Thursday, April 28, 2005

Conviction of Former CIA Agent Overturned on False Affidavit

ABC News
'The Most Dangerous Man in America'
Conviction of Former CIA Agent Overturned on False Affidavit

- This is the story of a man, a one-time CIA officer, who spent 22 years in prison after being branded a traitor and a threat to the country.

"That was me," Ed Wilson said. "The most dangerous man in America, which is ridiculous."

Wilson, at age 54, was sentenced in 1983 to 52 years in prison. He was convicted on selling weapons and 20 tons of C-4 plastic explosives to Moammar Gadhafi's Libya. He was also convicted of trying to arrange a contract hit on the prosecutors.

Wilson's defense was that he was still working with the CIA and that the agency knew and approved of everything he was doing with Libya, including the shipment of the explosives.

Prosecutor Ted Greenberg said at the time that Wilson was making up his connection to the CIA. "Mr. Wilson did not work for the CIA or any other part of the intelligence community," he said.

In Houston, Texas, Wilson's conviction was overturned by a federal judge, Lynn Hughes, who identified about two dozen government lawyers, including Greenberg, who participated in the use of a false CIA affidavit that sent Wilson to prison and the silence about the affidavit after serious questions were raised about its accuracy. And Hughes minced no words in his opinion.

"In the course of American justice, one would have to work hard to conceive of a more fundamentally unfair process," wrote Hughes, "than the fabrication of false data by the government, under oath by a government official, presented knowingly by the prosecutor in the courtroom with the express approval of his superiors in Washington."

Wilson is a free man now.

The Affidavit

The CIA would not disclose its records but did provide an affidavit in the final days of the trial from a top CIA official that said, with one minor exception, Wilson "was not asked or requested, directly or indirectly, to perform or provide any services, directly or indirectly, for CIA."

It was the lynchpin of the government's case, according to Wilson's current lawyer, David Adler.

"It was read into evidence during the trial," Adler said. "The jury went back to deliberate. After a short time of deliberations, the jurors asked to hear this affidavit again. It was re-read to them, and an hour later they voted guilty on all counts for Mr. Wilson. So I think it was critical to the jury's decision."

Wally Sisk, the foreman of the jury in Houston that convicted Wilson, agreed with Adler's speculation about the power of the false affidavit. "If we had known that, I can say unequivocally that there would not have been a guilty verdict," he said, "because that would have taken away the whole case of the prosecution."

Wilson expected to die behind bars. "Yeah, I thought I was gone," Wilson said. He was first sent to solitary confinement at the high-security federal penitentiary in Marion, Ill., locked down for 23, 24 hours a day.

But the thought of clearing his name gave him the strength to continue, Wilson said.

"Oh no, you can't give up. Because at the time, I knew, I knew I was innocent of this thing," he said. "I took it and I said, 'I'll have my day someday.' "

'An Intentional, Purposeful Effort To Conceal the Truth'

It would take 20 years for Wilson to prove that the affidavit was false. From his cell in Marion, Wilson began to seek government documents using the Freedom of Information Act. It was 14 years later that the government turned over an internal Justice Department memo, buried in a large stack of other documents, in which Justice Department officials acknowledge the CIA affidavit was possibly false and discuss what to do about it.

"Somebody slipped up and never intended for Mr. Wilson to see this document," Adler said. "I think they forgot that if you put someone in solitary confinement, that they don't have a lot to do all day other than to pore through these documents, and I think Mr. Wilson paid a lot more attention to the materials than the people who were responsible for releasing them at the Justice Department."

Since then, Adler, a former CIA officer himself who was at first skeptical when assigned the case, has discovered dozens of Justice Department and CIA documents that prove the key affidavit in the Wilson case was false and that many in the government knew it. He said one document revealed at least 80 instances of contact between Wilson providing and the CIA.

"I'm not skeptical anymore," Adler said. "I think the documents are about as clear as they could be that this was an intentional, purposeful effort to conceal the truth from the judge, from the jury, from Mr. Wilson and his defense lawyers and from the public."

And some of those involved in the Wilson case went on to become some of the most prominent men in legal circles today.

"Many careers were greatly enhanced by the successful prosecution of Mr. Wilson back in 1983," Adler said. "I think I've uncovered something that, at the very least, should question whether or not they deserve to have those types of positions."

Government Lawyers

Hughes, in his ruling, singled out Greenberg, about whom he wrote, "deliberately, knowing the facts, Greenberg ignored the CIA attorneys' requests and used it."

In a statement to Nightline, Greenberg says he was never warned by the CIA that the affidavit was false, that their concerns were about tactics.

Greenberg said he would never file "with the court an affidavit or other document which I knew to be inaccurate or false."

The supervising prosecutor on the case, Larry Barcella, says he cannot recall seeing the affidavit before it was introduced and denies doing anything improper when the issue was raised later. But according to Adler, Barcella participated in the meetings when it was discussed that something might have to be corrected about the affidavit.

Wilson has filed complaints with the Washington, D.C., bar association about Barcella.

"Evil, that's a word I like. Evil," Wilson said about the prosecutors. "They were not just doing their jobs. They were doing it for themselves."

After the guilty verdict, the CIA general counsel, Stanley Sporkin, who had told prosecutors prior to introduction of the affidavit in the trail that it should be amended or not used, again raised a red flag, according to one of the documents Adler and Wilson discovered.

"The CIA drafted up a letter that the agency proposed be sent to Wilson's attorneys disclosing the problem with the affidavit," Adler said. "And again the Justice Department rejected the CIA's suggestion that the letter be sent to Mr. Wilson's lawyer, and so it was never disclosed at that juncture either."

D. Lowell Jensen was in charge of the criminal division of the Justice Department when the decision was first made. He declined to comment on his role in the Wilson case. Adler said he "found a fair number of memos that were addressed to him, or from him, talking about the problem, talking about the decision to keep quiet about this."

Stephen Trott replaced Jensen as the top Justice Department official at the time. Trott says he recalls a meeting on the Wilson case but none of the details.

The Justice Department has now admitted the affidavit used to convict Wilson was false, an innocent error, their lawyers told Hughes.

As for the CIA, they will only say, "It was Mr. Wilson's decision to sell explosives to Libya, and that's why he was sent to jail."

However, Hughes put it another way. "America will not defeat Libyan terrorism by double crossing a part-time, informal government agent," he wrote.

Wilson says he lost all he had, his family and his wealth, over the 22 years he was in prison. Now living with his brother in Seattle, he says he simply wants to clear his name.

Vic Walter, Avni Patel and Jessica Wang contributed to this report.

Read More...

House Passes Bill Tightening Parental Rule for Abortions

The New York Times
April 28, 2005
House Passes Bill Tightening Parental Rule for Abortions
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, April 27 - The House passed a bill on Wednesday making it a federal crime for any adult to transport an under-age girl across state lines to have an abortion without the consent of her parents. A vote on a similar bill is expected in the Senate later this spring or early this summer, and backers says its chances are good.

The measure, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, passed 270 to 157 and was a victory for abortion opponents, who have been pushing an ambitious agenda now that Congress is under greater Republican control.

"This legislation will close a loophole that allows adults not only to help minors break state laws by obtaining an abortion without parental consent, but also contributes to ending the life of an innocent child," said the chief sponsor, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican of Florida.

The bill, intended to prevent minor girls from going to different states to circumvent more restrictive laws in their home states, applies to adults who accompany girls 17 and under. It also, for the first time, requires doctors who perform abortions on under-age girls to comply with state notification laws, and in some cases to notify the girl's parents in person. Violators could face a $100,000 fine and a year in jail.

The bill also imposes a 24-hour waiting period for young women who travel to another state for an abortion, in some cases even if they are accompanied by their parents.

Supporters characterize the measure as pro-family, saying it will prevent abusive boyfriends and others from taking vulnerable young women across state lines to receive "secret abortions" against their will. They say that the decision to have an abortion should rest solely with the parents. Amendments that would have allowed grandparents or members of the clergy to accompany the young women were rejected.

