US court prepares ruling on Guantanamo tribunals

Reuters
US court prepares ruling on Guantanamo tribunals
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing a potential landmark ruling that could determine the fate of the military tribunals created by President George W. Bush to try Guantanamo prisoners for war crimes.

The ruling by the nation's highest court, which is expected later this week, will be one of the most significant presidential war powers cases since World War Two and could determine whether the tribunals are lawful.

No one outside the court knows which day the ruling will come or how the justices will decide the myriad of issues in a challenge to the tribunals by Guantanamo prisoner Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who was Osama bin Laden's driver in Afghanistan.

After the September 11 attacks, Bush established special war crimes tribunals for trying prisoners held at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where the U.S. government says three prisoners killed themselves about two weeks ago.

Of about 450 prisoners at Guantanamo, only Hamdan and nine others face charges before a tribunal. Human rights groups have criticized the tribunals, formally called military commissions, for being fundamentally unfair.

Hamdan's lawyers are challenging Bush's power to create the tribunals and said he is covered by Geneva Convention, and therefore rules governing U.S. courts-martial should be applied.

The ruling has been eagerly awaited by administration officials, who want to bring charges against more prisoners, and by groups like Human Rights Watch, which has called on Bush to close the Guantanamo prison camp.

"The Supreme Court could decide that the military commissions set up at Guantanamo were not lawfully established, that their rules violate the law or that the commissions are inappropriate for this set of detainees," said Katherine Newell Bierman of Human Rights Watch.

"On the other hand, the court could allow the military commissions to proceed as established under the current rules," she said.

CLOSING NOT UNDER CONSIDERATION

Bierman and others said the ruling only will address the military tribunals, not broader issues such as whether the base should be closed.

At a news conference in Vienna last week, Bush said he was awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling before deciding the proper forum to try Guantanamo prisoners.

In Tel Aviv, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the court's decision may answer questions about the use of military commissions and the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, which provide prisoners greater legal rights.

"That (ruling) will provide additional clarity," he said.

"We made the best judgment we can -- the executive branch -- based on court precedent, based upon our reading of the law, based upon our reading of the U.S. Constitution," Gonzales said. "At the end of the day, it is up to the courts to make the decision as to whether or not we made the right call."

"I think by and large the courts have vindicated our decisions. In some cases, the courts have disagreed. And when that happens, we ... meet the mandates of the court," he said.

In its other rulings on Bush's policies in the war on terrorism, the Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions two years ago that placed limits on the president's powers and allowed Guantanamo prisoners to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts.

Neal Katyal, a Georgetown University law professor who argued Hamdan's case before the Supreme Court, declined comment on how the justices might rule.

The ruling will involve eight of the nine court members. Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by Bush, has removed himself because he previously was on a U.S. appeals court panel that ruled for the Bush administration in the Hamdan case.

(additional reporting by Adam Entous in Tel Aviv)

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrats push hard for increase in minimum wage

Reuters
Democrats push hard for increase in minimum wage
By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats ratcheted up their election-year push for an increase in the federal minimum wage on Tuesday by promising to block a congressional pay hike unless some of the lowest-paid hourly workers get their first raise in nearly a decade.

"Congress is going to have earn its raise by putting American workers first: A raise for workers before a raise for Congress," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Reid refused to spell out exactly how he will block a $3,300 pay raise scheduled for January 1 for members of Congress, who currently earn $165,200 annually. He said with 40 Senate Democrats backing the maneuver, "We can stop anything they (Republicans) try to do with a congressional pay raise."

Democrats in the House and Senate want the $5.15-per-hour federal minimum wage, in place since 1997, to rise in 70-cent increments to $7.25 by January 1, 2009. Workers earning the current minimum wage would need to work 40 hours a week for 16 weeks to earn the $3,300 pay raise expected for Congress.

In arguing for the minimum-wage increase, Democrats are emphasizing that salaries for members of Congress have risen $31,600 during the time the minimum wage has been frozen.

They complain that rising costs for gasoline, utilities, education and food have taken a chunk out of minimum-wage paychecks, which sometimes have to support entire families.

Republicans in Congress have blocked numerous attempts to raise the minimum wage, paid to about 7 million workers, saying it would backfire by causing small businesses to hire fewer entry-level employees.

HOUSE VOTE BLOCKED

But with Republican control of the House and Senate uncertain after the November congressional elections, some moderate Republicans have been joining with Democrats to support a minimum-wage increase.

"I think it's the right thing to do. It seems like if I can defend and be sincere about tax cuts, some to the wealthiest, if I can do that," then a minimum wage increase is also in order, Rep. Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican, said in a recent interview with Reuters.

House Majority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican who opposes an increase in the minimum wage, on Tuesday told reporters, "We may have to deal with it."

But not just yet. A move by House Democrats to attach the minimum wage to an unrelated spending bill now being debated in the House of Representatives was blocked.

