==> The Truth About Political Stuff <==

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Extraordinarily Irresponsible

www.progressreport.org
3/15/2005

RENDITION
Extraordinarily Irresponsible

In late January of this year, President Bush declared, "torture is
never acceptable, nor do we hand over people
(http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6) to countries
that do torture." Yet, hundreds of individuals
(http://www.smh.com.au/news/Global-Terrorism/Fresh-evidence-of-CIA-torture-network/2005/03/07/1110160758843.html?oneclick=true)
have been taken by Central Intelligence Agency agents through the
process of extraordinary rendition, in which detainees are transported to
other countries for interrogation. Also referred to as outsourcing
torture, the CIA has chosen "the most common destinations for rendered
suspects (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6) [to be]
Egypt, Morocco, Syria, and Jordan, all of which have been cited for
human-rights violations by the State Department, and are known to torture
suspects." Despite President Bush's empty declarations, conservatives in
both chambers of Congress, at times "at the White House's urging,"
continue to block legislation that could "ban the CIA from using cruel and
inhuman interrogation methods."

RENDITION -- THEN: Before President Bush, the Clinton administration
"enforced much greater oversight and restrictions ... and generally used
the practice to send suspects to a country where they would face
criminal prosecutions (http://mediamatters.org/items/200503120002) ." Days
after Vice President Cheney cryptically threatened that the
administration would spend time "in the shadows of the intelligence world," a
presidential directive gave the CIA independence that came with " unusually
expansive authority
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/politics/06intel.html?ex=1267765200&en=7020075f670ebf72&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland)
."

RENDITION -- NOW: Freeing the agency from various oversights, including
"case-by-case approval from the White House or the State or Justice
Departments," the rendition program soon " expanded beyond recognition
(http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6) -- becoming,
according to a former CIA official, 'an abomination.'" The CIA is now
carrying out these rendition expeditions so frequently that relatively
amateur aviation enthusiasts
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27826-2004Dec26.html)
have begun to document the trips. Once "aimed at a small, discrete set
of suspects (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6)
[it now includes] a wide and ill-defined population," and can be used
"solely for the purpose of detention and interrogation
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/politics/06intel.html?ex=1267765200&en=7020075f670ebf72&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland)
."

THE 'COUNTERPRODUCTIVE' USE OF TORTURE: Even to set aside the
ideological case against outsourcing torture, the Bush administration's carrying
out of the rendition program has been seriously flawed. Firstly, "
torture is usually counterproductive
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18709-2005Mar8.html) ."
Veteran agents from both the FBI and CIA " doubt the effectiveness
(http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6) of physical
coercion as a means of extracting reliable information, " as a prisoner
subjected to intense physical pain
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html)
will admit just about anything to end the torture. Intelligence agents
then end up chasing down false confessions instead of devoting time to
real leads. A glaring example of this is that the Bush administration's
pre-Iraq invasion claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al
Qaeda (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6) came
from a prisoner who had been rendered to Egypt, and later "recanted" the
same information that he had provided.

THE PRACTICAL CASE AGAINST RENDITION: Under President Bush, the
rendition program is flouting years-old legislation passed by Congress
(http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6) , international
treaties
(http://www.house.gov/markey/Issues/iss_human_rights_ltr050223.pdf) to
which we are signatories, and the sovereignty of other nations
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30275-2005Mar12.html)
that we rely on as allies. Several European countries are carrying out
official investigations into whether the CIA violated local laws by
conducting rendition operations that abducted individuals off European soil
without the "blessing of friendly local intelligence agencies."
Furthermore, it is creating a class of persons that may never be able to be
introduced back (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6)
into the legal system. Once detainees are tortured, their statements
are essentially tarnished because of the circumstances by which they were
obtained, rendering them incapable of being prosecuted or even used as
witnesses. As a member of the 9/11 Commission recently stated, "In
criminal justice, you either prosecute the suspects or let them go. But if
you've treated them in ways that won't allow you to prosecute them,
you're in this no man's land."

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Protect Free Speech in the Senate

A message from Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

Sometimes partisan politics gets overheated -- I know that as well as anyone. But when one party controls all three branches of government, and then seeks to change the fundamental principles and rules of our democracy, we need to talk about it soberly and seriously.

The Republican Senate leaders have decided to fundamentally alter the role of Congress -- they want to give George Bush unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the courts.

Today Harry Reid and the Democratic Senators asked us, the American people, to help them preserve the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

We have to act. Sign this petition, which we will deliver to every U.S. Senator, asking them to protect the right to free speech in the Senate. If they don't, it is not only their voice that will be silenced -- it will be ours:

http://www.democrats.org/freespeech

Here are the facts: George Bush has appointed judges to lifetime positions at a better rate than any president in nearly three decades. More than 95% of his nominees have been approved. Only ten nominees have been refused -- all because they are unqualified and out of the mainstream.

But that's not enough. And on this issue, as on Social Security, it is becoming more and more obvious to everyone that the Republican leadership is out of touch with reality.

More Americans voted against George Bush than any sitting president in history. And that same day, across the country, the Democratic candidates for Senate received over 4 million more votes than Republicans.

Americans did not endorse the fringe agenda to dismantle Social Security. And they did not endorse dismantling the system of checks and balances that have served our country for over 200 years.

Please tell your Senator to stand up for free speech:

http://www.democrats.org/freespeech

This is not a partisan issue -- it is an American issue. And we all must act together in order to protect our democracy.

Thank you.
Gov. Howard Dean

Pentagon Mail Facility Tests Positive/Negative for Anthrax

Update: Second Test comes back negative. Determined to be false alarm.

washingtonpost.com
Pentagon Mail Facility Tests Positive for Anthrax
Officials Trying to Determine if Bacteria Were Live

By Jamie Stockwell, Allan Lengel and Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; 11:49 AM

Samples taken at a Pentagon mail facility have tested positive for anthrax, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services reported today, but officials do not yet know if the anthrax bacteria were live and thus capable of transmitting disease.

The spokesman, Bill Hall, said that further tests are being conducted at Fort Detrick to determine if the anthrax was live or if it was just a component of anthrax. Such testing normally takes 24 to 48 hours, but initial tests may be available by this afternoon. The anthrax confirmation was done through intricate polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing overnight and confirmed the alert initially reported by a defense contractor laboratory in Richmond last week.

Federal, state and local health officials are preparing to release a health bulletin to doctors, clinics and hospitals this morning to be on the alert for patients with possible anthrax exposure, Hall said.

In addition, federal health officials have recommended a course of antibiotics for about 200 workers at the facility in the District that processes Department of Defense and other government mail. They also shut down the mail center, on V St., NE, which means that little government mail will be moving for the time being, according to postal service spokesman Gerry McKiernan.

No biodetection system is in place at V Street, said McKiernan, because any mail arriving there goes first to New Jersey for irradiation before being sent back for processing. Thus, he said, V Street facility only handles decontaminated mail.

