Study finds Florida optical scan voting machines still flawed

Orlando Sentinel
Study finds Florida optical scan voting machines still flawed
The Associated Press

TALLAHASSEE, Fla.

Florida's optical scan voting machines are still flawed, despite efforts to fix them, and they could allow poll workers to tamper with the election results, according to a government-ordered study obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.

At the request of Secretary of State Kurt Browning, a Florida State University information technology laboratory went over a list of previously discovered flaws to see if the machines were still vulnerable to attack.

"While the vendor has fixed many of these flaws, many important vulnerabilities remain unaddressed," the report said.

The lab found, for example, that someone with only brief access to a machine could replace a memory card with one preprogramed to read one candidate's votes as counting for another, essentially switching the candidates and showing the loser winning in that precinct.

"The attack can be carried out with a reasonably low probability of detection assuming that audits with paper ballots are infrequent," the report said.

Browning sent Diebold a letter Tuesday asking the flaws be fixed by Aug. 17.

"To Diebold's credit, they have come to the table and been willing to get these changes made and get them made timely," Browning told The Associated Press.

A company spokesman said the deadline will be met.

"These are not major changes and we are confident we can meet the deadline," said Mark Radke, who also said the company has worked well with the state. "We look forward to continuing this relationship and to continuing to improve the security of our elections systems."

Browning said the memory cards are locked in machines and only a few people have access to them in a setting where others wouldn't see them unscrewing machines, breaking seals and switching cards.

"It is not where you just walk up to a machine and pop out a card," he said.

Tampering with the software is much easier in a laboratory than trying to carry out the same actions during an election, Browning said. Still, he said, his office will advise county elections supervisors on steps that should be taken to ensure machines won't be tampered with.

Florida's voting system drew national attention in 2000, when dimpled, pregnant and hanging chads on punch card ballots held up a final count in the presidential election. Florida was eventually decided by 537 votes after the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in, handing the election to George W. Bush. The state has since banned the punch cards.

Currently, 15 of Florida's 67 counties use paperless touch-screen voting machines, while the rest use optical scan machines where a voter marks a paper ballot with a pencil and it is electronically scanned. Touch-screen machines are being scrapped because of a newly signed state law that requires a verifiable paper trail for all voting machines.

Read More...

Summary only...

Today Show Helps Frank Luntz Roll Out The Right Wing's Latest Hit Job on Edwards

Huffington Post
Steve Young
Today Show Helps Frank Luntz Roll Out The Right Wing's Latest Hit Job on Edwards

Republicans have been outstanding in couching the debate, quick to label issues, persons or an entire political party's position in terms so simplistic, yet deviously potent. A facile catchphrase feeds into the voters' darkest fears without engaging the least amount of analytical thought.

If you believe attacking terrorism where and how the Bush administration has is a disaster, you're "soft on terror."

If you feel the failure in Iraq is a failure you're the party of "cut and run."

If you present the facts from both sides of an issue, you're part of the "liberal media."

You can always tell when the Republican Party believes something can hurt them. They attack it like you'd wish a Michael Vick pitbull would attack its owner.

By the second or third time it's uttered, catchphrase rhetoric becomes obvious. But there are times when they are more insidious, building momentum under the radar. Oh, you know it's an attack, but it comes in so many different shapes and sizes it's difficult to notice until they all meet at one place: the target.

And one big target in the Republican cross-hairs is John Edwards.

He's presently a third place longshot in the Democratic race, but there's strong evidence that the Republican Party may be more afeared of Edwards then they are of Obama or Clinton. They both may have bulls-eyes painted on them, but it is Edwards who has been under unrelenting assault.

It started with tagging Edwards as the "personal injury attorney." Next, the subtle, Coulter "Edwards is a fag" strategy. Bill O'Reilly deemed Edwards "out of the race" even though he polls higher than Mitt Romney who O'Reilly believes is a keeper. It moved into the "$400 haircut," and then to the "30,000 square foot house." Finally, settling on, "How can a man fight poverty when he lives in a 30,000 square foot house?"

But Monday you knew it was no longer a disconnected series of attacks, but a full-fledged offensive when the Republican's Master of Maxims, the Sultan of Slogans, the...um, King of Katchphrases, Frank Luntz - father of "Death tax," "Contract for America," "Climate Change - went on the Today Show to get on the "stop John Edwards train."

It was a bizarre segment with Meredith Viera setting up Luntz on politicians using humor. In every case, from John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, Rudy Guiliani and Hillary Clinton. Democrat or Republican, every single president and presidential candidate received a positive review from Luntz. Everyone but one: John Edwards.

When it came to Edwards, they played a clip of him on the Tonight Show where he quipped about his expensive haircut. It received a big laugh from the Leno audience. For some baffling reason, Viera asked Luntz, "Why didn't that work?" What? A huge laugh, but both Viera and Luntz somehow ignored what we had just seen and heard to whack Edwards.

I've been in the business of comedy and satire - stand-up and written - for most of my career and I guess that I've been under the misconception that when you tell a joke and it gets a big laugh, people thought it was funny. In the comedy biz, we say, "it worked." But in the world of Luntz and the slamming of Edwards, it didn't.

As far as Viera buying that the Edwards joke didn't work, my guess is that she was given the question to ask, but didn't actually listen to the audience reaction. If she had, she would have found her question incredulous.

I imagine Viera and her producer were duped; that Luntz asked for Viera to use that clip to pose a negative about Edwards.

Luntz pointed out that "you can't discuss poverty with people when you get a $400 haircut." Luntz said that Edwards "shouldn't be making jokes about it. He should be apologizing."

This after he set up the segment with saying that for politicians to be funny "they must poke fun of themselves."

Why Viera didn't ask why Edwards can't discuss poverty when he gets and expensive haircut? Ring that one up to gross infotainment negligence.

Now I appreciate what Frank Luntz does - in a sports fannish kind of way. The same way I felt about Larry Bird as a Philadelphia 76er fan. I hated his guts but wouldn't mind at all to have him on my team.

But even so, when Luntz is sicked on someone or something, you know what the intent is as sure as Karl Rove is behind all evil in the universe. And don't be surprised if Karl Rove is behind the stop Edwards effort.

"John Edwards...Personal Injury Attorney"

"John Edwards...Poverty Hypocrite"

"John Edwards...Not Funny"

You can understand Luntz's motive.