Bill Samuels, legislative director for the AFL-CIO labor union, said Boehner was facing "growing pressure" from moderate Republicans for a minimum wage vote. He compared the situation to 1996, also an election year, when House Republican leaders initially vowed to block a raise, only to see it enacted later in the year.

Republican leaders, Samuels said, "have to figure out a way to relieve the pressure" for a vote. He said they are likely to find an avenue next month, when those leaders want to pass a fiscal 2007 spending bill for labor programs that has a minimum wage amendment attached to it.

A majority of senators are on record in favor of increasing the minimum wage, which currently brings a salary of $10,700 a year for full-time workers, about $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three.

Last week, in a test vote, 52 senators supported the 40 percent increase Democrats are seeking.

Read More...

Summary only...

George Bush Is Not Incompetent

huffingtonpost.com
George Bush Is Not Incompetent
By George Lakoff, Marc Ettlinger and Sam Ferguson
Rockridge Institute

Progressives have fallen into a trap. Emboldened by President Bush's plummeting approval ratings, progressives increasingly point to Bush's "failures" and label him and his administration as incompetent. For example, Nancy Pelosi recently charged "The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader." Self-satisfying as this criticism may be, it misses the bigger point.

Bush's disasters -- Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit -- are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy. It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault. Bush will not be running again, but other conservatives will. His governing philosophy is theirs as well. We should be putting the onus where it belongs, on all conservative office holders and candidates who would lead us off the same cliff.

To Bush's base, his bumbling folksiness is part of his charm -- it fosters conservative populism. Bush plays up this image by proudly stating his lack of interest in reading and current events, his fondness for naps and vacations and his self-deprecating jokes. This image causes the opposition to underestimate his capacities -- disregarding him as a complete idiot -- and deflects criticism of his conservative allies. If incompetence is the problem, it's all about Bush. But, if conservatism is the problem, it is about a set of ideas, a movement and its many adherents.

The idea that Bush is incompetent is a curious one. Consider the following (incomplete) list of major initiatives the Bush administration, with a loyal conservative Congress, has accomplished:

• Centralizing power within the executive branch to an unprecedented degree

• Starting two major wars, one started with questionable intelligence and in a manner with which the military disagreed

• Placing on the Supreme Court two far-right justices, and stacking the lower federal courts with many more

• Cutting taxes during wartime, an unprecedented event

• Passing a number of controversial bills such as the PATRIOT Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Medicare Drug bill, the Bankruptcy bill and a number of massive tax cuts

• Rolling back and refusing to enforce a host of basic regulatory protections

• Appointing industry officials to oversee regulatory agencies

• Establishing a greater role for religion through faith-based initiatives

• Passing Orwellian-titled legislation assaulting the environment -- "The Healthy Forests Act" and the "Clear Skies Initiative" -- to deforest public lands, and put more pollution in our skies

• Winning re-election and solidifying his party's grip on Congress

These aren't signs of incompetence. As should be painfully clear, the Bush administration has been overwhelmingly competent in advancing its conservative vision. It has been all too effective in achieving its goals by determinedly pursuing a conservative philosophy.

It's not Bush the man who has been so harmful, it's the conservative agenda.

The Conservative Agenda

Conservative philosophy has three fundamental tenets: individual initiative, that is, government's positive role in people's lives outside of the military and police should be minimized; the President is the moral authority; and free markets are enough to foster freedom and opportunity.

The conservative vision for government is to shrink it – to "starve the beast" in Conservative Grover Norquist's words. The conservative tagline for this rationale is that "you can spend your money better than the government can." Social programs are considered unnecessary or "discretionary" since the primary role of government is to defend the country's border and police its interior. Stewardship of the commons, such as allocation of healthcare or energy policy, is left to people's own initiative within the free market. Where profits cannot be made -- conservation, healthcare for the poor -- charity is meant to replace justice and the government should not be involved.

Given this philosophy, then, is it any wonder that the government wasn't there for the residents of Louisiana and Mississippi in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Conservative philosophy places emphasis on the individual acting alone, independent of anything the government could provide. Some conservative Sunday morning talk show guests suggested that those who chose to live in New Orleans accepted the risk of a devastating hurricane, the implication being that they thus forfeited any entitlement to government assistance. If the people of New Orleans suffered, it was because of their own actions, their own choices and their own lack of preparedness. Bush couldn't have failed if he bore no responsibility.

The response to Hurricane Katrina -- rather, the lack of response -- was what one should expect from a philosophy that espouses that the government can have no positive role in its citizen's lives. This response was not about Bush's incompetence, it was a conservative, shrink-government response to a natural disaster.

Another failure of this administration during the Katrina fiasco was its wholesale disregard of the numerous and serious hurricane warnings. But this failure was a natural outgrowth of the conservative insistence on denying the validity of global warming, not ineptitude. Conservatives continue to deny the validity of global warming, because it runs contrary to their moral system. Recognizing global warming would call for environmental regulation and governmental efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Regulation is a perceived interference with the free-market, Conservatives' golden calf. So, the predictions of imminent hurricanes -- based on recognizing global warming -- were not heeded. Conservative free market convictions trumped the hurricane warnings.