Postal officials, as well as officials of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, stressed that so far, no person has been found with anthrax or any other symptom of contamination. McKiernan also said that the Postal Service has reported no positive tests for anthrax anywhere in its system in the past two weeks.

Kathy Harben, a spokeswoman for the CDC in Atlanta, said that officials were recommending a three-day course of antibiotics for the V Street employees "out of an abundance of caution."

The disclosure meant that three separate mail facilities are now being evaluated for possible biological contamination -- the V Street site, a center at the Pentagon, and a Department of Defense mailroom on Leesburg Pike in Fairfax County.

Concerns were raised about the Pentagon mail facility after tests last week came back positive for anthrax, officials said. Later tests there were negative, but officials yesterday closed the facility and evacuated employees there.

Shortly afterward, a sensor at the Department of Defense mailroom in Fairfax signaled the presence of a suspicious biological substance, forcing hundreds of workers to remain inside the three buildings in that complex for almost six hours.

The Pentagon and Defense Department facilities remained closed today as officials continued investigating.

"People do not need to report to work," Dan Schmidt, a spokesman for the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department told Channel 4 news.

"We do not know what it was that activated" the sensor alarms, he said, noting that the department had conducted precautionary decontamination of 42 people last night.

"These buildings are closed today," he said, and will remain closed until the investigation is complete.

A Pentagon spokeswoman referred questions to Fairfax County authorities.

Spokesmen for the Pentagon and the Fairfax fire department initially said the events at the Pentagon and in the Baileys Crossroads section of Fairfax were unrelated. But last night, a Virginia official said the events might be linked. In addition, emergency officials responding to the Fairfax incident said they were not aware of the Pentagon evacuation, causing Virginia's top homeland security official to say that coordination by the Defense Department would have to be reviewed.

Authorities said that there is no imminent danger to the public, that Defense Department mail is irradiated and that new detection systems worked. But state and local officials remained concerned that 3 1/2 years after the attack on the Pentagon and anthrax mailings that affected local postal facilities, coordination did not work smoothly yesterday.

"Clearly, the big question that's got to be answered is when did the DOD make the notification and did they make all appropriate notifications to make sure all federal, state and local players were aware of the problem?" said George W. Foresman, homeland security adviser to Gov. Mark R. Warner (D), said yesterday evening.

As many as 800 people, a majority of whom work as government contractors, were kept inside their buildings on Leesburg Pike after a sensor was activated about 2:30 p.m., a fire department official said.

Hazardous materials teams descended on the area and immediately secured the buildings, prohibiting people from leaving or entering, said Lt. Raul Castillo, a spokesman with the Fairfax fire department. Speaking yesterday, he said initial tests indicated only that a "protein" was detected inside the eighth-floor mailroom at Skyline Five Place and added that a filter was taken to the U.S. Army Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick in Frederick County for further testing.

A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday the Fairfax incident appeared to be unrelated. "There is no connection that I've been made aware of," Glenn Flood said. "I have received no information about that."

But a source familiar with the incidents said that mail goes from the Pentagon site to the Leesburg Pike site. This could account for the positive readings at both sites within a brief period.

Fire officials began allowing people to leave the buildings about 7:30 p.m., after directing those inside over intercoms to wash their faces and hands. Fire officials said 42 people were decontaminated.

"I was ready to walk out about 4 p.m., and they said to me, 'You can't leave because there's a hazmat situation,' " said Aaron Burrus, 22, of Stafford, who works for the Defense Department on the first floor.

He said people passed the time walking around, talking to one another on their respective floors. He watched TV, but there was nothing to eat. "I don't think that anyone was afraid. We heard several rumors: anthrax positive; anthrax negative."

Keith Kreger, a government contractor who works at Skyline Five Place, was nearing the end of his workday. But along with about 30 co-workers, Kreger was unable to leave.

"I heard about it from an e-mail, that a suspicious letter was mailed to the mailroom. The ventilation system was shut off, which I found out about because our door slammed shut and then it got really hot," Kreger said in a telephone interview.

An e-mail from the building's management was sent at 3:27 p.m. asking tenants to be aware of suspicious people or packages because of a "potential biological threat."

After a while, employees inside Kreger's office grew bored. One of them opened a bottle of white wine that was left over from a holiday party. Others watched television and played video games.

As the evening wore on, apprehension and fear set in.

"Ever since Sept. 11, I've been more aware," Kreger said about three hours after the building was locked down. "It's definitely creepy."

An announcement came over the building's intercom about 8 p.m. directing employees to the bathrooms on their floors. They were told to wash their faces and hands.

The hot water was quickly used up, Kreger wrote in an e-mail a few minutes later. "People are starting to get a bit worried -- as am I," he wrote. "People in the halls don't even want to touch the door knobs to get back into our offices."

At 8:30 p.m., Kreger's office, on the seventh floor, was allowed to leave.

Castillo said that about 3,000 people work in the three buildings that were locked down and that as many as 800 were inside when an air filter designed to detect foreign agents was activated.

An alarm sounded, and moments later, hazardous materials crews responded to the scene, with between 30 and 40 emergency technicians combing through the eight-story building to conduct tests, he said.

Kreger and all those who left the building were given a sheet of instructions from the Fairfax County Health Department. They were told to wash their hands, face and other exposed skin, as well as jewelry and eyeglasses. They were to go straight home, take off their clothes and put them inside a plastic bag, which they were told to tie tightly and keep in a safe place. They were to shower and shampoo their hair.

But before leaving the building, all of those who were locked down were asked to fill out a detailed form that questioned them about their location inside the building. They were told to await further instructions from their bosses or the health department, including whether they will need medication.

Pentagon employees who may have come in contact with the mail also were being advised to take precautions, including providing nasal swabs for cultures and being provided with a three-day regimen of antibiotics. The irradiation to which the mail is subjected is designed to kill anthrax spores. Although the most recent reported tests at the Pentagon were negative, officials said they intended to conduct more detailed analysis as a precaution.

A source familiar with the events said officials were concerned with the Pentagon's decision to distribute antibiotics to its mail workers without the knowledge of local officials dealing with the Fairfax incident.

G.O.P. Rebellion Threatens to Derail Efforts to Adopt Budget

The New York Times
March 15, 2005
G.O.P. Rebellion Threatens to Derail Efforts to Adopt Budget
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, March 14 - As Congress debates President Bush's $2.57 trillion budget for 2006, House and Senate Republican leaders are facing a potential revolt among their own members, with pressure coming from both the center and the right.

In the Senate, where debate over the budget began on Monday, moderates are pressing to reinstate language opposed by the leadership and the White House that would make it more difficult for Congress to extend President Bush's tax cuts; they want to require that the cuts, as well as any spending on new programs, be offset with savings in other areas. Last year, the fight over these "pay as you go" rules prevented Congress from adopting a budget, a fate the Republican leadership hopes to avoid this year.

