Memo May Have Swayed Plan B Ruling

washingtonpost.com
Memo May Have Swayed Plan B Ruling
FDA Received 'Minority Report' From Conservative Doctor on Panel

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 12, 2005; A02

Soon after the Food and Drug Administration overruled its advisory panel last year and rejected an application to make an emergency contraceptive more easily available, critics of the agency said it had ignored scientific evidence and yielded to pressure from social conservatives.

The agency denied the charge, but an outspoken evangelical conservative doctor on the panel subsequently acknowledged in a previously unreported public sermon that he was asked to write a memo to the FDA commissioner soon after the panel voted 23 to 4 in favor of over-the-counter sales of the contraceptive, called Plan B. He said he believes his memo played a central role in the rejection of that recommendation.

The new information comes from a videotaped sermon in October by W. David Hager. On the tape, he said he was asked to write a "minority report" that would outline why over-the-counter sales should be rejected.

Speaking at the Asbury College chapel in Wilmore, Ky., Hager said, "I was asked to write a minority opinion that was sent to the commissioner of the FDA. For only the second time in five decades, the FDA did not abide by its advisory committee opinion, and the measure was rejected."

Hager told the group that he had not written his report from an "evangelical Christian perspective," but from a scientific one -- arguing that the panel had too little information on how easier availability of Plan B would affect girls younger than 16. The FDA later cited that lack of information as the reason it rejected the application.

"I argued from a scientific perspective, and God took that information, and he used it through this minority report to influence the decision," Hager said. "Once again, what Satan meant for evil, God turned into good."


The videotape of Hager's sermon was first obtained by the magazine the Nation, which published a story about the doctor today.

In an e-mail to The Washington Post, Hager said the request for the report came from "outside the agency," but he had previously told two other journalists -- in one case in an e-mail that the recipient saved -- that the request came from an FDA staff member.

An FDA spokeswoman said yesterday that the agency did not ask Hager to write a report and that Hager sent what she called a "private citizen letter" to Commissioner Mark McClellan. "We don't ask for minority reports and opinions," she said. "I've been advised that nobody from the FDA asked him to write the letter."

Hager has been a highly controversial figure because of his strong views against abortion and emergency contraception and in favor of abstinence education. In his October sermon, he said that Christians such as himself were at "war" with people who would take faith and values out of medical care.

Hager was appointed by the FDA to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee in 2002 and reappointed last year. A prominent Kentucky obstetrician and gynecologist, he has written numerous books on women's health -- generally from an evangelical Christian perspective.

In his October sermon, Hager said that White House officials called him in June 2001 and asked him to serve in some capacity -- initially as a candidate for surgeon general and later as a member of two advisory boards. After one month, Hager said, he was called by the White House and asked to resign from those committees and join the FDA's reproductive drugs panel instead because "there are some issues coming up we feel are very critical, and we want you to be on that advisory board."

While the FDA sometimes rejects the recommendations of its expert panels, the Plan B case was highly unusual in that the vote was so lopsided in favor of over-the-counter sales and its own science staff had also strongly favored approval.

Plan B has been available with a prescription since 1999. Barr Laboratories, its manufacturer, applied for permission to sell it without a prescription in 2003, arguing that it could reduce the number of abortions from unintended pregnancies. Emergency contraception generally works if it is used within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

Social conservatives in Congress, and many others opposed to abortion, have spoken out against the Plan B application, saying it would encourage unsafe sexual behavior.

Barr submitted a modified application in July 2004, and the agency was supposed to announce its decision in January. Instead, it said it needed more time.

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate Panel Probing Bolton Down to Wire

Senate Panel Probing Bolton Down to Wire

By ANNE GEARAN
AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Wednesday kept up an investigation of John R. Bolton on the eve of a showdown vote on the troubled nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Democrats who claim he is too hotheaded or unbending say they could try to hold up a final vote in the full Senate.

A Senate committee held private interviews with two State Department officials who worked with Bolton in his current job as the department's arms control chief. The Democrat who is leading the opposition to Bolton said he is asking the nominee directly for additional information.

Republicans claimed to have the support in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee needed to confirm Bolton. Democrats acknowledged as much, saying they probably could not stop Bolton at the committee's scheduled meeting on Thursday.

The committee planned a lengthy debate, largely on the Democrats' accounting of three weeks of inquiry into Bolton's conduct and fitness for the job.

All eight Democrats on the 18-member GOP-led committee oppose Bolton. For weeks, they have tried to raise enough questions about Bolton's conduct and temperament to persuade at least one Republican committee member to defect.

"Democrats continue to feel that Mr. Bolton is the wrong person for the job," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

A 10-8 party-line vote would send Bolton's nomination on to the full Senate, where Republicans have a larger majority.

The committee's top Democrat, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said it is possible that Bolton's nomination could be blocked by a Democratic filibuster in the full Senate.


"It is not my intention to do that but it depends on how this plays out," Biden said.

Added Dodd: "It's certainly a real possibility."

Among four committee Republicans who have expressed reservations about Bolton, only Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, appeared to remain on the fence.

"At this stage of the game we're going to make that decision tomorrow," Voinovich said.

Bolton met on Wednesday with one of those Republicans, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. She told reporters afterward that she was prepared to support him.

Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., indicated he would vote for Bolton, barring a last-minute development.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., has said he was waiting to hear what would come out Thursday, but that he had seen nothing thus far to keep him from voting for Bolton.

"My hope and my general prediction is that we will have a motion that will bring John Bolton to the floor and that that will succeed," said the committee chairman, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.

Lugar spoke to reporters outside the White House after a half-hour meeting with President Bush about the president's recent European trip. He said the Bolton nomination did not come up at the meeting.

The White House, which has lobbied hard for Bolton since GOP misgivings forced a surprise delay in the vote last month, is predicting victory.

"We've been in close contact with members of the committee. And we believe that John Bolton will be voted out of committee and that he will be confirmed on the floor of the Senate," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday.

The State Department sent the committee additional internal documents requested by Democrats. The material, focused on Bolton's use of intelligence data on Syria, was less than Democrats had requested, said Biden's spokesman, Norm Kurz.

Biden said he planned to send a letter directly to Bolton, asking if the nominee would object to release of paperwork he filed when requesting secret information from the National Security Agency.

It was not immediately clear if Bolton received the letter Wednesday.

Leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee had a private briefing Tuesday about the contents of Bolton's requests for the names of U.S. officials whose communications were picked up by the spy agency. Deputy National Intelligence Director Michael Hayden did not disclose the names, senators said.

At least two intelligence officials were interviewed Wednesday by that committee.

They included Larry Gershwin, who handled biological weapons issues at the National Intelligence Council, and an official from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research whose name was not released. Gershwin was involved in reviewing a 2002 speech Bolton gave on reports of biological weapons in Cuba.

Read More...

Summary only...

Polio cases mount in previously infection-free nations

USA TODAY

Polio cases mount in previously infection-free nations

GENEVA (AP) — The spread of polio in Yemen and Indonesia is adding new urgency to attempts to contain the disease in countries previously believed to be polio-free, the U.N. health agency said Wednesday.

The outbreak has grown to 63 cases in Yemen, while two more cases were confirmed in Indonesia, bringing the total there to six since May 3, the World Health Organization said.

Six million doses of vaccine are on their way to Yemen for a second round of immunizations and a vaccination campaign is under way in Indonesia, but experts expect several more polio cases to emerge before the outbreaks are contained.