Our budget deficit is not the result of incompetent fiscal management. It too is an outgrowth of conservative philosophy. What better way than massive deficits to rid social programs of their funding?

In Iraq, we also see the impact of philosophy as much as a failure of execution.

The idea for the war itself was born out of deep conservative convictions about the nature and capacity of US military force. Among the Project for a New American Century's statement of principles (signed in 1997 by a who's who of the architects of the Iraq war -- Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby among others) are four critical points:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Implicit in these ideas is that the United States military can spread democracy through the barrel of a gun. Our military might and power can be a force for good.

It also indicates that the real motive behind the Iraq war wasn't to stop Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, but was a test of neoconservative theory that the US military could reshape Middle East geo-politics. The manipulation and disregard of intelligence to sell the war was not incompetence, it was the product of a conservative agenda.

Unfortunately, this theory exalts a hubristic vision over the lessons of history. It neglects the realization that there is a limit to a foreign army's ability to shape foreign politics for the good. Our military involvement in Vietnam, Lebanon, the Philippines, Cuba (prior to Castro) and Panama, or European imperialist endeavors around the globe should have taught us this lesson. Democracy needs to be an organic, homegrown movement, as it was in this country. If we believe so deeply in our ideals, they will speak for themselves and inspire others.

During the debate over Iraq, the conservative belief in the unquestioned authority and moral leadership of the President helped shape public support. We see this deference to the President constantly: when Conservatives call those questioning the President's military decisions "unpatriotic"; when Conservatives defend the executive branch's use of domestic spying in the war on terror; when Bush simply refers to himself as the "decider." "I support our President" was a common justification of assent to the Iraq policy.

Additionally, as the implementer of the neoconservative vision and an unquestioned moral authority, our President felt he had no burden to forge international consensus or listen to the critiques of our allies. "You're with us, or you're against us," he proclaimed after 9/11.

Much criticism continues to be launched against this administration for ineptitude in its reconstruction efforts. Tragically, it is here too that the administration's actions have been shaped less by ineptitude than by deeply held conservative convictions about the role of government.

As noted above, Conservatives believe that government's role is limited to security and maintaining a free market. Given this conviction, it's no accident that administration policies have focused almost exclusively on the training of Iraqi police, and US access to the newly free Iraqi market -- the invisible hand of the market will take care of the rest. Indeed, George Packer has recently reported that the reconstruction effort in Iraq is nearing its end ("The Lessons of Tal Affar," The New Yorker, April 10th, 2006). Iraqis must find ways to rebuild themselves, and the free market we have constructed for them is supposed to do this. This is not ineptitude. This is the result of deep convictions over the nature of freedom and the responsibilities of governments to their people.

Finally, many of the miscalculations are the result of a conservative analytic focus on narrow causes and effects, rather than mere incompetence. Evidence for this focus can be seen in conservative domestic policies: Crime policy is based on punishing the criminals, independent of any effort to remedy the larger social issues that cause crime; immigration policy focuses on border issues and the immigrants, and ignores the effects of international and domestic economic policy on population migration (http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/immigration); environmental policy is based on what profits there are to be gained or lost today, without attention paid to what the immeasurable long-term costs will be to the shared resource of our environment; education policy, in the form of vouchers, ignores the devastating effects that dismantling the public school system will have on our whole society.

Is it any surprise that the systemic impacts of the Iraq invasion were not part of the conservative moral or strategic calculus used in pursuing the war?

The conservative war rhetoric focused narrowly on ousting Saddam -- he was an evil dictator, and evil cannot be tolerated, period. The moral implications of unleashing social chaos and collateral damage in addition to the lessons of history were not relevant concerns.

As a consequence, we expected to be greeted as liberators. The conservative plan failed to appreciate the complexities of the situation that would have called for broader contingency planning. It lacked an analysis of what else would happen in Iraq and the Middle East as a result of ousting the Hussein Government, such as an Iranian push to obtain nuclear weapons.

Joe Biden recently said, "if I had known the president was going to be this incompetent in his administration, I would not have given him the authority [to go to war]." Had Bush actually been incompetent, he would have never been able to lead us to war in Iraq. Had Bush been incompetent, he would not have been able to ram through hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. Had Bush been incompetent, he would have been blocked from stacking the courts with right-wing judges. Incompetence, on reflection, might have actually been better for the country.

Hidden Successes

Perhaps the biggest irony of the Bush-is-incompetent frame is that these "failures" -- Iraq, Katrina and the budget deficit -- have been successes in terms of advancing the conservative agenda.

One of the goals of Conservatives is to keep people from relying on the federal government. Under Bush, FEMA was reorganized to no longer be a first responder in major natural disasters, but to provide support for local agencies. This led to the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina. Now citizens, as well as local and state governments, have become distrustful of the federal government's capacity to help ordinary citizens. Though Bush's popularity may have suffered, enhancing the perception of federal government as inept turned out to be a conservative victory.