Why the Today Show decided to help with its in depth analysis of political funny?

That's a question for the comedy gods.

Read More...

Summary only...

Tucker Carlson Called Me A 'Freak' -- Woo Hoo!

Huffington Post
Art Brodsky
Tucker Carlson Called Me A 'Freak' -- Woo Hoo!

I was driving to the subway, listening to the radio, when Tucker Carlson, of all people, called me a "freak."

He didn't say that I, individually, was a "freak," but I certainly fit into a class of people that he did label as "freaks." I am proud to have submitted a video question to YouTube for the Republican candidates debate sponsored by CNN and YouTube. In the eyes of the person who may have brought the show, Dancing With the Stars, to its lowest level ever, I and many others are to be condemned. What kind of people do this sort of thing, Carlson said, as he noodled around about people sitting in front of their Mac-cams taking videos of themselves or others. Perhaps we should leave the question asking to the professionals.

Let me try to clarify the situation not only for Carlson, but also for the rest of the Republicans who seem intent on dodging their version of the debate. The kinds of people who do this are imaginative, thoughtful, fun loving, off-the-wall, politically astute and just a little bit tech-savvy. What's wrong with this picture? Nothing that springs readily to mind.

Perhaps there is a problem with some Republicans in distinguishing reality from video. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney complained that he shouldn't have to answer questions from a snowman (after not having seen the snowman video). Silly Governor. It wasn't a snowman asking the question. It was a couple of brothers animating a snowman to ask a question about global warming in a fun and cute way.

Saying that a snowman was asking the question would be like saying Jack Bauer and his gang on 24 are real government agents who employ real interrogation techniques. On second thought, perhaps I could find a better example. After all, there are some people who think that Fox's show is an instructional video for torture. Some Republican candidates have even endorsed the whole torture scenario.

But I digress. The point is that Republicans shouldn't be scared of answering questions from snowmen, or even from middle-aged suburbanites like myself. Granted, it is a bit different from answering pre-screened questions from a pre-selected audience in a scripted-out "town meeting" or some such Kabuki. On the other hand, the videos are entertaining, and they provide an insight into what Americans are thinking about, expressed in a way that provides a little more relief than standing up with a microphone in hand. The questions are on the same topics as many of the questions asked by the "professionals," but have more meaning because they are presented more personally.

My question (number 85--see here) raises the quite serious issue of technology policy. Lots of candidates take Silicon Valley seriously when it comes to raking in their cash. But where are they on issues like a free and open Internet? Granted, the 30-second version that's posted on YouTube isn't as funny as the longer one my colleague Alex Curtis and I put together, but it fit the bill, and we had fun making it. And I go to play with Alex's iPhone.

There are a couple of reasons why the Republicans are shying away from the debate. It could be that Republicans are technophobes - at least when it comes to technology other than that generated by major companies like AT&T. They should be aware that this how people express themselves these days. They should embrace it.

Another possibility is that they could be humor-impaired. After all, Fox's attempt to do its own Daily Show-like show went down in flames faster than Tucker on his Dancing debut. The people who find "humor" in Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin aren't likely to catch on to YouTube.

Or it could be that the Republicans equate the YouTube debate with the refusal of Democrats to take part in a debate sponsored by Fox News. That's a serious miscalculation. Democrats boycotted the Fox events not because they were afraid of the questions, but because they believed the debates would grant a legitimacy to Fox that wasn't warranted.

YouTube is different. It's neither left nor right, makes no bogus claims about "fair and balanced." It is what the people make of it. That's democracy in its truest form. YouTube is about American capitalism, having gone from not existing to being worth $1.6 billion in a little over two years (thanks to a free and open Internet). And it has a place in politics as it does in music, or TV or anything else on the site. It is, in short, something Republicans should celebrate, not avoid.

It is about American expression in all its silliness and seriousness. Sort of like "Dancing With the Stars."

Read More...

Summary only...

Cheney admits was wrong about "last throes" in Iraq

Reuters
Cheney admits was wrong about "last throes" in Iraq
By Matt Spetalnick

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney acknowledged on Tuesday he was wrong in 2005 when he insisted the insurgency in Iraq was in its "last throes."

It was Cheney's most direct public admission of how badly the administration had underestimated the strength of America's enemies in the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq.

But Cheney, an architect of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, otherwise gave no ground in an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" as he defended President George W. Bush's Iraq policy.

He said the Bush administration would still send troops into Iraq if it could do it all over again, even knowing what it knows now, including that more than 3,000 U.S. military personnel would be killed.

"I firmly believe," Cheney said, "that the decisions we've made with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan have been absolutely the sound ones in terms of the overall strategy."

But Cheney made clear he no longer held to a May 2005 assessment, widely mocked by political satirists and Democratic politicians, in which he said, "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

Since then, unrelenting attacks have brought Iraq to the brink of civil war.

Cheney's words were among many oft-cited quotes marking the U.S. pursuit of the war, which has damaged U.S. credibility around the world. They include Bush's taunting insurgents after the invasion by declaring "Bring 'em on!" and the banner stating "Mission Accomplished" behind Bush as he spoke aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003.

CHENEY SAYS HE WAS WRONG

Cheney, known for his secretive ways and rarely one to admit mistakes publicly, said:

"My estimate at the time -- and it was wrong, it turned out to be incorrect -- was the fact that we were in the midst of holding three elections in Iraq, elected an interim government, then ratifying a constitution, then electing a permanent government, that they had had significant success, we'd rounded up Saddam Hussein.

"I thought there were a series of these milestones that would in fact undermine the insurgency and make it less than it was at that point. That clearly didn't happen. I think the insurgency turned out to be more robust."

Cheney said it had also been made before al Qaeda in Iraq had stepped up attacks, including the 2006 bombing of a Shi'ite mosque that sparked a wave of sectarian killings.

The Bush administration is facing growing pressure from a Democratic-led Congress and a war-weary American public for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, something Bush firmly rejects.

In a further blow to Bush's strategy, Iraq's parliament went into summer recess for a month on Monday after political leaders failed to agree on a series of laws that Washington sees as crucial to stabilizing the country.

"It's better than taking two months off, which was their original plan," Cheney said. "I made it clear, for example, when I was there in May that we didn't appreciate the notion that they were going to take a big part of the summer off and they did cut that in half."

He insisted that since the U.S. Congress takes the month of August off, "I don't think we can say that they (Iraqi lawmakers) shouldn't go home at all."