"The more countries that are free of the disease, the greater the risk is that we will have sporadic outbreaks," said Oliver Rosenbauer, spokesman for the WHO's polio eradication program.

This happens because polio immunization campaigns often stop once the disease has been beaten. That leaves babies vulnerable to infections brought into the country.

And while the outbreaks in Yemen and Indonesia can be halted through immunization drives, it could be devastating if the virus were to reach Somalia, where a lack of security would make it difficult to conduct a vaccination campaign, Rosenbauer said.

"We have already seen polio reintroduced in Ethiopia," he said. "If it spreads to Somalia, it will be a problem because it is logistically very, very challenging there."


Yemen remains the area of highest concern for the moment. The number of cases could top 100 before the next phase of vaccinations takes place this month, Rosenbauer said.

Ideally, four doses should be given in the first year of life. However, during outbreaks, health authorities launch three rounds of vaccinations for all children under 5. The doses are given once every four to six weeks.

About 35% of children become immune to the disease after one dose of the vaccine, but for the others, exposure to the virus in between vaccinations is dangerous.

Yemen completed a first round of vaccinations in mid-April and will embark on the second wave in late May. Because the span between the doses cannot be shortened, experts expect more cases to emerge.

In Indonesia, the first round of vaccination is just starting.

Yemen and Indonesia are the latest of 16 previously polio-free countries that have reported new cases since 2003 after a vaccine boycott in Nigeria was blamed for causing an outbreak that spread the disease to other countries. Yemen's outbreak was first reported April 22.

Hard-line Islamic clerics in northern Nigeria led the immunization boycott, claiming the polio vaccine was part of a U.S.-led plot to render Nigeria's Muslims infertile or infect them with AIDS. Vaccination programs restarted in Nigeria in July 2004 after local officials ended the 11-month boycott.

Last year, some 1,267 people were infected in the world — 792 of them in Nigeria. The total new cases in 2005 stands at 198, according to WHO, with Nigeria and Yemen listed as the worst-affected countries.

Polio comes from dirty water and usually infects young children, attacking the nervous system and causing paralysis, muscular atrophy, deformation and sometimes death.

When WHO launched its anti-polio campaign in 1988, the worldwide case count was more than 350,000 annually. WHO hopes to eradicate the disease globally by the end of 2005.

Read More...

Summary only...

White House sleepovers included donors, friends

USA TODAY

White House sleepovers included donors, friends
By Judy Keen and Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — About a third of the 152 adult guests who slept at the White House or Camp David last year were fundraisers or donors to President Bush's campaigns, but at least half of those also are family or old friends.

The guest lists, released Wednesday by the White House at the request of USA TODAY and the Associated Press, also include many family members, administration officials and politicians. The only non-political celebrity is golfer Ben Crenshaw, a Bush friend and donor who spent the night at the White House with his wife, Julie.

The guest list at Camp David was the most exclusive. The 64 people who stayed there were family, staffers or old friends. The White House releases guest lists about once a year. Because Bush's ranch near Crawford, Texas, is private property, the White House does not share the names of his guests there.

Larry Noble of the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan watchdog group, said that while the practice of inviting donors to spend the night at the White House and the presidential retreat isn't new, it doesn't look any better than when it sparked a scandal during the Clinton administration.

"It sounds like to a certain degree the White House and Camp David are being used as they have been for quite a while — as a way to reward fundraisers and big givers," Noble said. "It's similar to what we saw in the Clinton White House," when Clinton was attacked for allegedly trading White House sleepovers for campaign donations.


"These are members of the president's family and people he considers friends, many of them longtime friends that go back three or four decades," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said. "Many of those are also people that actively supported him in the campaign."

Among the guests:

•People who raised at least $100,000 for Bush's campaigns, including California state Sen. Jim Brulte, Boston Concessions Group CEO Joseph O'Donnell and Alice Carrington, a San Antonio art dealer who was named to the Committee on Arts and the Humanities.

•Fundraisers who also are old friends, including Roland Betts, chairman of Chelsea Piers in New York; California venture capitalist Brad Freeman and Joe O'Neill, a Midland, Texas, businessman who introduced Bush to his wife Laura.

•Politicians, including governors Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, George Pataki of New York, Rick Perry of Texas and James Douglas of Vermont.

•Family, including former president George H.W. Bush and his wife, Barbara; brothers Marvin Bush, Neil Bush and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; sister Doro Bush Koch; and Laura Bush's mother, Jenna Welch.

•Aides, including speechwriter Michael Gerson, then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then-communications director Dan Bartlett and press secretary Scott McClellan, all at Camp David.

•At least seven of Laura Bush's classmates at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, and classmates of the president at Yale and Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass.

Read More...

Summary only...

Academy critic says she was fired

USA TODAY

Academy critic says she was fired
By Patrick O'Driscoll, USA TODAY

COLORADO SPRINGS — An Air Force Academy chaplain who co-wrote a report last year that criticized "strident" evangelizing of cadets by Christian officers said Wednesday that she was fired by the academy's head chaplain.

The chaplain, Capt. Melinda Morton, spoke out as a Pentagon task force began a three-day visit to the academy here to examine complaints of Christian religious bias on campus. It is to report back to the Pentagon by May 23.

Morton, a Lutheran minister and executive officer to the chief chaplain, Col. Michael Whittington, said in an interview that he dismissed her from that job last week. She said it happened after he pressured her to deny details of what happened at a religious service that was held during last summer's training for new cadets.

Whittington could not be reached for comment. Academy spokesman Johnny Whitaker said the head chaplain made no mention of the religion dispute in moving Morton aside. Whitaker said Whittington sent Morton an e-mail May 4 saying he was shifting her duties to another chaplain "to ensure a smooth and complete transition" for new leaders.

Both Morton and Whittington already were scheduled to leave the academy this year — she to an overseas assignment this summer and he to retire.

Morton, however, said the transition is an excuse. "This isn't about me and getting fired. It's about malfeasance in the chaplaincy here," she said.


Conflicting accounts

Morton, 48, a former missile launch officer who became a chaplain later in her career, remains an officer at the academy. But she said that after going public with her criticism, "I don't think that I have much future in the Air Force."

In a two-page memo last July, Morton and Yale Divinity School professor Kristen Leslie summarized the findings of a weeklong visit to cadet basic training. Academy officials had invited Leslie and six Yale graduate students to observe how the chaplains minister to the cadets.

The Yale team complimented the chaplains for "talent and enthusiasm" in serving new cadets during the grueling, six-week boot camp before their freshman year. But the memo also raised concerns about the "stridently evangelical themes" at a worship service attended by 600 new cadets.

Leslie reported that an academy chaplain urged cadets to pray for those who didn't attend, to try to convert them and "remind them of the consequences ... (that) those not 'born again will burn in the fires of hell.' "

"When we saw this kind of predominant, pervasive evangelical conservative Christian message putting itself forward as pastoral care, we noted it," Leslie said in an interview.

Whitaker told The Gazette of Colorado Springs last month that several other chaplains have denied the team's depiction of that service, because no one said anything about burning "in the fires of hell."

"I can't find anybody who said they said what was quoted in (the Yale report)," Whitaker told the newspaper.

Morton said, "The issue is the environment that we the adults are creating ... in which we set the tone that evangelicalism is the official religion of the Air Force Academy."

The Pentagon task force's visit stems from surveys the academy conducted last year in response to allegations by female cadets that they had been sexually assaulted by fellow cadets.

Write-in remarks about religion produced at least 55 complaints, including reports of slurs against non-Christians and preferential treatment for "born again" cadets. About half the 4,300 cadets also said in a survey that they had heard religious slurs or jokes on campus.