Conservatives also strive to get rid of protective agencies and social programs. The deficit Bush created through irresponsible tax cuts and a costly war in Iraq will require drastic budget cuts to remedy. Those cuts, conservatives know, won't come from military spending, particularly when they raise the constant specter of war. Instead, the cuts will be from what Conservatives have begun to call "non-military, discretionary spending;" that is, the programs that contribute to the common good like the FDA, EPA, FCC, FEMA, OSHA and the NLRB. Yet another success for the conservative agenda.

Both Iraq and Katrina have enriched the coffers of the conservative corporate elite, thus further advancing the conservative agenda. Halliburton, Lockhead Martin and US oil companies have enjoyed huge profit margins in the last six years. Taking Iraq's oil production off-line in the face of rising international demand meant prices would rise, making the oil inventories of Exxon and other firms that much more valuable, leading to record profits. The destruction wrought by Katrina and Iraq meant billions in reconstruction contracts. The war in Iraq (and the war in Afghanistan) meant billions in military equipment contracts. Was there any doubt where those contracts would go? Chalk up another success for Bush's conservative agenda.

Bush also used Katrina as an opportunity to suspend the environmental and labor protection laws that Conservatives despise so much. In the wake of Katrina, environmental standards for oil refineries were temporarily suspended to increase production. Labor laws are being thwarted to drive down the cost of reconstruction efforts. So, amidst these "disasters," Conservatives win again.

Where most Americans see failure in Iraq -- George Miller recently called Iraq a "blunder of historic proportions" -- conservative militarists are seeing many successes. Conservatives stress the importance of our military -- our national pride and worth is expressed through its power and influence. Permanent bases are being constructed as planned in Iraq, and America has shown the rest of the world that we can and will preemptively strike with little provocation. They succeeded in a mobilization of our military forces based on ideological pretenses to impact foreign policy. The war has struck fear in other nations with a hostile show of American power. The conservatives have succeeded in strengthening what they perceive to be the locus of the national interest —military power.

It's NOT Incompetence

When Progressives shout "Incompetence!" it obscures the many conservative successes. The incompetence frame drastically misses the point, that the conservative vision is doing great harm to this country and the world. An understanding of this and an articulate progressive response is needed.

Progressives know that government can and should have a positive role in our lives beyond simple, physical security. It had a positive impact during the progressive era, busting trusts, and establishing basic labor standards. It had a positive impact during the new deal, softening the blow of the depression by creating jobs and stimulating the economy. It had a positive role in advancing the civil rights movement, extending rights to previously disenfranchised groups. And the United States can have a positive role in world affairs without the use of its military and expressions of raw power. Progressives acknowledge that we are all in this together, with "we" meaning all people, across all spectrums of race, class, religion, sex, sexual preference and age. "We" also means across party lines, state lines and international borders.

The mantra of incompetence has been an unfortunate one. The incompetence frame assumes that there was a sound plan, and that the trouble has been in the execution. It turns public debate into a referendum on Bush's management capabilities, and deflects a critique of the impact of his guiding philosophy. It also leaves open the possibility that voters will opt for another radically conservative president in 2008, so long as he or she can manage better. Bush will not be running again, so thinking, talking and joking about him being incompetent offers no lessons to draw from his presidency.

Incompetence obscures the real issue. Conservatism itself is the villain that is harming our people, destroying our environment, and weakening our nation. Conservatives are undermining American values through legislation almost every day. This message applies to every conservative bill proposed to Congress. The issue that arises every day is which philosophy of governing should shape our country. It is the issue of our times. Unless conservative philosophy itself is discredited, Conservatives will continue their domination of public discourse, and with it, will continue their domination of politics.

Read More...

Summary only...

Note to Liberals: Stop Waiting for a Hero

huffingtonpost.com
Jim Rigby
Note to Liberals: Stop Waiting for a Hero

As we get closer to the presidential elections, a conversation will be heard all across America. "Who can liberals choose that will save this country? Is he the one, or is it her?" Lists are being compiled and a debate held over which of the names is America's savior. For liberals, the correct answer is "none of the above."

I say this without knowing who will be the nominee. I say this not because the individuals in question are inadequate. I say this because liberal values cannot be saved by heroes. Liberal values can only be saved by ordinary citizens living up to their principles.

In the biblical story of the Exodus, Moses dies just before Israel can enter the Promised Land. The story is told as a way of making a point. Leaders can only take you so far. At some point it's up to the people to govern themselves. Eugene B. Debs used to tell his listeners, "I would not lead you into the promised land even if I could, for, if anybody leads you in, someone else can lead you out."

When George W. Bush named his first cabinet I announced from our pulpit that America was going to war. I am no prophet, but I can read the writing on the wall. If you see a robot with guns for hands you can be pretty sure it will not be planting many flowers. A presidential cabinet consisting of corporate lobbyists with ties to oil and weapons makers, but having no ambassadors or diplomats can only produce war and economic rapine.