In the House, meanwhile, an alliance of Republican conservatives and moderates is also pressing for new rules, in this case to make it harder for lawmakers to approve spending that exceeds the limits set by the budget. The House Republican leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, is fighting the changes, but on Monday evening, Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip, was trying to negotiate a compromise before lawmakers took up the budget on Wednesday.

The Republican disputes could have far-reaching political effects if they derail adoption of a budget. Republicans have said for decades that they could tamp down the growth in spending, if only they could get Democrats out of the way. As spending and the federal deficit continued to rise, that promise became a theme of last year's election campaign.

Now, with a Republican in the White House and the party more firmly in control of Congress, the 2006 budget has become a test of Republicans' ability to make good on their vow.

"Agreeing to a budget is becoming a more and more challenging event every year," Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, said Monday.

"I don't expect that this year will be any easier than in the recent past," Mr. Frist added, "but I'm confident that for the sake of this institution and the Congressional budget process, we will do the most basic of our responsibilities this year: pass a budget."

Both the House and Senate leadership are hoping to pass budget resolutions by the end of this week, before lawmakers leave for their Easter recess. The big debate will occur in the Senate, where lawmakers expect battles over cuts to Medicaid and other entitlement programs, oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and extending President Bush's tax cuts, as well as the "pay as you go" rule.

At least one Republican, Senator Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, is trying to strike $14 billion in proposed Medicaid cuts from the budget, a plan that drew the ire of Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican and chairman of the budget committee who is a staunch advocate of reducing entitlement spending.

Congress enacted the pay-as-you-go rule in 1990 as part of a budget law. But that law expired in 2002, and Mr. Bush has not supported its renewal. Instead, the White House favors applying the pay-as-you-go philosophy to spending only.

But several Republican moderates, including Senators George V. Voinovich of Ohio, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, disagree. They support the broader rule, saying it would help reduce the federal deficit.

"It's a fight over what our priorities should be," Ms. Collins said.

Mr. Voinovich, a co-sponsor of the pay-as-you-go-measure along with Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said he could not vote to cut spending while keeping tax cuts in place. The dispute reflects a deepening rift among Republicans over tax and spending policy, said Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a right-leaning research institution.

"It highlights a bigger philosophical debate within the Republican Party between those who see spending restraint as the Republicans' main priority, versus those who see deficit reduction as the main priority," Mr. Riedl said.

In the House, the push against leadership is coming from conservatives and moderates concerned about spending. Last week, representatives of the 95-member conservative House Republican Study Committee met for the first time with members of the Tuesday Group, a coalition of 45 Republican moderates, to plot a joint effort for rule changes that would make it harder for the House to permit itself to exceed budget spending limits, as it has for each of the last 10 years.

With the moderates' support, conservatives presented the party leadership with a proposal that would require a three-fifths majority for any spending proposals that exceed the budget guidelines. They threatened to block passage of the budget legislation if their demands were not met.

Mr. DeLay, the majority leader, was staunchly opposed, saying the "supermajority" idea would give Democrats more power. But Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana and chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, has told Republican leaders that he has enough votes to derail the budget if nothing is done, two aides familiar with their negotiations said.

The $600 Billion Man

The New York Times
March 15, 2005

The $600 Billion Man
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The argument over Social Security privatization isn't about rival views on how to secure the program's future - even the administration admits that private accounts would do nothing to help the system's finances. It's a debate about what kind of society America should be.

And it's a debate Republicans appear to be losing, because the public doesn't share their view that it's a good idea to expose middle-class families, whose lives have become steadily riskier over the past few decades, to even more risk. As soon as voters started to realize that private accounts would replace traditional Social Security benefits, not add to them, support for privatization collapsed.

But the Republicans' loss may not be the Democrats' gain, for two reasons. One is that some Democrats, in the name of centrism, echo Republican talking points. The other is that claims to be defending average families ring hollow when you defer to corporate interests on votes that matter.

Let's start with the case of the bogus $600 billion.

In his Jan. 15 radio address, President Bush made a startling claim: "According to the Social Security trustees, waiting just one year adds $600 billion to the cost of fixing Social Security." The $600 billion cost of each year's delay has become a standard administration talking point, repeated by countless conservative pundits - who have apparently not looked at what the trustees actually said.

In fact, the trustees never said that waiting a year to "fix" Social Security costs $600 billion. Mr. Bush was grossly misrepresenting the meaning of a technical discussion of accounting issues (it's on Page 58 of the 2004 trustees' report), which has nothing to do with the cost of delaying changes in the retirement program.

The same type of "infinite horizon" calculation applied to the Bush tax cuts says that their costs rise by $1 trillion a year. That's not a useful measure of the cost of not repealing those cuts immediately.

So anyone who repeats the $600 billion line is helping to spread a lie. That's why it was disturbing to read a news report about the deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration, who must know better, doing just that at a pro-privatization rally.

But in his latest radio address, Mr. Bush - correctly, this time - attributed the $600 billion figure to a "Democrat leader." He was referring to Senator Joseph Lieberman, who, for some reason, repeated the party line - the Republican party line - the previous Sunday.

My guess is that Mr. Lieberman thought he was being centrist and bipartisan, reaching out to Republicans by showing that he shares their concerns. At a time when the Democrats can say, without exaggeration, that their opponents are making a dishonest case for policies that will increase the risks facing families, Mr. Lieberman gave the administration cover by endorsing its fake numbers.

The push to privatize Social Security will probably fail all the same - but such attempts at accommodation may limit the Democrats' political gain.

Meanwhile, the party missed a big opportunity to make its case against increasing families' risk by acquiescing to the credit card industry's demand for harsher bankruptcy laws.

As it happens, Mr. Lieberman stated clearly what was wrong with the bankruptcy bill: "It failed to close troubling loopholes that protect wealthy debtors, and yet it deals harshly with average Americans facing unforeseen medical expenses or a sudden military deployment," making it unfair to "working Americans who find themselves in dire financial straits through no fault of their own." A stand against the bill would have merged populism with patriotism, highlighting Democrats' differences with Republicans' vision of America.

But many Democrats chose not to take that stand. And Mr. Lieberman was among them: his vote against the bill was an empty gesture. On the only vote that opponents of the bill had a chance of winning - a motion to cut off further discussion - he sided with the credit card companies. To be fair, so did 13 other Democrats. But none of the others tried to have it both ways.

It isn't always bad politics to say things that aren't true and claim to support things you actually oppose: just look at who's running the country. But Democrats who engage in these tactics right now create big problems for a party that has been given a special chance - maybe its last chance - to remind the country of what Democrats stand for, and why.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage

Yahoo! News
AP
Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage

Mon Mar 14, 6:32 PM ET

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld on appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.

Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's trial-level Superior Court likened the ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools, and said there appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples.

The ruling came in response to lawsuits filed by the city of San Francisco and a dozen gay couples a year ago after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week same-sex marriage spree started by Mayor Gavin Newsom.