In response, academy officials instituted religion sensitivity training for all cadets and 5,000 staff. The training, called RSVP for "Respecting the Spiritual Values of all People," includes hour-long seminars that outline the limits of practicing religion in the military.

Last week, the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State issued a 14-page report citing numerous cases of religious bias and preferential treatment toward Christians at the academy.

The report also said that two weeks after sensitivity training began, head football coach Fisher DeBerry hung a banner in the Falcons locker room that said, "I am a member of Team Jesus Christ." Academy officials had the sign removed.

'Crossed the line'

Some alumni are also calling for an investigation and question if the task force will resolve the issue. "I call it a mask force," said Michael Weinstein of Albuquerque, a 1977 academy graduate and outspoken critic. Weinstein said more than 115 current and former cadets, staff and faculty have contacted him with accounts of religious bias at the academy.

His son, Curtis, an academy sophomore, said on Good Morning America in February that he has been called "a (expletive) Jew" and other slurs.

An older son, 2nd Lt. Casey Weinstein, 22, who graduated from the academy last year, said in an interview that evangelical Christians are "a large vocal minority that is the 800-pound gorilla" on campus. "They blurred and crossed the line between church and state."

Michael Weinstein and Americans United lay some of the blame on evangelical Christian groups in Colorado Springs, the state's second-largest city. Across Interstate 25 from the academy are such groups as Focus on the Family, the International Bible Society and New Life Church, an 11,000-member church whose pastor, Ted Haggard, heads the National Association of Evangelicals.

Cadet surveys show more than 90% of the students are Christian. Of those, about one-third consider themselves evangelical Christians.

"There's a great deal of overlap of on-campus and off-campus evangelism," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "You simply don't find that at the other service academies. Since all of this broke, we have had over 50 new incidents in e-mails and complaints, and all but one relate to the Air Force Academy."

Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, said Lynn's group is on a "witch hunt here. They will not rest until religion is eradicated from that campus."

Minnery said the academy's most recognizable building, its multispired Cadet Chapel, "is not there by accident. These cadets are being trained to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, to meet their maker."

Read More...

Summary only...

After rejecting Kerry voters, North Carolina pastor quits

USA TODAY

After rejecting Kerry voters, North Carolina pastor quits

WAYNESVILLE, N.C. (AP) — A Baptist pastor accused of threatening to banish from his church anyone who didn't vote for President Bush has himself chosen to depart, leaving in his wake a divided community and a cultural chasm.

The Rev. Chan Chandler, 33, walked out of the church he had led for three years Tuesday night after delivering a brief statement of resignation. With him went many of the young congregants he had attracted to the modest brick church on the outskirts of this small mountain town in western North Carolina.

In leaving, Chandler did not apologize for the controversy that made him a national lightning rod — the claims by some church members that they were told to leave if they voted for Democratic nominee John Kerry.

"For me to remain now would only cause more hurt for me and my family," Chandler said. "I am resigning with gratitude in my heart for all of you, particularly those of you who love me and my family."

The dispute that engulfed East Waynesville Baptist Church in recent months would have sounded familiar to many an American congregation: Aging congregation brings in dynamic young preacher to turn things around. New pastor attracts young members who push for change in traditional ways of doing things. Battle ensues.

As Chandler and his wife drove out of the church's parking lot followed by a police escort, about 40 of his supporters walked out as well, with many saying they were resigning their memberships.

"I'm not going to serve with the ungodly," an angry Misty Turner declared.

But Maxine Osborne, 70, and among those who stayed behind, had a different view of what had transpired.

"A lot of these young people had not been in the church more than a year," she said. The Chandlers "brought in a lot of young people, but they also brainwashed them."

Members said the troubles had been simmering since last fall, when Chandler endorsed Bush and denounced Kerry from the pulpit — saying those who planned to vote for the Democrat should "repent or resign."


Tensions escalated last week, when several members said Chandler called a meeting of the church's board of deacons and declared his intention for East Waynesville to become a politically active church.

Anyone who did not like that direction was free to leave, Chandler said — a statement that caused nine members to walk out.

Many of those who opposed Chandler's leadership said they agreed with the pastor's positions on abortion and other hot-button religious topics, but disliked linking those beliefs to specific political positions and candidates.

"If we wanted politics, we would stay home and watch it 24 hours a day on TV," said Charles Gaddy, 70. "I like Chan. He can preach a good sermon. I just wish he would keep some things out of the church."

Frank Lowe, 73, a leader of the members who left the church in opposition to Chandler's leadership, said, "I think his duty was to preach God's word and let the people sort out what they want to do."

Chandler supporter Rhonda Trantham, 27, saw no problem with Chandler's approach. "If it's in the Bible, I believe it should be preached," she said.

Norman Jameson of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina said the convention — which generally allows its congregations free rein to conduct their business — will try to help Chandler find a new church position if he so desires.

"There was evidently a politicization of pulpit in that the pastor is passionate and he interprets that one political party had a stronger stance on abortion than the other," Jameson said. "Passion makes things happen. In a church leadership role, it can also divide people."

Speaking to those who remained after Chandler's departure, Lowe acknowledged the pain on both sides of the schism. "This is a sad hour in this group's life. This is a sad hour in the other group's life," he said.

But he was firm in his opposition to Chandler.

"A person that will take abuse and not stand up for what's right is not worth their salt," he declared.

Out in the parking lot, as she got into her truck, Trantham was equally adamant.

"God will always fix things in the end," she said.

Read More...

Summary only...

When Medicine Clashes With the Law

ABC News
When Medicine Clashes With the Law
Prescription Painkillers Cause Problems for Patients, Doctors and Prosecutors

May. 11, 2005 - The world of chronic pain and its potentially addictive treatments are clashing increasingly with law enforcement, pitting patients and doctors against prosecutors and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration. While trafficking is a real problem, some contend those in chronic pain are suffering the most.

Richard Paey went from being an Ivy League law school student to serving 25 years in a Florida prison after a long, strange and painful journey from surgical patient to state prisoner.

A car accident in 1985 led to long hospitalizations, surgeries and treatment, including metal screws in his spine that continue to cause debilitating pain.

Still, he married and raised three children in his native New Jersey. To fight what he describes as chronic pain, a local doctor prescribed Paey such narcotics as Percocet, Lortab and Tylenol 3. But when the family moved to Florida in 1994, Paey had trouble finding physicians to treat his pain.

"One doctor said I was screwed, and he was being nice about it," Paey said. "I think what turns doctors away, the doctors that I went to, the high dosage that I was on."

Paey, now 46, said he didn't always need a high dose of the medications, but the amount required to control his pain has increased over the years. He said he never became addicted and never used the pills recreationally. "Pain patients don't take the medication to get high," he said.


A Different Take

But authorities in Pasco County, Fla., contend otherwise. When he moved there, Paey did not know that the pharmacies where he filled prescriptions were under surveillance by local police and the DEA.

Florida prosecutor Scott Andringa built a case accusing Paey of forging prescriptions using the name of his former doctor in New Jersey. According to a search warrant, Paey had filled more than 200 prescriptions involving 18,000 pills in the space of about a year.

Paey maintains he never sold the drugs. "I think a true pain patient would never sell their medication," he said. "It's too hard to get."

In fact, the prosecutor concedes he had no evidence Paey used the drugs for anything other than his own pain.

"There was no proof that he had sold these substances," Andringa said. "There was an implication, there was a suspicion, there was a belief that he must have been selling these medications based on the number of pills. But there was no proof, and therefore we did not argue that at trial."