"President" means someone who presides over the democratic process. That may seem mundane. Often it is. But the flashier title "Commander in Chief" is our leader's title in a time of war. Can anyone imagine Jefferson or Lincoln wearing a jacket and hat emblazoned with "Commander in Chief" as has our current President? When people came to make George Washington king, he put on spectacles so they could see his human frailty. That is what a patriot looks like in a peace-loving democracy.

This President occasionally says he took an oath of office to protect the American people. Actually, he took an oath to protect the constitution. It may not seem as exciting as fighting terrorism, but the day-to-day work of participatory democracy is the life blood of our nation.

The flipside of not having heroes is not having demons either. Liberals must stop fixating on George Bush. Corporations took over America using politicians as sock puppets. It certainly makes a difference who sits in office, but we have not solved our problems if we impeach one of the socks. We must change the system. And the way to do that is from the bottom up.

The Howard Dean campaign suggested how grassroots campaigns can be successful, but liberals must stop focusing on personalities and start focusing on the one thing reactionaries do not have, which is principles. If a future candidate happens to shout in a microphone or cry in public we must not let that disqualify her or him from public service. We are choosing a President, not a stuntman for a Rambo sequel.

The American people have chosen reactionary leaders lately because they show their backbone. True, it is a reptilian backbone, it is cruel, ignorant and selfish, but for most voters a spinal column is a requirement for the job. I would suggest that the backbone of a liberal candidate must be a commitment to improving the human condition.

Liberals must not let ridicule or even political defeat trick them into betraying these values: universal health care, livable wages, civil rights for all people including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons, reproductive choice for women and a planet governed by people not by corporations, religions or armies.

"But what if those principles cost us the election?" you may ask. We need to remember that the religious right rose to power by losing elections. They ran candidates with very strong views using those elections to identify loyal blocks of voters. They then brokered those voting blocks into swing votes in tight elections. Over time they produced a voter base with unshakable loyalty because they gave people something worth voting for. Lovers of democracy can take back this country the same way.

Bertold Brecht in The Life of Galileo has a character say, "Unhappy is a land that breeds no heroes," to which Galileo responds "Unhappy is a land that needs heroes." It is a truism of history that heroes usually lead to war whereas peace and democracy are preserved by an informed and involved citizenry. There is no question about it, America will grow tired of the cruelty and ignorance of the current administration. The only question is whether liberals will be at their posts when she does.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Iraq Debate -- New Ideas Series, Volume 2: "The Brzezinski Plan"

huffingtonpost.com
Paul Rieckhoff
The Iraq Debate -- New Ideas Series, Volume 2: "The Brzezinski Plan"

Last week was another hot one in Iraq. It was also a hot week in Washington, where the debate about the war in Iraq finally cranked up a few notches. But it wasn't pretty. Republicans stood in lock-step with the President. Democrats looked like crabs in a bucket. Partisanship, chest-thumping patriotism, and empty rhetoric ran rampant.

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), himself a Vietnam veteran, pleaded for calm and reason saying, "Focus group-tested buzz words...like 'Cut and Run'...debase the seriousness of war." He's right. Hagel has been a consistent voice of reason, and an important critic of this war. Watch his excellent comments here. As I write in my new book Chasing Ghosts, he is one of the good ones on Capitol Hill.

This post is Volume 2 in my series presenting alternative strategies for Iraq. As I discussed in Volume 1 last week, there are a number of alternate plans out there that can offer a change in course in Iraq. But most Americans have never even heard about them. These plans fly around military and diplomatic email lists, and rarely make the mainstream media. They are different from the Bush "Stay the Course" plan, but are not "Cut and Run" either. These plans are more than just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. They take into account the enormity of the problem in Iraq. They acknowledge that the United States and our allies must work to prevent the Iraq war from expanding into a regional war. They also underscore our commitment to the Iraq people--we have a moral obligation to try to fix the mess we have made.

This week I offer for your consideration the plan suggested by Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Born in Poland, Brzezinski was National Security Advisor to President Carter from 1977 to 1981. He is now a professor of foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Brzezinski is an effective speaker who often uses creative analogies to make complex foreign policy seem strikingly simple. Watching him on PBS a few weeks ago was the political equivalent of watching Dwyane Wade carve up the Dallas Mavericks on the basketball court.

Brzezinski recently described his plan in this must-watch interview on PBS NewsHour. Brzezinski proposes what he describes as "pulling out in an intelligent fashion." This plan has four parts:

1) "Talk at length with the Iraq leadership as to when we have to leave. Those who say, 'We don't want you to leave,' are the ones who leave when we leave. The real leaders, probably not living in the Green Zone, will say, 'Yes, leave.' I suspect Sistani is among them."

2) "Then, announce jointly a date, but a date set jointly."

3) "Let the Iraqi government convene a conference of all of Iraq's Muslim neighbors about stabilizing Iraq and helping it to stabilize. Most of them will want to be helpful, maybe even Iranians."

4) "We then announce as we're leaving a donors conference of interested countries in Europe and the Far East who benefit from Iraqi oil on helping to rehabilitate Iraq. I think this would enable us to leave and still say we achieved basically what we wanted -- the removal of Saddam -- though not a secular, stable, united Iraq under a perfect democracy because that, frankly, is a fantasy."

