Wednesday, April 19, 2006

The Face of Hamas

The New York Times
The Face of Hamas

After the Palestinian election, the burning question was which part of Hamas would dominate the new government: would it be the political organization that provides a desperate people with vital services, or the terrorist group that advocates the violent destruction of Israel? Now we have the answer, in Hamas's monumentally cynical and dimwitted applause for the bombing that killed nine people and wounded dozens in Tel Aviv on Monday.

In contrast, Israel's prime minister-designate, Ehud Olmert, has taken the high road, at least for now. Israel didn't launch a big reprisal attack. Mr. Olmert's office said Israel would instead revoke the residency permits of Hamas officials living in East Jerusalem, and the Israelis conducted raids in the West Bank and made arrests. Mr. Olmert's cabinet also approved a police crackdown on the smuggling of Palestinians into Israel, tightening what is an already tight noose around Palestinian territory.

That's really what makes Hamas's response to the suicide attack not just immoral, but stupid as well.

The attack was presumably not carried out by Hamas; Islamic Jihad said it was responsible. But Hamas is no longer just a terrorist ally of Islamic Jihad. Last time we checked, it is the government of the Palestinian people. It cannot just sit on the sidelines and cheer terrorist attacks that were renounced by the same Palestinian Authority that Hamas now controls. In a democracy, Hamas cannot reject positions ratified by previous Palestinian parliaments without first going back to the Palestinian people for a vote.

Hamas's support for terrorism encourages Mr. Olmert's strategy of a unilateral separation from the Palestinian people. It's a sure bet that if Israel carries out this separation without input from the Palestinians — as it is now doing — the Palestinians will not end up with enough land for a viable state.

Finally, lest Hamas forget, it is flat broke. The coffers it inherited from Fatah are empty, and both the United States and the European Union have rightly refused to bankroll a Hamas government that preaches and practices terrorism, denies that Israel has any right to exist, and refuses to abide by peace agreements signed by previous Palestinian governments. Hamas has received pledges from Muslim states — notably $50 million each from Qatar and Iran — to help make up some of the shortfall. But that doesn't come close to the $300 million the United States had pledged, and it would behoove Hamas to remember that the gulf states in particular are notorious for not keeping their promises.





Read More...

Hopes for Trade Talks Dim After Personnel Switch

washingtonpost.com
Hopes for Trade Talks Dim After Personnel Switch
By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer

By switching his chief trade negotiator yesterday, President Bush sent a gloomy signal to many trade experts and policymakers about the prospects for achieving significant gains in trade talks with foreign countries anytime soon.

The announcement that Bush was naming Rob Portman to become head of the Office of Management and Budget showed that in just 11 months as U.S. trade representative, Portman has established himself as one of the administration's rising stars. But the personnel change comes as global trade negotiations are in serious trouble, with a major deadline just weeks away. The loss of Portman leaves the talks without a chief U.S. negotiator whose genial manner, combined with his political skill and mastery of detail, has impressed counterparts from other nations.

As a result, the move was widely viewed as indicating that the administration holds little hope for securing a far-reaching deal in the talks this year and possibly for much longer than that. The negotiations, known as the Doha round, were launched at a World Trade Organization meeting in 2001 with the avowed aim of substantially lowering trade barriers and changing trade rules in ways that would provide developing countries with much greater benefits under the international trading system. But vast differences continue to divide major players including the United States and European Union, especially over the issue of how much to lower tariffs on agricultural products, and pessimism has deepened recently that WTO members can strike a framework agreement by April 30 as they pledged last year.

Yesterday's news fueled worries that the talks might collapse or at least fall into a long state of paralysis, even though those fears were tempered somewhat by the announcement that Bush was nominating Susan C. Schwab, a seasoned trade hand who is one of Portman's deputies, to replace him.

"For this administration, it is important to get its act together, and that trumped the WTO negotiations," said Claude Barfield, a trade specialist at the American Enterprise Institute. "The White House must think that Portman brings something to the team that is beyond trade. I don't want to come across as criticizing Sue -- she certainly brings a vast intellectual knowledge to the job. It's just that changing leaders at a critical time is bound to have some impact."

"It's bad news as far as the Doha round is concerned," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees trade policy. He added, however, that "if there's not a major breakthrough within the next 30 days, I don't think it makes much difference who is trade representative," and that Portman is "very much the kind of person we need as an OMB director."

Critics of the administration's trade policy jubilantly asserted that the implications could go even beyond the WTO talks. They said the move reveals a lack of confidence on the administration's part that it will secure congressional approval for new bilateral trade agreements with countries such as Peru and Colombia.

"This does not bode well -- ha, ha, ha! -- for Bush's trade agenda. What a tragedy," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, a group founded by Ralph Nader. "You don't take out a very effective player like Portman, who has good relations in Congress and on the international scene, when this whole agenda stands on the precipice, without knowing what that means."

Portman and Schwab were at pains to head off such conclusions in their comments yesterday at a news conference with Bush, in which they emphasized the top priority the administration places on the Doha round and its determination to complete other trade agreements. Business groups, meanwhile, issued a slew of statements praising Schwab and voicing confidence that she could pick up where Portman is leaving off.

The praise cited Schwab's record as both a practitioner and student of trade policy. She started as an agricultural negotiator for the trade representative's office in the late 1970s and served as legislative director for former senator John C. Danforth in the 1980s, then headed the Commerce Department's U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service under President George H.W. Bush. She worked for Motorola Inc. from 1993-95 and was dean of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy before becoming deputy trade representative in November.

"Susan Schwab is an excellent choice," said John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. "She will be a strong and effective voice for leveling the international playing field."

But the announcement came atop a scathing assessment of the prospects for the Doha round by Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who is Grassley's counterpart on trade policy in the lower chamber. In an April 3 speech, Thomas urged the administration to acknowledge that it had "irreconcilable differences" with the E.U., which has been blamed by many WTO members for blocking progress in the talks. European officials have balked at making steep cuts in agricultural tariffs, which the United States and other nations argue would open major new export opportunities for farmers in poor countries.

The E.U. reacted to word of Portman's reassignment with a caustic suggestion that Washington had diminished the chances for a deal. "We will, of course, manage without him, but at this stage in the round, it would have been easier to manage with him," said Peter Mandelson, the E.U. trade commissioner, in a statement.

The big question now, trade analysts said, is whether the talks can end in agreement some time next year. Another huge obstacle looms then -- the expiration in June 2007 of "trade promotion authority" (TPA), the U.S. law that the administration had to fight hard for in 2002 so it could negotiate trade pacts. Because of complex implementation problems, that authority would have to be extended -- a highly uncertain prospect -- to allow for congressional approval of a Doha round accord.