Before his first trial date in 2001, Paey declined a deal of pleading guilty to a lesser offense and accepting house arrest and probation -- but no prison time. But Paey said he could not plead guilty to a crime he insists to this day he did not commit.

Patient or Criminal?

In Florida, the illegal possession of certain prescription painkillers -- in amounts more than 28 grams, enough to fill less than two bottles -- is considered drug trafficking. The penalty is equivalent to that meted out to hard-core heroin dealers -- a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison. Prosecutors convinced a jury that Paey had forged enough prescriptions to qualify as a drug trafficker. He is barely a year into serving the sentence.

Paey and his supporters consider his case a classic example of law enforcement meddling in medicine and treating chronic pain patients as addicts and criminals. "It's a culture that's creating fear among the patients and the doctors," he said. "It's turning patients against doctors and the doctors against the patients."

But Andringa said Paey illegally manipulated the medical system, forging prescriptions and tricking different doctors into giving him more medicine than he was supposed to get.

"If Mr. Paey is the poster boy for the pain patients of the world, then I suppose Enron is the symbol for corporate responsibility," he said, "And I realize that sounds kind of harsh, but I really believe in my heart that people like Mr. Paey have made the treatment of pain more difficult for patients, for doctors."

Ironically enough, Paey is now getting the treatment for his chronic pain that he had such trouble finding outside of the prison walls. A morphine pump the size of a hockey puck has been sewn into his side, delivering a controlled dose of medication.

Paey is appealing his conviction. But should it stand, he could very well find himself locked up until he is an old man.

A Law Enforcement Scourge

Suspicion is not unique to Paey's story. Across the country, there is a thriving black market in prescription painkillers -- in some places known as "hillbilly heroin" -- that has become a major cause of crime and a focus of law enforcement.

In Kingsport, Tenn., an industrial town nestled in the Appalachian foothills, a sting operation led to the arrest of Dr. William Hurwitz, a Virginia internist who specialized in treating pain. Prosecutors claim hundreds of his prescriptions wound up in the hands of drug dealers who sold painkillers across the mid-Atlantic region. He claims he was scammed by his patients, but a jury convicted Hurwitz of drug trafficking in December. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison but is appealing his conviction.

Supporters of Hurwitz believe he is the scapegoat in a larger federal crackdown on physicians who treat pain. But Karen Tandy, who heads the DEA, said it only targets the most egregious abusers of the law.

"The number of doctors that have been arrested by DEA or the number of cases that DEA's participated in is less than one-hundredth of 1 percent of all the registered doctors," Tandy said. "It was 42 this year. It was 50, a little over 50, last year. So it's a very small number of doctors."

But Dr. Russell Portenoy, a pain specialist at New York's Beth Israel Hospital, said he and his colleagues increasingly are concerned about the criminal prosecution of doctors who prescribe pain medication.

"Physicians, in the last, year have begun to view the DEA as an adversary or have begun to feel increasingly suspicious that the DEA is so focused on prescription drug abuse that they're willing to sacrifice appropriate medical care, at least in certain circumstances, in order to reduce prescription drug abuse," Portenoy said.

Is Fear Hurting Patients?

For Cynthia Hildt, 70, chronic pain began after seven surgeries on her spine. For years, she said, it went largely untreated because doctors were so wary of prescribing all of the painkiller she needed.

"It was all concern about addiction, addiction, addiction," Hildt said. "I got so tired of hearing that word. I constantly said to these people, 'If you felt what I feel in my body right now, you would do anything to fix it.' "

But now, Portenoy is treating her and she is taking daily doses of morphine and methadone that are 20 to 40 times higher than a typical trauma or surgical patient would receive.

"In the chronic pain setting, what often happens is that doses may rise over time, and patients end up taking quite large doses," Portenoy said.

For Hildt, it's made a world of difference. "It's enabled me to do things that I couldn't do before," she said. "It's made me able to be more active."

Unfair Targeting or Pursuing Criminals?

Such high-dose therapy using narcotics -- known as opioids -- now fairly common among physicians who treat chronic pain, has put those specialists on a collision course with federal regulators. The crux of the issue is whether the DEA is now unfairly targeting doctors merely for doing their jobs.

In August, the DEA posted a set of policy guidelines -- in the form of "frequently asked questions" -- that had been ironed out over three years among top specialists and regulators.

It made clear that simply the dosage of narcotic painkillers or the number of patients in a practice who receive them do not, by themselves, indicate a problem.

But the guidelines were removed from the DEA's Web site during Hurwitz's trial in October due to legal "misstatements." For pain specialists, that was an ominous sign that the DEA had issued itself a new hunting license.

It's raised concern, too, even among top law enforcement officials. Oklahoma's Drew Edmondson is one of the 30 state attorneys general who have signed a letter protesting the DEA's approach.

"When a doctor's treating pain, if he thinks OxyContin is the most effective thing he can prescribe, we don't want him prescribing extra-strength Tylenol because he thinks if he prescribes OxyContin, DEA's gonna open a file on him," Edmondson said. "That's not good medicine. And that's not good public policy."

Tandy said, however: "DEA does not dictate the legitimate practice of medicine. We deal in enforcing the laws against criminal conduct. And these examples of cases where doctors are prosecuted, that small number of doctors, there are very extreme facts in those cases. And so I think that there is a misperception here."

But much of the medical community feels strongly that federal agents and prosecutors, so intently focused on drug abuse, are sending the wrong message to the vast majority of physicians whose primary concern is to ease suffering. And, intended or not, the practical result of such an aggressive policy is to sentence many innocent patients to a lifetime of pain.

ABC News' Chris Bury reported this story for "Nightline."

Read More...

Summary only...

Congress Adopts Restriction on Treatment of Detainees

The New York Times
May 11, 2005
Congress Adopts Restriction on Treatment of Detainees
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, May 10 - Congress barred the government on Tuesday from using any money in a newly passed emergency spending bill to subject anyone in American custody to torture or "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" that is forbidden by the Constitution.

Proponents said the little-noticed provision, in an $82 billion bill devoted mostly to financing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, amounted to a significant strengthening of current policies and practices in the treatment of prisoners.

Drafted since the disclosure of abuses in Afghanistan and Iraq and at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, it lays out a definition of illegal treatment that human rights groups say is broader than the Bush administration's current interpretation, and links the ban directly to military spending.

"This sends a clear message to our own government that certain conduct is simply unacceptable," Senator Richard J. Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who sponsored the provision, said in an interview. "And it reminds the world that what happened at the Abu Ghraib prison is not American policy and is not tolerated."


The administration, which helped defeat efforts to include antitorture restrictions in legislation last year, said it did not oppose the provision in the new military operations bill. The Senate passed that bill on Tuesday by a vote of 100 to 0, after approval by the House last week, and the administration indicated that President Bush would sign it into law.

"If the Congress wants to use the appropriation process to dictate government action, that's within their power, and the Department of Justice did not oppose it," said Kevin Madden, spokesman for the department.

Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House, declined to address the merits of the antitorture provision but said that the White House was aware of it and that Mr. Bush wanted to sign the bill quickly.

"The president has made clear that this administration does not condone torture," Mr. Duffy said. "That is administration policy, and that still stands."

In opposing antitorture measures last year, the White House said they were unnecessary and would provide expanded legal rights to which foreign prisoners were not entitled. One such measure would have specifically subjected American intelligence officers at the C.I.A. and elsewhere to new restrictions, with implications for the agency's overseas interrogation of senior leaders of Al Qaeda.

