000, the number of employees in the inspector general's office has grown from 297 to 309, according to the office.

In August, a budget official in the inspector general's office described Doan's efforts to cut funding and to limit the number of audits as "unprecedented," according to an e-mail obtained by The Post. The official, John C. Lebo, said that "for the first time in memory, the Budget Office changed or deleted portions of our budget without notifying us prior to their changes."

Lebo, who has since left the agency, said the changes were troubling.

"The Administrator's Office wants to change the IG's overall approach from independently rooting out crime, fraud and abuse, to one in which the OIG is a team player working with GSA," he wrote.


Read More...

First Muslim in Congress Wants Quran for Swearing-in Ceremony; Controversy Sparked Over Traditional Role of Bible

ABC News
First Muslim in Congress Wants Quran for Swearing-in Ceremony
Controversy Sparked Over Traditional Role of Bible
By JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG

Dec. 1, 2006 — - Newly-elected congressman Keith Ellison, who'll be the first Muslim to serve in Congress, sparked a heated debate this week after he revealed his plans to use the Quran during his swearing-in ceremony. But the Minnesota Democrat isn't exactly proposing a Biblical change in the way Congress welcomes its members.

Ellison will stand on the House floor, along with all 434 other House members, on Jan. 3 for his official swearing-in. He'll raise his right hand and solemnly swear -- or affirm -- to support and defend the Constitution "so help me God."

His left hand will remain at his side, empty.

"The point is that for what actually happens on the floor of the House, with 435 people, you won't see a Bible, you won't see a Torah, you won't see a Quran," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore.

It's during a private ceremony later, when new members of Congress stand with the speaker and re-enact their swearing-in, that religious texts sometimes appear. And that's when Ellison will pick up the Quran -- and other new members will bring in their family Bibles or new ones bought just for the occasion.

"That's when you will see a hand on a religious text," said Fred Beuttler, deputy historian of the House of Representatives. "But that's an informal ceremony for the members or the members' own purposes. It's not the official swearing-in ceremony of the House, when no religious text is used."

A spokesman for Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., put it a little more bluntly: "The photo op with the speaker is nothing more than a photo op. They are not sworn in then."

Still, Ellison's decision to use the Quran -- whether in a public or private ceremony -- swept across the Internet and cable news channels this week. Some decried him as un-American and said his decision was undermining American civilization. Dennis Prager, writing on Townhall.com, said only a Bible was appropriate and had this message for Ellison: "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."

But others just as ardently defended his choice as shining proof that America is a nation of religious tolerance. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh wrote a lengthy counterpoint to Prager, arguing he had misread the American constitutional system.

"A nation should both create a common culture and leave people with the freedom to retain important aspects of other cultures -- especially religious cultures," Volokh wrote. "That notion is deeply American, and expressly enshrined in our Constitution."

In fact, swearing-in ceremonies -- be they for Congress or the White House or other offices -- tend to involve a lot of pretty personal choices, and politicians have approached them in different ways. Linda Lingle, Hawaii's first Jewish governor, took the oath of office on the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible.

And there's precedent for taking an oath on the Quran. Osman Siddique, a Virginia businessman born in Bangladesh, reportedly used the Quran in 1999 to take the oath as U.S. ambassador to Fiji and three other Pacific nations. The News-India Times reported that Siddique, the first Muslim to serve as a U.S. ambassador abroad, took the oath on both the Bible and the Quran. The Quran was on top, the newspaper said.

The president generally is sworn in with a Bible, but not always. Teddy Roosevelt didn't use one in 1901, but he brought one out in 1905.

George Washington's inaugural Bible has been on display a number of times at the National Archives, and George H.W. Bush used it in his inauguration. Son George W. wanted to use the historic Bible for his inauguration, as well, but he was stymied by bad weather. Washington's Bible stayed inside the archives that wintry day.

Office holders don't even have to swear to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution itself gives them the option of affirming their support, in order to accommodate people, such as Quakers, who believe the Bible prohibits the swearing of oaths.

Presidents Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover, who was a Quaker, affirmed their oaths instead of swearing them. Hoover used a Bible for his affirmation, as did Richard Nixon, also a Quaker.