The change of U.S. trade negotiators "confirms that it's highly unlikely that the round will end this year, but putting in an experienced deputy still puts us in a position to work out the hard details of the negotiation over the next 12 to 18 months," said Jeffrey Schott, a scholar at the Institute for International Economics. "Still, that opens up the TPA debate. Sue has a lot of experience in Congress, but more on the technocratic level -- she obviously doesn't have the same sort of relations that Rob Portman has."



Read More...

Ex-Governor of Illinois Convicted of Racketeering, Fraud

washingtonpost.com
Ryan Guilty of Corruption
Ex-Governor of Illinois Convicted of Racketeering, Fraud
By Thomas B. Edsall and Kari Lydersen
Washington Post Staff Writers

A federal jury yesterday found former Illinois governor and onetime Nobel Prize nominee George Ryan (R) guilty of 18 charges of racketeering, mail fraud, making false statements to FBI agents and income tax violations.

Ryan, 72, who received international attention in 2003 when he commuted all 167 Illinois prisoners on death row, now, because of his age, faces the prospect of what would amount to a life sentence if his expected appeal fails.

Ryan is the third former Illinois governor to be convicted of crimes in recent decades. Daniel Walker, who served from 1973 to 1977, pleaded guilty in 1987 to bank fraud unrelated to his government service. Otto Kerner, who served from 1961 to 1968, was convicted of 17 counts, including bribery and race track fraud.

Most of the charges against Ryan involved an alleged "licenses for bribes" scheme in state agencies under Ryan's jurisdiction during his tenure as Illinois secretary of state. In one instance, a man paid a bribe for a trucking license and later was involved in an accident in which six children were killed.

The defense argued that the case against Ryan was circumstantial and that none of the witnesses testified to having seen Ryan take a bribe.

A grim Ryan, briefly forcing a smile, read a statement outside the Chicago courthouse. He said the guilty verdicts are "not in accordance with the kind of public service that I have provided to the people of Illinois over 40 years and, needless to say, I am disappointed in the outcome, but I feel confident in our appeal, and there will be an appeal."

The jury also found Larry Warner, a lobbyist and friend of Ryan's, guilty of 12 related charges, including mail fraud, extortion, racketeering and money laundering.

Ryan, who served one term as governor from 1999 to 2003 and two terms as secretary of state, was defended by an array of high-profile criminal lawyers and former prosecutors, including former governor and U.S. Attorney Jim Thompson and former U.S. attorney Dan K. Webb. The trial lasted more than six months.

After the verdict, Webb told reporters, "I can tell you I am very disappointed in the verdict," contending that Ryan "simply did not do" what he was convicted of.

Ryan was the highest-ranking official targeted in a federal investigation called "Operation Safe Road," which looked into vehicle licensing irregularities.

U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald and Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Collins described the conviction as a victory for the team effort, which included the IRS, the Postal Service, the Department of Transportation and the FBI.

The investigation took eight years, and some federal officials put off retirement to finish the prosecution. The verdicts bring the number of convictions in Operation Safe Road to 75 out of 79 defendants. There are two fugitives, one pending case and one dismissal.

While claiming no "joy in this verdict," Collins said, "we do take enormous pride in the investigation." The case began in 1998 as a narrow licensing investigation, he said, and ultimately, "You had a spectrum of corruption here: contract fraud, lying to the FBI, tax fraud. And the thing you don't have in all cases was the ability to show tangible effects of corruption -- lives are at stake."

Fitzgerald said that prosecutors "went forward with a circumstantial case we felt was very powerful, and the jury agreed. I think people will realize it's not in their best interest to do it [corruption]. People [the jurors] are not rejecting cases on the basis [that] this happens all the time."

Among those attending the trial were the Rev. Duane "Scott" Willis and his wife, Janet, who lost six children in the accident that played a crucial role in the prosecution's case.

A state investigator testified that one of Ryan's top aides and a key Ryan fundraiser blocked him from investigating the 1994 crash in which the children were killed.

The accident was caused when the metal undercarriage fell from a truck driven by Ricardo Guzman, who had obtained his license by paying off state officials, according to testimony. Guzman, who did not speak English, did not understand warnings from fellow truckers about the undercarriage as he was starting up the vehicle. After it fell from the truck, the undercarriage hit a van driven by the Willises, setting it on fire.

Webb, Ryan's lead attorney, said he will seek to have the verdict overthrown because of "unusual developments during jury deliberations."

U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer removed two of the jurors after they were accused in Chicago Tribune news stories of concealing arrest records. She replaced them with alternates.


Read More...

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

States Omit Minorities' School Scores; Avoid 'No Child Left Behind' Requirements

ABC News
AP: States Omit Minorities' School Scores
AP: States Help Schools Avoid 'No Child Left Behind' Requirements by Not Counting Test Scores
By FRANK BASS, NICOLE ZIEGLER DIZON and BEN FELLER Associated Press Writers
The Associated Press

- States are helping public schools escape potential penalties by skirting the No Child Left Behind law's requirement that students of all races must show annual academic progress.

With the federal government's permission, schools deliberately aren't counting the test scores of nearly 2 million students when they report progress by racial groups, an Associated Press computer analysis found.

Minorities who historically haven't fared as well as whites in testing make up the vast majority of students whose scores are being excluded, AP found. And the numbers have been rising.

"I can't believe that my child is going through testing just like the person sitting next to him or her and she's not being counted," said Angela Smith, a single mother. Her daughter, Shunta' Winston, was among two dozen black students whose test scores weren't counted to judge her suburban Kansas City, Mo., high school's performance by race.

Under the law championed by President Bush, all public school students must be proficient in reading and math by 2014, although only children above second grade are required to be tested.

Schools receiving federal poverty aid also must demonstrate annually that students in all racial categories are progressing or risk penalties that include extending the school year, changing curriculum or firing administrators and teachers.

The U.S. Education Department said it didn't know the breadth of schools' undercounting until seeing AP's findings.

"Is it too many? You bet," Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said in an interview. "Are there things we need to do to look at that, batten down the hatches, make sure those kids are part of the system? You bet."

Students whose tests aren't being counted in required categories include Hispanics in California who don't speak English well, blacks in the Chicago suburbs, American Indians in the Northwest and special education students in Virginia, AP found.

Bush's home state of Texas once cited as a model for the federal law excludes scores for two entire groups. No test scores from Texas' 65,000 Asian students or from several thousand American Indian students are broken out by race. The same is true in Arkansas.

One consequence is that educators are creating a false picture of academic progress.

"The states aren't hiding the fact that they're gaming the system," said Dianne Piche, executive director of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, a group that supports No Child Left Behind. "When you do the math ... you see that far from this law being too burdensome and too onerous, there are all sorts of loopholes."

The law signed by Bush in 2002 requires public schools to test more than 25 million students periodically in reading and math. No scores can be excluded from the overall measure.