The provision approved Tuesday does not include any specific references to intelligence officers. Instead, it says that no money appropriated in the bill can be used "to subject any person in the custody or under the physical control of the United States to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States."

Human rights advocates said it was unclear whether the prohibition would restrict the ability of the C.I.A. or other government agencies to conduct so-called renditions - that is, to send terrorism suspects to be interrogated in other countries, even those that are known to engage in abusive treatment of prisoners.

Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who sponsored a version of the provision in the House, said that in his view the measure effectively banned renditions if military financing provided by the bill was involved. Other officials said the issue was not so clear-cut.

Elisa Massimino, the Washington director of Human Rights First, formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, said the Congressional ban served to remove an important exemption claimed by the administration in its treatment of foreign prisoners.

At hearings on his confirmation as attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales said the administration, backed by the courts, held that foreign prisoners "enjoy no substantive rights" under the Constitution or the Convention Against Torture, a United Nations agreement.

But the measure approved Tuesday drew no distinction between American citizens and foreign prisoners in forbidding cruel, unusual or inhuman treatment that is prohibited by the 5th, 8th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.

Ms. Massimino said the exemption cited by Mr. Gonzales was "a pretty big loophole, and this measure in Congress is a step toward herding the administration back toward the rule of law."

Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the passage of the antitorture provision "clearly shows that there's growing traction on this issue in Congress, when you have even Republicans willing to break ranks and raise concerns" about the treatment of prisoners.

"This," Mr. Romero said, "is a bullet the administration hasn't been able to dodge."

Read More...

Summary only...

The DeLay Rankings: how close is your representative to scandal-plagued Tom DeLay?

The DeLay Rankings: how close is your representative to scandal-plagued Tom DeLay?

Tom DeLay is under an ethical cloud. He's being investigated for taking overseas golf trips and other junkets on the dime of front groups and shady lobbyists. To his colleagues in Congress, though, he's a true sugar daddy. Everybody "owes Mr. DeLay for something—a job, a piece of legislation, or a large campaign contribution," says The New York Times. We've created a ranking based on how often they vote the way DeLay does, how much DeLay's PAC contributed to them, how much they've contributed to DeLay's legal defense fund, and so on.



Follow this link for the list:
http://www.pcactionfund.org/delayspocket/

Read More...

Summary only...

Where was the WSJ when Republicans were blocking Clinton nominees? On the side of obstruction

Media Matters for America

Where was the WSJ when Republicans were blocking Clinton nominees? On the side of obstruction

Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund claimed that he and the Journal editorial page criticized Republican efforts to block former President Bill Clinton's judicial nominees -- more than 60 of whom Republicans denied even votes in the Senate Judiciary Committee -- and that Fund himself wrote an editorial arguing that one particular Clinton nominee, Richard A. Paez, deserved a vote. But a Media Matters for America search* of Journal editorials revealed no instances of Fund or the editorial board condemning Republican efforts to block Paez. In fact, the newspaper actually criticized then-Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) for allowing Paez's nomination to go to the full Senate. Several other Journal editorials also explicitly defended the Republicans' right to deny Clinton nominees an up-or-down vote.

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews opposite Fund, former Democratic strategist Bob Shrum asserted that, while Fund and the Journal have criticized Senate Democratic filibusters of a handful of Bush judicial nominees, they never "editorialized against this same process under Bill Clinton." Fund responded by stating: "We did. ... I personally wrote the editorial saying Paez deserved a vote. ... I know others [Journal editorial board members] wrote others."

But in a March 17, 2000, editorial titled "Hatch v. Hatch," the Journal claimed Hatch "forgot" about the Clinton administration's "many legal and ethical evasions" when he "whisked through two liberal judicial nominees [Paez and Marsha L. Berzon]." The editorial declared that Hatch's role as a "Clinton enabler ... helps explain [his] decision to approve Judge Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals." The editorial claimed that Paez's condemnation of Californian anti-immigration Proposition 187 demonstrated his belief that "the 59% of Californians who approved it were bigots. ... Mr. Hatch apparently doesn't mind."

Other Journal editorials defended the Republicans' right to deny Clinton nominees a vote on the floor in even stronger terms:



* A May 16, 2000, editorial titled "A GOP Judicial Debacle?" claimed that Hatch went "into the tank" by failing to "us[e] his Senate power to block" Clinton nominees such as then-District of Columbia Circuit nominee Allen Snyder. The editorial stated that "there are sound reasons for denying him a vote," including that Reagan-appointee Laurence Silberman's retirement "combined with a Snyder confirmation, would mean a 5-5 [Republican/Democrat appointee] split that could haunt the first year of a Bush Presidency." Labeling the Snyder nomination "an example of Beltway legal insiders looking out for their friends instead of for the broader public interest," the editorial even asserted that blocking such nominees is the committee chairman's raison d'être: "The Senate Judiciary chairman is paid to stand up to such pressure."
* In a May 29, 1998, op-ed titled "Supreme Politics: Who'd Replace Justice Stevens?" current Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul A. Gigot also criticized Hatch for allowing Clinton nominees a floor vote. Gigot questioned Hatch's "brisk approval of Clinton lower-court nominees as a way to gain leverage and credibility for the more significant Supreme Court pick," noting that "Mr. Clinton has fooled Republicans before."
* A November 4, 1997, editorial titled "Above the Law?", which defended the Republicans' right to block Clinton Justice Department nominee Bill Lann Lee (who never received Senate confirmation, instead assuming the position of acting assistant attorney general), suggested a series of "starting points for Chairman Hatch and his colleagues before acceding to the Lee nomination," or any judicial nominations for that matter:

No nominations of any sort will be approved until this Administration starts enforcing the Supreme Court's Beck decision [which allowed unionized workers to withhold union dues used for political activities]. No new judges will be approved until the Clinton Administration nominates someone to run the criminal division at Justice, now vacant for two years. Alternatively, no more judicial nominations until Janet Reno appoints an independent counsel to investigate the Clinton fund-raising apparatus, as any normal reading of that statute now so clearly requires.

* A February 15, 1996, editorial titled "The Clinton Judges -- II" noted that the "Senate Judiciary Committee may find itself 'too busy' to schedule hearings" before the November presidential election. The editorial argued that Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE) had honed the "delay tactic" of blocking conservative judicial nominees when he was committee chair, so Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) was "not about to support" the nominations of James A. Beaty Jr. or J. Rich Leonard to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

From the May 9 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:

SHRUM: I wish, by the way, that John Fund and The Wall Street Journal had editorialized against this same process under Bill Clinton.

FUND: We did. I can give you the dates, Bob. We did.

SHRUM: What John is saying would have more credibility.

FUND: We did.

SHRUM: Because the truth is -- who did you -- who? Who was being filibustered that you editorialized against?

FUND: I personally wrote the editorial saying Judge Paez deserved a vote. I personally wrote that.

SHRUM: And what about all the other Clinton judges that were filibustered?

FUND: I gave you the one I wrote. I know others wrote others.

*Based on a search for "Paez" under "all dates" in The Wall Street Journal on the Factiva database and the Journal's editorial page website, OpinionJournal.com.

Read More...

Summary only...

Halliburton lands $72 million in bonuses

MSNBC.com

Halliburton lands $72 million in bonuses
Army awards firm for logistics work; no decision on dining services
Reuters

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army said on Tuesday it had awarded $72 million in bonuses to Halliburton Co. for logistics work in Iraq but had not decided whether to give the Texas company bonuses for disputed dining services to troops.

Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Illinois, said in a statement it had given Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown & Root ratings from "excellent" to "very good" for six task orders for work supporting U.S. troops in Iraq.

The Army said its Award Fee Board in Iraq had met in March and had agreed to pay KBR bonuses for work it did in support of U.S. forces there.

But it said dining facility costs questioned by auditors from the Defense Contract Audit Agency had not yet been considered by the military's Award Fee Board.

The Army said it could not immediately provide more details on when the dining fee bonuses would be resolved.


Much of Halliburton's work for the U.S. military, ranging from building bases to delivering mail, is on a cost-plus basis, which means the company can earn up to 2 percent extra depending on its performance.

Bonuses are awarded based on, among other factors, how efficient and responsible the company is to requests from the Army and is an indicator of how the Army views KBR's performance in the field.

KBR's logistics deal with the U.S. military has been in the spotlight from the outset in Iraq, with allegations by auditors that they overcharged for some work, including dining services.

In addition, investigators are looking into whether the Texas-based firm charged too much to supply fuel to Iraqi civilians, a claim the firm says is not justified.

Halliburton, which was run by Vice President Dick Cheney until he joined the 2000 race for the White House, has earned more than $7 billion under its 2001 logistics contract with the U.S. military.

Read More...

Summary only...

Homeland Security Information Network Criticized

washingtonpost.com
Homeland Security Information Network Criticized

By Lara Jakes Jordan
Associated Press

A Department of Homeland Security network that shares classified information with intelligence and law enforcement agencies was put together too quickly to ensure it can protect the information, according to the department's acting inspector general.

In response, a department spokesman said yesterday that the Homeland Secure Data Network was still in its fledgling stages but met all security standards before it went online late last month.

In a new report, the acting inspector general, Richard L. Skinner, said the department could not show that the network's security standards and policies were in place. The network, described in one Homeland Security document as "a new DHS backbone," was set up to share secret information with as many as 600 federal, state and local agencies.

Homeland Security "does not have assurance that HSDN will satisfy user needs and adequately protect classified information," the report found.

The review of the network, which cost an estimated $337 million, was performed between August and November 2004. The network was scheduled to be running in December, but was not online until April 22, Homeland Security spokesman Larry Orluskie said.

"It's been through all of its accreditations, and is up at a number of sites," he said. Asked whether the network has ever been improperly accessed or otherwise compromised, he said, "Absolutely not."

So far, only some Homeland Security agencies are hooked up to the network, which could take years to reach state and local authorities, Orluskie said.

The system is supposed to streamline what critics say is a fragmented and ineffective information-sharing process that threatens the nation's safety.


The investigation found that parts of the network had not undergone testing, and that certain security requirements and safeguards were not implemented as of Oct. 31. Orluskie said the requirements have since been put in place.

In an unrelated development yesterday, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Penrose C. Albright resigned. Department officials said Albright, who oversaw plans, programs and budgets, is leaving to spend more time with his family.

Read More...

Summary only...

City's disaster plan draws fire

NY Daily News

City's disaster plan draws fire

FDNY chief calls command system 'bad policy'

BY ALISON GENDAR
DAILY NEWS POLICE BUREAU CHIEF

FDNY Chief of Department Peter Hayden testifies at Council Public Safety Committee hearing, calling disaster system 'bad policy.'
Invoking the ghosts of 9/11, the city's highest-ranking firefighter blasted the city's new emergency management system as a disaster that places people at risk.

"It's a bad policy," FDNY Chief of Department Peter Hayden testified yesterday.

"I owe it to the memory of all those people who were lost. I owe it to those who will be responding to the next tragic event," he said. "This policy does not make sense."

Hayden was the only city official to break ranks at a City Council Public Safety Committee hearing - publicly challenging Mayor Bloomberg's decision to give the Police Department command at virtually all emergency scenes.

The policy creates a command hierarchy that governs how andwhen the Police and Fire departments share command of certain disasters, a technique called unified command.

The most controversial directive puts the NYPD in charge of hazardous material incidents where chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear threats may be involved.

If no crime or terrorism has been committed or suspected, the NYPD cedes control and it reverts to a unified command.

Hayden said the lessons of Sept. 11, 2001, should have taught everyone better.

Hayden took command of the north tower just minutes after the World Trade Center was attacked.

Since those grim days, Hayden said, he was bound to fix the problems in command, communication and information- sharing that plagued the city's rescue efforts on Sept. 11 and contributed to the death of so many uniformed officers.

"In a crisis, people's vision narrows to their own responsibilities," Hayden said. So police commanders never told their fire colleagues "about the top 15 floors glowing red and the possibility of collapse."

"The NYPD and the FDNY never crossed groups to consider the welfare of the other," Hayden continued. "We cannot afford this to happen again."

His opposition was more than a turf war or a Battle of the Badges, he said, reasoning that the way the policy is written, no one understood who was really in charge at a scene where hazardous materials were in play.

"You hear testimony this morning extensively from the commissioners. They are very confused. They couldn't even answer questions straight," Hayden said to quiet laughter from the audience.

"If they're confused, and I'm confused and my firefighters are confused and the police officers on the street are going to be confused, there will be a compromise in safety. That's what this is all about," said Hayden, who advocated both departments share command of all scenes.

The mayor's emergency protocol does call for a unified command for many incidents where more than one agency may respond, such as an aviation disaster - meaning that if a plane strikes a city skyscraper, a unified command would be in control.

So it makes little sense to Hayden and rank-and-file firefighters - scores of whom filled the Council gallery - that the NYPD should call the shots at haz-mat incidents.


Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly testified that the NYPD got control because the risk of not investigating possible terror incidents was too high.

"The stakes are so great in the area of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threat - you are talking about the possibility of indeed hundreds of thousands of casualties, hundreds of thousands of lives in a successful attack - that in this particular incidence, we think an investigation is paramount," he said.

Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta said it was foolish to deny that a "rivalry has existed" between the two agencies, but he said progress has been made since 9/11 and he was confident "good faith and common sense will prevail."

That left City Councilman James Oddo (R-S.I.) shaking his head, saying that was "naiveté at its worst."

Read More...

Summary only...

Bolton Office E-Mails Spotlight Tensions

washingtonpost.com
Bolton Office E-Mails Spotlight Tensions

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 11, 2005; A06

Opponents of John R. Bolton's nomination to become U.N. ambassador yesterday distributed recently declassified e-mails to focus attention on a 2002 dispute between Bolton's office and the State Department's intelligence bureau over a CIA analysis.

Democrats say the e-mails are part of a pattern of intimidation and twisting of intelligence during Bolton's tenure as undersecretary for arms control. But Republicans say a relatively minor conflict has been blown out of proportion.

The evidence collected by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including numerous interviews with participants in the matter, does not conclusively link Bolton to the incident. Bolton told the committee in a written statement that he was overseas at the time and had "no recollection" of it.

Frederick Fleitz, his chief of staff, told investigators in a contentious interview last Thursday that he did not discuss the matter with Bolton before sending an e-mail saying he was writing "on behalf of U/S Bolton" to express his displeasure with the bureau, according to a transcript.

The debate centered on an important policy issue early in President Bush's first term -- the effectiveness of China's missile export controls.

The CIA analysis in question, written in August 2002, concluded that the export controls were deficient. This supported Bolton's thinking. He was headed overseas and had not read the report, but he asked Fleitz to have it sent to then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, Bolton told the committee.