Now, my thoughts. First off, I like Brzezinski. I hope we see much more of him in the media discussing Iraq--or discussing anything for that matter.

Second, setting a date is a key component of his plan. I think this is reasonable. It doesn't have to be an exact date, but a general idea. I am not convinced by critics who say setting a date gives the enemy some kind of tremendous advantage. We had a timeline for the invasion. And that was alright with everyone in the White House. The President held a press conference from the Oval Office. We had a countdown on televisions like we were getting ready for the kickoff of the Super Bowl. We told the whole world when we were moving on the way in to Iraq, why not on the way out? Even if we don't set an exact date, how about a timeframe? The American people and the Iraqi people are frustrated. They all want an idea of when US forces will be leaving Iraq. Are we talking 5 months? 5 years? 50 years? Give us a ballpark here, Mr. President. Our troops are coming home sooner or later. As we now know from the latest news reports even General Casey is thinking about timelines. So let's lay it out so we can all discuss and prepare.

Third, Brzezinski's points 3 and 4 emphasize coalitions. This is something we rarely hear out of the White House. He is right to bring attention to this major shortcoming. We need to find ways to bring more of the world's countries to the table. Having Iraq do the asking, after the US has announced it is leaving, could make those new commitments possible. My biggest criticism is that the Brzezinski plan seems unrealistic given the current administration. I'd love to see these four points develop, but I really can not see the President emphasizing this extensive degree of diplomacy. And giving Iran a place at the table--no way Bush will allow it, no matter who does the asking.

Read More...

Summary only...

Miami bomb plot suspects "entrapped," lawyers say

Reuters
Miami bomb plot suspects "entrapped," lawyers say

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seven men charged with conspiring to bomb the Sears Tower in Chicago and the FBI building in Miami were entrapped by a federal informant, lawyers for two of the suspects said on Monday.

An indictment issued last week accused the men of pledging loyalty to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and seeking the group's support to "wage war" against the U.S. government.

The person they thought was an al Qaeda representative was actually an FBI informant, U.S. Justice Department officials said.

Albert Levin, the court-appointed attorney for suspect Patrick Abraham, said he believes his client was ensnared by the informant.

There was "a lot of talking going on by the informant and more listening by the defendant and or the defendants," Levin told Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly.

Nathan Clarke, a lawyer for another suspect Rotschild Augustine, agreed.

"With respect to my client, from what I can read in the indictment, there's going to be a question of whether there's even sufficient evidence to sustain the burden of proof on conviction," Clarke said.

"If by any chance there's a scintilla of that then, of course, there's going to be the entrapment issue," he said.

"This thing took place over eight months, according to the indictment and at the end of the indictment, it says that this thing became disorganized and nobody had ever done anything or did anything," Clarke said.

Abraham, Augustine and three other men arrested on Thursday in Miami appeared briefly in a magistrate's court on Friday.

Another suspect arrested in Atlanta made his initial court appearance there on Friday. The seventh suspect, arrested in the Miami area earlier last week on a probation violation, was scheduled to appear in court on Wednesday.

Read More...

Summary only...

Senators introduce data security legislation

Reuters
Senators introduce data security legislation
By John Poirier

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two senators on Monday introduced legislation to better protect sensitive personal data held by institutions including financial services firms, retailers and government agencies.

"We are not doing enough to protect consumers and businesses from identity theft and account fraud," said Sen. Bob Bennett, a Utah Republican who chairs the Senate banking subcommittee on financial institutions.

Bennett and Sen. Tom Carper, a Delaware Democrat, introduced the Data Security Act of 2006, which creates a uniform national standard to safeguard data on Social Security, driver's licenses, credit cards, and account access codes and passwords.

It also requires that notifications be sent to consumers when there is a likelihood that stolen identities or accounts could cause "substantial harm or inconvenience."

Similar legislation has emerged from committees in the House of Representatives, but the full House has not yet voted on a final version.

Personal information on 26.5 million veterans was stolen last month from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Since then, authorities have said the stolen data includes information on 2.2 million active-duty, National Guard and Reserve troops. Personal data on 28,000 U.S. sailors and their families appeared on a public Web site last week.

Even Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns and other top officials were among 26,000 people whose personal information may have been stolen by a computer hacker, the department said last week.

"We used to just worry about people breaking into our homes or stealing our cars, but in the 21st century, we have to worry about people stealing our identities via computers and the Internet," Carper said.

The Senate bill would cover any information that could be used to commit identity theft or account fraud at businesses and government institutions, which would be required to safeguard all paper and electronic records.

The American Bankers Association said banks already have a system in place. "It makes sense to extend bank-like regulations to other industries that handle sensitive information," said ABA executive director Floyd Stoner.

The bill would also charge state and federal regulatory agencies to oversee the operations and business practices of their entities, and the agencies themselves would be internally regulated.

Read More...

Summary only...

Liberty City case: another Bush scam?