The opinion had been eagerly awaited because of San Francisco's historical role as a gay rights battleground.

Gay marriage supporters hailed the ruling as a historic development akin to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision that made California the first state to legalize interracial marriage.

"Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just California that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all California families," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.

Conservative leaders expressed outrage at the ruling and vowed to appeal.

"For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling," said Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver. "This decision will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country.

Last winter, nearly 4,000 gay couples got married after Newsom instructed the city to issue them licenses, in defiance of state law. The California Supreme Court later declared those marriages void, saying the mayor overstepped his authority. But the court did not address the underlying issue of whether the law against gay marriage violates the California Constitution.

At issue were a 1977 law that defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman," and a voter-approved measure in 2000 that amended the law to say more explicitly: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

The state maintained that tradition dictates that marriage should be limited to opposite-sex couples. Attorney General Bill Lockyer also cited the state's domestic-partners law as evidence that California does not discriminate against gays.

But Kramer rejected that argument, citing Brown v. Board of Education — the landmark U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) decision that struck down segregated schools.

"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts — separate but equal," the judge wrote.

It could be months or years before the state actually sanctions same-sex marriage, if ever.

Lockyer has said in the past that he expected the matter eventually would have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.

Two bills now before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13 other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.

The decision is the latest development in a national debate that has been raging since 2003, when the highest court in Massachusetts decided that denying gay couples the right to wed was unconstitutional.

In the wake of the Massachusetts ruling, gay rights advocates filed lawsuits seeking to strike down traditional marriage laws in several other states. Opponents responded by proposing state and federal constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

Around the country, Kramer is the fourth trial court judge in recent months to decide that the right to marry and its benefits must be extended to same-sex couples.

Two Washington state judges, ruling last summer in separate cases, held that prohibiting same-sex marriage violates that state's constitution, and on Feb. 4, a New York City judge ruled in favor of five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by the city.

Just as many judges have gone the other way in recent months, however, refusing to accept the argument that keeping gays from marrying violates their civil rights.

California has the highest percentage of same-sex partners in the nation, and its Legislature has gone further than any other in providing gay couples the benefits of marriage without being forced to do so by court order.

Monday, March 14, 2005

Brand USA is in trouble, so take a lesson from Big Mac

guardian.co.uk

Monday March 14, 2005

Brand USA is in trouble, so take a lesson from Big Mac

Instead of changing his foreign policy, President Bush is changing the story

Naomi Klein
The Guardian

Last Tuesday, George Bush delivered a major address on his plan to fight terrorism with democracy in the Arab world. On the same day, McDonald's launched a massive advertising campaign urging Americans to fight obesity by eating healthily and exercising. Any similarities between McDonald's "Go Active! American Challenge" and Bush's "Go Democratic! Arabian Challenge" are purely coincidental.

Sure, there is a certain irony in being urged to get off the couch by the company that popularised the "drive-thru", helpfully allowing customers to consume a bagged heart attack without having to get out of the car and walk to the counter. And there is a similar irony to Bush urging the people of the Middle East to remove "the mask of fear" because "fear is the foundation of every dictatorial regime", when that fear is the direct result of US decisions to install and arm the regimes that have systematically terrorised for decades. But since both campaigns are exercises in rebranding, that means facts are besides the point.

The Bush administration has long been enamoured of the idea that it can solve complex policy challenges by borrowing cutting-edge communications tools from its heroes in the corporate world. The Irish rock star Bono has recently been winning unlikely fans in the White House by framing world poverty as an opportunity for US politicians to become better marketers. "Brand USA is in trouble ... it's a problem for business," Bono warned at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The solution is "to redescribe ourselves to a world that is unsure of our values".

The Bush administration wholeheartedly agrees, as evidenced by the orgy of redescription that now passes for American foreign policy. Faced with an Arab world enraged by the US occupation of Iraq and its blind support for Israel, the solution is not to change these brutal policies: it is to "change the story".

Brand USA's latest story was launched on January 30, the day of the Iraqi elections, complete with a catchy tag line ("purple power"), instantly iconic imagery (purple fingers) and, of course, a new narrative about America's role in the world, helpfully told and retold by the White House's unofficial brand manager, the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. "Iraq has been reframed from a story about Iraqi 'insurgents' trying to liberate their country from American occupiers and their Iraqi 'stooges' to a story of the overwhelming Iraqi majority trying to build a democracy, with US help, against the wishes of Iraqi Ba'athist fascists and jihadists."

This new story is so contagious, we are told, that it has set off a domino effect akin to the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of communism. (Although in the "Arabian spring" the only wall in sight - Israel's apartheid wall - pointedly stays up.) As with all branding campaigns, the power is in the repetition, not in the details. Obvious non sequiturs (is Bush taking credit for Arafat's death?) and screeching hypocrisies (occupiers against occupation!) just mean it's time to tell the story again, only louder and more slowly, obnoxious-tourist style. Even so, with Bush now claiming that "Iran and other nations have an example in Iraq", it seems worth focusing on the reality of the Iraqi example.

The state of emergency was just renewed for its fifth month and Human Rights Watch reports that torture is "systematic" in Iraqi jails. The Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena's double nightmare provides a window into the pincer of terror in which average Iraqis are trapped: daily life is a navigation between the fear of being kidnapped or killed by fellow Iraqis and the fear of being gunned down at a US checkpoint.

Meanwhile, the ongoing wrangling over who will form Iraq's next government, despite the United Iraqi Alliance being the clear winner, points to an electoral system designed by Washington that is less than democratic. Terrified at the prospect of an Iraq ruled by the majority of Iraqis, the former chief US envoy, Paul Bremer, wrote election rules that gave the US-friendly Kurds 27% of the seats in the national assembly, even though they make up just 15% of the population.

Skewing matters further, the US-authored interim constitution requires that all major decisions have the support of two-thirds or, in some cases, three-quarters of the assembly - an absurdly high figure that gives the Kurds the power to block any call for foreign troop withdrawal, any attempt to roll back Bremer's economic orders, and any part of a new constitution.

Iraqi Kurds have a legitimate claim to independence, as well as very real fears of being ethnically targeted. But through its alliance with the Kurds, the Bush administration has effectively given itself a veto over Iraq's democracy - and it appears to be using it to secure a contingency plan should Iraqis demand an end to occupation.

Talks to form a government are stalled over the Kurdish demand for control over Kirkuk. If they get it, Kirkuk's huge oil fields would fall under Kurdish control. That means that if foreign troops are kicked out of Iraq, Iraqi Kurdistan can be broken off and Washington will still end up with a dependent, oil-rich regime - even if it's smaller than the one originally envisioned by the war's architects.