The measure has the strong backing of the White House, which issued a statement on Wednesday saying the bill "is consistent with the administration's view that parents' efforts to be involved in their children's lives should be protected and the widespread belief among authorities in the field that the parents of pregnant minors are best suited to provide them with counsel, guidance and support."

Opponents call the measure misguided and say it would violate a Supreme Court ruling that required state parental notification laws to include alternatives, like permitting abortions with a judge's consent. And they say it would put some young women, like those who are the victims of sexual abuse by their fathers, in serious danger.

"Thankfully, most young women involve their parents in the decision to seek an abortion," said Representative Nita M. Lowey, Democrat of New York. "But under this legislation, those who feel they cannot turn to their parents when facing an unintended pregnancy will be forced to fend for themselves without any help from a responsible adult. Some will seek unsafe abortions close to home. Others will travel to unfamiliar places seeking abortions by themselves."

The bill incorporates an earlier measure that has passed the House three times since 1998. The earlier bill, the Child Custody Protection Act, did not impose criminal sanctions against doctors, only against the adults who accompanied minor girls across state lines from a state that had strict parental consent laws to one that did not.

In the Senate, the custody protection act is among the top 10 legislative priorities of Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader. The November elections put seven new Republicans in office, most of them staunch opponents of abortion, so backers of the measure - which has never gotten through the Senate - are hopeful.

"We think it will still be a big fight, because the bill is vehemently opposed by the pro-abortion pressure groups, but we are cautiously optimistic," said Douglas Johnson, a spokesman for the National Right-to-Life Committee.

According to Naral Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights advocacy group, 33 states have some form of parental notification law that restricts access to abortion.

Twenty-three states require parental notification and 10 require parental notice but permit other adults to be notified, or allow health providers to waive the requirement. Seventeen states, including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and California, have no law restricting access to abortion for minors.

Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, said, "It would in effect make the young girl carry the laws of her state on her back wherever she goes."

But Representative Christopher H. Smith, Republican of New Jersey, said the bill was necessary to prevent "abortion mills" from luring young girls across state lines by advertising in states like his, where there are no notification laws.

Read More...

Army, in Manual, Limiting Tactics in Interrogation

The New York Times
April 28, 2005
Army, in Manual, Limiting Tactics in Interrogation
By ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, April 27 - The Army is preparing to issue a new interrogations manual that expressly bars the harsh techniques disclosed in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, and incorporates safeguards devised to prevent such misconduct at military prison camps in the future, Army officials said Wednesday.

The new manual, the first revision in 13 years, will specifically prohibit practices like stripping prisoners, keeping them in stressful positions for a long time, imposing dietary restrictions, employing police dogs to intimidate prisoners and using sleep deprivation as a tool to get them to talk, the officials said.

Those practices were not included in the manual in use when the bulk of the abuses occurred at Abu Ghraib in Iraq in the fall of 2003, but neither were they specifically banned.

Military investigations have faulted senior officials - including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former top commander in Iraq - for adding to the confusion by giving approval, and then rescinding it, for limited use of harsh techniques that went beyond what was allowed in the manual.

Accompanying the new manual, which runs more than 200 pages, will be a separate classified training document that will provide dozens of interrogation scenarios and go into exacting detail on what procedures may or may not be used, and in what circumstances.

As examples of the new rules, Thomas A. Gandy, director of human intelligence and counterintelligence for the Army, said interrogators questioning a prisoner in a small room could throw a chair against the wall in a fit of mock rage to frighten the captive, a technique called "fear up." But under no circumstance, he said, could the interrogator throw the chair at the prisoner or otherwise threaten him directly.

Army interrogators have never had such a set of specific guidelines that would help teach them how to walk right up to the line between legal and illegal interrogations.

"It's going to be specific yeses and noes," Mr. Gandy, a career military intelligence officer, said in an interview. He provided details from the manual's final draft and emphasized that the document would require adherence to the Geneva Conventions, as does the current manual.

The interrogations manual applies only to Army forces, but the Army controls the vast majority of detainee operations in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and Mr. Gandy said there had been a effort to synchronize the Army's policies with practices of the other armed services.

The new manual would not govern interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency at its detention sites. But in a change, it expressly prohibits the C.I.A. from keeping unregistered prisoners, called "ghost detainees," at Army prisons like Abu Ghraib.

Mr. Gandy said the new document banned physical or mental torture, slapping or humiliation. But he declined to offer more examples of specific techniques that would be allowed, saying he did not want to tip off potential captives on what they could expect. "The key to interrogations is uncertainty and putting the guy on edge," he said. "We don't want to tell them where the edge is."

The revamped manual, titled "Human Intelligence Collector Operations," is part of a wide-ranging overhaul of interrogation and detention policies and operations undertaken by the Army, and the military in general. The Army, for instance, has embarked on a systematic revamping of its training and doctrine for military police and intelligence officials.

The Army is planning to create 35 additional units specially trained in detention operations over the next three years. It is also preparing to add 9,000 military intelligence personnel, including 3,000 interrogators, case officers to run informant networks and other so-called human intelligence officials. Interrogators' final field exercise will last about 11 days instead of 5, Mr. Gandy said.

At Abu Ghraib, the American command in Baghdad has already instituted a new set of training standards. Newly arrived interrogators spend two weeks in orientation on policies and practices. Before they conduct interrogations on their own, they question prisoners in tandem with a more experienced interrogator.

All interrogators are observed during their questioning sessions to ensure they hew to the guidelines. Interrogators received mandatory refresher training every 90 days.

Mr. Gandy said the new manual would formalize practices that in some cases have been in effect in the field for months. Some details about the manual were first reported last month by The Baltimore Sun. Chapter by chapter, it tries to clarify ambiguities that military investigators say contributed to prisoner abuse in Iraq.

The manual, for instance, prohibits the military police from taking part in interrogations, but allows military intelligence personnel to debrief prison guards about their observations of particular prisoners. Some military police officers at Abu Ghraib said they were encouraged to soften up prisoners before questioning to help interrogators extract more information on insurgents.

The manual also calls for several safeguards, including requiring soldiers to report anything that appears to violate international treaties or standards of humane treatment.

Mr. Gandy said the new manual barred interrogators and other intelligence officials from posing as medics, journalists or chaplains to gain information from detainees. But they are allowed to use ruses, like falsely promising to free a captive in exchange for information, he said.

The manual is being approved by Maj. Gen. Barbara G. Fast, who commands the Army's Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, Ariz. General Fast served in Iraq from July 2003 to June 2004 as the intelligence deputy for General Sanchez, and she played an extensive role in developing policies and practices for the interrogation center at Abu Ghraib. An investigation by the Army inspector general recently exonerated her of any responsibility for the abuses.

Human rights groups reacted warily to reports of the new manual, in part because they have not seen a copy. "I've been nervous about this whole process," said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "The existing manual was clear. It was the exceptions that caused problems."

Last month, Vice Adm. Albert T. Church III became the latest investigator to fault high-level American officials for failing to establish clear procedures for interrogating prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While the most notorious abuses captured on video - those involving the military police at Abu Ghraib - did not involve interrogations, an independent panel headed by former Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger found last August that of 66 confirmed abuse cases up to that point, about one-third were related to the questioning of prisoners.

Read More...

House Overturns New Ethics Rule as Republican Leadership Yields

The New York Times
April 28, 2005
House Overturns New Ethics Rule as Republican Leadership Yields
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, April 27 - In a rare retreat, the Republican-led House on Wednesday overturned contentious rule changes made to the House ethics process, with Republicans saying they surrendered to the Democrats to try to restore a way to enforce proper conduct in the House.

"I am willing to step back," said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, the moving force behind ethics revisions forced through by the majority in January.

After a closed-door meeting with House Republicans, Mr. Hastert indicated that the reversal was primarily motivated by a need to resolve the torrent of questions surrounding the conduct of Representative Tom DeLay, the majority leader.