But the schools also must report scores by categories, such as race, poverty, migrant status, English proficiency and special education. Failure in any category means the whole school fails.

States are helping schools get around that second requirement by using a loophole in the law that allows them to ignore scores of racial groups that are too small to be statistically significant.

Suppose, for example, that a school has 2,000 white students and nine Hispanics. In nearly every state, the Hispanic scores wouldn't be counted because there aren't enough to provide meaningful information and because officials want to protect students' privacy.

State educators decide when a group is too small to count. And they've been asking the government for exemptions to exclude larger numbers of students in racial categories. Nearly two dozen states have successfully petitioned the government for such changes in the past two years. As a result, schools can now ignore racial breakdowns even when they have 30, 40 or even 50 students of a given race in the testing population.

Students must be tested annually in grades 3 through 8 and at least once in high school, usually in 10th grade. This is the first school year that students in all those grades must be tested, though schools have been reporting scores by race for the tests they have been administering since the law was approved.

To calculate a nationwide estimate, AP analyzed the 2003-04 enrollment figures the government collected the latest on record and applied the current racial category exemptions the states use.

Overall, AP found that about 1.9 million students or about 1 in every 14 test scores aren't being counted under the law's racial categories. Minorities are seven times as likely to have their scores excluded as whites, the analysis showed.

Less than 2 percent of white children's scores aren't being counted as a separate category. In contrast, Hispanics and blacks have roughly 10 percent of their scores excluded. More than one-third of Asian scores and nearly half of American Indian scores aren't broken out, AP found.

Ms. Smith's family in Missouri demonstrates how the exemptions work. Shunta' and other black children in tested grades at Oak Park High School, which is in a mostly white suburban Kansas City neighborhood, weren't counted as a group because Missouri schools have federal permission not to break out scores for any ethnic group with fewer than 30 students in the required testing population.

"Why don't they feel like she's important enough to rearrange things to make it count?" her mother asked.

In all, the tests of more than 24,000 mostly minority children in Missouri aren't being counted as groups, AP's review found. Other states have much higher numbers. California, for instance, isn't counting the scores of more than 400,000 children. In Texas, the total is about 257,000.

State educators defend the exemptions, saying minority students' performance is still being included in their schools' overall statistics even when they aren't being counted in racial categories. Excluded minority students' scores may be counted at the district or state level, officials said.

Scott Palmer, a consultant for the Council of Chief State School Officers in Washington, said he hoped critics will focus on the 23 million children whose scores are being counted by schools rather than those whose scores aren't reported separately.

"There's a huge positive feeling for the notion" of making schools accountable, Palmer said. "It's a huge plus."

Spellings said she believes educators are acting in good faith. "Are there people out there who find ways to game the system? Of course," she said. "But on the whole ... I fully believe in my heart, mind and soul that educators are people of good will."

Bush has hailed the separate accounting of minority students as a vital feature of the law. "It's really essential we do that. It's really important," Bush said in a May 2004 speech. "If you don't do that, you're likely to leave people behind. And that's not right."

Nonetheless, Bush's Education Department continues to give widely varying exemptions to states:

Oklahoma lets schools exclude the test scores from any racial category with 52 or fewer members in the testing population, one of the largest across-the-board exemptions. That means 1 in 5 children in the state don't have scores broken out by race.

Maryland, which tests about 150,000 students more than Oklahoma, has an exempt group size of just five. That means fewer than 1 in 100 don't have scores counted.

With one of the most diverse school populations in the nation, Florida has created a special "provisional," or probationary, category for schools that are failing to meet the law's requirements. The deal helped Florida publicly claim that fewer schools had failed to meet their performance goals for two consecutive years. But federal education officials said the new category was mostly for public relations purposes and won't help schools escape penalties.

Washington state has made 18 changes to its testing plan, according to a February report by the Harvard Civil Rights Project. Vermont has made none. On average, states have made eight changes at either the state or federal level to their plans in the past five years, usually changing the size or accountability of subgroups whose scores were supposed to be counted.

Toia Jones, a black teacher whose daughters attend school in a mostly white Chicago suburb, said the loophole is enabling states and schools to avoid taking concrete measures to eliminate an "achievement gap" between white and minority students.

"With this loophole, it's almost like giving someone a trick bag to get out of a hole," she said. "Now people, instead of figuring out how do we really solve it, some districts, in order to save face or in order to not be faced with the sanctions, they're doing what they can to manipulate the data."

Some students feel left behind, too.

"It's terrible," said Michael Oshinaya, a senior at Eleanor Roosevelt High School in New York City who was among a group of black students whose scores weren't broken out as a racial category. "We're part of America. We make up America, too. We should be counted as part of America."

Spellings' Education Department is caught between two forces. Schools and states are eager to avoid the stigma of failure under the law, especially as the 2014 deadline draws closer. But Congress has shown little political will to modify the law to address their concerns. That leaves the racial category exemptions as a stopgap solution.

"She's inherited a disaster," said David Shreve, an education policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures. "The 'Let's Make a Deal' policy is to save the law from fundamental changes, with Margaret Spellings as Monty Hall."

The solution may be to set a single federal standard for when minority students' scores don't have to be counted separately, said Ross Wiener, policy director for the Washington-based Education Trust.

The law originally created the exemptions to make sure schools didn't unfairly fail schools or compromise student privacy when they had just a small number of students in one racial category, Wiener said.

But there's little doubt now that group sizes have become political, said Wiener, whose group supports the law.

"They're asking the question, not how do we generate statistically reliable results, but how do we generate politically palatable results," he said.

Associated Press Writers Laura Wides-Munoz in Miami, Nahal Toosi in New York and Garance Burke in Kansas City contributed to this report.

On the Net:

U.S. Education Department: http://www.ed.gov/


Read More...

The Election Cycle Explained

Read More...

Global Warming: Manny the Mammoth Tells It Like It Is!

huffingtonpost.com
Global Warming: Manny the Mammoth Tells It Like It Is!
Laurie David

As someone who considers herself very much in the loop when it comes to the depiction of global warming in the popular culture, I was pleasantly surprised -- actually, more like totally stunned -- when I innocently took my kids to see the animated hit movie, "Ice Age: The Meltdown" last night.
I had no idea the whole premise of the film is about global warming.

"The flood is real and it's coming fast," warns one of the cute and cuddly characters as the glaciers melt all around them. The plot thickens as the animals realize they must seek higher ground or face extinction due to the rising sea levels (remind you of any polar bears you know?)

Although the movie is geared for kids, it's quite terrifying in places. The deafening roar of cracking ice sheets, vultures swooping down in anticipation of dead animals, and the fear of inevitable horrific environmental changes all ring a little too true for comfort. And that's a good thing -- this is no time to feel comfortable about this pressing issue.