Read More...

Summary only...

Parsing Purgatory

Huffington Post
Jayne Lyn Stahl
Parsing Purgatory

Too bad Dante isn't around to see some of the political posturing, and chicanery coming out of the mouths of embedded hypocrites, and purveyors of the status quo, in the Bush administration. He would have especially liked the specious reasoning now used to rationalize Attorney General Gonzales' testimony before the Senate.

Instead of discussing the Terrorist Surveillance Program, current and former "officials" who were "briefed" on the program now contend that Gonzales met with Ashcroft, in 2004, to discuss data mining. (NYT) And what, pray tell, is data mining if not a form of "terrorist" surveillance. My, my, isn't there a visible point of confluence between the collection of personal information and the monitoring of so-called terrorists? One sure would think so.

If checking out people's web surfing habits doesn't constitute surveillance then what does, or does that, too, depend upon what one's "definition of the word sex is?" Anyone who suggests that eavesdropping on telephone calls and e-mails and collecting personal information aren't part and parcel of the same process is using the same kind of twisted logic that justified hanging Saddam Hussein and razing Baghdad despite the absence of weapons of mass destruction because Saddam was a bad guy, after all.

But, the larger question here is why is it that an attorney general who has made a career of unabashed butt-kissing, who has alluded to even more pernicious intelligence programs which Congress never bothered to investigate, who has attempted to obstruct independent inquiry into his own misconduct, and egregiously misrepresented a totally inappropriate, and unwarranted visit to the hospital bed of his predecessor, why is he being given an opportunity to "correct" his misstatements? For cripe's sake, the guy has done more ducking, dodging, and evading than has been witnessed since the Iran-Contra days. Tweaking testimony, and censoring inconvenient facts in scientific reports appears to be an irrevocable Bush Co. legacy.

That said, how is it that a former president, William Jefferson Clinton, was impeached, and disgraced, for lying under oath before a grand jury about what amounts to little more than a love tryst in the Oval Office while an attorney general can not only get away with lying under oath before Congress, but have key congressional figures give him the ammunition to get away with doing so. One would expect to find the practice of covering one's ass only in hell, and surely not in purgatory.

One can only wonder how it is that the chief law enforcement officer of a country can not only lie under oath, but be aided and abetted by official enablers, many of whom we've elected, who are working overtime to help him cover his tracks.

Yes, Dante would have loved a day like this, and he would have devised a special circle in hell for those who sodomize the truth, and condemn it to political purgatory. Clearly, the vice president isn't the only one in Washington, D.C. who needs to have his battery replaced.

Read More...

Summary only...

FBI searches home of Alaska Sen. Stevens

Reuters
FBI searches home of Alaska Sen. Stevens
By Yereth Rosen

GIRDWOOD, Alaska (Reuters) - The FBI and IRS have searched the home of Republican Sen. Ted Stevens in a ski resort in Alaska as part of an investigation into his links with an oil-services company, officials said on Monday.

"All I can really say is we are conducting a search at the residence. We can't go any deeper into detail than that," said Dave Heller, spokesman for the FBI in Anchorage.

The FBI and IRS entered the senator's Girdwood, Alaska home in the early afternoon with a search warrant. Television and news media swarmed the two-story alpine ski lodge in the shadow of Mt. Alyeska while agents combed the grounds.

The longest-serving Republican in U.S Senate history, known for delivering billions of federal dollars to his home state, Stevens in a statement said: "My attorneys were advised this morning that federal agents wished to search my home in Girdwood in connection with an ongoing investigation.

"I continue to believe this investigation should proceed to its conclusion without any appearance that I have attempted to influence the outcome," it said.

Girdwood is about 40 miles south of Anchorage, the state's largest city. The vacation enclave is nestled between Turnagain Arm, a glacial-fed body of water, and densely forested mountains.

Stevens, 83, is the subject of a grand-jury investigation into his links with managers of VECO Corp., the state's largest oil-services company, as well as numerous unrelated fisheries matters.

In May, Bill Allen, then the chief executive of VECO, along with a vice president, Rick Smith, pleaded guilty to several federal corruption charges. The two admitted paying over $400,000 to bribe Alaskan lawmakers.

Allen had been a financial supporter of Stevens' campaigns and a partner with him on a race horse. He also oversaw a project to remodel Stevens' Girdwood home in 2000, vetting bills and construction work.

STEVENS SAYS HE PAID FOR REMODELING

The Anchorage Daily News has reported that contractors who worked on the remodeling of Stevens' home had their records subpoenaed by the federal grand jury.

Stevens told reporters two weeks ago money for the remodeling came out of his own pocket, the paper reported on its web site. "Every bill that was sent to us has been paid, personally, with our own money, and that's all there is to it," Stevens told reporters. "It's our own money."

The investigation of the senior Republican comes as Democrats, who won power last year with the help of voter disgust over mostly Republican scandals, offered legislation to clean up congressional ethics.

Democrats have accused Republicans of a "culture of corruption," citing bribery convictions of Republican Reps. Bob Ney of Ohio and Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California and the downfall of convicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

But Democratic Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana also was indicted on bribery charges this year after $90,000 was found in his freezer. He has pleaded innocent.

Stevens is the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and still has considerable clout as the senior Republican on the defense appropriations subcommittee. Through the committee, he has delivered billions of federal funds to public works projects in the state.

Stevens, affectionately known as "Uncle Ted" in Alaska, has also been a champion of the oil industry, and pressed tirelessly to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Alaska to oil development.

One of the few remaining World War II veterans left in Congress, Stevens served in the Eisenhower administration before being appointed to the Senate in 1968. He has been re-elected six times.

(Additional reporting by Dai Wakabayashi in Seattle and Vicki Allen in Washington)

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrats offer bill to clean up Congress

Reuters
Democrats offer bill to clean up Congress
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. congressional Democratic leaders, who won power last year with the help of voter disgust over mostly Republican scandals, offered legislation on Monday to clean up how lawmakers do business.

Democrats said they hope to win passage of the measure in the House of Representatives and Senate -- and send it to President George W. Bush to sign into law -- before Congress begins a monthlong recess at the end of this week.