Mr. Hastert's relenting to Democrats' demands marked a startling turn as Republicans confronted the fallout from a stalled ethics process that Democrats said was rigged to protect Mr. DeLay, who was admonished three times by the ethics committee last year. The Republican majority has also come under increasing criticism for the rule changes, which their opponents said would render the committee impotent to pursue wrongdoing by members.

One of the most immediate effects of the House's reverting to the old rules will be the opening of an investigation into persistent questions about Mr. DeLay's overseas travel and his relationships with prominent lobbyists. His fund-raising operations are under investigation by a grand jury in Texas, and some of the lobbyists' roles have come under increasing scrutiny by federal investigators in recent months. While Mr. DeLay has not been named as a target of those investigations, the attention paid to his troubles has proven disruptive in the House.

On Wednesday night, after a pointed debate in which lawmakers traded blame for the ethics impasse, the House voted 406 to 20 to approve a hastily drafted resolution that essentially restored the rules in place at the start of the year for what is formally known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Under the changes that were revoked, complaints could have been dismissed within 45 days if the committee could not decide how to proceed, one lawyer could represent both the subject of the inquiry and other witnesses, and lawmakers would get new rights of notification and appeal.

The restoration of the rules means that if the committee deadlocks, complaints could be automatically sent to a special investigatory subcommittee, though that trigger has not been needed in the past. The panel has no prohibition on a lawyer's representing multiple clients, though some panel members believe one is needed and discourage the practice.

The vote marked another pivot in a politically charged ethics tug-of-war expected to persist in the House. Lawmakers of both parties said they expected the resolution of the standoff to lead to calls for ethics inquiries into not only Mr. DeLay but also other members, including Democratic leaders.

In light of the intense scrutiny of Mr. DeLay, many lawmakers have been examining their own travel and entertainment records and finding omissions that could potentially put them before the panel.

Mr. DeLay said he intended to submit documents that covered 10 years of his travel and other activities to the committee. He urged its leaders to put his record to the test to determine if he violated House rules.

"I look forward to providing the facts to the committee once it is up and running," Mr. DeLay said.

Representative Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, applauded the backtracking, which represented a significant political embarrassment for a majority accustomed to winning almost all of its fights. It was the second time in recent months that Republicans had to back off such a change; in January, House Republicans restored a rule prohibiting their leaders from staying in their posts if indicted.

Mr. Mollohan, the senior Democrat on the evenly divided ethics panel, had refused to allow the committee to get to work, saying the rule changes undermined the panel's authority and could lead to party-line resistance to investigations.

Mr. Mollohan said he would drop his objections when the committee next met, probably next week. He and Ms. Pelosi also reminded Republicans that decisions on hiring staff members for the committee required the consent of both parties.

"There is no point in insisting that the ethics committee be guided by fair and bipartisan rules if those charged with administering and interpreting them are tainted by partisan motives," Ms. Pelosi said in a statement.

In a briefing with reporters, Mr. DeLay called the House travel rules unclear and said he saw the coming ethics inquiry as a way to provide new guidance for lawmakers.

"I will be asking them to look at these issues not only as it pertains to me, but the entire House because, obviously, there are questions that need to be answered by the ethics committee as to what trips can be taken, how they can be taken," he said.

Republicans cite trips taken by Ms. Pelosi and her staff members as potential subjects of inquiry, along with a past finding by the Federal Election Commission that Ms. Pelosi improperly used multiple political action committees. They also pointed on Wednesday to recent actions by Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat, to file new travel reports on old trips.

"If the rules are all right for Tom DeLay, they are all right for everyone else," said Representative Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican who supported Democrats in their push to overturn the rules changes. "People feel that Democrats have piled on Tom DeLay and forgotten the inappropriate behavior of Nancy and others."

Aides to Ms. Pelosi said her staff members have combed through travel records and found canceled checks and other material to demonstrate that her trips were proper. A spokeswoman for Mr. Hoyer said that his oversights were minor and that the 10 or so trips in question had been properly reported on an annual basis but not on required 30-day reports.

"There was full public disclosure," said his aide, Stacey Bernards.

Democrats say Republicans are trying to tar others to minimize Mr. DeLay's troubles. They said privately that they believed they could better withstand a partisan ethics exchange than the Republicans.

Democrats said the rule changes breached the bipartisan tradition of the ethics committee and were meant to make it harder for the panel to pursue investigations. Republicans said the actions of the panel in recent cases exposed flaws in the system, and they continued to defend the changes Wednesday.

In his letter to Ms. Pelosi proposing a return to the previous rules, Mr. Hastert accused Democrats of distorting the changes for political gain and said that the reversal would result in "leaving the unfairness inherent in the old system in place." But Mr. Hastert told reporters he was willing to move ahead because of the scrutiny of Mr. DeLay.

"There is a member, especially on our side, who needs to have the process move forward, so he can clear his name," the speaker said. "Right now, he can't clear his name."

Mr. Mollohan disputed Mr. Hastert's characterization of the old rules as unfair, but gave him credit.

"It can't be easy to come to this," he said. "But again, it is the right thing to do."

Read More...

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Gates wants to scrap H-1B visas

ZDNet News

Gates wants to scrap H-1B visas
By Declan McCullagh

WASHINGTON--Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates slammed the federal government's strict limits on temporary visas for technology workers, saying that if he had his way, the system would be scrapped entirely.

"The theory behind the H-1B (visa)--that too many smart people are coming--that's what's questionable," Gates said Wednesday during a panel discussion at the Library of Congress. "It's very dangerous. You can get this idea that the world is very scary; let's cut back on travel...let's cut back on visas." Gates, panelists

Federal quotas on H-1B visas, capped at 65,000 last year, have long been a sore spot for Microsoft and other technology companies. But, Gates said, the increased caliber of research institutions in China and India means that curbs on immigration and guest-workers will pose a greater threat to America's competitiveness than ever before.

Gates' comments verged on sarcastic. He said that "it's almost an issue of a centrally-controlled economy versus" and then trailed off. "I'd certainly get rid of the H-1B visa caps," he added when asked what he would do if he could write U.S. laws. "That's one of the easiest decisions."

Princeton University's president, Shirley Tilghman, also warned of increased competition from abroad--and took aim at the federal government's aggressive denials of visas to foreign students after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Students are "not coming in the numbers they used to," Tilghman said.

The number of foreign students dropped in 2003 for the first time in more than 30 years, the Institute of International Education estimated last fall. It attributed the decline to increased competition from foreign universities and far stricter visa rules.

"I think there was a post-9/11 effort to cut down on visas," added Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat. "I think this was a mistake."

Rep. David Dreier, a California Republican, was left defending stricter immigration rules. "We can't be so naive as to think there is not a very serious problem" with terrorists entering the country, he said.

Microsoft Research head Rick Rashid gave the example of a Microsoft employee in China who was barred by the U.S. government from attending a meeting in the United States after she got married. Gates said even Canadian employees have received similarly poor treatment: "It doesn't make any sense. We'll have Canadians sitting on the border until some bureaucratic thing happens."

Read More...

Doctors Influenced By Mention Of Drug Ads

washingtonpost.com
Doctors Influenced By Mention Of Drug Ads
Offbeat Study Finds Familiar Brand Name Can Evoke Diagnosis

By Shankar Vedantam and Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; A01

Actors pretending to be patients with symptoms of stress and fatigue were five times as likely to walk out of doctors' offices with a prescription when they mentioned seeing an ad for the heavily promoted antidepressant Paxil, according an unusual study being published today.

The study employed an elaborate ruse -- sending actors with fake symptoms into 152 doctors' offices to see whether they would get prescriptions. Most who did not report symptoms of depression were not given medications, but when they asked for Paxil, 55 percent were given prescriptions, and 50 percent received diagnoses of depression.

The study adds fuel to the growing controversy over the estimated $4 billion a year the drug industry spends on such advertising. Many public health advocates have long complained about ads showing happy people whose lives were changed by a drug, and now voices in Congress, the Food and Drug Administration and even the pharmaceutical industry are asking whether things have gone too far.