I predict the impact of this wildly popular family film will be significant. There is no better way to educate the public than doing it without them knowing (though I doubt that was producer 20th Century Fox's intention). But whatever the intent, thank you Fox for following up "The Day After Tomorrow" with another blockbuster built around the theme of global warming.

My favorite line of the new film comes when Manny the Mammoth (Ray Romano) says, "We need to let go of the past so we can have a future." Hear, hear. You tell 'em, Manny!

Read More...

Georgia governor signs sweeping immigration law

Reuters
Georgia governor signs sweeping immigration law
By Karen Jacobs

ATLANTA (Reuters) - The state of Georgia approved a sweeping measure on Monday to crack down on illegal immigrants, while in a sign of the national division on the issue, Arizona's governor vetoed a bill that would have allowed undocumented workers to be prosecuted as trespassers.

The moves come as the federal government and states consider how to deal with an estimated 11 million to 12 million undocumented workers while immigrants, many of whom are Hispanic, are displaying their political power through mass demonstrations in cities across the United States.

The Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act, signed into law by Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue, denies many state services paid for by taxpayers to people who are in the United States illegally.

It also forces contractors doing business with the state to verify the legal status of new workers, and requires police to notify immigration officials if people charged with crimes are illegal immigrants.

"It's our responsibility to ensure that our famous Georgia hospitality is not abused, that our taxpayers are not taken advantage of and that our citizens are protected," Perdue said before signing the law.

But Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, backed by key law enforcement officials, vetoed the bill in her state, the nation's hot spot for illegal crossing of the roughly 2,000-mile-long U.S.-Mexico border, saying there were no resources to pay police and prosecutors for an increased burden.

Under the proposal, first-time offenders would have faced a misdemeanor charge and up to six months in jail. A second offense would have been a felony, punishable by up to one year in jail.

Arizona officials also were concerned about its effect in the community.

"There is a real concern that crimes will go unreported by immigrants for fear that they would be turned into federal agents," said Wendy Balazik, a spokeswoman for the 20,000-member International Association of Chiefs of Police. "Law enforcement would lose valuable information."

But state Rep. Russell Pearce said the governor needs to take a stand to slow the flow into Arizona.

"It is a federal responsibility, it is everyone's responsibility," said Pearce, a Republican behind several bills targeting immigrants. "When are we going to wake up and start enforcing the law?"

GEORGIA BILL

Other provisions of the Georgia law prohibit employers from claiming a tax deduction for wages of $600 or more paid to undocumented workers, impose prison terms for human trafficking and limit the services commercial companies can provide to illegal immigrants.

Hundreds of thousands of people have demonstrated at rallies in major U.S. cities in recent weeks demanding rights for illegal immigrants in the United States.

"It's a punitive bill," said Sara Gonzalez, president and chief executive of the Georgia Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. "This is a very complicated issue, and I don't see any good coming out of this."

Outside the Georgia Capitol, a few demonstrators cheered when word spread that the immigration bill had been signed. The measure had garnered overwhelming support in both houses of Georgia's Republican-controlled Legislature.

"If you are not a U.S. citizen, you should not receive a U.S. benefit," said Steve Bray, a Georgia resident who was waving a U.S. flag and said he supports legal immigration.

(Additional reporting by David Schwartz in Phoenix)



Read More...

Monday, April 17, 2006

Life Imitates Art on "24"

huffingtonpost.com
Life Imitates Art on "24"
Jamie Frevele

I just can't believe it. Ever since the last season of Fox's "24," I have wanted to lend a helping hand to the befuddled President Charles Logan, who took over the sitting president's place after Air Force One crashed. This poor guy has been quite possibly the most incompetent, unqualified president television has ever seen, but at the same time, you knew he probably threw a great
barbecue. He wasn't a bad guy, just a dumb guy. And if he wasn't dumb, he sure was oblivious.

But now, as we found out last week, he is actually the man behind the horrible terrorist activity that has taken place on the fifth "longest day" of Jack Bauer's life. It's not really clear why Logan has done this yet, but to find out that a president you've been doubting could ever be devious enough to cause irreparable harm to his own citizens is just heartbreaking. This is a president who made it possible for terrorists to acquire biological weapons to use on Americans! And why? Well, we don't know yet, but in the public eye is a steadfast and determined President Logan. Behind closed doors is a scheming, corrupt administration. What about the barbecue? What about the good ol' boy we wanted to get behind who only had the best interests of America at heart, despite the painful sacrifices we would have to make to defend ourselves? Would we have stood by Logan if the situation had gotten worse? Of course! He's just a man, after all! Just a poor, inept man who never planned for this to happen.

But nooooooooooooooo.

Now he turns around and reveals himself for the snake he really is: a man who orchestrated attacks that would harm Americans, cleared the way for destruction and in the meantime discredit those who doubted him as a president. How dare those critics say he couldn't do it. How dare they question his abilities and authority. Well, lookee here: I can start a war and deal with it just as well as anyone else can! And if the people don't believe me, I'll just release some secret
documents outlining the manipulated information I tried to pass off as factual threats, maybe out a few covert agents who were actually trying to help my feeble cause, and let them see for themselves: I'm not the problem, just the situation I created.


Read More...

Big Rewards for Defense Firms; Extra Fees Paid Regardless of Performance, GAO Finds

washingtonpost.com
Big Rewards for Defense Firms
Extra Fees Paid Regardless of Performance, GAO Finds
By Charles R. Babcock
Washington Post Staff Writer

In late February 2004, the Army announced that it was canceling plans to build a radar-evading helicopter called the Comanche, a project that was nearly three years behind schedule and more than $3.5 billion over budget. Those problems, however, didn't stop an Army panel a few weeks later from granting the Boeing Co.-Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. partnership running the program a $33.9 million "award fee" for their work on the helicopter, part of more than $200 million in such fees paid to the partnership over four years.

Award fees are meant in theory to motivate defense contractors with extra money for performance. But a recent Government Accountability Office study found that the fees are often paid regardless of whether a project is on schedule and within its budget.

Instead of encouraging efficiency, the GAO found, award-fee payments have become routine in some major weapons contracts, built into company expectations and paid almost as a matter of course.

Current practices "undermine the effectiveness of fees as a motivational tool and marginalize their use in holding contractors accountable," the GAO concluded. Defense contractors are paid award fees for work that is simply "acceptable, average, expected, good, or satisfactory."

An estimated $8 billion was paid in award fees from fiscal 1999 to 2003, when many of the projects involved were over budget and behind schedule. Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin Corp., for example, collected $1.5 billion in award fees on three major programs, the F/A-22 Raptor jet fighter, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and the Space-Based Infrared System High satellite, despite cost, schedule and reliability problems, the GAO found.

