US Government's profound disrespect for the rule of law

washingtonpost.com
Gonzales's Rationale on Phone Data Disputed
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer

Civil liberties lawyers yesterday questioned the legal basis that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales used Tuesday to justify the constitutionality of collecting domestic telephone records as part of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism program.

While not confirming a USA Today report May 11 saying the National Security Agency has been collecting phone-call records of millions of Americans, Gonzales said such an activity would not require a court warrant under a 1979 Supreme Court ruling because it involved obtaining "business records." Under the 27-year-old court ruling in Smith v. Maryland , "those kinds of records do not enjoy Fourth Amendment protection," Gonzales said. "There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in those kinds of records," he added.

Noting that Congress in 1986 passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in reaction to the Smith v. Maryland ruling to require court orders before turning over call records to the government, G. Jack King Jr. of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said Gonzales is correct in saying "the administration isn't violating the Fourth Amendment" but "he's failing to acknowledge that it is breaking" the 1986 law, which requires a court order "with a few very narrow exceptions."

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said, "The government is bound by the laws Congress passes, and when the attorney general doesn't even mention them, it is symptomatic of the government's profound disrespect for the rule of law."

Gonzales, in addition to mentioning the Supreme Court case on Tuesday, said there "is a statutory right of privacy" but "with respect to business records there are a multiple number of ways that the government can have access to that information," including issuing national security letters, a type of administrative subpoena.

King noted that the USA Patriot Act modified the law to permit counterintelligence access "to telephone toll and transactional records" to allow specific targeting of "a person or entity" by the FBI if the director certifies in writing to the service provider that a customer's information is relevant to an "authorized" terrorism or counterintelligence investigation.

Former deputy attorney general George J. Terwilliger III, a partner in White & Case LLP, said yesterday that he does not believe the 1986 law applies if phone numbers called are being collected "wholesale" without subscriber names or other identifiers.

While saying he does not know what the NSA program involves, Terwilliger said it appears a database of telephone records is being built so it can be queried in real time after a call between the United States and abroad related to a terrorist's phone is made to see what other numbers that U.S. phone had been used to call in the past.

Read More...

Summary only...

Editor at Conservative Magazine To Be Top Policy Adviser to Bush

washingtonpost.com
Editor at Conservative Magazine To Be Top Policy Adviser to Bush
By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer

President Bush appointed a longtime scholar at the American Enterprise Institute yesterday to be his top domestic policy adviser, a post that has been vacant since February, when Claude A. Allen stepped down after being charged with stealing more than $5,000 in a phony refund scheme.

Karl Zinsmeister, who has worked the past 12 years as editor in chief of the American Enterprise magazine, is slated to assume his White House post June 12. At the institute, he focused on examining cultural issues, as well as social and economic trends. His columns for the magazine included pieces praising Wal-Mart's efficiency and extolling the role of religion in forming the glue that bonds communities.

Zinsmeister, 47, also has written three books defending the war in Iraq, a nation he has visited four times as an embedded journalist. His books focus on the everyday work of U.S. troops, whose progress in fulfilling a noble mission, he argues, is often overlooked by much of the media.

"What the establishment media covering Iraq have utterly failed to make clear today is this central reality: With the exception of periodic flare-ups in isolated corners, our struggle in Iraq as warfare is over," Zinsmeister wrote in his column last June. "Egregious acts of terror will continue -- in Iraq as in many other parts of the world. But there is now no chance whatever of the U.S. losing this critical guerrilla war."

Zinsmeister also has shot a documentary about soldiers in Iraq, scheduled to air on PBS stations next year.

"Karl has broad policy experience and a keen insight into many of the issues that face America's families and entrepreneurs, including race, poverty, welfare, and education," Bush said in a statement. "He is an innovative thinker and an accomplished executive. He will lead my domestic policy team with energy and a fresh perspective."

Zinsmeister will be stepping into his new post as Bush is struggling against sagging public support and a restive Congress to retain control of his domestic agenda. A year ago, the president was pressing major overhauls of Social Security program and the tax code, but he was forced to sideline both efforts in the face of stubborn opposition from congressional Democrats and others. Also, Bush's plan to restructure immigration policy by stepping up border security while creating a legal avenue for more low-skill workers to enter the country has engendered strong opposition from many Republicans.

Bush's once-bold policy vision has given way to a fight for political survival, as the White House has turned its attention to helping Republicans retain control of Congress, while pushing smaller domestic initiatives including improving science education and intensifying research on alternative fuels. As Bush's assistant for domestic policy, Zinsmeister will be called on to brief the president on a wide spectrum of issues, including education, housing, space exploration and poverty.

A graduate of Yale University, Zinsmeister has served on the advisory board for the Foundation for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise and on the board of a Department of Education panel on improving and reforming schools and teaching. He also worked a year as a legislative assistant to the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.).

Read More...

Summary only...

Firms Donated to Groups That Gave Judges Free Trips

washingtonpost.com
Firms Donated to Groups That Gave Judges Free Trips
By Eric M. Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer

Two organizations that have provided free trips to hundreds of federal judges received large contributions from tobacco, oil and other corporate interests, according to documents released yesterday.

The Montana-based Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) and George Mason University's Law & Economics Center previously said corporate money does not pay for the judges' seminars or declined to disclose their donors.

But documents released by the Community Rights Counsel, a nonprofit Washington law firm, show that corporations including Exxon Mobil, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco have contributed tens of thousands of dollars toward these programs. The new information comes as judicial trips are receiving increased scrutiny on Capitol Hill, where bills would either outlaw such trips or create an inspector general for the judicial branch.

Opponents of these seminars -- often held at pleasant places with plenty of time to do pleasant things, such as play golf and ride horses -- is a way to lobby powerful judges who often decide cases that change industries and roil markets. The groups generally pay for judges' travel, lodging, food and tuition expenses, and together have funded 1,158 trips for 349 federal judges between 1992 and 2004, according to the Community Rights Counsel.

Douglas T. Kendall, the counsel's executive director, said the two seminar groups "have consistently misled the media, the public and participating judges about the nature of their operations and the extent of their corporate support."

For example, in a letter to The Washington Post last year, FREE's chairman said the group "accepts no corporate support for the judges' seminars nor support from any foundation with links to business or involvement in litigation."

But documents released yesterday show that the Exxon Mobil Foundation gave FREE $50,000 in 2004, including $20,000 for "federal judicial seminars."

"How does it look? It doesn't look good," said Pete Geddes, FREE's executive vice president. But he said that despite what the Exxon Mobil documents say, corporate money does not go to reimburse federal judges who attend the seminars, which provide a free-market perspective in solving the nation's environmental problems.

Corporate money, he said, is used for rent, salaries and overhead, not for reimbursing judges for their expenses. He acknowledged that that might be a distinction that makes little difference. "We try to do the best we can," he said. "Everyone understands money is fungible."

George Mason's Law & Economics Center, which has focused on issues such as tort reform, declines to release any information on donors or fundraising.

Documents released by the Community Rights Counsel, including some released as a part of the national tobacco settlement, appear to show that the center's officials asked R.J. Reynolds Tobacco for $20,000 for the federal judges program, according to a Reynolds internal e-mail. The center received $40,000 from Philip Morris from 1996 through 1999, and was listed as one of the company's "key allies" among public policy groups. The center also received $40,000 from the Exxon Mobil Foundation in 2004.