"We are fighting to enact the most sweeping ethics and lobbying reform in history so we can deliver to the American people a government as good and honest as the people it represents," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

It would require disclosure of campaign donations collected by lobbyists and delivered to lawmakers in so-called bundles, deny pensions to members of Congress convicted of bribery and prohibit lobbyists from providing lawmakers gifts or travel.

The measure would also prohibit members from attending lobbyist-paid parties in their honor at national political conventions, and require greater disclosure of pet projects, known as earmarks, slipped into big spending bills.

But some Republicans, whose party had controlled Congress much of the past 12 years, charged that the earmark disclosure provision was woefully inadequate.

Under it in the Senate, they complained, the majority leader could certify if earmarks met disclosure requirements.

'FOX TO GUARD THE HENHOUSE'

"This bill allows the fox to guard the henhouse and makes a joke of ethics reform," said Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican.

But Democrats noted the majority leader's certification could be appealed to the Senate parliamentarian, and subjected to a vote by the full chamber. House certification could be made by the committee chair with jurisdiction over the bill.

An aide to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said his office was still reviewing the sweeping measure but "it sounds like the earmark provision will be really quite strict."

It would require that all earmarks in bills and in House-Senate conference reports, along with sponsors, be identified on the Internet before final congressional passage.

Craig Holman of Public Citizen, a public advocacy group, said, "It's a good bill. I'm pretty excited about it."

"Democrats are following through on our promise to change the way business is done in Washington," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat.

Reid and Pelosi took the lead in drafting the measure after lawmakers haggled over changes and Republicans blocked efforts to begin final negotiations on the ethics and lobbying bills earlier passed by the two chambers.

While the war in Iraq was a major factor in last year's congressional elections, so was what Democrats denounced as a Republican "culture of corruption" on Capitol Hill.

This culture saw bribery convictions of Republican Reps. Bob Ney of Ohio and Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California and the downfall of convicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

But the perception of such problems has not been confined to Republicans. Democratic Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana was indicted on bribery charges this year after $90,000 was found in his freezer. He has pleaded innocent.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. plans big arms sale to Saudi Arabia

Reuters
U.S. plans big arms sale to Saudi Arabia: report

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve arms sales totaling $20 billions over the next decade for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors, The New York Times reported in Saturday editions.

Coming as some U.S. officials contend that the Saudi government is not helping the situation in Iraq, the proposal for advanced weapons for Saudi Arabia has stoked concern in Israel and among its U.S. backers, the Times said. The package of advanced weaponry includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades for its fighters and new naval vessels.

Senior officials, including State Department and Pentagon officials who outlined the deals' terms, told the Times they thought the Bush administration had resolved those concerns, partly by offering Israel more than $30 billion in military aid over the next 10 years, which would be a significant increase over recent levels.

Administration officials remain concerned, however, that the package could draw opposition from Saudi critics in Congress, which is to be notified formally about the deal this autumn, the newspaper said.

The State Department and the White House had no comment on the Times' article, and a Pentagon spokesperson could not immediately be reached for comment.

Assurances from the Saudis about being more supportive in Iraq were not sought by the administration as part of the deal, U.S. officials told the newspaper.

The Times said officials described the plan as intended to bolster Gulf countries' militaries in a bid to contain Iran's growing strength in the region, as well as to demonstrate Washington's commitment to its Arab allies.

But they added that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates still plan to use their joint visit to Saudi Arabia next week to press for help with Iraq's government.

"The role of the Sunni Arab neighbors is to send a positive, affirmative message to moderates in Iraq in government that the neighbors are with you," the newspaper quoted a senior State Department official as saying.

The official added that Washington wants Gulf states to stress to Sunnis that engaging in violence is "killing your future."

Other salves to Israel in light of the proposed deal include asking the Saudis to accept restrictions on the range, size and location of the satellite-guided bombs, the Times said. The Pentagon is also asking for a commitment not to store the weapons at air bases close to Israeli territory, it added.

Along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are likely to receive equipment and weaponry from the arms sales under consideration, the Times said.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. officials may subpoena filmmaker Moore

Reuters
U.S. officials may subpoena filmmaker Moore
By Bob Tourtellotte

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Federal officials may be planning to subpoena filmmaker Michael Moore seeking information about a trip he took to Cuba for his documentary, "Sicko," a source close to the situation said on Friday.

In a late Thursday appearance on NBC's "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," Moore said he was notified at the TV studio in Burbank, California, that a subpoena had already been issued.

But the source, who declined to be identified, said Moore had not actually been served with the request. Rather, the office of his attorney, David Boies, was contacted by a division of the U.S. Department of Commerce seeking the name of a person who would accept a subpoena on Moore's behalf.

"Sicko" takes a scathing look at the U.S. health-care system through the eyes of people who suffered injuries or had diseases and felt the U.S. system of insurers and drug providers failed them.

The director took several Americans, who became ill after working in the ruins of New York's World Trade Center following the September 11 attacks, for free treatment in Cuba.

In May, the U.S. Treasury Department informed Moore it was investigating his trip to the communist state as a potential violation of Washington's long-standing embargo restricting U.S. citizens' travel to the communist nation.

Moore wrote then to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, "I have broken no laws, and I have nothing to hide."

A representative for Moore referred calls to Boies, who was not immediately available to comment.

"Sicko" has received mostly good reviews from film critics, but some viewers have criticized it for a lack of a substantive comparison of the U.S. health-care system with countries like Cuba that offer universal health care.

The Weinstein Company, the studio behind "Sicko," declined to comment on a possible subpoena.

Weinstein Co. plans to donate 11 percent of the movie's box office on August 11 to a fund to help rescue workers suffering from ailments relating to their work at Ground Zero.

Moore won an Academy Award for 2002's anti-gun documentary "Bowling for Columbine." He took a critical look at President George W. Bush's war against terrorism in his 2004 documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11."

(additional reporting by Stephanie Bagley)

Read More...

Summary only...

Congress approves September 11 legislation

Reuters
Congress approves September 11 legislation
By Donna Smith

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress on Friday approved and sent to President George W. Bush a bill requiring screening of all cargo bound for the United States and other measures aimed at preventing another September 11-type attack.

The House of Representatives voted 371-40 for the bill that would allocate a greater share of federal anti-terrorism grants to high-risk cities, while ensuring that all states get some money for basic preparedness. The House acted a day after the Senate voted 85-8 for the bill.

"With this bill, we will be keeping our promises to the families of 9/11, we'll be honoring the work of the 9/11 commission and we will be making the American people safer," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat.