Defense industry officials say award fees are sometimes the only way companies can profit from high-risk contracts that might never reach full-scale production -- and are of particular importance to companies that bid on large weapons systems.

Government officials say they are tightening the rules for awarding them. Late last month, the Pentagon issued new guidance that said that award fees must be tied to identifiable outcomes as much as possible and that the contracting officials should limit the common practice of rolling over fees from one period to the next, effectively giving companies a second chance to earn them.

Shay D. Assad, a former Raytheon Co. executive who is the Pentagon's new director of defense procurement and acquisition policy, said in an interview Friday that it was clear that defense officials have been granting award fees on the basis of "process performance and behavior" -- a category the GAO said included things such as whether reports were filed on time.

Instead, he said, they should concentrate on "events . . . that are going to be correlated to the outcome" of the contract.

The GAO began looking at corporate award fees after Marvin Sambur, who was the Air Force acquisition chief, attended a New York investor conference in 2003 and heard defense industry executives talk cavalierly about receiving high award payments.

"I was amazed," Sambur said in a recent interview, likening the executives' attitude to that of students expecting an "A" in class "just for showing up." He then found that the Air Force was paying contractors about 90 percent of the possible fees, no matter what their performance, so he said he set out to tighten Air Force policies.

The GAO study was requested by John Ensign (R-Nev.) and Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in response to Sambur's concerns.

Industry officials say that award fees are not simply bonuses and that the question of how and when they should be given is complicated.

John W. Douglass, president of the Aerospace Industries Association, whose members include the large defense contractors, said award fees may look "almost automatic" to the outside world, but actually are the result of complex negotiations.

In the case of the Comanche, for example, an Army spokesman said, "The fact that the Army was considering termination and did terminate would not relieve the government in any way of paying the contractor the fee he earned." The program was killed to allow the Army to pay for many other priorities, the spokesman said.

Joseph LaMarca Jr., a spokesman for Boeing, said in a statement that Boeing-Sikorsky received the final award fee for work completed prior to the termination. The decision to cancel the contract "was based on changing requirements and not due to technical costs or schedule issues," he said.

Thomas J. Jurkowsky, a Lockheed Martin spokesman, said in a written statement that large, complex development programs like the three the report cited for Lockheed "have cost, technical and schedule issues in their early stages because of the unpredictability of the technology."

The Pentagon has approved full-rate production of the F-22, "a decision that reflects the government's confidence in the aircraft," while the strike fighter is on schedule for a first flight this fall, Jurkowsky said. And though the satellite project "has faced technical challenges because of its sophisticated design," it has met some significant milestones and the government says "the program has turned the corner," he said.

Richard L. Aboulafia, an investment analyst with the Teal Group Corp., said award fees have become more important to the defense industry in recent years as the size of lucrative production contracts have been cut. As companies must invest relatively more in research, award fees became a way to boost earnings.

The difficulty in being more strict about award fees, Aboulafia said, is determining "who is at fault for mission creep and changing requirements," the usual reasons for programs escalating in cost while falling behind schedules.

Lt. Gen. Donald J. Hoffman, the military deputy for Air Force acquisition, said Friday that his service was following "the spirit" of Sambur's initiatives but has not formally adopted a new award fee policy. He said, for example, that Air Force headquarters now reviews the findings of award-fee panels and at times has cut fees it found excessive.

Sambur left the Air Force early last year.

Some Defense Department agencies have done better than others in connecting fees to performance, the GAO said. The Missile Defense Agency, for example, restructured Boeing's airborne laser contract in 2002. In the process it changed the award-fee plan to focus on a successful demonstration of the system by the end of 2004.

Until that restructuring the contractor received 95 percent of the available fees, even with cost increases and schedule delays, the GAO report said. But because it didn't meet the 2004 test deadline, Boeing received none of the $73.5 million award fee available under the revised plan.

Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, said Boeing also lost $107 million in fees last year for not meeting goals in the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System, which is based in Alaska and California and is supposed to shoot down long-range ballistic missiles.

"We have a policy of rewards for good performance and penalizing for bad performance," Lehner said.

Maria McCullough, spokeswoman for Boeing's missile defense programs, said it was not surprising that fees were reduced because they were tied to performance in particular flight tests. More recent successful tests show both programs are "absolutely on track," she said.


Read More...

Iran donates $50 million - $100 million to Hamas-led government

Reuters
Iran donates $50 million to Hamas-led government

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran is giving $50 million to the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority to fill gaps left by Western aid cuts, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Sunday.

The donation will help make up the shortfall left by the aid cut-off by the United States and the European Union and Israel's freezing of the transfer of about $50 million a month in tax and customs receipts to the Hamas-controlled Palestinian government.

"I am honored to announce that Iran has donated $50 million to help the Palestinian nation," Mottaki said in a televised speech to a conference in Tehran on the Palestinian issue.

Mottaki said the gift was Iran's duty as a friend of the Palestinians, but did not say how or when it would reach them.

A Hamas official, who asked not to be identified, later told Reuters in Dubai that Iran was donating $100 million to the Palestinian Authority. There was no immediate confirmation from Iranian officials.

Iran has been at odds with the United States since its 1979 Islamic revolution, and has refused to recognize Israel.

Washington and the European Union froze aid to the Hamas-led government because the Islamist group did not comply with their demand that it recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by interim peace agreements.

The Palestinian economy has been crippled during years of fighting with Israel, and Palestinians are dependent on foreign aid totaling more than $1 billion a year.

Mottaki called on Muslims around the world to support the Palestinians. "The Islamic world should help the new Palestinian government to overcome its current problems," he said.

Hamas, which took office on March 29, faces a financial crisis and a struggle to revive an economy suffering from widespread poverty and corruption and high unemployment.

It has called on Arab states to make up the shortfall but has not even been able to find a bank willing to handle its finances.

The 22-member Arab League promised last month to maintain aid to the Palestinian Authority at around $55 million a month.

Hamas, which carried out many suicide bombings in Israel during the uprising against Israeli occupation but has largely observed a truce for the past year, has repeatedly said it has no intention of recognizing the Jewish state.

But it has offered a long-term truce if Israel fully withdraws from land captured in the 1967 Middle East war.

Israel has dismissed such an offer as a non-starter and vowed not to negotiate with the group.

U.S. and Israeli officials are concerned that Tehran, which also refuses to recognize Israel, will gain influence over the Hamas-led government and make it harder to reach a Middle East peace settlement.

(Additional reporting by Yara Bayoumy in Dubai)


Read More...

NYPD Deploys First of 500 Security Cameras

Yahoo! News
NYPD Deploys First of 500 Security Cameras
By TOM HAYS, Associated Press Writer

Along a gritty stretch of street in Brooklyn, police this month quietly launched an ambitious plan to combat street crime and terrorism.