Francis H. Buckley, a law professor who serves as director of the center, said the policy of silence when it comes to donors is best for everyone involved. He also declined to say where the seminars take place, citing security reasons. "We've been advised that there are more ethical problems if you disclose than if you don't," he said.

He also said that corporate funding makes up 15 percent of the center's $1.67 million annual budget and that no single corporation's donation adds up to more than 2 percent of the budget.

Leaders of both organizations stressed that their programs offer serious, academic discussions about complex legal issues moderated by giants in their fields. They are not barbecues on the beach. And besides, they argue, few groups are as sophisticated as federal judges, who routinely moderate between some of the nation's best and highest paid legal advocates.

"I don't think they're going to come to Montana, go on a horsy ride and run home and strike down federal environmental laws," Geddes said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fiscal Conservatives Heighten Fight Over Pet Projects

The New York Times
Fiscal Conservatives Heighten Fight Over Pet Projects
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, May 24 — A battle for the soul of the Republican Party flared up in Congress this week as fiscal conservatives heightened their attack on pet projects stuffed into spending bills with the consent of House leaders.

Recent scandals have not diminished lawmakers' appetite for such spending, but now they must openly defend their projects on the House floor — a new experience.

The critics took aim at money earmarked for specific projects, locations and institutions — for example, money for research on nematodes or switch grass, or construction of museums, fish hatcheries and sewer lines.

"Over the last decade, we have simply gone hog wild with earmarks," said Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, who led efforts to cut parochial projects from the two spending bills this week. "We do not have enough staff to police this. We are out of control. I am frustrated. So are taxpayers."

But Mr. Flake appeared to make little headway in changing the entrenched culture of Congress, where lawmakers see the allocation of earmarks as part of their job, a prerogative of office.

"Everybody understands the game here," said Representative Henry Bonilla, the Texas Republican who is chairman of the subcommittee that produces the agriculture appropriations bill.

The House and Senate remain far apart on a separate bill to provide money for hurricane relief and the war in Iraq. On Wednesday, Republican leaders pulled the plug on efforts to reach a compromise this week. They promised to resume negotiations when Congress reconvenes after Memorial Day.

Mr. Flake said the money earmarked for home-state projects had driven up federal spending. If a member of Congress gets a small project inserted into a large appropriations bill, he said, the lawmaker cannot vote against the bill, even if it includes wasteful spending on other programs.

"Logrolling reigns supreme," Mr. Flake said. "When you have an earmark in an appropriations bill, you had better not vote against that bill, or you might see your earmark vanish. So it's not just the money for earmarks. It's the money that is leveraged."

The White House has been putting pressure on Congress to curb home-state projects. In recent budgets, President Bush has repeatedly proposed to withhold money from such Congressional earmarks.

Instead of attacking hometown projects, Mr. Bonilla said, fiscal conservatives should focus on government benefit programs. "Anyone who is truly serious should work on entitlement reform," Mr. Bonilla said. "That's where the vast majority of our government funds go."

The House crushed Mr. Flake's efforts to delete items from the agriculture spending bill. He tried unsuccessfully to strip out $229,000 for dairy education in Iowa, $180,000 for hydroponic tomatoes in Ohio, $250,000 for the wine industry in California and $6.4 million for research on wood products in 10 states.

Though they failed to kill earmarked projects on the House floor, fiscal conservatives said they were pleased to have forced the sponsors into the open. Representative Tom Latham, Republican of Iowa, defended dairy education. Representative Marcy Kaptur, Democrat of Ohio, fought for the tomato money as a way to "keep agriculture alive." And Representative Mike Thompson, Democrat of California, said his earmark would highlight the health benefits of wine.

The fiscal conservatives had hoped that Congress would tame its desire for such projects, in view of recent corruption scandals involving former Representative Randy Cunningham, Republican of California, and the lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

"We have one of our former members in jail right now for basically selling earmarks," Mr. Flake said. "He was able to get his earmarks through the legislative process without being challenged. Jack Abramoff reportedly referred to the Appropriations Committee as an 'earmark favor factory.' "

Mr. Bonilla said it was "really bad form" for Mr. Flake to mention the scandals on the House floor.

Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, agreed that "the number of earmarks has gotten grotesquely out of hand." But he added, "I don't think that we need to drag in a reference to an obscene player in the game like Mr. Abramoff."

Lawmakers of both parties rose to the defense of the pet projects.

"Who knows the needs of their constituents better, bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., or the people elected to Congress?" asked Representative Mike Simpson, Republican of Idaho.

Mr. Bonilla said it was foolish to suggest that the government would save money if Congress deleted the directives for specific projects. The money, he said, would simply revert to federal agencies and would be doled out by "career bureaucrats."

Mr. Obey said that veteran lawmakers were usually more knowledgeable than "the anonymous bureaucrats downtown."

The Senate and the House have passed separate bills that would require disclosure of earmarks, together with the names of any lawmakers who requested them. Neither bill has become law.

"These projects may be nickel-and-dime items, considering how much Congress spends every year," Mr. Flake said. "But it's been great to see some of the authors, the sponsors of the earmarks, come to the floor this week. Otherwise, we would not have known that they sponsored this legislation."

Read More...

Summary only...

House Leaders Demand Return of Seized Files

The New York Times
House Leaders Demand Return of Seized Files
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, May 24 — The constitutional clash pitting Congress against the executive branch escalated Wednesday as the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House demanded the immediate return of materials seized by federal agents when they searched the office of a House member who is under investigation in a corruption case.

The demand, by Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, underscored the degree of the anger generated among members of both parties on Capitol Hill by the search on Saturday night at the office of Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana, who has been accused of accepting bribes.

"The Justice Department was wrong to seize records from Congressman Jefferson's office in violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, and the practice of the last 219 years," Mr. Hastert and Ms. Pelosi said in a rare joint statement.

Mr. Jefferson made a similar demand in federal court. He called for federal agents to be prohibited from reviewing seized files and computer records.

Justice Department officials, who have said the search was proper and necessary, did not appear ready to return materials taken from the lawmaker's official House suite, setting the stage for a court battle to resolve competing claims of constitutional protection and criminal inquiry.

In a statement, the agency said it was trying to resolve the dispute in a way "that meets law enforcement's needs and also allays any institutional concerns that Congress may have."

Privately, Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation officials expressed dismay at the tone of statements by Mr. Hastert and Ms. Pelosi.

The officials said there was virtually no possibility that any material taken legally during the search would be returned since it was now in the custody of the F.B.I. as evidence in an active criminal case.

Mr. Jefferson's case, which holds potential for Republicans to score partisan points, seemed an unlikely mechanism for bringing the two parties together in an election year.

But it appears to have done just that, leading Democrats and Republicans to find common ground in defense of institutional prerogatives.

The tense conflict is also developing into a potential new problem for President Bush.

The White House has reached out to Republicans on Capitol Hill to allay concerns about the president's low poll numbers and to try to heal deep rifts within the party over a variety of issues, including immigration.

The constitutional confrontation is doing nothing to help with that effort.

One lawmaker whose stance will be important to the fate of the immigration legislation, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, on Wednesday set a hearing for next Tuesday on the implications of the search.

Mr. Sensenbrenner called the subject of the hearing "Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?"