Nixon, in fact, swore on two Bibles, but as Volokh points out, "this didn't seem to help."

In the courtroom, the Federal Rules of Evidence require witnesses to declare, by oath or affirmation, that they will testify truthfully. But that's not always as simple as it sounds, either.

Convicted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui was asked to stand and take an oath during his trial, but he refused and showed utter contempt for the judge. He said he stood by his Islamic oath and claimed he was telling the truth -- a claim that ended up being about as truthful as much of his testimony.



Read More...

Next Chairman for Intelligence Opposed War

The New York Times
Next Chairman for Intelligence Opposed War
By MARK MAZZETTI and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 — Representative Nancy Pelosi, the incoming House speaker, sent a strong new signal on Friday that Democrats intend to confront the White House by naming a Texas congressman who opposed the war in Iraq as the next chairman of the House intelligence committee.

This choice, of Representative Silvestre Reyes to head one of Congress’s most important committees, ended weeks of closed-door lobbying and public posturing among Democrats who had been competing for the post. By choosing Mr. Reyes, a former Border Patrol agent and Vietnam combat veteran, Mrs. Pelosi passed over the panel’s top Democrat, Representative Jane Harman of California, a more hawkish figure who voted to authorize the war in Iraq and a political rival with whom Mrs. Pelosi has long had a stormy relationship.

Mr. Reyes, an affable West Texan, has a far lower profile in national security circles than does Ms. Harman, an outspoken and strong-willed centrist who has become a regular guest on Sunday talk shows since the Sept. 11 attacks.

But Mrs. Pelosi chose him over Ms. Harman in part because he has repeatedly taken a more combative stance toward Bush administration policies like the invasion of Iraq, military tribunals for terrorist suspects, and the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program.

Mr. Reyes voted against authorizing President Bush to go to war with Iraq, and in June he said that the failures in Iraq “cry out for oversight.”

In September, Mr. Reyes blasted the White House’s justifications for the National Security Agency wiretapping program.

“I take very seriously our obligation to provide the president with the tools that he needs to provide for national security,” he said, “but I also reject the notion that the authorization for use of military force allows the president to ignore the Fourth Amendment and conduct warrantless surveillance on American citizens.”

The choice of an intelligence committee chairman had emerged as the second controversial decision in the early leadership tenure of Mrs. Pelosi. Committee chairmanships are normally decided by seniority, but it is Mrs. Pelosi’s prerogative to choose someone else.

Last month, the Democratic caucus soundly rejected Mrs. Pelosi’s choice for majority leader, electing Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland over John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania. Then, the signal by Mrs. Pelosi that she intended to bypass Ms. Harman for the intelligence post stirred dissent among moderate Democrats, particularly members of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition, who mounted a campaign for Ms. Harman.

Ms. Harman made the case publicly that the centrist course she had taken on national security issues would be crucial to the Democrats maintaining a majority in Congress. Alcee L. Hastings, a liberal Florida congressman who was one of Ms. Harman’s competitors for the position, had also been marshaling support to his side, and had the backing of the powerful Congressional Black Caucus.

But Mr. Hastings, who was impeached and removed from a federal judgeship in 1989 because of a bribery scandal, was opposed by conservative Democrats and ultimately deemed by Mrs. Pelosi to be too controversial for the position.

Mrs. Pelosi called Ms. Harman on Friday morning to deliver the news, and the two Californians spoke for about 10 minutes, according to people familiar with both sides of the conversation. Mrs. Pelosi thanked Ms. Harman for her “service and intellectual contribution.”

Ms. Harman, though, beat Mrs. Pelosi to the punch in announcing the news. In a break of political protocol, she sent out a statement congratulating Mr. Reyes before Mrs. Pelosi’s office had even made the appointment official. In a statement on Friday, Ms. Harman gave her “full and enthusiastic support” for Mr. Reyes and pledged to “stay actively involved in security matters.”

Representative Lincoln Davis, Democrat of Tennessee, was one of the Blue Dog Democrats who signed a letter to Mrs. Pelosi last month urging her to select Ms. Harman. It was Ms. Harman’s instruction on intelligence matters, he said, that helped several Democrats win election and defuse the charge that Democrats are soft on national security.