Meanwhile, Bush's freedom triumphalism glossed over the fact that, in the two years since the invasion, the power of political Islam has increased exponentially, while Iraq's deep secular traditions have been greatly eroded. In part, this has to do with the deadly decision to "embed" secularism and women's rights in the military invasion. Whenever Bremer needed a good-news hit, he had his picture taken at a newly opened women's centre, handily equating feminism with the hated occupation. (The women's centres are now mostly closed, and hundreds of Iraqis who worked with the coalition in local councils have been executed.) But the problem for secularism is not just guilt by association. It's also that the Bush definition of liberation robs democratic forces of their most potent tools.

The only idea that has ever stood up to kings, tyrants and mullahs in the Middle East is the promise of economic justice, brought about through nationalist and socialist policies of agrarian reform and state control over oil. But there is no room for such ideas in the Bush narrative, in which free people are only free to choose so-called free trade. That leaves democrats with little to offer, but empty talk of "human rights" - a weedy weapon against the powerful swords of ethnic glory and eternal salvation.

But we shouldn't be surprised that the Bush administration, despite telling stories about its commitment to freedom, continues to actively sabotage democracy in the very countries it claims to have liberated. Rumour has it McDonald's also continues to serve Big Macs.

Clearing the way for the American Police State

smirkingchimp.com

Clearing the way for the American Police State
By Mike Whitney

The recent rash of terror warnings shows just how shoddy mainstream journalism has really become. Every major news network in the country ran the very same story of the "alleged" communication between Osama bin Laden and terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al Zarqawi without producing a scintilla of corroborating evidence. They simply flooded the newswires, airwaves and TVs with unsubstantiated, Pentagon-inspired gibberish and left out any supporting facts. The clear intention was to give a boost to Bush's flagging polling numbers, but the effort fell flat and the media's credibility took another well-deserved hit.

It's not enough that American's are forced to endure a daily infusion of the Crawford Fuehrer; his mangled English blaring on the morning radio, and his mottled visage peering out from the evening news programs. Now, we're getting a daily dosage of uncorroborated theory, innuendo and conjecture masquerading as news. Promoting the war has become a full time job for America's media and they're getting more desperate every day. While Bush's numbers dither towards the abyss, the press keeps dredging up the overused images of fear and intimidation hoping for some relief. Fortunately, the strategy is failing, which suggests that more aggressive measures may be in the offing. If the media can't manage public perceptions then Rumsfeld's "private contractors" will probably lend a hand.

Iraq Fatigue

Recent polls indicate the tenuousness of Bush's present standing with the American people. In late Feb an AP poll showed that Bush's approval rating was hovering at 46% compared with 50% just a month earlier. It also showed that his support on the issue of Iraq was down to 40%; the danger zone for politicians.

These findings were confirmed by the latest Zogby poll that showed that only 39% of Americans still believe the war "was worth it". What is striking about these results is that in a matter of weeks attitudes have shifted dramatically from 52%; a full 13% margin of difference. "Iraq fatigue" is setting in and the media blather has had little affect on the public's outlook. All the cheerleading for Bush's vaunted trip "fence-mending" trip to Europe, and all the hoopla surrounding the Iraqi elections have amounted to nothing. The policy in Iraq is on the ropes. No one understands these downward trends better than the current poll-driven White House. The ground is being cut out from beneath Bush and he needs to turn things around or chart a different course.

Enter the Terrorists

The reappearance of the terror-duo was intended to send tremors through the country and whip up support for Bush. So far, that hasn't happened. As a matter of fact, the threatening, unshaved mien of bin Laden is creating less distress than the George W's plans for social security.

The fairytale collaboration between America's dark nemesis bin Laden and his newest recruit Zarqawi is pure fluff; and although more than 150 stories appeared on Google covering the topic, not one article provided the name of ANY government official who would attest to the authenticity of the story.

Why should they? No one wants to stake their personal credibility on this claptrap. The "anonymous" official that most of the articles refer to is undoubtedly some third-rate fiction writer currently grinding out fantasies for right-wing think tanks.

The bin Laden al-Zarqawi Nexus

First, a little history: After the previous warning which was issued two weeks ago, I examined over 20 of the more than 150 articles dealing with this new and completely unsubstantiated alliance between al Zarqawi and bin Laden. Keep in mind that bin Laden has not been seen since the bombing of Tora Bora more than 3 years ago and, to this day, there has never been a verifiable sighting of al Zarqawi in Iraq (including the time he supposedly spent organizing the resistance in Falluja) Whether al Zarqawi is simply a "black-ops" creation of US Intelligence is simply unknowable. We do know, however, that perpetuating his existence coincides nicely with the Bush strategy to link Iraq to the war on terror. We also know that the Bush team invoked terror alerts 5 times in the run up to the presidential election with John Kerry, causing a sudden up tick in his polling results whenever Homeland security sounded the alarm. The question of whether or not the alerts are used for political purposes is largely a moot point. Most Americans now believe it is so.

The articles (of a bin Laden and al Zarqawi collaboration) are interesting reading for anyone curious about the well-oiled machinery of the state-run propaganda system. None of the articles confirms these basic points:

1) Whether or not bin Laden and al Zarqawi are still alive.

2) Any verification that communication between them in fact took place.

3) Any names of public officials who were willing to stand on record (or offer their names) in support of the allegations.

Without exception the stories read like dime-store murder mysteries; long on fear-producing hyperbole and short on facts.

The flurry of (nearly identical) articles speaks volumes about a media system so far out-of-whack that every bullhorn in the country can be employed to broadcast complete gobbledygook. The networks simply ingest whatever is fed to them from the White House and then regurgitate it verbatim on the evening news. Despite the endless terror warnings, the likelihood of falling prey to Islamic radicals is so slight it hardly bears mentioning. The average citizen is at greater risk crossing a busy street than he is from a terrorist attack. Paving the way for an attack

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about the potential for another major attack. Quite the contrary.

On February 17, 2005 Bush's top military and Intelligence officials warned that the terrorists are "regrouping for possible new strikes against the United States." In a well-choreographed performance before the Senate, Donald Rumsfeld, Porter Goss (CIA) and Robert Mueller (FBI) provided grim testimony about the increased probability of an attack within the country with weapons of mass destruction. New CIA Director Goss added darkly, "It may only be a matter of time before Al Qaida or other groups attempt to use chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons;" a point that met with general approval from his fellow officials. Needless to say, no supporting evidence was provided for any of the group's disturbing claims.

So, Bush's comments concerning bin Laden and al Zarqawi have to be considered in view of this build up of terror warnings. It may be that the warnings are genuine (albeit, unspecific) or, of course, it could be something more sinister.

Typically, the Bush PR team prefers to float ideas through the normal channels before taking positive action. They like to use the power of suggestion by alerting the public to some nebulous threat before anything physically takes place. It's a good way to keep people on edge and, thus, compliant. In this case, it's impossible to know whether the current warnings should be taken seriously or are just more of the same fear mongering. Even so, we can see that the various levers of repression have already been put in place; (Homeland Security Bill, Patriot Act, and National Intelligence Reform Act) clearing the path for an American police-state whenever the ruling party sees fit. All that's needed now is a tripwire to activate the new security regime that has been passed by the Congress over the last four years and, Voila; the new world order. The catalyst could be anything from an economic meltdown to a random explosion in a metropolitan area. But whatever the trigger may be, you can bet that the Bush team will be ready for a major crackdown.