Besides the immediate return of the material, the Congressional leaders also said the Justice Department must halt review of the documents, make certain that those who have reviewed them do not disclose their contents and make a formal request in court to void the original search warrant.

Once the documents are returned, the leaders said, Mr. Jefferson "can and should fully cooperate with the Justice Department's efforts, consistent with his constitutional rights."

Mr. Hastert also said the F.B.I. agents involved in the search should be taken off the case.

The unanimity of Mr. Hastert and Ms. Pelosi, two staunch political foes, was a vivid display of how seriously House members are taking the search.

The two leaders have had a strained relationship made worse this year by an intense battle for control of Congress and by Democratic attacks on the way the Republican majority has led the House, which by extension are attacks on Mr. Hastert.

Their offices tried earlier this week to fashion a joint statement objecting to the search but were unable to come to agreement.

While Ms. Pelosi is objecting to the search, she is taking aim at Mr. Jefferson and on Wednesday urged him to abandon his seat on the Ways and Means Committee as part of the effort by Democrats, who have made Republican corruption a main campaign theme, to show that they have no tolerance for it in their own ranks.

But Mr. Jefferson quickly refused. The F.B.I., in obtaining the search warrant, said they had taped Mr. Jefferson accepting $100,000 to use his influence to ease business deals in Africa. Agents said most of the money was later recovered from his freezer.

The Justice Department said it had subpoenaed material last August but the response was delayed in negotiations with Mr. Jefferson and the House counsel, prompting the search.

David Johnston contributed reporting for this article.

Read More...

Summary only...

Rights group requests wiretapping probe

Reuters
Rights group requests wiretapping probe
By Daniel Trotta

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The American Civil Liberties Union launched a 20-state campaign on Wednesday to stop warrantless eavesdropping by the National Security Agency and prevent telecoms firms from providing it with phone records.

The rights group was appealing directly to the states because it said the U.S. Congress had failed to exert its oversight role over the White House and because the Federal Communications Commission had chosen not to pursue complaints.

The ACLU and its affiliates are petitioning utilities regulators and attorneys general in 20 states to demand investigations and public hearings with a goal of stopping the domestic spying or revealing more about it.

Under a secret program set up under President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks, the NSA was authorized to monitor the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without first obtaining warrants, while pursuing al Qaeda suspects.

That program was first revealed in a New York Times report in December. USA Today this month reported that three major U.S. telephone companies turned over call records to the NSA, a report the companies have denied.

The telecoms firms and the FCC declined comment on the ACLU campaign on Wednesday.

"The NSA data mining program is just the latest example of what we believe is a longer-term abuse of power by the executive branch," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero told reporters on a conference call.

"It's an effort to undercut judicial review, to seize law-enforcement powers that it should not have and that Congress did not grant to it, and an effort to hide information from public scrutiny and public involvement on important issues that affect the basic rights of ordinary Americans," he said.

The FCC has said it will not pursue complaints about the reported provision of calling data to the NSA because it is unable to obtain classified material.

Bush has refused to confirm or deny the existence of any NSA data mining program but said any intelligence activities he authorized were legal and the government was not probing Americans' personal lives.

He has defended intelligence activities he has approved as vital for his declared war on terrorism, but privacy and civil rights advocates have called any NSA domestic spying without a court order illegal.

The ACLU campaign differs in each state depending on its law. Actions were filed in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

(Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky)

Read More...

Summary only...

New Orleans seen top target for '06 hurricanes

Reuters
New Orleans seen top target for '06 hurricanes

By Barbara Liston

ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - New Orleans, still down and out from last year's assault by Hurricane Katrina, is the U.S. city most likely to be struck by hurricane force winds during the 2006 storm season, a researcher said on Wednesday.

The forecast gives the city a nearly 30 percent chance of being hit by a hurricane and one in 10 chance the storm will be Category 3 or stronger, meaning sustained winds of at least 111 miles per hour (178 km per hour), said Chuck Watson of Kinetic Analysis Corp., a Savannah, Georgia, risk assessment firm.

"Given the state of the infrastructure down there and the levees, gosh, that's just not good news. But that's what the climate signals look like," Watson said.

Watson, worked in partnership with University of Central Florida statistics professor Mark Johnson. They base their forecast in part on the paths of storms over the past 155 years and expected global climate conditions this year.

Wrapping up a two-day evacuation drill as the June 1 start to the hurricane season loomed, New Orleans' top emergency official said government, police and military are planning for storms with a sense of urgency, regardless of the odds.

A complete evacuation will be ordered whenever a Category 3 storm or stronger appears to be bearing down on New Orleans, and there will be no shelters of last resort within the city.

"I can't control Mother Nature. I can only control the people who work for me and the message to deal with the citizens of this city, and I need their cooperation to make this happen," New Orleans Homeland Security Chief Terry Ebbert said of the strategy to empty the city.

OIL PRODUCTION

Watson and Johnson, who have worked with the oil industry and with state insurance regulators, also predicted that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico will be disrupted for a minimum of a week at a cost of between 7 million and 8 million barrels of oil.

Up to 25 percent of U.S. oil production in the Gulf was shut down last year and 20 percent is still out.

Watson gave a one in 10 chance that oil rigs will sustain enough damage to reduce production by 278 million barrels over the next few years, further escalating gasoline prices.

Watson and Johnson said a weak La Nina weather condition and warmer-than-normal Gulf of Mexico water temperatures were contributing factors. U.S. government weather experts say the La Nina phenomenon in place earlier this year has dissipated and should not be a factor during the hurricane season.

On Tuesday, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the 2006 hurricane season was expected to produce 13 to 16 named storms, including four to six "major" hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher. No leading forecasters came close to predicting what happened in 2005, when 28 tropical storms spawned a record 15 hurricanes.

The 2006 forecast for News Orleans was worse than Watson's prediction for the city last year, he said. But for now, he considers the 2005 season an aberration rather than a trend or a definitive sign of effects from global warming.

"If it happens again this year or next year, then we're in a different climate world than we were in the last 100 years or so," Watson said.

Of 28 coastal cities evaluated under the forecast model, New Orleans ranked top with a 29.3 percent chance of experiencing hurricane-force winds in the 2006 storm season.

Other top candidates include Mobile, Alabama, with a 22 percent chance of being buffeted by hurricane-force winds, and the Florida cities of Key West and Pensacola, which both have a 20 percent chance.

(Additional reporting by Jeffrey Jones in New Orleans)

Read More...

Summary only...

Cheney could be witness in CIA leak case

Reuters
Cheney could be witness in CIA leak case

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney could be called to testify in the CIA leak case involving his former chief of staff, a U.S. prosecutor said in a pre-trial filing made on Wednesday.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told a federal court that Cheney's hand-written notes on a newspaper article referring to Valerie Plame shortly before she was exposed as a CIA operative were uniquely relevant to the issues in the case.

Fitzgerald was referring to a July 6, 2003, article written by Plame's husband, Bush administration critic and former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Shortly after the article appeared, the identity of Plame as a covert CIA operative was leaked to journalists. Fitzgerald is investigating who blew her cover.

"At the time, the vice president, rather than other potential witnesses, was upset that his personal credibility had been attacked unfairly in his view," Fitzgerald said.

Cheney's former aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby was charged with obstruction of justice and lying to FBI agents and a grand jury during the investigation. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is scheduled to go to trial in January.