But instead of cops on the beat, wireless video cameras peer down from lamp posts about 30 feet above the sidewalk.

They were the first installment of a program to place 500 cameras throughout the city at a cost of $9 million. Hundreds of additional cameras could follow if the city receives $81.5 million in federal grants it has requested to safeguard Lower Manhattan and parts of midtown with a surveillance "ring of steel" modeled after security measures in London's financial district.

Officials of the New York Police Department — which considers itself at the forefront of counterterrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — claim the money would be well-spent, especially since the revelations that al-Qaida members once cased the New York Stock Exchange and other financial institutions.

"We have every reason to believe New York remains in the cross-hairs, so we have to do what it takes to protect the city," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said last week at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

The city already has about 1,000 cameras in the subways, with 2,100 scheduled to be in place by 2008. An additional 3,100 cameras monitor city housing projects.

New York's approach isn't unique. Chicago spent roughly $5 million on a 2,000-camera system. Homeland Security officials in Washington plan to spend $9.8 million for surveillance cameras and sensors on a rail line near the Capitol. And Philadelphia has increasingly relied on video surveillance.

Privacy advocates say the NYPD's camera plan needs more study and safeguards to preserve privacy and guard against abuses like racial profiling and voyeurism.

The department "is installing cameras first and asking questions later," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

Police officials insist that law-abiding New Yorkers have nothing to fear because the cameras will be restricted to public areas. The police commissioner recently established a panel of four corporate defense lawyers to advise the department on surveillance policies.

"The police department must be flexible to meet an ever changing threat," Kelly said. "We also have to ensure whatever measures we take are reasonable as the Constitution requires. That's the only way to retain public support and preserve individual freedoms."

Lieberman concedes cameras can help investigators identify suspects once a crime has been committed, but argues they can't prevent crime. She cited a 2002 study which concluded that surveillance cameras used in 14 British cities had little or no impact on crime rates — just as they didn't keep terrorists from bombing the London subway system last year.

"The London experience shouldn't be misconstrued that the 'ring of steel' prevents terrorism," she said. "But that's how it's being pitched."

Still, New York police were impressed that their British counterparts drew on 80,000 videotapes to identify and retrace the routes of the subway system suicide bombers and the suspects in a failed follow-up attack.

Timothy Horner, a specialist with the Kroll security firm and a former NYPD captain, said the measures make sense.

"It's not a cure-all, and the department is not thinking that way," he said. "But we really want law enforcement to use whatever tools they can to keep us safe."




Read More...

What San Francisco Didn't Want You to Know; Locals Allegedly Retouched Photos of 1906 Quake, Sought to Chase Chinese From Chinatown

ABC News
What San Francisco Didn't Want You to Know
Locals Allegedly Retouched Photos of 1906 Quake, Sought to Chase Chinese From Chinatown

SAN FRANCISCO, April 16, 2006 — - The city of San Francisco this week is in the awkward position of commemorating an event previous generations were desperate to forget -- the great earthquake of 1906.

The quake, which struck on April 18, 1906, has long been ignored, denied and even erased, with photographs altered to minimize the damage.

A hundred years ago -- as well as today -- business leaders are sensitive to the word "earthquake."

"They were fearful that East Coast investors would not put money in the rebuilding of San Francisco if they thought it would fall down some years later," said Jim Lazarus, vice president of San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. "And so I think that continued even to this day."

That's why the 1906 earthquake, the worst in American history, was known for a long time simply as the "great fire." The three days of fires that followed the earthquake finished the job of destruction, leveling 500 city blocks and leaving more than half the population homeless.

Nobody questioned the strikingly low official death toll of 478 until the 1960's, when historian Gladys Hansen began scouring old records.

"I just kinda stopped at 3,000," Hansen said. "But I know it's a lot higher than that."

The higher death count wasn't officially accepted by the city until last year.

"Earthquakes are bad for business," Hansen said.

Anti-Chinese Plot?

The death toll wasn't the only fact lost to history. Some of the city's darkest moments have long been downplayed as well.

In the days following the quake there was an aggressive campaign to move Chinatown off its valuable location.

"When the quake happened the authorities said, 'Ah ha, here's our chance to get rid of the Chinese,' " said Sue Lee, executive director of the Chinese Historical Society of America, which is located in San Francisco.

The plan failed, but only after President Teddy Roosevelt intervened.

San Francisco resident Bruce Quan's great grandfather helped hundreds of displaced and abused Chinese by giving them shelter in his cannery.

"The Chinese were robbed, they were beaten, whatever possessions they had were taken from them, and they weren't fed," Quan said.

A hundred years later, San Francisco still grapples with its past. The only memorial to the dead was finally unveiled before a soggy group of victims' relatives just this past week.

ABC News' Neal Karlinsky originally reported this story for "World News Tonight."




Read More...

Why Is Gasoline So Expensive?

ABC News
Why Is Gasoline So Expensive?
Price of Crude Oil Is Biggest Cost

April 15, 2006 — - Just as Exxon Mobil broke the news this week that it was giving its CEO a nearly $400 million retirement package, the government announced the average price of a gallon of gas could rise this summer by more than 10 percent.

In just two months, the price of gasoline at the pump has jumped 40 cents a gallon (go to the end of this story for ways to shop for the lowest gas prices in your area).

It has lot of people telling tales of worry and hardship, and asking: Where is all the money going?

Nina and Gordon Erquiza own a small pipe-cleaning company in Los Angeles. Gasoline for their two trucks now costs as much as $800 a month.

"It is a choice that we make every day of our lives -- whether or not to buy gas and go to work or to have health insurance," Nina Erquiza said. "It's an every day thought and an every day issue for us."

Gas Price Breakdown

Though the Erquizas live where gasoline taxes are among the highest in the country, their problem begins at the beginning, with the sharply higher price of crude oil. In a gallon of unleaded, crude accounts for $1.45 of today's average price of $2.68 at the pump.

Next is the cost of refining that oil -- 55 cents of the gallon's price, a big jump in costs.

"They're normally about $5 to $10 a barrel," said Tom Kloza, an analyst. "Now, it's closer to $20 to $30. And that's because a lot of money is flowing in on the fear we won't have enough refining capacity this summer."

Next is transporting gas to the pump -- just 5 cents a gallon.

And then, there's taxes -- 18 cents for the federal government and 27 cents for state governments.

"Taxes used to represent as much as 40 to 50 percent of the price you paid at the pump," Kloza said. "Nowadays, it's a much lower figure than that because they haven't changed in 12 years."

What about profits? Big oil companies like Exxon-Mobil make money at every step of the process because they take the oil out of the ground, refine it and sell it. Exxon-Mobil's profit is estimated at a hefty 29 percent.

And the price of gas may continue to go up.

Even without unforeseen events such as another bad hurricane season, Kloza said, "We'll probably peak on gasoline very close to $3 national, with some states above that."