Martial law?

Who knows?

But we should consider the comments of Justin Raimondo, author of "A Fascist America; how close are we?" (antiwar.com):

"We are not yet in the grip of a fully developed fascist system, and the conservative movement is far from thoroughly neoconized. But we are a single terrorist incident away from all that: a bomb placed in a mall or on the Golden Gate Bridge, or a biological attack of some kind, could sweep away the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and two centuries of legal, political and cultural traditions--all of it wiped out in a single act that would tip the balance and push us into the abyss of post-Constitutional history."

"A single terrorist incident?"

Liberty hanging by a thread?

Sounds about right to me.

ChoicePoint Should Be Regulated, FTC Chair Says

Yahoo! News

ChoicePoint Should Be Regulated, FTC Chair Says

By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - ChoicePoint Inc. (NYSE:CPS - news) and other companies that amass consumer profiles should be forced by Congress to protect that information from identity theft, the head of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission said on Thursday.

Full article:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&e=4&u=/nm/20050310/tc_nm/tech_choicepoint_dc

Despite New Efforts Along Arizona Border, 'Serious Problems' Remain

The New York Times
March 14, 2005
Despite New Efforts Along Arizona Border, 'Serious Problems' Remain
By ERIC LIPTON

NOGALES, Ariz. - Back in Washington, officials have promised to step up protection against terrorists by securing the borders. But here along a dusty brown expanse of desert, where Border Patrol agents struggle to stem the flow of illegal immigrants by relying on tactics like horseback patrols, underground sensors and helicopters, commanders have yet to achieve what they call "operational control."

"We have had successes," said Kevin L. Stevens, the assistant patrol chief in the Tucson sector. "But we have some gapping areas out there, some serious problems."

The mission has gained new attention in Congress and at the White House because of intelligence reports that operatives of Al Qaeda may try to use this desolate stretch to enter the United States.

Although citing no evidence of such efforts, officials of the Homeland Security Department recently said the agency worried that would-be terrorists might enter the country by drifting in with illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.

"The southern border is literally under siege, and there is a real possibility that terrorists, particularly Al Qaeda forces, could exploit this series of holes in our law enforcement system," Representative Solomon P. Ortiz, Democrat of Texas, said at a Congressional hearing.

The Border Patrol has intensified its enforcement efforts in the last year, starting a campaign called the Arizona Border Control Initiative and making surveillance with a "substantial probability of apprehending terrorists" a top priority.

But Border Patrol agents interviewed in February in the Nogales region said privately that the get-tough policy was an all-but-impossible expansion of a nearly hopeless mission.

"Anyone with any determination can still make it into the United States," said an agent who refused to give his name because he feared being fired. "It is all nonsense, all smoke and mirrors."

No one can reliably estimate how many illegal immigrants cross the 6,000 miles of United States border each year. It is certainly more than a million.

The only objective indicator is the number of arrests, which hit 491,771 in 2004 for just the 261 miles of border that make up the Tucson sector. That is up from 139,473 a decade ago, which explains why Arizona had more border captures in 2004 than California, New Mexico and Texas combined, and why special initiatives have begun here.

The effort has had some obvious effects. Border communities like Nogales now experience much less illegal traffic, as well as fewer border-related crimes, the Border Patrol says.

Dozens of migrants still try to cross the border each day. But new digital video cameras scan almost all the border just inside the cities, and sensors have been built into towering steel border barriers that detect when someone climbs them or tries to cut open a hole.

Cameras have even been placed in a sewer between Nogales on the Mexican side and its sister city, Nogales, Ariz.

"We have taken the easiest routes away from them," Chief Stevens said. "Gain, maintain, expand. That's our strategy."

The intense surveillance in the cities, backed by an increase in Border Patrol agents in the Tucson sector, where the force has tripled to 2,170 in 10 years, has apparently pushed the illegal movement elsewhere.

The Arizona initiative promised to take the enforcement campaign into the desert - enormous expanses of Indian reservations, environmental conservation areas, cattle ranches and wild stretches of this big sky world. Pilotless aerial vehicles, or drones, were leased, and more motion sensors were installed, as were more sophisticated cameras.

This technology is the start of what the Bush administration hopes will turn into a $2.5 billion investment over five years to install a new generation of surveillance equipment, creating what it calls America's Shield Initiative.

But many frontline agents wonder whether all the spending makes much sense. In the eight months that the drones circled, at a cost of $6 million, they contributed to 1,294 captures, officials said, or less than 0.5 percent of the sector total in the last fiscal year.

"It is a ridiculous waste of money," an agent said. "There are so many more practical items we need. More vehicles, more agents, even new bulletproof vests. And yet they are spending millions on an unmanned reconnaissance vehicle simply to generate good press."

Some aerial reconnaissance is essential because it is only from the air that border runners can be easily spotted. One afternoon in February, a Border Patrol helicopter came upon 30 or so men and women out in the craggy, cactus-dotted hills. Agent John L. Kimmel dipped his helicopter toward the ground, using a loudspeaker and a barrage of noise, dust and bursts of air to nudge the suspects from their hiding spots.

"Get up!" he yelled in Spanish. "Get up!"

Thanks to a quick response by an agent on the ground, most, if not all, of the suspects were rounded up. But even before they were put in patrol wagons, some were probably plotting their next crossings.

Martin Arrendo, 35, was caught while heading from his home in Irapuato, Mexico, to his job in Sonoma County, Calif., where he earns $16 an hour pruning vines or picking grapes, compared with $10 a day at home.

"As soon as they take me back, I will try again," Mr. Arrendo said.

Security officials have been concerned about Qaeda operatives trying to enter the United States even before the Sept. 11 attacks.

The most specific alert about the southern border came last August, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation warned that Adnan G. el-Shukrijumah, a Saudi pilot sought by the United States as a high-ranking Qaeda leader and who was believed to have examined the New York Stock Exchange for a possible attack, was spotted in Honduras and might try to cross into the United States from Mexico.

In recent months, officials have reported a worrisome increase in the "Other Than Mexican" category of arrests along the southwestern border. That number has reached 41,360 this fiscal year, up more than 100 percent from the same period in 2004. More than 90 percent of those non-Mexicans are from Latin America, Border Patrol officials said.

But last fiscal year, 682 of those caught were designated "special interest aliens" because they came from countries that have active terrorist presences. In some cases, people from Middle Eastern countries, after paying smugglers to help them, have adopted Mexican names in an effort to disguise their identities, the director of the F.B.I., Robert S. Mueller III, told members of Congress in early March.