In the court filing, Fitzgerald said Libby has acknowledged that the vice president directed him "to get out to the public all the facts" in response to the article.

"Therefore, the state of mind of the vice president as communicated to defendant is directly relevant to the issue of whether defendant knowingly made false statements to federal agents and the grand jury regarding when and how he learned about Ms. Wilson's employment and what he said to reporters regarding this issue," Fitzgerald said in the court filing.

Read More...

Summary only...

Justice Department denies House speaker probe

Reuters
Justice Department denies House speaker probe

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Justice Department official denied a report on Wednesday that the speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI in connection with a corruption probe.

ABC News, citing unnamed Justice Department sources, reported that information implicating Hastert was developed from convicted lobbyists now cooperating with the government.

But a Justice Department official told Reuters: "The story is wrong. Hastert is not under investigation."

Hastert's spokesman Ron Bonjean demanded that the network retract the story, pointing out the Justice Department denial.

"The ABC News report is absolutely untrue. As confirmed by the Justice Department, 'Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department,'" Bonjean said in a statement. "We are demanding a full retraction of the ABC News story."

In an update on its story, ABC quoted unnamed federal law enforcement sources as saying that the Justice Department denial was meant only to deny that Hastert was a formal "target" or "subject" of the investigation.

"Federal law enforcement sources tonight said ABC News accurately reported that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is 'in the mix' in the FBI investigation of corruption in Congress," the network reported on its Web site.

In its initial report, ABC said part of the corruption investigation involved a letter Hastert wrote three years ago, urging the secretary of the Interior Department to block a casino on an Indian reservation that would have competed with those of other tribes.

The other tribes were represented by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who reportedly provided details of his dealings with Hastert as part of his plea agreement with the government, ABC said.

Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to fraud charges and is cooperating with prosecutors in the investigation into a conspiracy to bribe members of Congress in return for legislative favors, which could implicate more officials and lawmakers.

Tom DeLay, the former Republican House leader, resigned his seat after becoming embroiled in the Abramoff scandal. Two of his former aides and a former aide to Ohio Republican Rep. Bob Ney have pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate in the corruption investigation.

Louisiana Democratic Rep. William Jefferson is also under investigation in a separate public corruption probe.

Two of his former associates have pleaded guilty to bribery charges and the FBI disclosed it videotaped Jefferson accepting bribe money and had found $90,000 in cash in his freezer.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ex-Bush official hid ties to Abramoff, US says

Reuters
Ex-Bush official hid ties to Abramoff, US says
By Deborah Charles

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal prosecutors said on Wednesday that a former Bush administration official lied to investigators and hid his ties to Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist at the center of an influence-peddling scandal.

In opening statements at the first trial in connection with the Abramoff scandal, prosecutors tried to paint David Safavian as a liar while his lawyer denied the charges and accused the government of basing its case on "guilt by association."

Justice Department lawyer Peter Zeidenberg said Safavian took advantage of his position to help his friend, a former top Washington lobbyist with strong ties to leaders in Congress, particularly in the Republican Party.

"He worked first and foremost to further the interest of one particular individual -- a rich and powerful lobbyist and personal friend of the defendant, Jack Abramoff," Zeidenberg told 12 jurors and two alternates.

Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to fraud charges and is cooperating with prosecutors in a corruption probe that could implicate more officials and lawmakers.

Tom DeLay, the former Republican House leader and once one of the most powerful politicians in Washington, decided to resign his seat after becoming embroiled in the Abramoff scandal. Two of his former aides and a former aide to Ohio Republican Rep. Bob Ney have pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate in the investigation of a conspiracy to bribe members of Congress in return for legislative favors.

Safavian, the former chief of staff at the General Services Administration (GSA) -- the property managing agency for the federal government -- has been charged with lying and obstructing investigations into his relationship with Abramoff and their 2002 golf outing to Scotland funded by the lobbyist.

A political appointee at the GSA from May 2002 to January 2004 who later worked at the White House budget office, Safavian is the first government official to be indicted in a case related to the Abramoff scandal.

During the trial, which is set to last about one week, prosecutors will present evidence from hundreds of e-mails between Abramoff and Safavian to prove that Safavian lied to investigators about his involvement in and knowledge of Abramoff's efforts to do business with the GSA.

"We're going to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, relying mainly on the defendant's own words," said Zeidenberg.

GOLF TRIP

Safavian's lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder, said her client did not pass on any unauthorized information. She accused the government of "stretching the facts to fit Mr. Safavian into a web of corruption."

"David Safavian was not in Jack Abramoff's pocket. But he was his friend and he answered his questions. And the answers he gave were publicly available to anyone," she said.

Zeidenberg said Safavian concealed the fact that Abramoff had expressed interest in GSA properties at the time of their golf trip and that he had helped the lobbyist in his attempts to do business with the GSA.

He also said Safavian improperly forwarded Abramoff internal GSA e-mails and also helped draft letters addressed to GSA officials about the properties he was interested in.

Van Gelder said discussions between the men about GSA properties did not rise to the level of "doing business."

She also said Safavian did not conceal anything, since he told ethics officials at the GSA about the trip and paid Abramoff $3,100 to cover his hotel and golf fees.

Prosecutors say the trip was much more expensive than that because Abramoff chartered a jet to fly the group to Scotland and on to London.

Read More...

Summary only...

Let's Throw the Bum Out

huffingtonpost.com
Bill Press
Let's Throw the Bum Out

I know, I'm a Democrat. And I'm supposed to beat up on Republicans when they break the law - and look the other way, when Democrats break the law.

Well, guess what? I'm not that kind of Democrat. Believe it or not, I have no patience with crooks - of either party.

Which is why I have no sympathy for, and refuse to defend, Democratic Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana.

Yes, he's innocent until proven guilty. So's Tom Delay. And Bob Ney. But the evidence looks mighty bad - against all three of them.

In Jefferson's case, a Kentucky businessman has pleaded guilty to offering him $400,000 in return for help getting government contracts. Jefferson denies taking the money - yet the FBI found $90,000 in cold cash, hidden away in the freezer of Jefferson's home - and, get this - in bills marked by the FBI before the businessman handed them to him.

Looks like a slam dunk to me. I'd vote to throw Jefferson out of Congress - and into federal prison.

But - does that mean that Democrats are just as mired as Republicans in wrong-doing?

No way. In the list of politicians now under investigation, the count is now: Republicans 15, Democrats 1.

No doubt which is the party of corruption.

Read More...

Summary only...

Dixie Chicks 'Not Ready to Make Nice'

The New York Times
Dixie Chicks 'Not Ready to Make Nice'
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK (AP) -- One of the more innocuous explanations given to the Dixie Chicks as to why country radio hasn't been playing their new single, "Not Ready to Make Nice," is because the defiant song doesn't fit in with everything else that's playing on the dial.

Upon hearing that, the Dixie Chicks have only two words to say: ''Thank you.''

''I don't even know what's played on country radio, but when they tell me some titles, it cracks me up,'' laughs lead singer Natalie Maines, sitting in a swank New York hotel as the group promotes its new album,
Taking The Long Way
out this week.

''Besides, where would we fit on the playlist between `Honky Tonk Badonkadonk' and `Tequila Makes Her Clothes Fall Off'?'' asks Maines, citing two recent country hits, as the rest of the Chicks -- sisters Martie Maguire and Emily Robison -- join in her laughter.