ABC News' Bob Jamieson reported this story for "World News Tonight."

Sidebar: Shop for Low Gas Prices

Several Web sites are geared toward helping consumers find the lowest gas prices in their neighborhoods.

They include the following:

www.gaspricewatch.com

www.gasbuddy.com

www.gaswatch.info


Read More...

Tax Law Writers Rely on Pros for Returns; Many Lawmakers in Charge of Writing Tax Laws Have Professionals Prepare Their Returns

ABC News
Tax Law Writers Rely on Pros for Returns
Many Lawmakers in Charge of Writing Tax Laws Have Professionals Prepare Their Returns
By MARY DALRYMPLE
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - When it comes to their own tax returns, many members of Congress who specialize in writing tax laws turn to professional preparers rather than completing the paperwork themselves.

"It's onerous and everybody knows it," said Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass.

Three of the four top lawmakers on the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees, which are in charge of writing tax laws, pay a professional to file their annual tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service.

The exception is the Ways and Means chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif. The former college professor said he has prepared his own return "forever" and that he waits until close to the deadline to file. Monday is the filing deadline for most people.

"There's no reason for me to pay Uncle Sam pay, you heard that until I have to," he said.

How about one of the tax writers who could become chairman after Thomas retires at year's end?

"Absolutely not," said Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La. "I'm not an accountant. I'm a lawyer."

New York Rep. Charles Rangel, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, and Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Max Baucus, D-Mont., the Finance Committee chairman and ranking Democrat, all depend on professional tax preparers.

According to IRS statistics, that makes these members of Congress much like the public. More than 60 percent of taxpayers turn to a paid professional to prepare their returns. The number typically increases a little each year.

Some lawmakers have more complicated financial lives than the average taxpayer, making their returns more complicated. Some said they had a professional do the job to guarantee the return's accuracy.

David Keating, senior counselor at the National Taxpayers Union, said lawmakers should at least try to complete their own returns. Members of tax-writing committees should have to spend 20 hours working on their tax returns before giving up and handing the job to a professional, he suggested.

"If they're going to sit on a tax-writing committee, it certainly makes a lot of sense for them at least to attempt to do their own tax return," Keating said. "And when they scream out 'Torture!' to their tax preparer, at least they'd have a better view."

A few do dive in on their own.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said he does them "just so I can go through the process." Then he asks an accountant to check for mistakes.

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., usually prepares his own taxes using computer software. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, does his tax return and his children's.

Rep. Kevin Brady's wife, a former banker, prepares the tax returns for the Texas Republican's family.

Rep. Jim Ramstad, R-Minn., does not do his own returns, but he agreed it might be a good idea to try. "I think it is important that we operate in the real world," he said.

These lawmakers have offered ideas to simplify the tax system, but none has gotten close to enactment.

Rep. John Linder, R-Ga., dislikes the tax system so much that he wants to scrap individual tax filing and the Internal Revenue Service. He would trade the income tax system for a consumption tax.

A less drastic change is advocated by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. He did not prepare his real tax returns, but he was able to prepare a hypothetical tax return in 30 minutes based on his proposed simplified tax system.

"This last fact is truly revolutionary because no one can remember the last time a member of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee actually completed their own tax return," he said.

On the Net:

House Ways and Means Committee: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/

Senate Finance Committee: http://finance.senate.gov/




Read More...

A Bad Leak

The New York Times
A Bad Leak

President Bush says he declassified portions of the prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq because he "wanted people to see the truth" about Iraq's weapons programs and to understand why he kept accusing Saddam Hussein of stockpiling weapons that turned out not to exist. This would be a noble sentiment if it actually bore any relationship to Mr. Bush's actions in this case, or his overall record.

Mr. Bush did not declassify the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq — in any accepted sense of that word — when he authorized I. Lewis Libby Jr., through Vice President Dick Cheney, to talk about it with reporters. He permitted a leak of cherry-picked portions of the report. The declassification came later.

And this president has never shown the slightest interest in disclosure, except when it suits his political purposes. He has run one of the most secretive administrations in American history, consistently withholding information and vital documents not just from the public, but also from Congress. Just the other day, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the House Judiciary Committee that the names of the lawyers who reviewed Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program were a state secret.

Obviously, we do not object to government officials talking to reporters about important matters that their bosses do not want discussed. It would be impossible to cover any administration, especially one so secretive as this, unless that happened. (Judith Miller, who then worked for The Times, was one of the reporters Mr. Libby chose for this leak, although she never wrote about it.) But the version of the facts that Mr. Libby was authorized to divulge was so distorted that it seems more like disinformation than any sincere attempt to inform the public.

This fits the pattern of Mr. Bush's original sales pitch on the Iraq war — hyping the intelligence that bolstered his case and suppressing the intelligence that undercut it. In this case, Mr. Libby was authorized to talk about claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium for nuclear weapons in Africa and not more reliable evidence to the contrary.

About a month before, Mr. Bush rushed to announce that American forces had found evidence of a biological weapons program in Iraq — trailers that could have been used to make doomsday devices. We now know, from a report in The Washington Post, that a Pentagon team actually on the ground in Iraq inspecting the trailers had concluded two days earlier that they were nothing of the kind.

The White House says Mr. Bush was not aware of that report, and was relying on an assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. This is hardly the first time we've been told that intelligence reports contradicting administration doctrine somehow did not make it to Mr. Bush's desk. But it does not explain why he and Mr. Cheney went on talking about the trailers for weeks, during which the State Department's intelligence division — about the only agency that got it right about Iraq — debunked the mobile-labs theory.

Of course, the inaccurate report saying that the trailers were bioweapons labs was made public, immediately, while the accurate one was kept secret until a reporter found out about it.

Since Mr. Bush regularly denounces leakers, the White House has made much of the notion that he did not leak classified information, he declassified it. This explanation strains credulity. Even a president cannot wave a wand and announce that an intelligence report is declassified.

To declassify an intelligence document, officials have to decide whether disclosing the information would jeopardize the sources that provided it or the methods used to gather it. To answer that question, they closely study the origins of the intelligence to be disclosed. Had Mr. Bush done that, he should have seen that the most credible information made it clear that the Niger story was wrong. (In any case, Iraq's supposed attempt to buy uranium from Niger happened four years before the invasion, and failed. The idea that this amounted to a current, aggressive and continuing campaign to build nuclear weapons in 2002 — as Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney called it — is laughable.)

This messy episode leaves more questions than answers, so it is imperative that two things happen soon. First, the federal prosecutor in the Libby case should release the transcripts of what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney said when he questioned them. And the Senate Intelligence Committee must report publicly on how Mr. Bush and his team used the flawed intelligence on Iraq. Senator Pat Roberts, the committee chairman, says the panel will meet this month to discuss three of the report's five sections. That's a step. And it has taken only two years to get this far.