The bill, which would implement many of the remaining recommendations of the commission that investigated the September 11 attacks, was a high priority for Democrats since they took control of Congress in January and will help them fight Republican taunts of a "do-nothing Congress."

Bush had earlier threatened to veto the legislation over a provision that would have allowed union rights for some 45,000 airport workers. Democrats backed away from that demand and the White House said on Friday that Bush would sign the bill.

Republicans also won a provision that would give lawsuit protection to people who report suspicious activity near transportation systems.

The bill also aims to enable state and local governments to better share information with federal authorities and provide money to help communities upgrade their communications.

It requires that within five years all U.S.-bound cargo be inspected before it is loaded on ships. Democrats have pushed the cargo screening requirement for years, arguing it would guard against terrorists slipping explosives into the United States. But opponents said 100 percent screening was costly and unnecessary.

The bill also requires that all cargo carried on passenger airplanes be screened within three years and authorizes more than $4 billion in grants for rail, transit and bus security.

Congress has been suffering from low public approval ratings and Democrats are hoping to win a few more accomplishments before starting a month-long recess at the end of next week. The September 11 bill helped Democrats fulfill the third of six major campaign vows they made last year in winning control of the House and Senate.

The two others passed and sent to Bush were to increase the federal minimum wage and legislation to expand federally funded embryonic stem cell research, which backers say could help combat debilitating diseases.

Bush signed the wage increase, the first in a decade. But he vetoed the stem-cell bill because the procedure requires the destruction of human embryos to derive stem cells.

Democrats' other pending campaign promises, all involving domestic matters, involve efforts to reduce the cost of prescription drugs and college and to move toward energy independence.

Much of the voter anger at the new Democratic-led Congress, however, stems from its inability to keep another promise to begin withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq, polls show.

(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro)

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. justices Roberts, Alito "duped" Senate

Reuters
Democrat charges U.S. justices "duped" Senate
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito "duped" the U.S. Senate into confirming them, a top Democratic lawmaker charged on Friday, days after a key Republican questioned if they had lived up to their promises.

Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, a member of the Judiciary Committee that held hearings on the two, said they staked out moderate positions in congressional testimony but became part of a conservative bloc that issued restrictive rulings on issues from free speech to civil rights.

Schumer, in a speech to the American Constitution Society, talked about the confirmation of Roberts and Alito in 2005 and 2006, respectively.

"Were we duped?" he asked.

"Were we too easily impressed by the charm of nominee Roberts and the erudition of nominee Alito?" Schumer asked. "Did we mistakenly vote our hopes when our fears were more than justified by the ultraconservative records of these two men?"

"Yes," he said.

His comments came days after Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a moderate Republican, said he intended to review the congressional testimony of Roberts and Alito.

The Politico, a Washington-based newspaper, quoted Specter as saying he wanted to see if Roberts and Alito had "lived up" to their promises to respect legal precedents.

In a series of 5-4 rulings in the past year on topics such as abortion and racial integration, the court's conservative majority, bolstered by Roberts and Alito, unsettled established law and riled liberals.

A Republican leadership aide dismissed Schumer's criticism, saying, "The only people that were duped were those that listened to Democrats tell us the sky would be falling once these jurists were on the bench.

"I'm happy to report that after the first full term with both justices on the bench, Americans are still free to speak their mind ... even Senator Schumer," the aide said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Documents Contradict Gonzales' Testimony

AP
Documents Contradict Gonzales' Testimony
LARA JAKES JORDAN

WASHINGTON — Documents indicate eight congressional leaders were briefed about the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration in 2004, contradicting sworn Senate testimony this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The documents underscore questions about Gonzales' credibility as senators consider whether a perjury investigation should be opened into conflicting accounts about the program and a dramatic March 2004 confrontation leading up to its potentially illegal reauthorization.

A Gonzales spokesman maintained Wednesday that the attorney general stands by his testimony.

At a heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly testified that the issue at hand was not about the terrorist surveillance program, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on suspects in the United States without receiving court approval.

Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe.

Gonzales, who was then serving as counsel to Bush, testified that the White House Situation Room briefing sought to inform congressional leaders about the pending expiration of the unidentified program and Justice Department objections to renew it. Those objections were led by then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey, who questioned the program's legality.

"The dissent related to other intelligence activities," Gonzales testified at Tuesday's hearing. "The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program."

"Not the TSP?" responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. "Come on. If you say it's about other, that implies not. Now say it or not."

"It was not," Gonzales answered. "It was about other intelligence activities."

A four-page memo from the national intelligence director's office says the White House briefing with the eight lawmakers on March 10, 2004, was about the terror surveillance program, or TSP.

The memo, dated May 17, 2006, and addressed to then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, details "the classification of the dates, locations, and names of members of Congress who attended briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program," wrote then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte.

It shows that the briefing in March 2004 was attended by the Republican and Democratic House and Senate leaders and leading members of both chambers' intelligence committees, as Gonzales testified.

Schumer called the memo evidence that Gonzales was not truthful in his testimony.

"It seemed clear to just about everyone on the committee that the attorney general was deceiving us when he said the dissent was about other intelligence activities and this memo is even more evidence that helps confirm our suspicions," Schumer said.

Bush acknowledged the existence of the classified surveillance program in December 2005 after it was revealed by The New York Times. In January, it was put under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for judicial review before any wiretaps were to be approved.

Asked for comment on the documents Wednesday evening, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Gonzales "stands by his testimony."

"The disagreement referenced by Jim Comey in March 2004 was not about the particular intelligence activity that has been publicly described by the president," Roehrkasse said. "It was about other highly classified intelligence activities that have been briefed to the intelligence committees."

The disagreement over whether to renew the program led to a dramatic, and highly controversial, confrontation between Gonzales and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on the night of March 10, 2004.

After briefing the congressional leaders, Gonzales testified that he and then-White House chief of staff Andy Card headed to a Washington hospital room, where a sedated Ashcroft was recovering from surgery. Ashcroft had already turned over his powers as attorney general to Comey.

Comey was in the hospital room as well, and recounted to senators in his own sworn testimony in May that he "thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."

Ultimately, Ashcroft sided with Comey, and Gonzales and Card left the hospital after a five- to six-minute conversation.

Gonzales denied that he and Card tried to pressure Ashcroft into approving the program over Comey's objections.