''We don't want to be a square peg,'' pipes in Robison, while Maines adds: ''We'd rather be the square peg on the other side!''

It speaks volumes about how wide the chasm is between the Dixie Chicks and country music when one of the most successful bands in the genre's history is cast as an outsider just three years after having one of its best-selling albums.

''They're in a strange place,'' says Chris Willman, a senior writer at Entertainment Weekly who has profiled the band for the magazine. ''They're the biggest group in country but they aren't heard on country radio.''

Of course, the reason for the divide has very little to do with their new musical direction (more California rock than country twang) and everything to do with the bitterness and anger that remains from the fallout over what has become known simply as ''the comment.''

It happened in 2003, on the eve of the United States' war with Iraq, when the Texas-based trio was on a European tour to support ''Home,'' their six-million selling, Grammy-winning album. Before a London audience, Maines made the off-the-cuff remark: ''Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.''

Almost overnight, Maines' comment became fodder for talk-show conservatives, who lambasted her for being unpatriotic. Soon, their music was being boycotted, with radio stations pulling their songs from their playlists. Country fans stopped buying their album, causing it to plummet on the charts.

The swiftness and intensity of the rejection took them by surprise. After all, this was a critically acclaimed group hailed as not only the most successful female group in country music, but in all music -- of all time, selling 30 million albums.

''I didn't realize there was that much hatred out there,'' says Maines, softly. ''It was kind of a letdown. I kind of lost hope.''

Robison notes that prior to Maines' remark, the band was identified more with tart-tongued lyrics and female empowerment than world affairs.

''It feels weird that a band that was so apolitical was thrust into something so political,'' says Robison.

Though the Chicks were hailed by some as goddesses of free speech -- Entertainment Weekly famously featured all three naked on the cover save for strategically placed slurs that had been hurled at them -- they still lost millions of fans, and suddenly found they had no home in country music.

Growing up, Maguire found herself defending country music to friends who saw it as a close-minded, conservative genre that had little variety or tolerance for differing opinions.

''I just feel stupid. I was trying to convince people that that stereotype wasn't real ... but it does exist. I thought it was the old school,'' she says. ''Now I wouldn't blame anyone if they didn't want to listen to it.''

The Dixie Chicks certainly didn't want to listen to it. As they got ready to make their new album, producing another record geared toward country audiences was the furthest thing from their minds.

''I don't know that we set out to make a rock record,'' says Maines. ''But we definitely didn't set out to make a country record and I definitely had a bad taste in my mouth.''

Enter Rick Rubin, the esteemed rock producer who has worked with everyone from legends Johnny Cash and Neil Diamond to the Beastie Boys and System of a Down. A Chicks admirer since he saw them as ingenues performing at an industry function, Rubin was tapped to produce the new album, and steered the Chicks not only into more of a rock sound, but into a more serious frame of mind.

''I felt like, because of the controversy that they had dealt with, people were taking what they had to say seriously probably for the first time in their career, so they're in a powerful position to talk about serious things,'' says Rubin.

For the first time, the Chicks wrote the entire album, with the help of veterans like hitmaker Linda Perry, Keb' Mo', Sheryl Crow and Gary Louris of the Jayhawks.

And while ''Not Ready to Make Nice'' is an obvious, angry response to their rejection by Nashville, and the song ''Lubbock or Leave It'' criticizes Maines' hometown as small-minded and judgmental, the album is not just the Chicks' musical response to the fallout. The subject matter is varied, from a song touching on Robison's and Maguire's difficulty conceiving their children to the dementia of an aging loved one.

''It's not about proclamations, it's just about being OK,'' says Robison. ''We're not fighting any battles anymore.''

While the notoriety of ''the comment'' has earned them massive publicity -- including the cover of Time magazine -- they all know that they've lost some fans forever.

''We're not oblivious,'' says Robison.

''I think we still have millions of fans,'' Maines says. ''(Just) maybe not 10 million fans.''

Still, the women are hopeful that even if they don't get back their old fans, the new ones they gain will make up for it.

''I want (the new album) to be successful to prove to myself that the music matters,'' says Maines, ''and radio and organized far right people can't determine your destiny.''

^--------

On the Net:

http://www.dixiechicks.com

Read More...

Summary only...

Dangerously Unprepared

‘Dangerously Unprepared’

2005 should have taught the United States many lessons about being unprepared for hurricanes. But a new report finds most coastal states still aren't ready.

By Jennifer Barrett
Newsweek


May 23, 2006 - Even though 2006 isn’t expected to bring as many hurricanes as last year’s record-breaking season, emergency responders have reason to be worried. A recent report by the First Response Coalition noted that radio communication between first responders was not adequate despite a federal effort to improve communications for rescue workers after the 2001 terror attacks. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke with the group’s executive director, Steven Jones, about what needs to be done now to avert another disaster like the one that followed Katrina. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: On Monday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted between eight and 10 hurricanes would hit the north Atlantic this season, with four to six of them reaching Category 3 strength or higher. Are we prepared to handle such storm activity?

Steven Jones: In our report, we found that in some states, first responders weren’t as prepared as they need to be. Some states have made some notable advancements, like Florida and South Carolina. But no single state in the Southeast is 100 percent prepared for this year’s storm season. One of the big hurdles is that even though states may have established statewide plans, many local communities don’t have the local tax base to afford to abandon existing radios and buy into the statewide system. It’s a cost issue.

What could that mean in the event of an emergency?
What we find is that too often first responders are unable to communicate with one another. Different agencies use different radios that are not compatible. The big lesson we learned on 9/11, tragically, is that when you can’t communicate, you can’t coordinate your response. An estimated 120 firefighters lost their lives in the collapse of one of the twin towers [in New York] because they never received the call to evacuate because it was issued on police radios and the firefighters had a different system.

Jones: ‘We have lost enough lives already’But have we learned that lesson? Communication seemed to be an issue in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina too.
I think one of the primary components of the communication problem there was an operability problem. You had a massive hurricane—a category 3 by the time it made land—and it knocked down and out a lot of the infrastructure. The communication just didn’t work. But that problem was exacerbated when, after the storm came through, different responders were coming into the affected area from different regions and they each had their own unique radio systems and couldn’t coordinate effectively with other responders. When you are unable to communicate, you just can’t coordinate an effective response. You also lose situational awareness—you are unaware of what is going on around you. You don’t have accurate information.

And yet, despite the criticisms of the response effort to Hurricane Katrina, your report found that “many hurricane zone states remain dangerously unprepared for another disaster.” How so?

Mississippi has 40 different radio systems in use across the state. Since June of 2005 officials there have held 13 meetings to discuss the problem. But they haven’t implemented any solutions. Alabama’s emergency management agency provides preprogrammed radios to first responders in case of a disaster. But that means that if anyone responds to a disaster in Alabama they will have to go to a designated area where these radios are available. And at about $2,000 to $5,000 apiece, there’s only a limited number because they’re so expensive. So on the front end, it’s a cost issue. But you are also compromising your emergency response because you’re diverting your resources to where they get these radios. First responders need to have the resources available to them to do their job immediately when every second counts. North Carolina is working to implement a statewide interoperability system. But again, many local communities just don’t have the funds to scrap existing radio communications and buy into the new system.