“Obviously, some of us would have been happier with Jane Harman. She has a grasp of national intelligence issues,” Mr. Davis said in a telephone interview on Friday from his district in Middle Tennessee.

“I really don’t know what the problem is,” he added. “They are both from California, you know.”

But Mr. Davis also said that Mr. Reyes was an excellent compromise and he predicted the storm would quickly blow over inside the Democratic caucus.

Representative Anna G. Eshoo, a California Democrat who sits on the Intelligence Committee and is close to Mrs. Pelosi, said that Mr. Reyes’s low profile would serve him well in the new job.

“He doesn’t shoot from the lip. He’s not a showboat,” Ms. Eshoo said in a telephone interview Friday from California. “He doesn’t alienate people when he offers his views. He’s firm, yet he’s open-minded.”

Born and raised in Canutillo, Tex., a town on the outskirts of El Paso, Mr. Reyes was drafted into the army and spent 13 months in Vietnam as a helicopter crew chief. He lost hearing in his right ear when an explosion rocked his bunker there. Shortly after returning from Vietnam he began what would become a 26-year career in the Border Patrol.

After retiring from the Border Patrol in 1995, he was elected to Congress the next year and has served on the Intelligence Committee since 2001. He will become the seventh Hispanic representative to lead a full House committee.

But he will inherit a committee that in recent years has become one of Congress’s most dysfunctional and partisan panels.

The past two months have been particularly rancorous, beginning in October when Ms. Harman released the findings of a committee investigation over the objection of the panel’s chairman, Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan.

Soon afterward, Mr. Hoekstra suspended the access of a Democratic staff member to classified material on the suspicion that he was the source of a leaked National Intelligence Estimate on global terrorism.

The staff member, Larry Hanauer, was later cleared of wrongdoing.





Read More...

Friday, December 01, 2006

Feds rate travelers for terrorism

Yahoo! News
AP: Feds rate travelers for terrorism
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer

Without notifying the public, federal agents for the past four years have assigned millions of international travelers, including Americans, computer-generated scores rating the risk they pose of being terrorists or criminals.

The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments, which the government intends to keep on file for 40 years.

The scores are assigned to people entering and leaving the United States after computers assess their travel records, including where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meal they ordered.

The program's existence was quietly disclosed earlier in November when the government put an announcement detailing the Automated Targeting System, or ATS, for the first time in the Federal Register, a fine-print compendium of federal rules. Privacy and civil liberties lawyers, congressional aides and even law enforcement officers said they thought this system had been applied only to cargo.

The Homeland Security Department notice called its program "one of the most advanced targeting systems in the world." The department said the nation's ability to spot criminals and other security threats "would be critically impaired without access to this data."

Still, privacy advocates view ATS with alarm. "It's probably the most invasive system the government has yet deployed in terms of the number of people affected," David Sobel, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group devoted to electronic data issues, said in an interview.

Government officials could not say whether ATS has apprehended any terrorists. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Bill Anthony said agents refuse entry to about 45 foreign criminals every day based on all the information they have. He could not say how many were spotted by ATS.

A similar Homeland Security data-mining project, for domestic air travelers — now known as Secure Flight — caused a furor two years ago in Congress. Lawmakers barred its implementation until it can pass 10 tests for accuracy and privacy protection.

In comments to the Homeland Security Department about ATS, Sobel said, "Some individuals will be denied the right to travel and many the right to travel free of unwarranted interference as a result of the maintenance of such material."

Sobel said in the interview the government notice also raises the possibility that faulty risk assessments could cost innocent people jobs in shipping or travel, government contracts, licenses or other benefits.

The government notice says ATS data may be shared with state, local and foreign governments for use in hiring decisions and in granting licenses, security clearances, contracts or other benefits. In some cases, the data may be shared with courts, Congress and even private contractors.

"Everybody else can see it, but you can't," Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration lawyer who teaches at Cornell Law school, said in an interview.

But Jayson P. Ahern, an assistant commissioner of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection agency, said the ATS ratings simply allow agents at the border to pick out people not previously identified by law enforcement as potential terrorists or criminals and send them for additional searches and interviews. "It does not replace the judgments of officers," Ahern said in an interview Thursday.