But Fleitz was furious to later discover that the intelligence bureau attached a cover sheet to the analysis before sending it to Armitage, essentially taking the opposite position -- that the export controls were a step in the right direction. This appeared to support Armitage's view. Randall G. Schriver, Armitage's chief of staff, later called the intelligence bureau to praise its memo, "which he said D [Armitage] agreed with," according to an internal intelligence bureau e-mail recounting the dispute.

Fleitz is a career CIA agent on loan to Bolton's office, and the CIA analysis was produced by his professional home, the CIA's weapons proliferation center. In his interview last week, he suggested this link gave him a personal stake in how the analysis was treated. Democrats have speculated that Bolton, through Fleitz, ordered up an analysis to suit his preferences, though they have found no proof of that.

In his e-mail, to a top official in the intelligence bureau, Fleitz referred to a dispute three months earlier with the intelligence bureau over an alleged Cuban bioweapons program. "Actions of this type cannot help but undermine the bond of trust between" Bolton's office and the intelligence bureau, he wrote, suggesting that Bolton's office might seek to bypass the intelligence bureau in the future.

Fleitz also visited the intelligence bureau "to share his feelings about our memo," according to the bureau e-mail, which had a sarcastic tone. Fleitz, according to the e-mail, said "it was unprofessional . . . to criticize the 'carefully vetted' work of 'experts' in the IC," or intelligence community. The writer of the e-mail, whose name was censored, reported that Fleitz was told that the CIA analysis itself had not been fully blessed by the intelligence community, "and would have come out differently if it had been."

In the blowup over the Cuba intelligence, Bolton summoned Christian Westermann, an intelligence bureau analyst, to his office for what Westermann described as a tongue-lashing. Westermann, in an interview last Wednesday that was released yesterday, told investigators the experience created a "difficult work climate" and left him "approaching issues so that I didn't step on a land mine."

Democrats say the two incidents, combined with Bolton's role in seeking the reassignment of the national intelligence officer for Latin America, point to an unacceptable pattern of trying to twist intelligence to suit policy objectives. But Republicans say it is part of the normal give-and-take during a contentious policy debate.


Fleitz told the committee staff that he viewed the dispute as a "minor matter." After he sent his e-mail, the intelligence bureau "never responded to me, and I never raised it again, and I forgot about it," he said, adding that he does not remember discussing it with Bolton.

State Department officials said Bolton, in contrast to some other undersecretaries, was known for empowering his special assistants to throw their weight around, which caused tensions within the State Department. Fleitz said he wanted the intelligence bureau to know it "should have checked on the analytic assumptions before attaching the rebuttal."

The bureau supervisor -- whose name was not disclosed in her interview last Wednesday -- said that "in the intelligence community, there are lots of disagreements among analysts and agencies about how individual analysts or individual agencies interpret facts," according to a transcript. But she said it was the only case she knew of in her 27 years in the bureau in which analysts were told not to include their views on material they transmit.

But Neil Silver, a director of an office in the bureau, told investigators last Thursday that the analyst who wrote the counter-memo "had a pretty thick skin" and did not have "any second doubts or regrets" about his actions. "It had no effect whatever in how we would decide to do our work," he said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Critics Ask Congress to Temper Patriot Act

Critics Ask Congress to Temper Patriot Act

By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Critics of the USA Patriot Act on Tuesday called for the Senate to temper the anti-terrorism law's provisions that let police conduct secret searches of people's homes or businesses, but defenders say since no abuses have been documented the law should be renewed.

The Bush administration wants Congress to make permanent all 15 provisions of the law that expire at the end of the year, some of which have aroused civil liberties concerns among liberals and conservatives. The law's national standards for what are sometimes known as "sneak and peek" searches are permanent.

Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told the Senate Judiciary Committee that while they cannot show any specific abuses, the anti-terrorism law is written in a way that could allow abuses.

"Our law cannot be written for the best and the brightest. They must also anticipate enforcement from the worst and the weakest," said Craig, who is pushing a bill with Durbin that would scale back some of the Patriot Act's powers.

Critics of the law want Congress to pass the SAFE Act to limit the Patriot Act in several ways, including requiring government officials to inform suspects about the "sneak and peek" searches within seven days if a judge does not intervene. The current law does not specify when the government has to inform suspects about the secret search.

"We do not want to end the Patriot Act. We want to mend the Patriot Act," Durbin said.


Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., defended the anti-terrorism law, saying that since no one can come up with specific abuses, the expiring provisions should be renewed.

"In this particular area because there has been no problems, it seems to be me that the assumption underlying the sunset provisions ought to move forward, which is, there being no problems, the act ought to be reauthorized," Kyl said.

The Justice Department has said that the courts authorized 155 delayed search warrants under the Patriot Act through January.

Read More...

Summary only...

Appeals Court Sides With Cheney in Lawsuit

May 10, 2005

Appeals Court Sides With Cheney in Lawsuit

By PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney doesn't have to disclose the advice his energy task force got from the industry, an appeals court ruled Tuesday in what probably was a final blow to a politically charged lawsuit over public access to White House decision making.

The task force met in 2001 and produced pro-industry recommendations for sweeping energy legislation now before Congress. The Bush administration fought hard to keep the panel's workings secret, arguing that public disclosure would make it difficult for any White House to solicit candid advice on important policy issues.

Once seen as a potentially huge political liability for the Bush administration, the task force lawsuit ended up being more Washington political theater, with cameo appearances by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and former Enron Corp. Chairman Ken Lay.

The two private groups that sued failed to establish that the government had a legal duty to produce documents detailing the White House's industry contacts, the court said in an 8-0 decision.

The Sierra Club and Judicial Watch alleged that energy executives and lobbyists effectively became members of the task force, while environmental groups and others were shut out of the meetings. Outside participation made the task force a federal advisory committee with an obligation to disclose its operations, the groups argued, a position the court rejected.

"The outsider might make an important presentation, he might be persuasive, the information he provides might affect the committee's judgment," U.S. Appeals Court Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote. "But having neither a vote nor a veto over the advice the committee renders to the president, he is no more a member of the committee than the aides who accompany congressmen or Cabinet officers to committee meetings."


In a statement, Cheney's office said the court guarded the confidentiality of internal deliberations and that the Constitution protects such deliberations as essential to informed decision making.

David Bookbinder, a senior attorney at the Sierra Club, said the decision "is not going to be helpful in assuring open and accountable government."

The appeals court directed U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the case. Sullivan earlier had ordered the White House to produce some documents.

The Sierra Club and Judicial Watch could ask the appeals court to reconsider or could ask the Supreme Court to take the case, as it did once before. Either option would be considered a long shot.

Cheney's task force issued a report that favored expanding oil and gas drilling on public land, rejuvenating nuclear power and lifting the ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The focus of the lawsuit: several thousand task force e-mails and 12 boxes of documents.

Scalia took a hunting trip with Cheney while the Supreme Court was considering an appeal of the lawsuit. Scalia then issued a forceful defense rejecting calls for him to step aside and let the other eight justices rule.

Democrats hoped the Supreme Court would uphold an earlier ruling by the appeals court and force the administration to reveal potentially embarrassing details about its relationship with energy company executives ahead of the November election. But the high court sent the case back on a 7-2 vote, saying there was a "paramount necessity of protecting the executive branch from vexatious litigation."

Lay was involved because he met with Cheney - a fact the White House acknowledged to Congress in 2002 only after Enron collapsed in scandal. Lay's contact was among six meetings between Enron executives and Cheney or his task force aides.

The day after meeting with Lay, Cheney said the Bush administration would not support price caps on wholesale energy sales in California.