"It is a tremendous concern to us," Mr. Mueller said. "We're working together to try to identify those smuggling organizations and take them out of business."

Border agents try to identify such migrants by listening carefully to their accents, not an entirely reliable system. Suspects from the "special interest" countries, which include Egypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, are turned over to other federal agencies for more questioning.

Ultimately, though, most of the non-Mexicans are released in the United States pending deportation hearings and are typically never heard from again, Representative Ortiz said.

Border Patrol officials say that as they intensify surveillance of the desert, migrants and others trying to enter the United States are changing strategies, moving through far southwestern Arizona and New Mexico. Smugglers have been trying to build cross-border tunnels like one found under construction by agents in Nogales in early March.

Various plans have been offered to secure the border. Congress passed a measure late in 2004 that authorized doubling the number of Border Patrol officers in five years, to 20,000, as well as increasing the number of beds for detainees over the five years by 40,000. That would mean that fewer people awaiting deportation hearings would need to be released.

President Bush wants to create a temporary worker program that would legalize the presence of millions of immigrants, perhaps reducing illegal traffic.

For Border Patrol agents, the problem breeds palpable frustration. Chief Stevens said that like soldiers in battle who do not always appreciate the nuances of a wise general's strategy, they must understand that the key is keeping up the fight.

Some agents have grave doubts.

"It seems quite obvious here," one said. "We are not winning this war."

Bush to Permit Trading of Credits to Limit Mercury

The New York Times
March 14, 2005
Bush to Permit Trading of Credits to Limit Mercury
By FELICITY BARRINGER

WASHINGTON, March 13 - The Bush administration this week will propose the first federal controls on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. The new rule will abandon the Environmental Protection Agency's original tilt toward a remedy favored by most environmental groups in favor of a system of tradable pollution allowances that is more congenial to industry.

The new E.P.A. rule is intended to cut emissions to 38 tons, a 21 percent reduction from 1999 levels, in 2010 and to as little as 15 tons, or about a 69 percent reduction, in 2018, according to the draft of the final rule sent to Bush administration budget officials this weekend for final vetting.

Under the rule, some utilities will be able to buy allowances rather than cleaning up emissions. Environmentalists and some state officials have argued that this approach will lead to so-called hot spots posing significant risks to local populations. The administration has tended to favor trading of pollution allowances as a regulatory tool that it believes is both effective and less prone to legal challenge, pointing to the success of such a program in curbing the pollution that causes acid rain.

The rule is certain to infuriate some environmental groups that have long called for stringent mercury regulation and argued that mercury was too great a health hazard to be an appropriate candidate for market-based regulation that, by its nature, results in uneven enforcement and protects some populations more than others.

Mercury, a commonplace of everyday life a generation ago found in home thermometers and school science labs, has in the past two decades been found to cause direct harm to the development of nervous systems in infants and young children. Infants have been exposed before birth to mercury consumed by their mothers, studies have shown.

The most common form of exposure is believed to be the consumption of fish - including tuna and swordfish - in which the metal has accumulated.

But agency officials point out that much of the mercury exposure of the United States population is out of reach of any federal regulation. Much airborne mercury deposited in the United States originates abroad, and most of the mercury-laden fish consumed by Americans as fish sticks or fish fillets is imported.

As expected, the new rule provides the last piece of a regulatory plan that in many ways mimics the blueprint laid out in the Bush administration's stalled Clear Skies legislation and accomplishes many of the legislation's goals for establishing market-based policies as a primary component in environmental regulation.

Accompanying the rule will be a document reversing the agency's formal conclusion of December 2000 that it was "appropriate and necessary" to require utilities to scrub as much mercury as possible from coal-fired power plants.

The long-awaited provision, which is officially named the Clean Air Mercury Rule, is expected to be released Tuesday. It is intended to work in tandem with an E.P.A. rule published last Thursday, which controls two chemicals that are building blocks for soot and ground-level ozone. The agency maintains that controls mandated under this Clean Air Interstate Rule will have the "co-benefit" of reducing mercury emissions to the levels set for 2010.

A draft of the proposed rule, dated March 10, was provided to The New York Times by a government official uncomfortable with the process the agency used to arrive at its conclusion. It differs somewhat from an analysis recently criticized by the E.P.A.'s inspector general as a rigged attempt to support a predetermined conclusion. But the latest version does not address the inspector general's criticisms that alternatives were not thoroughly studied.

From 1990 to 1999, total airborne emissions of mercury in the United States dropped from 209.6 tons to 113.2 tons, roughly 5 percent of worldwide manmade emissions. Mercury emissions from power plants are responsible for about 48 of the 113 tons. Even though large reductions in mercury emissions from municipal and medical waste incinerators and chemical factories have been achieved over the past decade, at least 44 states have issued advisories calling for limited consumption of fish from mercury-contaminated streams.

The rule would have limited effect on canned tuna, the single greatest contributor, per capita, to mercury in the diet of United States residents.

Contacted about the rule, Cynthia Bergman, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said on Sunday that it would make the United States "the first country in the world to regulate emissions from coal-fired power plants." Ms. Bergman added that the agency in the 1990's took "big steps" to regulate emissions from other sources, like municipal incinerators.

Felice Stadler, a mercury policy specialist at the National Wildlife Federation, was sharply critical when told on Sunday of the thrust of the new rule, saying that it was "the weakest air-toxics rule ever written for a major industry" by the E.P.A.

"This rule gives big energy companies an extra 10 years before being required to reduce their mercury air pollution," Ms. Stadler said. "To say we are disappointed is an understatement. This is an ill-conceived plan that puts the future of our children and natural places at risk."

The new rule, like the Clean Air Interstate rule that it complements, will set up a cap-and-trade system of negotiable pollution allowances that is administered by the states, each of which has its own mandated cap on emissions and each of which can develop its own system of distributing allowances, subject to the approval of the environmental agency.

Authority and responsibility for meeting these standards is given to the states, whose annual caps between 2010 and 2017 range from a high of 4.7 tons in Texas to lows of zero emissions in Idaho and Vermont.

Some states, like Connecticut, already regulate power plant emissions of mercury. The new federal rule will not impede their ability to impose stricter controls than those mandated by the E.P.A.

China passes Taiwan secession law

BBC NEWS
China passes Taiwan secession law

China's legislature has passed a law giving it the legal right to use force against Taiwan if the island declares formal independence.

The National People's Congress passed the law a day after President Hu Jintao told the army to prepare for war.

China sees Taiwan as its territory, and says it reserves the right to use force if "peaceful re-unification" fails.

The congress also backed an increase in military spending of almost 13% to $29.5bn (£15bn).

China's announcement last week of the anti-secession law drew criticism in Taiwan and from US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Taiwan split from China during a civil war in 1949 and has maintained de facto independence ever since.