What about Louisiana?
After Hurricane Katrina, there was interoperability within the city of New Orleans [between police, firefighters and other responders] but they couldn’t communicate with the state police. Louisiana has a statewide police network that is only accessible by the state police.

Are any hurricane-prone states prepared?
I have to compliment South Carolina and Florida. They both, probably through previous experience with hurricanes, have developed statewide operability and it’s available to all jurisdictions that can connect to it. The caveat again is that many localities can’t afford to connect.

You note in your report that more than $11 billion has been given to the states to improve response capabilities since 9/11. Where’s the money going?
One thing we found that is really frustrating is that the federal government allocates this money to the states and what happens to it, and when, we don’t know. It’s unclear how that money gets from states to the local level. And there’s no mechanism in place to tell us how effectively that money is being spent.

What needs to be done now?
There needs to be not just increased federal leadership but collaboration with local and state officials. The Department of Homeland Security needs to complete its national interoperability baseline study: a snapshot of where the gaps exist and where advances have been made. That will help us define a plan. This is one of the more frustrating things. They were supposed to have started this last year, but they haven’t started it yet. The agency announced it was going to do it. But it hasn’t even gotten the survey.

Also, the federal government needs to coordinate with state and local agencies. The federal government and states and localities need to do a better job of tracking the grant monies. There need to be improvements in their ability to coordinate spending and transparency of grants. And there must be coordination and cooperation between agencies and different levels of government.

How bad is the situation?
I think it’s urgent and incredibly critical that we fix this problem. It shouldn’t take 9/11 or Katrina or Rita to remind us of the criticality of the issue and the scope of the issue. We have lost enough lives already. This communication problem exists across America on routine issues. It shouldn’t take another national tragedy to remind us that this issue affects us all.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12938175/site/newsweek/from/RSS/

Read More...

Summary only...

Agency Delayed Reporting Theft of Veterans' Data

The New York Times
Agency Delayed Reporting Theft of Veterans' Data
By DAVID STOUT and TOM ZELLER Jr.

WASHINGTON, May 23 — The Veterans Affairs Department learned about the theft of electronic data on 26.5 million veterans shortly after it occurred, on May 3, but waited two weeks before telling law enforcement agencies, officials said Tuesday.

The officials said investigators in the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were furious with the leaders of the veterans agency for initially trying to handle the loss of the data as an internal problem through the agency's inspector general before coming forward.

Officials said the investigators in the Justice Department and F.B.I. had complained that the delay might have cost them clues to the whereabouts of the data, stored on computer disks that were stolen in a burglary on May 3 at the home of an agency employee in Maryland.

A spokesman for the agency, Matt Burns, declined to comment on the timing of the announcement.

The disks carried names and accompanying Social Security numbers and dates of birth, practically keys to identity in the computer age.

It was not clear, in the absence of an explanation from the agency, why its officials waited for days to disclose the theft to law enforcement people and still more days to announce it to the public or what internal discussions might have prompted them to change their minds.

As the department sought to reassure veterans not privy to the bureaucratic machinations here and to deal with a security lapse that was becoming a public relations disaster, some veterans were uneasy and suspicious.

"Why did the V.A. wait 19 days to notify veterans?" John Rowan, president of the Vietnam Veterans of America, asked.

Perhaps, Mr. Rowan suggested, the department learned that the news was about to be leaked.

The wife of a disabled veteran of the gulf war, Penny Larrisey of Doylestown, Pa., expressed what countless crime victims have said.

"Just right about now, the only way you can feel is you've been violated," Ms. Larrisey said in a telephone interview.

The department has emphasized that there was as yet no indication that the data, taken home without authorization by the employee, had been put to ill use.

But Mrs. Larrisey, whose husband, Bob, was an Air Force sergeant, was not soothed.

"This puts us in a position of one paycheck away from disaster," she said, worrying that a computer-savvy thief with access to specifics about her husband's disability payments could tap into their bank account.

The authorities continued to investigate the activities of the employee, who is on administrative leave.

Officials familiar with the case said that while investigators had no reason to dispute the employee's account, they were nonetheless puzzled why little else of value besides the data-laden disks were stolen. In an added twist, the officials said investigators were having trouble finding the employee but did not think that he was necessarily trying to be evasive.

Several aspects remained murky, including how much communication, if any, there was between the Montgomery County police in Maryland and federal investigators about the disks.

Mr. Rowan of the Vietnam veterans' group said the Veterans Affairs Department should do more than just post information on its Web site advising veterans to scrutinize their financial records and telling them what to do if they find something wrong.

"The V.A. has put veterans at risk for identity theft," he said. "If this were the private sector, they would be required to provide each veteran with free credit-reporting services."

A spokesman for Senator Larry E. Craig, the Idaho Republican who is chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, said the panel would consider just such measures when it holds a hearing on the case on Thursday morning. The spokesman, Jeff Schrade, said government agencies should treat personal data as "top secret information."

Christopher Walsh, a lawyer here who specializes in security cases, said the theft conveyed a disturbing message, that "the government has paid far less attention to the issue of data security than the people think — and far less than business."

Recent federal laws entitle every consumer the right to one free credit report from each major consumer credit-reporting agency — Experian, Equifax and TransUnion — every year. But for closer monitoring of credit status, the kind that some consumers turn to when they fear that their records have been compromised, the companies charge a fee. Ten dollars a month after a free 30-day trial is typical.

If veterans feel threatened enough to enter such arrangements, "the government ought to pay for it, in my view," Mr. Walsh said.

At least two companies offering identity-theft protection, LifeLock and MyPublicInfo, said they had discount packages for veterans affected by the theft.

Senator Craig's spokesman, Mr. Schrade, declined to predict what would happen at the hearing on Thursday or how the security breach would be repaired.

"But," he said, "I don't think we're going to get out of this on the cheap."

Maureen Balleza contributed reporting from Houston for this article.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fannie Mae to pay $400 million fine

USA TODAY
Fannie Mae to pay $400 million fine
By Elliot Blair Smith, USA TODAY

Housing-finance giant Fannie Mae (FNM) agreed Tuesday to pay federal regulators a $400 million fine for alleged accounting manipulations and governance lapses by its board and management that are expected to force it to erase $10.6 billion in previously reported profits.

But the accord with its chief regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, after a three-year investigation, stops short of bringing a final accounting to a scandal that has badly tarnished the government-sponsored lender while embroiling Congress and the administration in a debate over its future.

The Securities and Exchange Commission reached a related settlement under which Fannie Mae neither admitted nor denied allegations of financial fraud.

But the SEC and Justice Department are continuing their investigations of the company and its executives, who control a $721.5 billion portfolio of mortgage loans and securities through its congressional mandate to expand homeownership in the USA.

Throughout OFHEO's 340-page investigative report, former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines and former CFO Timothy Howard are held as principally responsible for manipulating the company's earnings from 1998 to 2004 while reaping tens of millions of dollars in pay and bonuses.

OFHEO Acting Director James Lockhart said regulators may try to force the executives to make restitution and will consider removing tainted managers who remain on the job. "We will look at all the managers mentioned in the report and see if some sort of action should be taken. It could be removal, it could be disgorgement," Lockhart told reporters in Washington.

For the first time, the OFHEO report links Fannie Mae's current CEO, Daniel Mudd, to some of the organization's questionable practices. For instance, the report says Mudd oversaw flawed internal investigations of company abuses reported by employees.