Ahern said ATS was first used to rate the risk posed by travelers in the late 1990s, using personal information about them voluntarily supplied by air and cruise lines. A post-9/11 law vastly expanded the program, he said. It required airline and cruise companies to begin in 2002 sending the government electronic data in advance on all passengers and crew entering or leaving the country.

This targeting system goes beyond traditional border watch lists, Ahern said. Border agents compare arrival names with watch lists separately from the ATS analysis.

In a privacy impact assessment posted on its Web site this week, Homeland Security said ATS is aimed at discovering high-risk individuals who "may not have been previously associated with a law enforcement action or otherwise be noted as a person of concern to law enforcement."

Ahern said ATS does this by applying rules derived from the government's knowledge of terrorists and criminals to the passenger's travel patterns and records.

For security reasons, Ahern declined to disclose any of the rules, but a Homeland Security document on data-mining gave an innocuous example of a risk assessment rule: "If an individual sponsors more than one fiancee for immigration at the same time, there is likelihood of immigration fraud."

In the Federal Register, the department exempted ATS from many provisions of the Privacy Act designed to protect people from secret, possibly inaccurate government dossiers. As a result, it said travelers cannot learn whether the system has assessed them. Nor can they see the records "for the purpose of contesting the content."

Toby Levin, senior adviser in Homeland Security's Privacy Office, noted that the department pledged to review the exemptions over the next 90 days based on the public comment received. As of Thursday, all 15 public comments received opposed the system outright or criticized its redress procedures.

The Homeland Security privacy impact statement added that "an individual might not be aware of the reason additional scrutiny is taking place, nor should he or she" because that might compromise the ATS' methods.

Nevertheless, Ahern said any traveler who objected to additional searches or interviews could ask to speak to a supervisor to complain. Homeland Security's privacy impact statement said that if asked, border agents would hand complaining passengers a one-page document that describes some, but not all, of the records that agents check and refers complaints to Custom and Border Protection's Customer Satisfaction Unit.

Homeland Security's statement said travelers can use this office to obtain corrections to the underlying data sources that the risk assessment is based on. "There is no procedure to correct the risk assessment and associated rules stored in ATS as the assessment ... will change when the data from the source system(s) is amended."

"I don't buy that at all," said Jim Malmberg, executive director of American Consumer Credit Education Support Services, a private credit education group. Malmberg noted how hard it has been for citizens, including members of Congress and even infants, to stop being misidentified as terrorists because their names match those on anti-terrorism watch lists.

Homeland Security, however, is nearing an announcement of a new effort to improve redress programs and the public's awareness of them, according to a department privacy official, who requested anonymity because the formal announcement has not been made.

The department says that 87 million people a year enter the country by air and 309 million enter by land or sea. The names of passengers and for all flights and ships entering and leaving are entered into the system for an ATS analysis, Ahern said. He also said the names of vehicle drivers and passengers are entered when they cross the border and Amtrak is voluntarily supplying passenger data for trains to and from Canada.

Ahern said that border agents concentrate on arrivals more than on departures because their resources are limited.

"If this catches one potential terrorist, this is a success," Ahern said.

___

On the Net:

DHS privacy impact statement: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_cbp_ats.pdf

___

Associated Press writer Leslie Miller contributed to this report.




Read More...

Accused terrorist Jose Padilla wants to describe how he was treated in a military brig. The government is trying to keep him quiet.

Newsweek.com
Terror Watch: Showdown Over Padilla
Accused terrorist Jose Padilla wants to describe how he was treated in a military brig. The government is trying to keep him quiet.
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball

Nov. 29, 2006 - A looming court fight over claims that one-time enemy combatant Jose Padilla was “tortured” by the U.S. military is threatening to create new difficulties for one of the Bush administration’s most high-profile terrorism cases.

In a motion last week, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to block any public testimony about the circumstances of Padilla’s interrogations during the more than three years he was detained and interrogated in a military brig in South Carolina. For most of that time, Padilla, a 35-year-old Brooklyn-born U.S. citizen who was raised in Chicago, was held incommunicado, unable to meet with his lawyer or any other visitors.