Read More...

Outrage at Funeral Protests Pushes Lawmakers to Act

The New York Times
Outrage at Funeral Protests Pushes Lawmakers to Act
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

NASHVILLE, April 11 — As dozens of mourners streamed solemnly into church to bury Cpl. David A. Bass, a fresh-faced 20-year-old marine who was killed in Iraq on April 2, a small clutch of protesters stood across the street on Tuesday, celebrating his violent death.

"Thank God for Dead Soldiers," read one of their placards. "Thank God for I.E.D.'s," read another, a reference to the bombs used to kill service members in the war. To drive home their point — that God is killing soldiers to punish America for condoning homosexuality — members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., a tiny fundamentalist splinter group, kicked around an American flag and shouted, if someone approached, that the dead soldiers were rotting in hell.

Since last summer, a Westboro contingent, numbering 6 to 20 people, has been showing up at the funerals of soldiers with their telltale placards, chants and tattered American flags. The protests, viewed by many as cruel and unpatriotic, have set off a wave of grass-roots outrage and a flurry of laws seeking to restrict demonstrations at funerals and burials.

"Repugnant, outrageous, despicable, do not adequately describe what I feel they do to these families," said Representative Steve Buyer, an Indiana Republican who is a co-sponsor of a Congressional bill to regulate demonstrations at federal cemeteries. "They have a right to freedom of speech. But someone also has a right to bury a loved one in peace."

In the past few months, nine states, including Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Indiana, have approved laws that restrict demonstrations at a funeral or burial. In addition, 23 state legislatures are getting ready to vote on similar bills, and Congress, which has received thousands of e-mail messages on the issue, expects to take up legislation in May dealing with demonstrations at federal cemeteries.

"I haven't seen something like this," said David L. Hudson Jr., research attorney for the First Amendment Center, referring to the number of state legislatures reacting to the protests. "It's just amazing. It's an emotional issue and not something that is going to get a lot of political opposition."

Most of the state bills and laws have been worded carefully to try to avoid concerns over the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech. The laws typically seek to keep demonstrators at a funeral or cemetery 100 to 500 feet from the entrance, depending on the state, and to limit the protests to one hour before and one hour after the funeral.

A few states, including Wisconsin, also seek to bar people from displaying "any visual image that conveys fighting words" within several hundred feet or during the hours of the funeral. The laws or bills do not try to prevent protesters from speaking out.

Constitutional experts say there is some precedent for these kinds of laws. One case in particular, which sought to keep anti-abortion picketers away from a private home, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1988.

"A funeral home seems high on the list of places where people legitimately could be or should be protected from unwanted messages," said Michael C. Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Columbia University Law School.

The Westboro Baptist Church, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps, is not affiliated with the mainstream Baptist church. It first gained publicity when it picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a gay man who was beaten to death in 1998 in Wyoming.

Over the past decade, the church, which consists almost entirely of 75 of Mr. Phelps's relatives, made its name by demonstrating outside businesses, disaster zones and the funerals of gay people. Late last year, though, it changed tactics and members began showing up at the funerals of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, has put it on its watch list.

Embracing a literal translation of the Bible, the church members believe that God strikes down the wicked, chief among them gay men and lesbians and people who fail to strongly condemn homosexuality. God is killing soldiers, they say, because of America's unwillingness to condemn gay people and their lifestyles.

Standing on the roadside outside Corporal Bass's funeral here under a strikingly blue sky, the six protesters, who had flown from Topeka, shook their placards as cars drove past or pulled into the funeral. The 80-year-old wife of Mr. Phelps, slightly stooped but spry and wearing her running shoes, carried a sign that read "Tennessee Taliban." She is often given the task of driving the pickup trucks that ferry church members, a stack of pillows propping her view over the dashboard.

Next to her stood a cluster of Mr. Phelps's great-grandnephews and great-grandnieces, smiling teenagers with sunglasses, digital cameras and cellphones dangling from their pockets and wrists. They carried their own signs, among them, "You're Going to Hell."

Careful not to trespass on private property, the group stood a distance down the hill from the Woodmont Hills Church of Christ. Police cars parked nearby, keeping watch, but mostly making sure no one attacked the protesters.

"God is punishing this nation with a grievous, smiting blow, killing our children, sending them home dead, to help you connect the dots," said Shirley Roper-Phelps, the spokeswoman for the group and one of Mr. Phelps's daughters. "This is a nation that has forgotten God and leads a filthy manner of life."

At the entrance of the church, Jonathan Anstey, 21, one of Corporal Bass's best friends, frowned as he watched the protesters from a distance. Corporal Bass, who joined the Marine Corps after high school, died with six other service members when his 7-ton truck rolled over in a flash flood in Iraq. His family was reeling from grief, Mr. Anstey said.

"It's hurtful and it's taking a lot of willpower not to go down there and stomp their heads in," Mr. Anstey said. "But I know that David is looking down and seeing me, and he would not want to see that."

Disturbed by the protests, a small group of motorcycle riders, some of them Vietnam War veterans, banded together in October to form the Patriot Guard Riders. They now have 22,000 members. Their aim is to form a human shield in front of the protesters so that mourners cannot see them, and when necessary, rev their engines to drown out the shouts of the Westboro group.

The Bass family, desiring a low-key funeral, asked the motorcycle group not to attend.

"It's kind of like, we didn't do it right in the '70s," said Kurt Mayer, the group's spokesman, referring to the treatment of Vietnam veterans. "This is something that America needs to do, step up and do the right thing."

Hundreds of well-wishers have written e-mail messages to members of the motorcycle group, thanking them for their presence at the funerals. State legislatures, too, are reacting swiftly to the protests, and the Westboro group has mostly steered clear of states that have already enacted laws. While Corporal Bass's family was getting ready to bury him, the Tennessee House was preparing to debate a bill making it illegal for protesters to stand within 500 feet of a funeral, burial or memorial service.

The House joined the Senate in approving it unanimously on Thursday, and the bill now awaits the signature of the governor.

"When you have someone who has given the ultimate sacrifice for their country, with a community and the family grieving, I just don't feel it's the appropriate time to be protesting," said State Representative Curtis Johnson, a Republican who was a co-sponsor of the bill.

Ms. Roper-Phelps said the group was now contemplating how best to challenge the newly passed laws. "This hypocritical nation runs around the world touting our freedoms and is now prepared to dismantle the First Amendment," she said. "A piece of me wants to say that is exactly what you deserve."




Read More...

Sunday, April 16, 2006

It Depends On What The Meaning Of What The Meaning Is

Read More...

Fool me once . . . Trust Me

Read More...

Oops!

Read More...

The Rummy Doctrine

Read More...