In a conference call with Wall Street analysts, current Chairman Stephen Ashley said the board and its legal counsel had reviewed OFHEO's report but "found no misconduct" by Mudd, and he has the board's full support.

Former OFHEO director Armando Falcon, whom the board consulted when it replaced Raines, said he no longer backs Mudd. "If I knew then what I know now from reading this report, I would have advised the board to find someone outside the company," he said.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who favors tougher regulation of Fannie Mae, said: "They've got a big hill to climb. I wish them well. But they have deep problems."

Contributing: Paul Davidson



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2006-05-22-fannie-mae_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Summary only...

Marketing fraud investigation yields 565 arrests, 2.8 million victims

USA TODAY
Marketing fraud investigation yields 565 arrests, 2.8 million victims

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 2.8 million people in the U.S. paid to obtain credit cards, claim sweepstakes winnings and get in on lucrative investments that turned out to be too good to be true, officials said Tuesday as they announced hundreds of arrests in an international investigation.

Authorities in five countries have arrested 565 people in fraud schemes that netted more than $1 billion. Many of those arrested are west Africans who were attempting variations of the notorious Nigerian Internet scam, the Justice Department said.

Many of the victims were elderly or immigrants. One scam consisted of telephone calls to Spanish-speaking U.S. residents who were seeking to establish credit and were promised credit cards in return for a couple of hundred dollars. The cards didn't exist, said Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras.

"Those that prey on consumers know their vulnerabilities," Majoras said at a Justice Department news conference with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. "They zero in on those who will actually believe them."

The scams were carried out through telemarketing, mass mailings and the Internet and included bogus lottery, prize and sweepstakes offerings, invitations to pour money into non-existent investments and supposedly legal enticements to avoid paying taxes, officials said.

In the Nigerian scam, criminals send junk e-mail to thousands of unsuspecting people offering them a share in a large fortune in exchange for a smaller amount of money up front. The con artist takes the money and then disappears.

Gonzales called the 14-month investigation, dubbed Operation Global Con, "the largest enforcement operation of its kind." It has so far resulted in 139 arrests and 61 convictions in the United States and another 426 arrests in Canada, Costa Rica, the Netherlands and Spain.

Last week, Costa Rican and U.S. authorities made arrests in a telephone-based scam in which prospective victims received offers of up to $4.5 million from the Sweepstakes Security Commission and other fictitious organizations.

The winners first had to pay "insurance fees." Some victims were contacted again, this time by people pretending to be customs officials who demanded additional payments, the department said.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-05-23-marketing-fraud-arrests_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate votes to hike illegal worker fines

USA TODAY
Senate votes to hike illegal worker fines

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate voted Tuesday to fine employers who hire illegal immigrants up to $20,000 for each unauthorized worker, providing teeth to a broad immigration bill before sending it to a final vote later this week.

Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires within 18 months after money is provided to the Homeland Security Department to expand the electronic system for screening workers.

"This is probably the single most important thing we can do in terms of reducing the inflow of undocumented workers, making sure we can enforce in a systematic way rules governing who gets hired," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

The amendment passed 58-40. Opponents said the verification system would take years to implement and complained that workers deemed illegal could still hold onto jobs until their appeals are exhausted.

Employers who don't use the new computerized system could be fined $200 to $600. The system would include information from the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and Homeland Security Department.

The $20,000 fines for hiring illegal immigrants once the new screening system is in place would be double the present level. Repeated violators could be sentenced to prison terms of up to three years.

The House passed a bill in December that would impose fines on employees of undocumented workers ranging from $5,000 to $40,000. But, unlike the Senate bill, the House measure would require employers to screen all employees — an estimated 140 million people — instead of only new hires.

Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., scheduled a test vote for Wednesday that sets up the bill's final passage, likely Thursday. Its most controversial provision would put more than half of the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants on a path toward citizenship without ever having to leave the U.S.

Critics call that amnesty and Republican leaders refused to even allow it to be considered in the bill the House passed in December.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., who heads a group of 100 conservatives in the House, said Tuesday he plans to offer a bill this week that would let employers rehire illegal workers now on their payrolls after they have returned home and applied for a new "W" visa to return.

"The solution is to set up a system that will encourage illegal workers to self-deport and come back legally as guest workers," said Pence, who earlier voted for the enforcement-only House bill.

The Senate defeated an effort Tuesday by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would have let all illegal immigrants remain, in contrast to the Senate compromise that would require more than one-third of them to leave.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-23-senate-immigration_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Summary only...

Edwards: Bush Worse than Nixon

Here is the beginning of my post.
ABC News
Edwards: Bush Worse than Nixon
2004 Vice Presidential Contender Blasts Bush and Readies to Run Again
By ED O'KEEFE

May 21, 2006 — - Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., says George W. Bush is the "worst president of our lifetime," and "absolutely" worse than Watergate-tainted President Nixon.

In an exclusive appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," the former presidential and vice presidential contender said of Bush, "He's done a variety of things -- things which are going to take us forever to recover from.

"You have to give Bush and Cheney and gang credit for being good at politics -- you know, good at political campaigns," Edwards added. "They're very good at dividing the country and taking advantage of it. What they're not good at is governing, and it shows every single day in this administration. And the country is paying a huge price for that."

The former senator, pitching his "college for everyone" program in rural North Carolina, also responded to recent criticism by Mary Cheney, Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter. In "Now It's My Turn: A Daughter's Chronicle of Political Life," Cheney, the 37-year-old second daughter of the vice president and second lady, labeled Edwards as "complete and total slime" for congratulating Cheney and his wife during their 2004 vice presidential debate for "embrac[ing]" their daughter's sexual orientation.

Edwards did not back down, telling Stephanopoulous, ABC News' chief Washington correspondent, "I think what I said then was appropriate. And I do believe that it was in a very partisan political environment. We were in the middle of a very hot campaign, very close campaign."

Mary Cheney, a close political adviser to her father, told ABC News "Primetime" anchor Diane Sawyer in May that she seriously contemplated quitting the 2004 campaign over Bush's opposition to gay marriage.

"I struggled with my decision to stay," she said.

Edwards told "This Week": "What happened … is that the vice president had mentioned in several public appearances the fact that he had a gay daughter, had talked about some differences in policy that he had with the president. He was asked a question in the debate where that was referenced by the moderator, Gwen Ifill. He responded. I said that actually the fact that they had a gay daughter and embraced her is something that should be applauded for. He said thank you."

Mary Cheney has claimed in her book that her father was acting.

"He didn't seem like he was acting," Edwards told Stephanopoulos, "although you never know with the vice president."

Mary Cheney has since returned to private life, working at AOL and living with her longtime partner, Heather Poe, in Virginia.

With regard to her father, Edwards continued to level sharp criticism.

"It is not an accident that he's unbelievably poorly thought of," Edwards said. "He is one of -- if not the -- principal architects of this disaster in Iraq. He put us on an energy path that the American people are paying an enormous price for right now. He paid little to no attention to making sure the government was prepared to respond to the kind of disaster that hit our Gulf Coast. We've got a health care crisis going on, he's had no proposal of any kind that I know of. And people don't trust him anymore, which is understandable. I wouldn't trust him."

Edwards made the pitch for a Democratic president in 2008, claiming Bush has "intentionally ignored" the law and constitution in the NSA wiretapping controversy.