Nearly every industrialized country bans such advertising, and physicians said the new study raises new questions.

"It is a haphazard approach to health promotion that is driven primarily by the pharmaceutical industry's interest in turning a profit," said Matthew F. Hollon, an internist at the University of Washington in Seattle, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study in today's Journal of the American Medical Association. "The most overlooked problem in the health care system today is the extent to which it is permeated by avarice."

Hollon and the researchers who conducted the study said it was not realistic to expect such marketing to be abolished, given the climate of deregulation in Washington. But they said the ads should be tempered by educational messages funded by a tax on the industry and better training of doctors, or by a moratorium on ads for new drugs until their risks are fully known.

"We can do a much better job with the advertising," agreed W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, president and chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). "The ads can do a great job making sure people who need medications and are undertreated get help. We can also make it clear that a particular product is meant for people with this particular problem and for those people only."

The study found that the ads did help patients with a stigmatized illness such as depression get treatment, even as they prompted overmedication of people who did not need treatment. Such marketing in effect exploits the diagnostic gray zone that characterizes many conditions in medicine, including heartburn, arthritis and allergies.

"There is a segment of individuals who would really benefit from pharmacological therapy; there is another large group that won't," said Richard L. Kravitz, lead author of the study and a professor of medicine at the University of California at Davis. "The easiest thing from a marketing standpoint is to increase use in all the categories, and that is what we are seeing."

The researchers sent actors with hidden tape recorders into general physicians' offices in three cities between May 2003 and May 2004. The physicians had previously consented to participate but were not told when they would be tested.

Half the actors simulated patients suffering from depression, describing lengthy periods of sadness, low energy, poor appetite and sleep, and early-morning awakening. The others described having suffered a career upheaval and having fatigue, stress and difficulty sleeping, symptoms that did not warrant medication.

More than half of those without simulated depression who mentioned Paxil got a prescription, underscoring how willing doctors are to go along with patients' requests.

Concerns have recently grown about the safety of antidepressants after disclosures that the pharmaceutical industry withheld studies that found the drugs were no better than sugar pills. The FDA recently concluded that the drugs increase suicidal thinking and behavior among children and required them to carry black-box warnings -- which have greatly reduced direct-to-consumer advertising of such drugs.

Advertising could be useful for drugs with large benefits and few risks, said researcher Ronald M. Epstein, but the industry's bias against negative studies raises questions about which drugs ought to be marketed in this fashion. Epstein is a professor of family medicine at the University of Rochester.

Nancy Leone, a spokeswoman for GlaxoSmithKline PLC, the maker of Paxil, said physicians are not unduly influenced by ads, and denied that such "education campaigns" lead to inappropriate prescribing. It was "difficult to draw conclusions" about the new study, she said, because Paxil was not being heavily advertised during the study period.

In his editorial, Hollon said 80 percent of physicians believe such ads prompt patients to seek medications they do not need, and less than 10 percent believe the ads are a good thing.

Johnson & Johnson's chief executive, William C. Weldon, now chairman of the PhRMA board, said last month that the industry ought to revise its approach to drug ads because they "may inadvertently minimize the importance and power of medicines and their risks."

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising soared after the FDA allowed drug promotions on television for the first time in 1997. Efforts to limit such advertising have run afoul of Supreme Court rulings protecting commercial speech.

The ads are regulated by the FDA's Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications. The office, which has barely three dozen employees, must review 30,000 to 40,000 ads a year. Acting commissioner Lester M. Crawford said recently that "our patience is sometimes worn thin" by the advertising claims.

Dan Troy, chief counsel for the FDA in President Bush's first term and now with a Washington law firm, said laws on drug advertising written by Congress in the 1960s have made it difficult to change policy. He added that most FDA professionals were "quite pro-DTC."

PhRMA's Tauzin said companies are working on a new code of conduct that would be preferable to federal regulation.

The FDA has moved against scores of ads that it found to be inaccurate or misleading. In 2001, it warned Merck and Co. that its ads for the arthritis drug Vioxx were misleading and did not adequately warn viewers of cardiovascular risks. After Merck took Vioxx off the market last September, Pfizer Inc. aggressively increased advertising for its competing painkiller, Celebrex, but also got a warning from the FDA.

Read More...

Proposed bill would change National Weather Service

USA TODAY

Proposed bill would change National Weather Service

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) is pushing a bill that some fear would restrict what information the National Weather Service (NWS) provides to the public. The bill has drawn criticism from those who say it unfairly favors private weather providers, and would endanger the public by preventing the dissemination of certain weather data.

Under the proposed legislation, the NWS would be allowed to offer particular types of services only if the private sector does not offer them — a provision similar to rules that guided the agency for 14 years until last year.

When the rule changed, the NWS and its parent agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), expanded into areas already served by the commercial weather industry, according to Santorum's office.

The bill would protect the 14 private weather service companies in Pennsylvania — including AccuWeather in State College, Pa., Santorum spokeswoman Chrissy Shott said. AccuWeather, which says it employs about 340 people, provides weather data to a variety of outlets — including media organizations such as The Associated Press.

"This is about job retention in Pennsylvania," Shott said. The NWS would still issue severe weather information, she said.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., has criticized the bill, saying the NWS received nine million hits on its Web site during the four hurricanes that hit his state last year, and the information they were seeking went beyond that of the warnings issued.

Nelson's spokesman, Dan McLaughlin, said it is a dangerous precedent to begin shutting down government services because the private sector offers it.

"It ... could have a domino effect," McLaughlin said.

The (Florida) Palm Beach Post, which was first to report on the issue last week after the bill was introduced, said NOAA has taken no position on it. The story quoted Ed Johnson, the NWS's director of strategic planning and policy, as saying his agency is expanding its online offerings.

Chris Dancy, spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, said the bill is written so broadly that in its strictest interpretation it would prevent the NWS from distributing weather data to the Federal Aviation Administration that pilots use.

"The government has an obligation to protect the safety of flights and weather is the single greatest factor in determining the safe conclusion of a flight," Dancy said.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Monday that FEC filings show that employees at AccuWeather have donated at least $5,500 to Santorum since 1999.

Barry Lee Myers, the company's executive vice president, denied that employees were trying to influence Santorum on the issue.

He said if the bill were to pass, the public would likely notice little difference, and it could in fact benefit.

"Encouraging that activity in the private sector is a much better way" to encourage innovation "than having the government try to do it," Myers said.

Read More...

Durable goods orders down 2.8%, biggest fall since 2002

USA TODAY

Durable goods orders down 2.8%, biggest fall since 2002
From wire reports

WASHINGTON — Orders to U.S. factories for big-ticket manufactured goods plunged 2.8% in March, the biggest setback in 2½ years and the third straight decline, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.

The March drop, showing much more weakness than had been expected, followed declines of 0.2% in February and 1.2% in January. It left new orders for durable goods, everything from bicycles to battleships, at a seasonally adjusted $194.03 billion in February.

The weakness in durable goods orders was just the latest evidence that the economy may be entering another "soft patch" as consumers and businesses, jolted by a sharp increase in energy prices, cut back on their purchases.

"It's clearly not a one-month aberration. Gasoline prices are climbing. Three-dollar gasoline is only a week or two away. The slowdown could stretch into the second quarter," said Christopher Low, chief economist at FTN Financial in New York.

The 2.8% drop in overall orders was the biggest decline since a 6% plunge in September 2002. It was a far worse performance than analysts had expected. They had been forecasting that orders would rise a modest 0.3% after an originally reported increase of 0.5% in February. The February increase was revised away to show a decline of 0.2%.

The three straight declines in new orders was the longest stretch of weakness since three straight declines from July through September 2001, a period that covered the last recession.

Last month's weakness was led by declines in demand for transportation. Orders for motor vehicles fell 2.4%, the third straight drop in this category. Demand for commercial aircraft plunged 22.7% and orders for military aircraft fell an even larger 35%.