Liberty City case: another Bush scam?
Bob Moss

The "Liberty City Seven" have dominated the news since Thursday. Blowing up the Sears Building in Chicago, along with assorted FBI offices, federal prisons; killing enough Americans to surpass the September 11 attacks--just the stuff to scare Americans back into supporting the sagging George W. Bush.

Mark Hosenball, investigative correspondent for Newsweek, speaking on WNYC's Brian Lehrer show, dismissed any such talk as consiracy theorism, unworthy of comment. He doesn't seem to be cognizant of Bush's unbroken record of lies, nor of the specious nature of virtually all of Bush's terror prosecutions.
The very scope of the things these seven were supposed to be up to is the first red flag. They were, if you believe Alberto Gonzales, far more ambitious than that wimp Osama bin Laden. Then there's the indictment, a bizarre document(1) in which defendants bearing names such as Rotschild Augustine think they can bring down the Sears Tower with light infantry troops.

That's right. On or about December 22, 2005, purported ringleader Narseal Batiste "outlined his mission to wage war against the United States government from within, using an army of his 'soldiers' to assist in destroying the Sears Tower in Chicago, Illinois."(2) That wasn't ambitious enough, so on or about December 29, the plot became one to "take down the United States".(3) To properly equip his "army" for the task of toppling the Tower, Batiste gave the informant "a list of materials and equipment needed in order to wage jihad, which list included boots, uniforms, machine guns, radios, and vehicles,"(4) and was later expanded to include binoculars, bullet proof vests, and $50,000 cash.(3)

Machine guns to bring down a skyscraper? Where are the heavy-duty explosives? Where is the plan to enter the building by stealth and plant them? Either the informant or the defendants were hallucinating. Defendant Lyglenson Lemorin's family told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the group was practicing witchcraft (see story below). But what fascinates me is that the defendants' alleged military mindset matches almost precisely the law-enforcement mindset that has wasted so many of our "anti-terror" dollars since 2001.

At least around the New York area, the September 11 attacks brought such useless-against-terror tactics as helicopters patrolling the skies and police, even soldiers, standing guard in Penn Station with rifles. Law enforcement doesn't seem to have noticed that the hijackers did not force their way onto the targeted airplanes. They did employ force to take over the cockpits, but the succesful ones used stealth to crash into the World Trade Center and Pentagon--the passengers could have overwhelmed them, as we all know, but didn't, because they thought they were merely going to Cuba for a while.

Stealth is what terrorism is all about. Just look at all the bombings in Iraq. And back home, who thinks a squad, platoon, company, brigade, whatever of terrorist troops is going to storm a dam? No one--but terrorists might try to plant bombs by stealth, or drive over a bridge at night and dump concentrated poison into the water supply, or somehow sneak poison into the food supply, or sneak a nuclear weapon into a port in a container ship. Think of all the things you've been told terrorists might do. So what have these military counter-measures been for? Were they anticipating the Liberty Seven? Or is that just the way law enforcement thinks, both when deploying counter-measures and trumping up charges?

Returning to the indictment, we find that the only actual act done to further the alleged Sears Tower attack was to (don't laugh) "take possession" of an unspecified number of military boots from the informant.(5) However, we then find that Mr. Batiste's equipment list undergoes a drastic change. Perhaps realizing that a proper terrorist must take pictures of the target, as any tourist who looks like an Arab already knows, he asks the informant to supply him with a video camera.(6) Talk about a shoestring operation! They couldn't even afford a camera! Not only that, Batiste asked the informant to travel to Chicago with him (ibid). Such confidence! Unsure of his ability to find Chicago from Miami, the plotter attempted to engage a guide!

Far more likely, the informant realized that combat boots don't constitute good evidence of a terrorist plot, and suggested video surveillance of targets. The informant didn't see any need to go to Chicago, however, because the rest of the indictment is centered around Miami.

On or about March 16, 2006, the defendants met with the informant "at a warehouse in Miami Dade County, where a plot to bomb Federal Bureau of Investigation buildings in five cities was discussed."(7) We are not told whose plot. One of the most important tactics in the fight against Bush is to look for the dog that doesn't bark. Whose plot was this?

If we look back to the "manner and means" of the conspiracy, we find that the defendants "supported a purported mission of al Qaeda to destroy FBI buildings within the United States. The means of such support included taking photographs of the FBI Building in North Miami Beach, Florida, as well as video and photographs of other federal buildings located in Miami-Dade County, Florida."(8) In other words, the plot to bomb FBI buildings was a phony one presented to the defendants by the informer, who encouraged them to help. In other words, the informant entrapped them.

From here it's all down hill for the Government. The defendants appear to be spoon-fed every step. The informant gives Batiste a video camera, and the latter promises to obtain "good footage" of local FBI buildings.(9) A week later Batiste decided he needed a rental van to get his good footage, and asked the informant for one.(10) As we shall see, it is more likely that the impatient informant pressed Batiste for the "good footage", and Batiste replied by saying he needed a van.