Even permitting Padilla’s lawyers to raise the issue of his alleged mistreatment, prosecutors argued, may “inflame the jury” and invite “jury nullification”—the term used to describe what happens when rebellious jurors declare a defendant not guilty, no matter what the evidence, because they are so offended by the government’s conduct. (The prosecutors also say there is “not a shred of record evidence” to back up Padilla’s claims that he was tortured and asserted that the “conditions of his confinement were humane and designed to ensure his safety and security.”)

But defense lawyers are convinced that given the seriousness and the specificity of Padilla’s claims of mistreatment—many of which involve the use of aggressive interrogation techniques virtually identical to those the Pentagon has confirmed using at Guantánamo—the judge in his case, Marcia Cooke, may have little choice but to order a pretrial hearing on his allegations.

Padilla’s lawyers say they will soon file “additional material” to back up their torture claims. And if Cook grants them a hearing, it could open the door for the first time to questioning in a U.S. courtroom about controversial interrogation methods that were used against one of the most sensitive detainees in U.S. government custody. Padilla's fate is all the more important because his incarceration by the U.S. military was directly ordered from the White House by President Bush.

The matter could prove even more awkward because, according to a source close to Padilla’s defense team—who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters—any hearing could end up requiring the Pentagon to turn over highly classified video and audiotapes allegedly made of Padilla’s interrogation sessions at the U.S. military brig in Charleston, S.C. The content of the tapes has been the subject of recent discussion among lawyers in the case, the source said.

Cmdr. J. D. Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment on the existence of any secret tapes made of Padilla’s interrogation sessions. “We don’t comment on cases that are under litigation,” he said. Asked about interrogation tapes, Anthony Natale, one of Padilla’s defense lawyers, said: “It would be unlawful for me to make any comment about that matter.” The court docket in Padilla’s case shows that a number of recent motions have been filed in the case under seal in order to avoid public disclosure of material that remains classified.

Padilla’s story first became public on June 9, 2002, when Attorney General John Ashcroft announced in a press conference from Moscow that the former Chicago gang member had been apprehended a month earlier coming into the country because he had plans to carry out a radiological “dirty bomb” attack on behalf of Al Qaeda. That same day, President Bush signed an extraordinary order declaring that Padilla, who converted to Islam while living in Florida, was “closely associated with Al Qaeda” and was “an enemy combatant” in the war on terror. Padilla was then removed from the criminal justice system, stripped of his constitutional rights—including the right to consult with his lawyer—and dispatched to the military brig.

But last year, in what was widely seen as an attempt to avoid a potentially adverse U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Bush's actions, Padilla's case was abruptly transferred back to a regular criminal court, where he was indicted on charges that he was part of a North American “jihad” cell that supported Islamic extremists overseas. The indictment made no mention of any plans to set off a “dirty bomb”; law-enforcement officials have since acknowledged that the supposed dirty-bomb attack, which was based on claims made by other Al Qaeda detainees, never got beyond the talking stage anyway.

But the Justice Department’s efforts to criminally prosecute Padilla have run into repeated problems. Judge Cook dismissed the most serious conspiracy count against him, removing the possibility that he will receive a life sentence. The case took a further unexpected turn last month when Padilla’s lawyers filed a highly detailed 20-page motion alleging that all the criminal charges against him should be dismissed because of “outrageous government conduct,” including a claim that he was forcibly administered mind-altering drugs in an effort to get him to provide information about his alleged Al Qaeda accomplices.

Among the specific allegations made in the motion were claims that Padilla was kept in a state of “complete sensory deprivation,” confined for months at a time in a “tiny cell” where the temperatures were manipulated to “extremely cold” levels and “noxious fumes” were introduced, causing his eyes and nose to run. Loud clanging noises were repeatedly heard making it impossible for him to sleep, the motion stated. Padilla himself was hooded, forced to stand in uncomfortable stress positions and kept “shackled and manacled with a belly chain,” the motion further states. He was also threatened with being forcibly removed from the United States to another country, including the U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo as well as threatened with being cut with a knife and having alcohol poured on his wounds, it says.

“Often, he had to endure multiple interrogators who would scream, shake and otherwise assault Mr. Padilla,” the motion states. “Additionally, Mr. Padilla was given drugs against his will, believed to be some form of lysergic acid diethylmamide (LSD) or phencyclidine (PACP) to act as a sort of truth serum during his interrogations.”