"If I were in the Senate, I would vote for censure," over that controversy, Edwards said. "Again, I don't think this is where I'd spend my energy, but if I had an up-or-down vote, I'd vote for it."

But for the most part, the one-term senator, who retired from the Senate to run for president, seemed relieved to be without a vote in Congress.

"I just think that if you don't live in Washington -- which I don't anymore, thank goodness; I live here in North Carolina -- … for me, it gives me a completely different perspective."

Edwards endorsed the Kennedy-McCain approach to immigration -- "earned citizenship" and increased border protection. He suggested raising the minimum wage, expanding the earned income tax credit, and strengthening organized labor as the keys to a better economy. His main focus these days, however, is education.

In Snow Hill, N.C., to deliver $300,000 in college scholarships to seniors at Greene Central High School, Edwards told Stephanopoulos, "Any kid here who graduates from high school qualified to go to college, willing to work at least 10 hours a week the first year they're in school, we pay for their tuition and books."

Edwards would like to take this plan, which debuted as a campaign proposal during his failed 2004 presidential bid, and his anti-poverty campaign nationwide.

"I think you have to convince the country that it's [the] moral and just thing to do," he said. But he acknowledged, "I don't think [Americans are] completely there. I think that in their conscience inside they're there, but they haven't had any leadership. No one has ever made them think about it."

As to whether he might be the one to press such an agenda in the 2008 presidential campaign, Edwards said, "I'm thinking about it, and I'm very seriously considering it. I just haven't made a final decision.

"[I] don't have a time frame," he added, "but can't wait too long."

Edwards said he might not run if his wife's health problems flared up. Elizabeth Edwards, the former senator's wife of 29 years, was diagnosed with breast cancer on Nov. 3, 2004, the day that Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Edwards conceded defeat to the Bush-Cheney team.

"She's doing great," Edwards said. "All the tests are good, and they're very encouraging. But we have young children, Emma Claire and Jack, and the health of Elizabeth and how my family's doing would have to be at the front of anything."

Edwards said his losses as a presidential and vice presidential candidate in 2004 -- his only losses in a short, but meteoric political career -- may have affected his outlook.

"In honesty," Edwards said, "going through a campaign has a natural maturation process. I mean, it changes you. It changes the way you see things. It changes how you feel about your own views and your willingness to stand with them, no matter what kind of opposition or unpopularity they have. I think it just gives you a different perspective."

If he does run, Edwards said the possibility of opposition from Kerry or Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in a 2008 Democratic primary would not faze him.

Calling Clinton a "formidable candidate", Edwards said, "I just think that anybody who suggests, particularly now … that you can predict what's going to happen is just living in never, never land."

George Stephanopoulos' entire interview with former senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards can be viewed at "This Week's" Web page at www.abcnews.com.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Sudden Taste for the Law

The New York Times
A Sudden Taste for the Law

It's hard to say which was more bizarre about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's threat to prosecute The Times for revealing President Bush's domestic spying program: his claim that a century-old espionage law could be used to muzzle the press or his assertion that the administration cares about enforcing laws the way Congress intended.

Mr. Gonzales said on Sunday that a careful reading of some statutes "would seem to indicate" that it was possible to prosecute journalists for publishing classified material. He called it "a policy judgment by Congress in passing that kind of legislation," which the executive is obliged to obey.

Mr. Gonzales seemed to be talking about a law that dates to World War I and bans, in some circumstances, the unauthorized possession and publication of information related to national defense. It has long been understood that this overly broad and little used law applies to government officials who swear to protect such secrets, and not to journalists.

But in any case, Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Bush have not shown the slightest interest in upholding constitutional principles or following legislative guidelines that they do not find ideologically or politically expedient.

Mr. Gonzales served as White House counsel and as attorney general during the period Mr. Bush concocted more than 750 statements indicating that the president would not obey laws he didn't like, or honor the recorded intent of those who passed them. Among the most outrageous was Mr. Bush's statement that he did not consider himself bound by a ban on torturing prisoners. Mr. Gonzales was part of the team that came up with the rationalization for torture, as well as for the warrantless eavesdropping on Americans' e-mail and phone calls.

If Mr. Gonzales has developed a respect for legislative intent or a commitment to law enforcement, he could start by using his department's power to enforce the Voting Rights Act to protect Americans, rather than challenging minority voting rights and endorsing such obviously discriminatory practices as the gerrymandering in Texas or the Georgia voter ID program. He could enforce workplace safety laws, like those so tragically unenforced at the nation's coal mines, instead of protecting polluters and gun traffickers.

He could uphold the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture, instead of coming up with cynical justifications for violating them. He could repudiate the disgraceful fiction known as "unlawful enemy combatant," which the administration cooked up after 9/11 to deny legal rights to certain prisoners.

And he could suggest that the administration follow Congress's clear and specific intent for the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: outlawing wiretaps of Americans without warrants.

Read More...

Summary only...

An Amnesty by Any Other Name ...

The New York Times
An Amnesty by Any Other Name ...
By EDWIN MEESE III

Washington

IN the debate over immigration, "amnesty" has become something of a dirty word. Some opponents of the immigration bill being debated in the Senate assert that it would grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Supporters claim it would do no such thing. Instead, they say, it lays out a road map by which illegal aliens can earn citizenship.

Perhaps I can shed some light. Two decades ago, while serving as attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, I was in the thick of things as Congress debated the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The situation today bears uncanny similarities to what we went through then.

In the mid-80's, many members of Congress — pushed by the Democratic majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy — advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and I supported his decision.

In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened — in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.

Beyond this, most illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship.

Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.

The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."

Like the amnesty bill of 1986, the current Senate proposal would place those who have resided illegally in the United States on a path to citizenship, provided they meet a similar set of conditions and pay a fine and back taxes. The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. And that's the line that counts. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties.

There is a practical problem as well: the 1986 act did not solve our illegal immigration problem. From the start, there was widespread document fraud by applicants. Unsurprisingly, the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there proved to be a failure of political will in enforcing new laws against employers.

After a six-month slowdown that followed passage of the legislation, illegal immigration returned to normal levels and continued unabated. Ultimately, some 2.7 million people were granted amnesty, and many who were not stayed anyway, forming the nucleus of today's unauthorized population.

So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal in exchange for promises largely dependent on the will of future Congresses and presidents.

Will history repeat itself? I hope not. In the post-9/11 world, secure borders are vital. We have new tools — like biometric technology for identification, and cameras, sensors and satellites to monitor the border — that make enforcement and verification less onerous. And we can learn from the failed policies of the past.

President Bush and Congress would do better to start with securing the border and strengthening enforcement of existing immigration laws. We might also try improving on Ronald Reagan's idea of a pilot program for genuinely temporary workers.

The fair and sound policy is to give those who are here illegally the opportunity to correct their status by returning to their country of origin and getting in line with everyone else. This, along with serious enforcement and control of the illegal inflow at the border — a combination of incentives and disincentives — will significantly reduce over time our population of illegal immigrants.

America welcomes more immigrants than any other country. But in keeping open that door of opportunity, we also must uphold the rule of law and enhance a fair immigration process, as Ronald Reagan said, to "humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship."

Edwin Meese III, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, was the attorney general of the United States from 1985 to 1988.

Read More...

Summary only...