"We never had any intent to ask anything of him if we did not feel that he was competent," Gonzales told the Senate panel Tuesday. "At the end of his description of the legal issues, he said, 'I'm not making this decision. The deputy attorney general is.' And so Andy Card and I thanked him. We told him that we would continue working with the deputy attorney general and we left."

Democrats and Republicans alike expressed disbelief at Gonzales' version of events.

"There's a discrepancy here in sworn testimony," Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said after listening to Gonzales, raising the possibility of a perjury inquiry. "We're going to have to ask who's telling the truth, who's not."

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, top Republican on the panel, also disregarded Gonzales' description. "I do not find your testimony credible, candidly," he told the attorney general.

House and Senate lawmakers who attended the Situation Room briefing are divided on the accuracy of Gonzales' account of that meeting, which he said concluded by a "consensus in the room from the congressional leadership is that we should continue the activities, at least for now, despite the objections of Mr. Comey."

Three Democrats _ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller and former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle _ dispute Gonzales' testimony. Rockefeller called it "untruthful," and Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker disagreed that it should be continued without Justice Department or FISA court oversight.

On the other hand, former GOP House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss, "does not recall anyone saying the project must be ended,' spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck said. And former Senate Republican leader Bill Frist stopped short of confirming or denying the meeting's outcome.

"I recall being briefed with the others about the program and it was stated that Gonzales would visit with Ashcroft in the hospital and that our meeting was part of the administration's responsibility to discuss with the leadership of Congress,' Frist said in a statement.

___

Associated Press writer Katherine Shrader contributed to this report.

Read More...

Summary only...

N.H. Republican fundraiser to feature machine guns

Reuters
N.H. Republican fundraiser to feature machine guns

BOSTON (Reuters) - A planned Republican fundraiser in New Hampshire aims to promote gun ownership in America by letting supporters fire powerful military-style weapons -- from Uzi submachine guns to M-16 rifles.

The Manchester Republican Committee is inviting party members and their families to a "Machine Gun Shoot" where, for $25, supporters can spend a day trying out automatic weapons, said organizer Jerry Thibodeau.

"It's a fun day. It's a family day," said Thibodeau of the August 5 event. "It's quite exciting."

Local Democrats say the event is in poor taste amid a spike in violent crime in Manchester and seeks to glorify the use of machine guns for political gain. The right to own guns has come under heightened scrutiny since the April shooting at Virginia Tech where a gunman killed 32 people.

"It is downright offensive," Chris Pappas, the Manchester Democratic party chairman, told the Union Leader newspaper.

Thibodeau said he invited all the Republican candidates in the 2008 presidential race to the event at Pelham Fish and Game Club outside of Manchester, the state's largest city, but he said they declined. He said all shooters would undergo training.

Buying a gun in New Hampshire, whose official motto is "Live Free or Die," is relatively easy.

The state does not require buyers to obtain a handgun license or undergo safety training before buying a handgun, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-control lobby group.

Read More...

Summary only...

Veterans sue U.S. over "shameful failures" in care

Reuters
Veterans sue U.S. over "shameful failures" in care
By Adam Tanner

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The many medical claims by veterans of U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has completely overwhelmed the American government, leading to "shameful failures" in treatment, a class-action lawsuit filed on Monday alleged.

"Because of those failures, hundreds of thousands of men and women who have suffered grievous injuries fighting in the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being abandoned," according to the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern California.

More than 1.5 million U.S. service members have been sent to Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001.

Repeated and extended deployments to war zones have driven a rise in post-traumatic stress among troops. But Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Department lack the resources and staff to help service members, according to recent reports.

The filing by two veterans groups sued various officials in the Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and challenged the constitutionality of a 1988 law establishing various VA practices. The two plaintiff organization represent about 12,000 American veterans.

"Unless systemic and drastic measures are instituted immediately, the costs to these veterans, their families, and our nation will be incalculable, including broken families, a new generation of unemployed and homeless veterans, increases in drug abuse and alcoholism, and crushing burdens on the health care delivery system and other social services in our communities," the suit said.

The suit said the Department of Veterans Affairs faced a backlog of 600,000 claims, with some veterans dying while waiting to settle claims. It also claimed the VA was unable to deal with the growing number of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder cases.

A spokesman for the Veterans Affairs Department was not immediately available.

In April President George W. Bush announced a government plan to improve health care and related services for U.S. troops and returning veterans.

The General Accountability Office reported last year that the Pentagon referred only 22 percent of U.S. troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with signs of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for mental health evaluations.

(Additional reporting from Kristin Roberts in Washington)

Read More...

Summary only...

Peace activist Sheehan arrested at Congress

Reuters
Peace activist Sheehan arrested at Congress
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Calling for the impeachment of U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, Cindy Sheehan and 45 fellow Iraq war protesters were arrested on Monday after they refused to leave a U.S. lawmaker's office and adjoining hallway, authorities said.

Before police escorted her away, Sheehan, who emerged as a leading peace activist after her son Casey was killed in Iraq in 2004, announced what she had earlier suggested -- that she would be a candidate for Congress next year.

Sheehan said she would challenge House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat. Pelosi has refused calls to start impeachment of Bush and Cheney for what critics charge was misleading the United States into war.

The new Democratic-led Congress has been hit with approval ratings of less than 25 percent largely because of its failure to deliver on a campaign vow to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Sheehan and fellow protesters were led away in plastic handcuffs after they refused to heed repeated calls by Capitol Police to depart the office of Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, and a hallway outside his office.

"What do we want? Impeachment. When do we want it? Now," Sheehan and others chanted while seated on the floor of Conyers' office following her private meeting with him.

A spokeswoman for Capitol Police said the 46 protesters were being charged with disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, and were likely to be released within hours after processing.

Conyers had raised the possibility of impeaching Bush more than a year ago while Republicans were in charge of Congress.

But Pelosi rejected the idea during last year's campaign that saw Democrats win control of the House and Senate, saying she wanted to concentrate efforts on ending the war.

"The speaker is focused on changing course in Iraq by bringing our troops home safely and soon and refocusing our effort on protecting Americans from terrorism," said Brendan Daly, Pelosi's press secretary.

When Sheehan and others arrived on Capitol Hill they were confronted by a number of backers of the war. One held a sign reading, "Patriots want victory in Iraq."