Gordon, the Pentagon spokesman, said in response: “The government in the strongest terms denies Padilla’s allegations of torture—allegations made without support and without citing a shred of record evidence. It is our policy to treat all detainees humanely.”

But at least some of the allegations in Padilla’s motion mirror claims that were first made by FBI agents and lawyers for detainees held at Guantánamo and which were later confirmed by the U.S. military. An investigation ordered by Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, found last year that military interrogators at Guantánamo did in fact subject some detainees to yelling and loud noises, disrupt their sleep patterns, lower the temperatures in their cells to make them uncomfortable—all in an effort to “lower their resistance” and get them to provide interrogators with more information. The report found that in 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld himself approved sleep deprivation as an authorized technique to use against one particularly high-value detainee, a Saudi prisoner named Mohammed Qahtani who was suspected of being the 20th hijacker in the 9/11 attacks. Rumsfeld also approved the use of adjusting the air conditioner to extremely cold levels in the interrogation of a second Guantánamo detainee, the report found.

It is still far from clear that, even if Judge Cook orders a hearing on Padilla’s claims, it will make a difference to the outcome of his case. Prosecutors have argued that because they are not planning on using any evidence derived from Padilla’s interrogations, the circumstances of how he was treated make no legal difference. Cook would essentially have to find that the treatment of Padilla “shocks the conscience” of the court—a heavy legal burden—for the case against him to be dismissed.

But defense lawyers may have hinted at the ultimate significance of their claims in a portion of their motion last month, when they referred to the “psychological damage” done to Padilla as a result of the aggressive methods used against him. Natale, Padilla’s lawyer, said the defense will expand on this reference in a court filing that may be filed by the end of the week. One possibility is that Padilla’s lawyers will ask that he be deemed incompetent to stand trial, said the source close to Padilla’s defense team who declined to be identified. In court hearings and in private meetings, the source said, Padilla has shown signs of being withdrawn, unable to communicate or respond when questions about what happened to him arise. “It’s almost like you’re dealing with a turtle,” the source said.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15958572/site/newsweek/



Read More...

W.House will defy Democrats on security: Republican

Reuters
W.House will defy Democrats on security: Republican
By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration is unlikely to allow the incoming Democratic majority in Congress to learn details about its domestic spying program and interrogation policy, a Republican senator said on Thursday.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who has criticized the Bush White House's secrecy about national security issues, said he would welcome detailed congressional oversight of the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping.

"It would be ideal," said Specter, whose committee was blocked by the administration this year from conducting a full review of the program, despite an outcry among some lawmakers that the spying was illegal.

"We have to really get into the details as to what the program is, as to how many people they are tapping, what they're finding out," he told an American Bar Association conference on national security.

But he said he had "grave reservations" that Congress would end up getting the information from the administration.

The eavesdropping program, which was exposed by The New York Times nearly a year ago, allows the NSA to eavesdrop on the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without first obtaining a warrant.

Specter and other critics say the program has violated U.S. laws, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which requires warrants for all intelligence surveillance.

The Bush administration contends the program is legal, narrowly focused on suspected terrorists and authorized by President George W. Bush's constitutional powers as commander in chief.

When his Republican party was in control of Congress, Specter launched an unsuccessful legislative bid to have the program reviewed by a secret federal court.

Now, after victory in the November 7 election, Democrats will take control next year and are vowing to press the White House for greater cooperation on domestic spying as well as the CIA's detention and treatment of terrorism suspects.

"Only then, can we conduct thorough oversight of these programs and determine whether they are legal," Sen. John Rockefeller, incoming Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a recent statement.

But Specter said such oversight may not succeed.

"I look forward to what will happen next year on that subject. I have grave reservations as to how successful we will be here, given the administration's unwillingness to share those secrets," he said.

The Pennsylvania Republican said the White House was also unlikely to divulge details about its treatment of detainees to the Democratic-controlled Senate intelligence and armed services panels, despite lingering concerns among lawmakers that U.S. interrogations could still violate torture protections.

"We still haven't resolved the issue of torture," Specter said. "The new leadership on armed services will be pushing a lot harder for answers. What they will get remains to be seen. I would expect the president will resist giving information."




Read More...