Excluding the volatile transportation category, orders for durable goods — pricey manufactured items meant to last three years or more — sank 1.0%, the Commerce Department said.

The total level of new orders was at its lowest since June 2004. Durable goods orders excluding defense fell 3%, the biggest drop since September 2002.

Civilian aircraft orders slumped 22.7% last month after a big rise in February, and defense aircraft orders plummeted 35%.

The report suggested businesses were scaling back spending plans last month as orders for non-defense capital goods, excluding aircraft, dropped 4.7%. That decline follows a 2.5% slide in February.

Demand for machinery dropped 7.6%, orders for fabricated metal products fell 0.1%.

Among the few bright spots in the report, communications equipment orders rose 5.1% and orders for primary metals climbed 1.0%.

Read More...

PBS = Republican Broadcasting Corporation

thenation.com

Republican Broadcasting Corporation
04/27/2005
Ari Berman

A conservative coup is underway at PBS.

The new head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (the gatekeeper between lawmakers and public broadcasters), Ken Ferree, is a staunch Republican proponent of media deregulation and a former top adviser to FCC Chairman Michael Powell. Three top CPB officials, all with Democratic affiliations, departed or were dismissed in recent months. For the first time in its 38-year history, the CPB ordered a comprehensive review of public TV and radio programming for "evidence of bias." All new PBS funding agreements are conditioned upon the network following "objectivity and balance" requirements for each of its programs.

Last January, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings denounced the cartoon rabbit Buster, of "Postcards from Buster" fame, for visiting a lesbian family in Vermont. The decision to slash in half the popular investigative show NOW after Bill Moyers' departure, and the addition of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Tucker Carlson (who has since left for MSNBC) to the programming line-up proves just how far right PBS has moved in an attempt to appear fair and balanced. "This is the first time in my thirty-two years in public broadcasting that CPB has ordered up programs for ideological instead of journalistic reasons," Moyers told The New Yorker last year.

A majority of the CPB's eight-member board--chaired by Ken Tomlinson, a good friend of Karl Rove--are now Republican appointees. Two of the newest, Gay Hart Gaines and Cheryl Halpern, have donated more than $800,000 to the Republican Party since 1995. Gaines once ran a political action committee for Newt Gingrich, who as speaker of the House pushed to "zero out" all of PBS's federal funding. In 2003, PBS President Pat Mitchell offered Gingrich a town-hall style show. It would've happened if Gingrich wasn't already under contract with Fox News.

Ironically, the CPB was created to shield PBS from political pressure, just as PBS was intended to address the "needs of unserved and underserved audiences." One can hardly argue that the WSJ edit page or Tucker Carlson fit into that category. "To find the same combination of conviction, partisanship and ideological extremism on the far left," wrote my colleague Eric Alterman, "A network would need to convene a 'roundtable' featuring Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, Vanessa Redgrave and Fidel Castro."

These days, PBS is more likely to give James Dobson his own special on religion.

Read More...

Be Careful What You Pray For

thenation.com

Be Careful What You Pray For
04/27/2005
Katrina vanden Heuvael

I don't claim to be as good at interpreting the apocalyptic signs of Revelations as the Christian right or the entertainment executives at NBC, but there are portents that The Lord is getting tired of the people who keep using his name in vain. I'll report, you decide:

I. Tom DeLay's sleazy lobbyist pal and tourism operator, Jack Abramoff, is making plea-bargain-sounding remarks that DeLay knew about everything.

II. Dick Cheney's choice for UN ambassador, John Bolton, whose temper is only matched by his moustache, has been left hanging in the wind by the conscience of Republican George Voinovich, an event as miraculous as the parting of the Red Sea.

III. Bill Frist, Harvard MD turned born-again creationist, lost control of his Republican caucus during the Bolton hearing and seems unlikely to regain it for the filibuster nuclear option, making his born-again presidential campaign conversion seem as foolish as it is transparent.

IV. George Bush's umpteenth push for Social Security privatization was undermined by the worst stock market drop since 9/11. Then, his Earth Day speech was scuttled by a freak hailstorm.

Is this the end of days for the Republican majority? I leave that to a higher power to decide. But they should be careful what they pray for.

Read More...

Records Show DeLay, Lobbyist Daily Contact

ABC News

Records Show DeLay, Lobbyist Daily Contact
AP Enterprise: Records Show Frequent Contact Between Rep. Tom DeLay, Lobbyist and Contributor

By SHARON THEIMER
The Associated Press

Apr. 27, 2005 - Over two years, Rep. Tom DeLay had at least two dozen discussions with a lobbyist working to keep a U.S. territory's factories free from new labor laws. The lobbyist contributed to the House leader's campaigns and arranged travel for him.

Records show that DeLay's staff spoke with the lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, or his team almost daily during this period.

DeLay's office kept Abramoff, now under criminal investigation, routinely apprised of congressional efforts to block new regulations on his client, the Northern Mariana Islands.

Questions have been raised about whether Abramoff himself paid for some of DeLay's foreign trips in violation of House rules. DeLay maintains they were properly financed by trip sponsors.

Abramoff's firm reported it drafted legislative materials for DeLay, and Abramoff boasted to island leaders he could use his close ties to Republican leaders to block legislation from receiving a House vote.

"Getting the bill off the schedule for next week, however, should enable us to use our connections within the Leadership to ensure that ... it will not come to the floor," Abramoff wrote the islands in September 1996.

The Northern Marianas billing and correspondence records of Abramoff's former lobbying firm, Preston Gates, were obtained by The Associated Press under an open records request approved by the island government

They provide a day-by-day account of the lobbyist's campaign of fundraising, trip-providing and schmoozing with lawmakers in both parties aimed at, among other things, getting Congress to block Clinton administration efforts to regulate alleged "sweatshop" garment factories in the Northern Marianas. Those rules were never enacted.

DeLay, R-Texas, is now the House majority leader, but back then he was the No. 3 official in the House. His job as majority whip involved counting the way lawmakers intended to vote, which often influenced when legislation would come to a vote in the GOP-led Congress. Though Abramoff billed the island for contacts with dozens of lawmakers, DeLay's office was among the most frequently listed in the billing records.

An Abramoff spokesman said Tuesday the records confirm the lobbyist earned his pay. "Mr. Abramoff and his team worked tirelessly on behalf of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands and achieved tremendous results," Andrew Blum said.

DeLay's office said Tuesday he made decisions on the merits, not because of Abramoff's largesse or lobbying. "People know that Majority Leader DeLay stands on principles and bases his voting decisions on the merits," spokesman Dan Allen said.

The documents show that Abramoff's firm and the House Ethics Committee began having concerns as early as 1996 about Abramoff's arrangement of numerous trips for congressional members to the Pacific islands and how they were being paid for.

Abramoff billed numerous trips to his personal credit card or the firm, the records state, and then he later pressed the islands to reimburse him to avoid violating the new ban on lobbyists giving gifts to House members.

"I am under pressure here since the firm, under the gift ban rules, is not allowed to be out of pocket too long on the costs of congressional member and staff travel," Abramoff wrote in November 1996.

Though a tiny set of U.S. territorial islands in the Pacific Ocean with a population of about 80,000, Abramoff's client received constant attention often numerous contacts in a week from DeLay's staff in the mid- to late 1990s, the records show.

DeLay himself met or talked with Abramoff at least two dozen times in 1996 and 1997, when Abramoff's work for the islands got under way, the records show.

DeLay aides were in far more frequent contact, often talking day to day with Abramoff and his team of lobbyists, which charged the Northern Marianas $3 million in lobbying fees between October 1996 and October 1997.

On one trip that Abramoff arranged for DeLay and his staff to take to Russia in August 1997, the lobbyist billed the Northern Marianas for 20 hours of interactions with DeLay and his staff even though the trip was supposed to focus on Russian affairs, the records show.

Legislative dealings with DeLay's office were frequently sandwiched around campaign contributions, golf outings or trips provided or arranged by Abramoff for lawmakers, including some for DeLay.