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush Policy - Neglect and Fantasy

Media Monitors Network
Bush Policy - Neglect and Fantasy
by James Zogby

"If Bush had wanted to make headway toward the goal of a two-state solution, he would have had to address the consequences of his seven year legacy of neglect. The path of progress is now far steeper than Bush will acknowledge and will require more than he is willing to deliver. Saying that the speech was “too little too late” does not mean that nothing can be done. Rather, it necessitates genuine U.S. leadership and determination to undo the damage done. This, I fear, will not be forthcoming."

On the heels of his upbeat mid-summer progress report on Iraq, President Bush delivered an equally fanciful account of his Administration’s efforts to achieve a “two-state” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This was the speech the President had been expected to give a few weeks ago on the fifth anniversary of his “two-state vision” speech. And because it bore no relation to reality, it was the speech I feared he would give.

In his selective recounting of the events that have transpired since 2002, Bush ignored the damage done by his Administration’s neglect; and described the current situation through his ideological prism, rather than the reality that exists on the ground.

Bush was right to praise Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salim Fayyad, but wrong to ignore the deep division now plaguing Palestinian society (and not just between the West Bank and Gaza, but also within them).

Bush was also right (though woefully late) in stating that it is time to show Palestinians a way forward to peace. But he was wrong to place the heaviest burdens for progress on the already overburdened Palestinians, while ignoring or dramatically downplaying the Israelis’ responsibilities.

And it was good that Bush pledged support for Palestinian moderate leaders, promised U.S. financial assistance and spoke of a peace conference to be convened some time in the fall. But upon examination, there is much less to these statements than meets the eye. The public embrace by a very unpopular and weakened U.S. President can do more damage than good in a deeply divided Palestinian society – especially if not reinforced by concrete actions.

In this context, it is worth noting that the aid pledged by the President is mostly “old” money that had already been promised but not yet delivered. And the announcement of an international peace conference is, at best, premature and even potentially dangerous since it raises expectations which at this point the Bush Administration cannot deliver. This is the problem with “hype:” it may seem promising, but it evaporates when you examine it closely.

In the end, this Bush speech might be dismissed as “too little too late” – but it is likely more problematic than that.

Here’s why.

In too many areas of the “broader Middle East,” from which the President contended that contributors to regional peace will come, the Bush Administration’s foreign policy has a patterned course. In many instances they failed to act when U.S. leadership might have made a difference. When they did act, they all-too frequently allowed ideology to trump reality, making bad situations worse.

Their ideology of choice, of course, has been neo-conservatism with its radical and simplistic Manichean world-view, and its fetishistic fixation on a narrow definition of democracy that does not take into account the history or social dynamics at work in the society that is to be “democratized.”

Being radical ideologues and not practiced diplomats, instead of working to solve problems, they have hastened to “sharpen contradictions;” insisting that “good” never compromise with “evil.” The refusal of complex reality to cooperate with their ideology has not shaken their beliefs. To the contrary, successive failures have only stiffened their resolve.

And so here we are, six years into the “war on terror,” with no successes to speak of, and no victory in sight.

Trapped in the middle of the messy situations created by this conflict between fantasy and reality are the people in the many countries impacted by our policies and their “moderate” leaders we have sought to support.

The Administration’s failures in Afghanistan have left the Karzai government isolated in Kabul. Their miscalculations in Iraq have left the Maliki government, which we once celebrated, able to exert its authority in fewer and fewer places. And now, the Administration, applying the same disastrous logic in Lebanon and Palestine, are putting the Siniora and Abbas governments also at risk of being painted into corners. All of this is so deeply troubling precisely because, especially in Lebanon and Palestine, the leaders in question are in fact good men who deserve so much better.

If Bush had wanted to make headway toward the goal of a two-state solution, he would have had to address the consequences of his seven year legacy of neglect. The path of progress is now far steeper than Bush will acknowledge and will require more than he is willing to deliver. Saying that the speech was “too little too late” does not mean that nothing can be done. Rather, it necessitates genuine U.S. leadership and determination to undo the damage done. This, I fear, will not be forthcoming.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush outlaws protests against the war in Iraq; Press asleep and fails to report; Congress ignores

Here is the full press release as it appears at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

The White House, President George W. Bush
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 17, 2007

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

Fact sheet Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:

(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 17, 2007.

# # #
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

Read More...

Summary only...

Amnesty International Considers New Bush Executive Order 'Same Old Song'

PR Newswire
Amnesty International Considers New Bush Executive Order 'Same Old Song'

WASHINGTON, July 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Jumana Musa, Amnesty
International USA advocacy director for domestic human rights and
international justice and an international law attorney, issued the
following statement in response to President Bush's executive order
regarding the interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as
it applies to the Central Intelligence Agency's program of detention and
interrogation.

"Today's executive order is noteworthy for what it does not say as much
as for what is does state. Although the order prohibits rape, sexual
assault or abuse, sexual humiliation and denigration of religion, the
deafening silence on other techniques that the CIA may have used, such as
waterboarding, the cold room technique and sleep deprivation, speaks
volumes. The United States can no longer hide behind the specter of
national security and providing so-called 'too much information' to Al
Qaeda to avoid an outright rejection of such patently unlawful techniques.

"The broader problem with this executive order is that it works off the
mistaken contention that there is a global war that extends the law of war
framework to every corner of the world. This misappropriation of
humanitarian law has been used by the administration to avoid human rights
law and assert ultimate executive authority over detention and
interrogation of anyone President Bush designates an 'unlawful enemy
combatant.'

"Also, this order is designed to determine the lawfulness of
interrogation techniques that can be used in the CIA's 'program of
detention' -- widely known as an illegal program of 'disappearances' and
secret prisons. A legitimate interrogation regime cannot cure the
illegality of this despicable practice and does not bring this nation in
line with its treaty obligations.

"The fact that President Bush continues to assert the authority to
engage in secret detentions and applies that authority to a broad range of
people who can picked up anywhere around the world indicates an unrepentant
administration that seeks to minimize the rule of the law."

Read More...

Summary only...

Court Tells U.S. to Reveal Data on Detainees at Guantánamo

The New York Times
Court Tells U.S. to Reveal Data on Detainees at Guantánamo
By WILLIAM GLABERSON

A federal appeals court ordered the government yesterday to turn over virtually all its information on Guantánamo detainees who are challenging their detention, rejecting an effort by the Justice Department to limit disclosures and setting the stage for new legal battles over the government’s reasons for holding the men indefinitely.