Even the investigative arm of Congress got into the act, filing a lawsuit seeking the identities of the people with whom the task force met. Under pressure from congressional Republicans, the Government Accountability Office did not pursue the case.

University of North Carolina political science professor Terry Sullivan said the Bush White House's position supporting confidentiality was sound in principle but could be unwise politically.

"There is a balance between the need for confidentiality and how that process works when it is being carried out; it's a Caesar's wife problem," Sullivan said. "For example, it certainly was embarrassing to have the likes of Ken Lay advising them."

---

On the Net:

Appeals court ruling:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/02-5354b.pdf

Read More...

Summary only...

EPA to sample dust from 150 NYC buildings due to 9/11 attacks

USA TODAY

EPA to sample dust from 150 NYC buildings due to 9/11 attacks

WASHINGTON (AP) — Dust samples from 150 New York buildings in lower Manhattan and part of Brooklyn are to be gathered by the Environmental Protection Agency to find out how much indoor contamination might remain from the collapse of the World Trade Center.

EPA officials released their near-final plan Tuesday, which they say will be used in deciding what should be cleaned and whether to launch a broader sampling and cleanup effort.

E. Timothy Oppelt, an EPA official in charge of agency research, said that by doing more sampling the agency can find out how far the contaminants extend and "whether or not they are present at levels of concern" that would require cleanups.

"If they are, we will clean those units — entire buildings if necessary — that pose a concern," he said.


The EPA said samples will be analyzed for lead, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), asbestos and manmade vitreous fibers (MMVF).

Residents and workers in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn sued the agency last year, saying it improperly allowed thousands of people to return to their homes and businesses and made misleading statements about air quality after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

Of most concern to those filing suit were "potentially hazardous levels of asbestos and possibly other carcinogens and toxic substances."

EPA defended itself by praising the staff's monitoring and sampling of air, dust and river and drinking water as "remarkable feats." It says it provided thousands of respirators for response workers and cleaned and tested thousands of homes in lower Manhattan.

The agency, at the urging of the White House, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and New York City officials, convened an expert panel chaired by EPA's science adviser to monitor any residual health effects among workers and residents.

Read More...

Summary only...

States may disobey new ID rules, fight them in court

USA TODAY

States may disobey new ID rules, fight them in court

WASHINGTON (AP) — States are threatening to challenge in court and even disobey new orders from Congress to start issuing more uniform driver's licenses and verify the citizenship or legal status of people getting them.

There is concern among some states that they'll get stuck with a large tab to pay for implementing the new rules and that getting a driver's license will become a bigger headache for law-abiding residents.

"Governors are looking at all their options. If more than half of the governors agree we're not going down without a fight on this, Congress will have to consider changing this unfunded federal mandate," said Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, vice chairman of the National Governors Association. A Huckabee aide said the options include court action.

States fear the new rules may force applicants to make more than one trip to motor vehicle departments, once to provide documents such as birth certificates that states must verify and a second time to pick up the license, state officials said.

"What passed is something that will be an enormous amount of work and it's questionable what it's going to yield," said Democrat Matt Dunlap, Maine's secretary of state. "Is it going to yield national security or is it going to be hassle for people already complying with the law?"

The immigration requirements were attached to an $82 billion spending package for military operations and construction in Iraq and Afghanistan that the House passed last week. The Senate is expected to vote this week and send the bill to President Bush.


"We'd like to work with people to implement the needed reform and will be very disappointed if these groups thwart these important rules," said Jeff Lungren, spokesman for Wisconsin Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner, who wrote the new requirements.

Sensenbrenner said last week that waiting a little longer in line is "a small price to pay" to prevent future terrorism.

All but one of the 19 hijackers in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks had some form of U.S. identification, some of it fraudulent, the Sept. 11 Commission found. The commission recommended the federal government set standards for birth certificates and other identification documents, including driver's licenses.

Some states already have been increasing their license requirements, but their work may not be enough.

Maine's motor vehicle department is upgrading its computer system. But the upgrade doesn't include computer coding to comply with at least one of the new rules: ensure driver's licenses issued to temporary legal residents expire when the resident's authorized time in the U.S. is up.

"That adds to the cost and throws everything into the woods," Dunlap said.

Virginia's motor vehicle department estimated it would have to spend $237 million to comply with the bill passed by the House if it maintains its current level of customer service. Some changes to the final legislation could alter the estimate, a spokeswoman said.

The bill allows the Homeland Security secretary to offer grants to help states to comply, but doesn't provide money.

States will have three years after the president signs the bill to obey the rules. If they don't, their residents won't be able to board planes or enter federally protected buildings.

States also question how they will verify birth certificates, whose appearance vary widely by state and county. Dunlap said his state has only a portion of birth certificates online.

Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia verify Social Security numbers online with the federal government or by another method, said Mark Lassiter, Social Security Administration spokesman.

In fiscal 2004, which ended Sept. 30, Social Security handled 18 million verification requests, rejecting 2 million numbers, Lassiter said. But the system isn't foolproof.

California found many numbers were rejected for women who failed to change their name with when they married, said Bill Branch, motor vehicle department spokesman.

Another concern for states is preventing identity theft if licenses carry more information, said Michael Balboni, a Republican New York state senator. Balboni and Dunlap represented the National Conference of State Legislatures on a now defunct panel Congress created in December to design new driver's license rules. The conference opposes the new rules.

"What's so ironic about this bill is everybody agrees with the concept, one person, one driver's license," Balboni said. "How you get there is really the tough issue."

Read More...

Summary only...

Federal agents seize 1,000 fake badges

USA TODAY

Federal agents seize 1,000 fake badges

NEW YORK (AP) — A man has been charged with possessing an illegal cache of about 1,000 counterfeit law enforcement badges, authorities said Tuesday.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Sergio Khorosh on Monday at his Bronx home after he accepted delivery of about 100 fake U.S. Marshals Service shields. The delivery was being monitored by the agents, who had first intercepted the badges last month in a shipment from Taiwan to San Francisco.


During a search of Khorosh's home, agents discovered about 1,000 more badges, some resembling those of the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and New York Police Department, court papers said. Also found were six firearms, including semiautomatic pistols.

Authorities were investigating whether Khorosh was supplying police impersonators.

"We think this goes way beyond collectors," said Martin Ficke, special agent in charge for ICE's New York office.

Khorosh faces charges of illegal transport of counterfeit badges and weapons possession. He was ordered held on $50,000 bail.

A call to Khorosh's attorney was not immediately returned.

Read More...

Summary only...

Supreme Court urged to protect reporters from jail time

USA TODAY

Supreme Court urged to protect reporters from jail time

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has been asked to throw out contempt orders against two journalists who refused to reveal sources in the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

Lawyers for Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller want the justices to clarify protections reporters have in keeping sources confidential. Cooper's appeal was filed Tuesday; Miller's was made Monday.

The Supreme Court will decide next fall whether to consider the cases.

Cooper and Miller face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury as part of an investigation into who divulged the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame. Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime.

Plame's name was first made public in 2003 by columnist Robert Novak, who cited unidentified senior Bush administration officials for the information.

The column appeared after Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote a newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq sought uranium in Niger.

Cooper reported on Plame, while Miller gathered material for an article about the intelligence officer but never wrote a story. A federal judge held the reporters in contempt last fall, and an appeals court rejected their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources.

Lawyers for Cooper argued in their appeal that without protection for confidential sources, journalists cannot keep people informed.

Read More...

Summary only...