For instance, the lobbyist and his wife gave maximum $5,000 donations each to DeLay's leadership political action committee on Jan. 14, 1997, about two months before DeLay met with the island's governor during a Washington visit and gave a glowing speech about the islands.

One of DeLay's top congressional aides at the time, Tony Rudy, e-mailed Abramoff a copy of remarks DeLay made to the full House on March 19, 1997, praising the islands as a "model of reform."

Abramoff also arranged for DeLay and his wife to visit the Mariana Islands during the 1997 Christmas break. Earlier that month, two DeLay staffers went to the islands as well, the records show.

In April, 1996, two donors from the islands gave $2,000 each to DeLay's campaign. In June 6, 1996, Abramoff gave a $2,000 donation in the name of DeLay's office to a charity golf tournament.

And a month after Abramoff wrote the islands about getting legislation they opposed blocked in the House, the political action committee for Abramoff's firm donated $500 to DeLay's campaign in October 1996.

The records show Abramoff's lobbying team sometimes billed the client to attend Republican fundraisers, such as one in August 1996 for Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

In June 1997, he reported to the islands that he went to the U.S. Open golf tournament "with a number of our congressional staffer friends."

He credited the numerous trips he arranged to the islands with fending off the new labor rules the Clinton administration and some congressional Democrats were seeking.

"There is no doubt that trips to the CNMI (islands) are one of the most effective ways to build permanent friends on the Hill," the firm wrote the island government in a lobbying plan in February 1998.

Some of the lawmakers Abramoff arranged to travel to the islands included Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Brian Bilbray, both California Republicans, and Ralph Hall, a Texas Democrat.

On the Net:

A chronology and documents related to this story are available at:

http://wid.ap.org/interactives/delay/timeline.html

Read More...

Putin Makes Historic Visit to Israel

Yahoo News!
Putin Makes Historic Visit to Israel

By HENRY MEYER, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM - Russian President Vladimir Putin made a historic first visit to Israel by a Kremlin leader Wednesday, hours after calling for a Mideast peace conference in Moscow this fall.

Putin arrived from Cairo, Egypt, where he proposed a Middle East peace conference in Moscow in the fall. The topics of talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders are expected to include proposed Russian missile sales to Syria and an expanded role for Russia in Mideast diplomacy.

Read More...

British Businessman Found Guilty in U.S. Weapons Case

Yahoo News!
Reuters
British Businessman Found Guilty in U.S. Weapons Case

NEWARK, N.J. (Reuters) - A British man was found guilty of trying to provide material support to terrorists on Wednesday for selling a shoulder-launched missile to an undercover FBI informant posing as an Islamic militant seeking to attack the United States.

Hemant Lakhani, 69, a British citizen born in India, was found guilty of five criminal charges by a U.S. District Court jury in Newark, New Jersey, that began deliberating on Tuesday.

Lakhani was arrested in August 2003 after a two-year international sting operation and charged with trying to provide material support to terrorists, unlawful arms sales, smuggling and money laundering. He faces 25 years in prison.

Prosecutors provided videotapes and taped telephone conversations of Lakhani making the deal with an undercover FBI informant posing as an Islamic militant.

But while the prosecution depicted Lakhani as an enthusiastic broker eager to supply a terrorist group, the defense said he was a victim of overzealous law enforcement in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Read More...

Durable Goods Orders Plummet in March

Yahoo! News
AP
Durable Goods Orders Plummet in March

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - Orders to U.S. factories for big-ticket manufactured goods plunged 2.8 percent in March, the biggest setback in 2 1/2 years and the third straight decline, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.

The March drop, showing much more weakness than had been expected, followed declines of 0.2 percent in February and 1.2 percent in January. It left new orders for durable goods, everything from bicycles to battleships, at a seasonally adjusted $194.03 billion in February.

The weakness in durable goods orders was just the latest evidence that the economy may be entering another "soft patch" as consumers and businesses, jolted by a sharp increase in energy prices, cut back on their purchases.

"The soft patch is turning soggy," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York. "I think it is likely that we will come out of the soft patch, but we can't be sure."

Wyss said a lot will depend on whether oil prices continue to decline from their recent surge.

Wall Street initially fell on the disappointing orders report, with the Dow Jones industrial average off by more than 60 points. But by midday, the Dow Jones industrial average had recouped those losses and was back in positive territory.

The 2.8 percent drop in overall orders was the biggest decline since a 6 percent plunge in September 2002. It was a far worse performance than analysts had expected. They had been forecasting that orders would rise by a modest 0.3 percent after an originally reported increase of 0.5 percent in February. In the new report, the February increase was revised away to now show a decine of 0.2 percent.

The three straight declines in new orders was the longest stretch of weakness since three straight declines from July through September 2001, a period that covered the last recession.

Last month's weakness was led by declines in demand for transportation. Orders for motor vehicles fell 2.4 percent, the third straight drop in this category. Demand for commercial aircraft plunged by 22.7 percent and orders for military aircraft fell by an even larger 35 percent.

Excluding transportation, orders last month would have been down by a slightly smaller 1 percent following a small 0.2 percent drop in orders excluding transportation in February.

Demand for computers and other electronic products was one of the few areas showing strength last month, posting a 2.2 percent increase. Orders for primary metals such as steel rose by 1 percent.

Read More...

US 'conceals high terror figures'

BBC NEWS

US 'conceals high terror figures'

Data withheld from an annual report on terrorism by the US state department show a sharp increase in attacks in 2004, a top Democratic lawmaker says.

Henry Waxman, citing official briefings given to congressional aides, said the number of "significant" attacks had risen more than three-fold in a year.

The California congressman urged the administration to release the figures.

The state department has said it will stop providing them. It admitted to mistakes in last year's report.

In June 2004 the department was forced to double its original estimate of terror victims in the previous year.

It said 625 people had been killed in attacks worldwide in 2003 - not 307 as stated in the annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report published two months earlier.


US DEFINITION OF TERRORISM
Washington has long defined "terrorism" as politically motivated violence against
non-combatants
Attacks targeting US or other forces in Iraq are not included
"Significant" terror attacks result in loss of life, serious injury, or major
damage

Last week the department announced that it would no longer publish statistical data, but that the newly created National Counter-Terrorism Centre would do so at a later date.

On Tuesday Mr Waxman accused the state department of concealing an increase in terror attacks.

He said congressional briefings by federal officials pointed to a dramatic rise in the number of "significant" terrorist attacks - those that result in loss of life, serious injury or major damage.

There were about 650 such attacks last year, the congressman said - up from 175 in 2003, a record number at the time.

Low estimates?

In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice circulated by his staff, Mr Waxman said that even the latest figures may be too low.

He said many incidents most Americans would regard as terror attacks were excluded from the data because they did not meet the state department's definition.

"The large increases in terrorist attacks reported in 2004 may undermine administration claims of success in the war on terror, but political inconvenience has never been a legitimate basis for withholding facts from the American people," the letter added.

Last year's original report said there had been a total of 190 terror acts around the world in 2003 - pointing to a steady decrease over three years.

The administration seized on this and other numbers as proof that its war on terror was succeeding.

In the revised report the department said there had in fact been 208 attacks - an increase from 2004.

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said there had been no attempt to deceive people, and blamed clerical and administrative errors.

Read More...

G.O.P. Will Relent on Ethics Rules, House Speaker Says

The New York Times
April 27, 2005
G.O.P. Will Relent on Ethics Rules, House Speaker Says
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, April 27 - Saying that an ethics impasse needed to be resolved to provide a chance for Representative Tom DeLay to clear his name, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said this morning that Republicans were ready to relent on rules changes that have left the ethics committee unable to do any work.

"I am willing to step back," Mr. Hastert told reporters after a closed-door meeting with House Republicans. "I think we need to move forward with the ethics process."

Mr. Hastert, who defended the rules changes forced through earlier this year by Republicans as an attempt to protect the rights of lawmakers, did not specify what he would do and said he would outline his plan later today in a letter to Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader.