TAIWAN-CHINA RELATIONS
Ruled by separate governments since end of Chinese civil war in 1949
China considers the island part of its territory
China has offered a "one country, two systems" solution, like Hong Kong
Most people in Taiwan support status quo

'People's determination'

In Monday's final session of the 11-day annual Congress, the anti-secession law was passed unanimously by a margin of 2,896 to zero.

Delegates broke into applause when the law was passed, the Associated Press news agency reports.

China's Prime Minister Wen Jiabao said the law was aimed at strengthening relations with Taiwan.

"This is a law to strengthen and promote cross-Strait relations, for peaceful reunification, not targeted at the people of Taiwan, nor is it a law of war," he said.

China's senior legislator, Wu Bangguo, said the law "represents the people's determination not to allow Taiwan to be separated from China by any means or any excuses".

As passed, the law calls for the use of "non-peaceful and other necessary measures" if hopes for peaceful unification are exhausted.

Some analysts have said China's emphasis on "non-peaceful" means appears designed to include alternatives to military force, such as blockades or sanctions.

On Sunday, Mr Hu told China's 2.5 million-strong People's Liberation Army, which has expanded rapidly in recent years amid growing concern in the US, to put national defence "above all else".

"We shall step up preparations for possible military struggle and enhance our capabilities to cope with crises, safeguard peace, prevent wars and win the wars if any," the president said.

Government Report on U.S. Aviation Warns of Security Holes

The New York Times
March 14, 2005
Government Report on U.S. Aviation Warns of Security Holes
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, March 13 - Despite a huge investment in security, the American aviation system remains vulnerable to attack by Al Qaeda and other jihadist terrorist groups, with noncommercial planes and helicopters offering terrorists particularly tempting targets, a confidential government report concludes.

Intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda may have discussed plans to hijack chartered planes, helicopters and other general aviation aircraft for attacks because they are less well-guarded than commercial airliners, according to a previously undisclosed 24-page special assessment on aviation security by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security two weeks ago.

But commercial airliners are also "likely to remain a target and a platform for terrorists," the report says, and members of Al Qaeda appear determined to study and test new American security measures to "uncover weaknesses."

The assessment comes as the Bush administration, with a new intelligence structure and many new counterterrorism leaders in place, is taking stock of terrorists' capabilities and of the country's ability to defend itself.

While Homeland Security and the F.B.I. routinely put out advisories on aviation issues, the special joint assessment is an effort to give a broader picture of the state of knowledge of all issues affecting aviation security, officials said.

The analysis appears to rely on intelligence gathered from sources overseas and elsewhere about Al Qaeda and other jihadist and Islamic-based terrorist groups.

A separate report issued last month by Homeland Security concluded that developing a clear framework for prioritizing possible targets - a task many Democrats say has lagged - is critical because "it is impossible to protect all of the infrastructure sectors equally across the entire United States."

The aviation sector has received the majority of domestic security investments since the Sept. 11 attacks, with more than $12 billion spent on upgrades like devices to detect explosives, armored cockpit doors, federalized air screeners and additional air marshals.

Indeed, some members of Congress and security experts now consider airplanes to be so well fortified that they say it is time to shift resources to other vulnerable sectors, like ports and power plants.

In the area of rail safety, for instance, Democrats are pushing a $1.1 billion plan to plug what they see as glaring vulnerabilities. "This is a disaster waiting to happen," Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, said last week at a Senate hearing marking the one-year anniversary of the deadly train bombings in Madrid.

Still, the new aviation assessment, examining dozens of airline incidents both before and after the Sept. 11 attacks, makes clear that counterterrorism officials still consider the aviation industry to be perhaps the prime target for another major attack because of the spectacular nature of such strikes.

The assessment, which showed that the F.B.I. handled more than 500 criminal investigations involving aircraft in 2003, will likely serve as a guide for considering further security restrictions in general aviation and other areas considered particularly vulnerable, the officials said.

The report, dated Feb. 25, was distributed internally to federal and state counterterrorism and aviation officials, and a copy was obtained by The Times. It warns that security upgrades since the Sept. 11 attacks have "reduced, but not eliminated" the prospect of similar attacks.

"Spectacular terrorist attacks can generate an outpouring of support for the perpetrators from sympathizers and terrorism sponsors with similar agendas," the report said. "The public fear resulting from a terrorist hijacking or aircraft bombing also serves as a powerful motivator for groups seeking to further their causes."

The report detailed particular vulnerabilities in what it called "the largely unregulated" area of general aviation, which includes corporate jets, private planes and other unscheduled aircraft.

"As security measures improve at large commercial airports, terrorists may choose to rent or steal general aviation aircraft housed at small airports with little or no security," the report said.

The report also said that Al Qaeda "has apparently considered the use of helicopters as an alternative to recruiting operatives for fixed-wing aircraft operations." The maneuverability and "nonthreatening appearance" of helicopters, even when flying at low altitudes above urban areas, make them attractive targets for terrorists to conduct suicide attacks on landmarks or to spray toxins below, the report said.

The assessment does not identify who might be in a position to carry out such domestic attacks.

While law enforcement officials have spoken repeatedly about their concerns over so-called sleeper cells operating within the United States, a separate F.B.I. report first disclosed last week by ABC News indicated that evidence pointing to the existence of such cells was inconclusive.

The question of how well the government is protecting airline travelers surfaced again last month after the disclosure in a Sept. 11 commission investigation that in the months leading up to the attack, federal officials received 52 warnings about Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, some warning specifically about hijackings and suicide operations.

Federal officials now say they have taken a number of steps to tighten security for helicopters, chartered flights and the like in response to perceived threats, as they did last August in temporarily ordering federal security guards and tougher screening for helicopter tours in the New York City area.

Rear Adm. David M. Stone, an assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security who oversees the Transportation Security Administration, said that "the report validates T.S.A.'s sense of urgency in our daily efforts to secure aviation, and that same sense of urgency can be found in our work securing every other mode of transportation."

The report also sought to codify the various responsibilities for aviation security in the increasingly complex labyrinth of federal agencies, and it examined 33 terrorist plots against airplanes inside and out of the United States over the years.

Of the more than 500 criminal cases involving aircraft handled by the F.B.I. in 2003, two were hijackings in the United States involving flights from Cuba that landed in Florida. More than 300 episodes involved undeclared weapons or other problems at screening and security checkpoints, while 175 cases were triggered by on-board interference or threats against crew members, often involving alcohol.

In one case, a passenger sprayed perfume at a flight attendant "in a hostile manner," the report said.

Sunday, March 13, 2005

The Spoils of War

vanityfair.com

The Spoils of War
By MICHAEL SHNAYERSON
Halliburton subsidiary KBR got $12 billion worth of exclusive contracts for work in Iraq. But even more shocking is how KBR spent some of the money. Former U.S. Army Corps of Engineers official Bunnatine Greenhouse is blowing the whistle on the Dick Cheney–linked company's profits of war.

Full article at:
http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/printables/050307roco02?print=true