The ruling, which came in one of the main court cases dealing with the fate of the detainees, effectively set the ground rules for scores of cases by detainees challenging the actions of Pentagon tribunals that decide whether terror suspects should be held as enemy combatants.

It was the latest of a series of stinging legal challenges to the administration’s detention policies that have amplified pressure on the Bush administration to find some alternative to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where about 360 men are now being held at the United States naval base.

A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington unanimously rejected a government effort to limit the information it must turn over to the court and lawyers for the detainees.

The court said meaningful review of the military tribunals would not be possible “without seeing all the evidence, any more than one can tell whether a fraction is more or less than half by looking only at the numerator and not the denominator.”

Advocates for detainees have criticized the tribunals since they were instituted in 2004 because the terror suspects held at Guantánamo have not been permitted lawyers during the proceedings and have not been allowed to see much of the evidence against them.

P. Sabin Willett, a Boston lawyer who argued the case for detainees, called the ruling “a resounding rejection of the government’s effort to hide the truth.”

A Justice Department spokesman, Erik Ablin, declined to comment on the decision, saying the department was “reviewing the decision’s implications and evaluating our options.”

The ruling came in the first case under a 2005 law that provides for limited appeals court review of the military’s Guantánamo hearings, known as combatant status review tribunals.

One of the legal challenges facing the administration is that the Pentagon efforts to try a small number of detainees for war crimes have been stalled since early June, when two military judges ruled there were defects in the procedures that had been followed in declaring the men to be enemy combatants.

Then, later last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from detainees claiming a right to challenge their detentions in federal courts through habeas corpus cases, a contention the administration has fought with some success in the courts and Congress.

The cases in the appeals court and the Supreme Court are both efforts by lawyers for the detainees to challenge the military’s decisions to hold the men.

The lawyers are pursuing habeas corpus rights because such cases would give federal judges far more power to review Pentagon decisions than the appeals court has to review the military tribunal actions. The lawyers have argued that in a 2005 law, Congress so limited the review permitted by the federal appeals court that the detainees need access to federal courts through habeas cases to get a fair review of their detentions.

When the Supreme Court said it would hear the Guantánamo case last month, its order made clear the justices would be carefully watching the appeals court decision as they consider broader Guantánamo issues. In an unusual comment, the Supreme Court’s order in June said, “it would be of material assistance” for the justices to receive arguments from the lawyers that take into account the appeals court ruling setting the rules for the review process.

The case in which the decision came yesterday involved requests by eight detainees for review of decisions by military tribunals.

The ruling also included significant victories for the government, including a decision allowing the Pentagon to limit the subjects that the lawyers can discuss with detainees and authorizing special Pentagon teams to read the lawyers’ mail and remove unauthorized comments.

The decision noted that Congress said the appeals court’s review of the combatant status hearings was limited to determining whether the Pentagon followed its own procedures, and whether an enemy-combatant finding was supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

But it rejected the Justice Department assertion that the court should be able to examine only the information included in the combatant status hearing, not the more expansive information the government might have collected on a detainee.

The ruling was written by Douglas H. Ginsburg, the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit..

“In order to review compliance with those procedures,” Judge Ginsburg wrote, “the court must be able to view the government information.”

Detainees’ lawyers have argued that the military officials running the hearings may not have collected information that might support the detainees’ cases. But detainees’ lawyers also said the ruling created the likelihood of fresh legal battles over what information in the government’s vast intelligence files was covered, and whether the government in fact produces all its information dealing with specific detainees.

The decision allowed the government to file its information with the court for review if the government argues the contents are too important to be released. It also defined government information as including only that which is “reasonably available.”

Throughout the legal battles over Guantánamo, detainees’ lawyers have argued that the government has used such rules to limit their effectiveness by maintaining control over information.

Wells Dixon, a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York who represents detainees, said that pattern was likely to be repeated. “Once again,” Mr. Dixon said, “we are left to rely on the government to produce all of the information that it says exists.”

Read More...

Summary only...

John Kerry Does It: Breaks the Taboo, and Shoves It Back Down Their Throats

The Huffington Post
Paul Abrams
John Kerry Does It: Breaks the Taboo, and Shoves It Back Down Their Throats

I have been hoping, pleading, wishing that the issue of the war proponents not volunteering, that not a single member of the Bush family has volunteered, would rise to the surface. I have written about it on this site, and placed ads in Crawford, TX, newspapers when the White House Press Corps was in town to watch Bush clear brush while al-Qaeda plotted.

In "Ultimate Accountability: The Conspiracy of Silence", I pointed out why, namely that politicians and the MSM had an understanding that it would not be raised. Nonetheless, this is a very potent weapon, as I could personally attest having directly asked Jeb Bush and Bill Kristol those questions standing eyeball-to-eyeball, and, in both cases, noted the red-flushing of their faces and, in the case of Kristol, shouting "why should I, why should I?";and in the case of Jeb, turning on his heels and strutting away. Charlie Rangel said he introduced the draft proposal rather than confronting the subject directly. Charlie Rose wondered why to raise it? Howard Fineman, said "yeah, right."

John Kerry has done it. On Olbermann today, he said, "it is about time that those promoting this war offered up their own children to fight it, and anyone who themselves are 40 and under in the Congress and the Administration"......

This was in response to the letter Hillary Clinton received from Eric Edelman, former Cheney advisor, now in the Pentagon, and, according to Turkish newspapers, the absolute worst US Ambassador to Turkey in history. Edelman wrote that Clinton's letter asking what plans the Pentagon had for withdrawing US troops was, in effect, helping our enemies.

Democrats typically would slam the Administration for such accusations, thus succumbing to their invitation to join their argument. Indeed, that is what Hillary did in her response.

John Kerry did it better. He shoved it back down their throats so that they would choke on it. He also broke the taboo on calling for those voting and promoting the war volunteering themselves and having their own children go to Iraq.

This hypocrisy sis NOT the major reason we should not have invaded to begin with, nor the main reason we should withdraw all our troops. It is, however, a potent weapon because it strikes at the most "reptilian" part of our brain: their fear conflicting with and overcoming their grand ideas of remaking the world so long as someone else took the risk.

Now, John Kerry has broken the taboo. Politicians, bloggers, and MSM -- repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat.

Read More...

Summary only...