But he and others indicated that his intention was to reverse three rules opposed by Democrats, an action that would require a vote of the full House. Without naming Mr. DeLay specifically, the speaker alluded to the furor surrounding the majority leader over overseas travels, fund-raising and contacts with lobbyists.

"There is a member, especially on our side, who needs to have the process move forward so he can clear his name," the speaker said. "Right now he can't clear his name." Mr. DeLay has offered to meet with leaders of the ethics panel to resolve questions surrounding his travel and Republican members of the committee said last week they were willing to investigate the majority leader.

Republicans have been saying that the ethics fight, combined with the attention that has been focused on Mr. DeLay over fund-raising and travel irregularities, has not only become a distraction but also a political liability that they want to defuse.

"Obviously it is an issue that we very, very much want to address," said Representative David Dreier of California, the Rules Committee chairman, who would not discuss details of the leadership strategy.

The Democrats have clearly been able to exploit the deadlock over the ethics panel, painting the Republicans as unwilling to investigate or police their own. The changes were denounced as violating the panel's bipartisan tradition, making the Republicans appear as if they believed they were above the law.

Republicans have asserted that the changes, drafted by the speaker's office and pushed through by the Republicans in January, were designed to better protect the rights of lawmakers. But their counterparts quickly complained that they were instituted after the House ethics committee admonished Mr. DeLay three times last year. "We fumbled the ball badly," said one senior Republican official who spoke anonymously because he did not want to be viewed as critical of the leadership.

Other officials said the leadership was considering a floor vote on whether to revert to the rules that governed the handling of complaints until early this year. Republicans could also allow individual up-or-down floor votes on the three rules at the center of the dispute to see if allowing a new debate and vote would eliminate Democratic objections.

"They have to cauterize this," Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, said Tuesday afternoon, referring to the ethics fight. Mr. Hoyer said he was contacted last week by the Republican whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri, about ways to resolve the stalemate.

Representative Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the House panel, which is evenly split between the two parties, said Tuesday that he too had received signals that the Republicans wanted to settle the issue. He said he would welcome an acceptable resolution. "I just want to emphasize that it is really important that they hit this standard of a bipartisan ethics committee and bipartisan process," he said. "That is the premise to a valid ethics committee."

Under the new rules, complaints could be dismissed after 45 days if the panel did not agree on how to proceed, a change critics said would give lawmakers an incentive to delay complaints until they were dropped. Another rule allows the same lawyer to represent both the subject of a complaint and witnesses and a third would give new notification and appeal rights to lawmakers who are to be named in a panel report.

Mr. DeLay faces questions about whether recent overseas trips were underwritten by a lobbyist in violation of House rules, an accusation he denies. He has offered to meet with the leaders of the ethics committee to resolve the questions, and it appears likely that if the committee takes up the matter, it would look into his travel as well as questions about trips by other lawmakers.

In an effort to resolve the impasse, Republican members of the panel offered last week to begin an immediate inquiry into Mr. DeLay's travel if Democrats were to drop their opposition to the rules. But Democrats rejected that offer.

Republican officials say that reversing the rules is a sensitive matter with House Republicans, who last year overturned a party rule in order to allow Mr. DeLay to remain leader even if he was indicted by a grand jury. They reversed course under public pressure a few weeks later. The officials said the leadership wanted to be certain of the sentiment of Republican lawmakers before urging them to change course again.

Some Republicans acknowledge that the way the rules were changed with no Democratic involvement has left the party vulnerable to accusations that it was seeking to hamstring the panel after it admonished Mr. DeLay three times last year.

Read More...

ACLU Challenges Government’s Use of Secrecy to Avoid Accountability in National Security Whistleblower Case

aclu.org

ACLU Challenges Government’s Use of Secrecy to Avoid Accountability in National Security Whistleblower Case

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Bars Public, Press from Sibel Edmonds Hearing

WASHINGTON -- During closed oral arguments today before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the government’s "radical theory" that every aspect of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds’ case involved state secrets and therefore could not go forward. The ACLU also filed an emergency motion last night, along with other public interest groups and media outlets, challenging the court’s decision to close the courtroom to members of the press and the general public.

Edmonds, a former Middle Eastern language specialist hired by the FBI shortly after 9/11, was fired in 2002 after repeatedly reporting serious security breaches and misconduct. Edmonds challenged her retaliatory dismissal by filing a lawsuit in federal court, but her case was dismissed last July after Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the so-called "state secrets privilege," and retroactively classified briefings to Congress related to her case.

In January 2005, after significant delay, the Justice Department released an unclassified summary of its Inspector General’s report investigating the circumstances of Edmonds’ termination. According to the summary, the Inspector General report concludes that Edmonds’ whistleblower allegations were "the most significant factor" in the FBI’s decision to terminate her.

"The Justice Department’s own Inspector General has now concluded publicly that the FBI fired Edmonds for reporting agency misconduct," said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU, who argued on behalf of Edmonds today. "Clearly the FBI is using secrecy not to protect national security but to avoid accountability for its own mistakes."

The state secrets privilege, when properly invoked, permits the government to block disclosure of evidence that would cause harm to national security. In the Edmonds case, however, the government used the privilege to urge dismissal of the entire lawsuit, insisting that every aspect of Edmonds’ case involves state secrets -- including where she was born and what languages she speaks.

The state secrets privilege has historically been rarely invoked, and even more rarely employed to dismiss an entire case at the outset. The outcome in Edmonds’ case could significantly impact the government’s ability to rely on secrecy to avoid accountability in future cases, the ACLU said, including one pending case charging the government with "rendering" detainees to be tortured, and another charging racial discrimination by the CIA.

"Edmonds’ case is not an isolated incident," Beeson said. "The federal government is routinely retaliating against government employees who uncover weaknesses in our ability to prevent terrorist attacks or protect public safety. From firing whistleblowers to using special privileges to cover up mistakes, the government is taking extreme steps to shield itself from political embarrassment while gambling with our safety."

The court’s surprise move yesterday to close the hearing to members of the press and general public resulted in multiple emergency motions filed last night by the ACLU and other public interest groups, as well as several media organizations including The Washington Post, The New York Times, Reuters America, the Associated Press and The Hearst Corporation. The ACLU said the decision to close the court did not appear to be based on state secrets concerns as it allowed those without security clearance to be present for the arguments. Furthermore, the briefs argued today were already made public when they were first filed in early 2005.

Several 9/11 family member advocacy groups have signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Sibel Edmonds. Advocates say that if government employees do not report misconduct or security breaches for fear of retaliation, then national security suffers. That brief, along with other legal documents and background materials, is available online at www.aclu.org/whistleblowers.

Co-counsel in the case are: Melissa Goodman and Ben Wizner of the national ACLU; Art Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area; Mark Zaid of the Washington law firm Krieger and Zaid; and Eric Seiff of New York.

originally published April 21, 2005

Read More...

Donations link DeLay, ethics panel

USA TODAY

Donations link DeLay, ethics panel

By Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — All five Republicans on the House ethics committee have financial links to Tom DeLay that could raise conflict-of-interest issues should the panel investigate the GOP majority leader.

Public records show DeLay's leadership political action committee (PAC) gave $15,000 to the campaign of Rep. Melissa Hart, R-Pa. — $10,000 in 2000 and $5,000 in 2002. Hart would chair a panel to investigate DeLay if the committee moves forward with a probe.

The same political committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, also has donated to the campaigns of ethics Chairman Doc Hastings of Washington, Judy Biggert of Illinois and Tom Cole of Oklahoma. They are among scores of Republicans DeLay has contributed to. Cole and the remaining committee Republican, Lamar Smith of Texas, contributed to DeLay's legal defense fund.

Hart said there is no appearance problem. "That's just normal" for leaders to contribute to campaigns, she said.

There is precedent for ethics panel members recusing themselves when such conflict issues arise. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., stepped aside in 2002 in the case of then-senator Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., accused of financial misconduct. Reid had given $500 to Torricelli's legal defense fund. "Recusal is pretty much an individual choice, if there is any possibility of a conflict of interest," said Donald Ritchie, a Senate historian.

Kenneth Gross, an attorney who has represented Democrats and Republicans on ethics issues, said the financial ties on the committee could be a problem. "I would advise the committee not to use a member who had received contributions from DeLay's leadership PAC to head the investigation," he said.

The ethics committee has admonished DeLay five times since 1997, more than any current member of Congress. He has come under renewed scrutiny for taking foreign trips that may have been paid for by lobbyists or foreign agents, which is prohibited.

A DeLay investigation cannot be launched because the committee hasn't been able to solve a dispute over its rules. Rep. Alan Mollohan and other Democrats refuse to adopt the rules, saying they are designed to protect DeLay and would allow either party to protect members by refusing to act on complaints.

The panel is the only House committee with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats: five each.

Read More...

Pace of Insurgent Attacks in Iraq Rises

Yahoo! News News Home - Help
AP
Pace of Insurgent Attacks in Iraq Rises

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - After a postelection respite, the pace of insurgent attacks in Iraq has increased in recent weeks to approach last year's levels, Pentagon officials said Tuesday.

"Where they are right now is where they were almost a year ago, and it's nowhere near the peak," said Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a Pentagon press conference.

That's about 400 attacks a week of all kinds: bombings, shootings, rocket and mortar attacks, Pentagon officials said. About half cause significant damage or injure or kill someone.

Though they vary daily, those figures are close to the rate of attacks that took place through much of last year, except for spasms of violence in Najaf, Fallujah and elsewhere. In pre-election violence in January, the number spiked to twice the usual rate.

The frequency of attacks is one measure of the strength of the insurgency in Iraq, and the success of the efforts of the U.S.-led coalition to combat it.

But Myers and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld disputed a suggestion that the figure demonstrates a lack of progress in Iraq. Rumsfeld said the focus of U.S. forces has been training Iraqi security forces rather than directing counterinsurgency operations.

"The United States and the coalition forces, in my personal view, will not be the thing that will defeat the insurgency," he said. "The people that are going to defeat that insurgency are going to be the Iraqis. And the Iraqis will do it not through military means solely, but by progress on the political side and giving the Iraqi people a sense that they have a stake in that country."

Myers pointed to the creation of new government institutions. "I think we're definitely winning. I think we've been winning for some time," he said. "If you look at where we are, we've had elections. They're about ready to form a government, albeit slower than perhaps some would have hoped, forming the Cabinet and so forth."

A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said post-invasion attacks in Iraq were at lower levels — 150 to 200 per week — until April 2004, when uprisings occurred in Najaf and Anbar province. The first pictures of tortured prisoners from the Abu Ghraib prison were also made public that month.

Afterward, the rate of attacks doubled, to around 400 or more per week, the official said. The number spiked during U.S. offensives in Najaf in August and Fallujah in November.

In January, as Iraq prepared to hold its elections, the numbers increased to as high as 825 attacks in one week, the official said. Afterward, the number dropped again to 400 per week in February and 350 in March, leading to some hopes that the insurgency — a mix of Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists — was finally ebbing because of the elections.

About 60 people — including Iraqis, Americans and other foreigners — are injured or killed daily in attacks, the defense official said. Except for the spikes, that rate has remained roughly consistent since April 2004, the official said.

___

On the Net:

Pentagon: http://www.defense.gov

Read More...

GOP May Be Splintering on Social Security

washingtonpost.com

GOP May Be Splintering on Social Security

By Jonathan Weisman and Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; A04

A badly divided Senate Finance Committee yesterday held the first hearing examining President Bush's efforts to restructure Social Security. While the Democrats remained united in their opposition, there were signs of cracks in the Republicans' support for the president.

After months of political positioning, the stakes were high as the committee took up Bush's signature domestic issue for his second term. The White House has framed the Social Security debate as a matter of political courage, challenging both parties to secure the program's long-term solvency while giving all Americans an ownership stake in their economy. But over the course of the president's Social Security tour, public support for Bush's proposal has fallen, and Democrats see the issue as their best chance to make political gains in Washington.

With that highly charged backdrop, Republican divisions at the hearing had added significance.

One GOP witness repeatedly disparaged the White House's approach to Social Security changes, bolstering Democratic contentions that it would lead to politically untenable benefit cuts. Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) questioned the wisdom of adding trillions of dollars in federal debt in the coming decades to finance the president's plan. And Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) seemed to signal intractable opposition to converting part of the defined Social Security benefit to variable returns from stock and bond investments.

"Social Security became the bedrock of support for seniors in my state precisely because it's defined and guaranteed," she said. "What cost and what risk is it worth to erode the guaranteed benefit?"

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) told reporters after the hearing that he is determined to press forward with Social Security legislation, even if it passes out of his traditionally bipartisan committee with only GOP votes. Republicans on the panel will meet in two weeks to begin hashing out legislation that Grassley hopes could eventually bring some Democrats on board.

But he did not express much hope. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is not likely to bring a partisan bill to a vote in the full Senate because any Social Security change will need 60 votes to pass, he said. To get Democratic votes, Grassley said, he could drop the centerpiece of the president's plan, the creation of private investment accounts through the diversion of Social Security taxes. But doing that would cost him critical Republican support, he said.

"I could fail," he conceded. "If we can't get some Democrat support, I do fail."

Bush was in Galveston, Tex., yesterday, marking the 23rd state he has visited on his nearly completed "60 stops in 60 days" Social Security tour since outlining the details of his private account plan in February during his State of the Union address.

Bush's appearance was intended to highlight the retirement programs that cover workers in Galveston and two nearby counties, Brazoria and Matagorda. Workers in those counties opted out of Social Security in the early 1980s, switching to private plans that proponents say offer workers better benefits than the federal retirement system -- something Bush said could be duplicated if Congress enacts his plan to allow workers to divert nearly a third of their Social Security taxes into personal accounts.

The accounts offer "a better deal for younger Americans," Bush said, adding, "I like the idea of people owning something."

Five months after Bush launched his drive to restructure Social Security, all of the pitfalls of his efforts were on display yesterday before the Finance Committee. Democrats -- even those identified as potential swing voters -- were united in their opposition, appearing en masse at a Capitol Hill rally after the hearing to underscore the point.

"I've always been one who thought that there was a kernel of a good idea in individual accounts, but I never thought it was a good idea to finance personal accounts with massive debt," said Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.), a committee member who has been wooed by Bush.

On the other side, Republicans appear to be splintering in the face of falling public support for the president's private accounts plan. Peter Ferrara, a Republican witness and director of the Social Security project at the Free Enterprise Fund, took repeated swipes at the White House for overemphasizing the need for benefit cuts; refusing to draft a detailed, comprehensive plan; and failing to anticipate the criticism that has weakened the restructuring movement.

Some committee Republicans made favorable comments about the plan of another witness, Massachusetts investment executive Robert Pozen, who would slow the growth of Social Security benefits for middle- and upper-income beneficiaries by using the growth of prices over their careers to help determine initial benefit levels. Currently, initial benefits are determined by the growth of wages.

But Ferrara warned Republicans that under such a plan, Social Security benefits would replace less and less of a senior's pre-retirement income. Returns on Social Security taxes would worsen each year. Ferrara warned Grassley after the hearing that Pozen's approach could be politically disastrous for the GOP.

His alternative would allow workers to contribute their entire 6.2 percent share of Social Security taxes to private accounts, a huge hit on the Treasury that would be made up over 75 years by $7 trillion in unspecified federal spending cuts and assumed economic growth because of a surge of private investments from those accounts. Absent such spending cuts, the government would incur trillions of dollars in additional debt, a prospect that did not sit well with some Republicans.

"Our debt is very high now, and to say we need to add more, that troubles me greatly," Thomas said after the hearing.

Fletcher reported from Galveston.

Read More...