The next day, the informant accompanied Batiste and Patrick Abraham as they drove past the FBI building and National Guard Armory.(11) But if you think being a terrorist is easy, look at what else they had to accomplish that day: the informant accompanied the two as they went "to purchase a memory chip for a digital camera to be used to take reconnaissance photographs of the FBI building."(12) Either the plotters couldn't buy a memory chip unsupervised, or they just didn't do anything without being pushed by the informant.

The informant eventually received "photographs and video footage" of various facilities,(13) and "reviewed and discussed" them with the defendants,(14) but pushing this "army" was apparently like pushing a string. On or about May 24, 2006, Batiste told the informant ”that he was experiencing delays because of various problems within his organization but that he wanted to continue his mission and maintain his relationship with al Qaeda."(15) Yeah, right. Problems, like, there is no organization. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have here an indictment with all the marks of another spurious Bush prosecution.


--------------------------------------------------------

1. Available, in a most inconvenient format, on the Findlaw website. A manually-typed copy, with some formalities omitted, is attached.
2. Count 1, overt act 4.
3. Count 1, overt act 7.
4. Count 1, overt act 3.
5. Count 1, overt act 6.
6. Count 1, overt act 12.
7. Count 1, overt act 15.
8. Item 3. Law enforcement's English skills could stand some polishing: alliterative juxtapositions such as "supported a purported" should be avoided, except when done deliberately for special effects.
9. Count 1, overt act 17.
10. Count 1, overt act 18.
11. Count 1, overt act 20.
12. Count 1, overt act 21.
13. Count 1, overt act 23.
14. Count 1, overt act 25.
15. Count 1, overt act 26.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 06-20373

18 U.S.C. §2339B

18 U.S.C. §2339A

18 U.S.C. §844(n)

18 U.S.C. §2384

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

NARSEAL BATISTE,

a/k/a “Brother Naz,”

a/k/a “Prince Manna,”

PATRICK ABRAHAM,

a/k/a “Brother Pat,”

STANLEY GRANT PHANOR,

a/k/a “Brother Sunni,”

NAUDIMAR HERRERA,

a/k/a “Brother Naudy,”

BURSON AUGUSTIN,

a/k/a “Brother B,”

LYGLENSON LEMORIN,

a/k/a “Brother Levi,”

a/k/a “Brother Levi-El,”

and

ROTSCHILD AUGUSTINE,

a/k/a “Brother Rot,”

Defendants.

. . . .

COUNT 1

From at least as early as in or about November, 2005, the exact date being unknown to the Grand Jury, and continuing until on or about the date of the return of this Indictment, in Miami-Dade County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants. . .together with others unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree to provide material support and resources, as that term is defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2339(A)(b)(1), to a Foreign Terrorist Organization, that is, al Qaeda, by agreeing to provide personnel, including themselves, to work under al Qaeda's direction and control, knowing that al Qaeda has engaged or engages in terrorist activity, as that term is defined in Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182(a)(3)(B).

MANNER AND MEANS OF THE CONSPIRACY

The manner and means by which the conspirators sought to accomplish the purpose of the conspiracy included, among others, the following:

1. NARSEAL BATISTE recruited and supervised individuals in order to organize and train for a mission to wage war against the United States government, which included a plot to destroy by explosives the Sears Tower in Chicago, Illinois.

2. In order to obtain funding and support for the mission to wage war against the United States, NARSEAL BATISTE and other conspirators attempted to obtain the support of al Qaeda.

3. In order to obtain such funding and support from al Qaeda, the conspirators pledged an oath to al Qaeda and supported a purported mission of al Qaeda to destroy FBI buildings within the United States. The means of such support included taking photographs of the FBI Building in North Miami Beach, Florida, as well as video and photographs of other federal buildings located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

OVERT ACTS

In furtherance of the conspiracy and to achieve the purpose thereof, at least one of the conspirators committed and caused to be committed, in the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere, at least one of the following overt acts, among others:

1. On or about December 16, 2005, NARSEAL BATISTE met in a hotel room with an individual known to the Grand Jury who was purporting to be a member of a foreign terrorist organization later identified as al Qaeda (hereinafter the “al Qaeda representative”).

2. On or about December 16, 2005, NARSEAL BATISTE told the “al Qaeda representative” during a meeting that he was organizing a mission to build an “Islamic Army” in order to wage jihad.

3. On or about December 16, 2005, NARSEAL BATISTE provided the “al Qaeda representative” with a list of materials and equipment needed in order to wage jihad, which list included boots, uniforms, machine guns, radios, and vehicles.

4. On or about December 22, 2005, during a subsequent meeting with the “al Qaeda representative,” NARSEAL BATISTE outlined his mission to wage war against the United States government from within, using an army of his “soldiers” to assist in destroying the Sears Tower in Chicago, Illinois.

5. On or about December 22, 2005, NARSEAL BATISTE provided the “al Qaeda representative” with a list of shoe sizes for the purchase of military boots for his “soldiers.”

6. On or about December 29, 2005, NARSEAL BATISTE met with the “al Qaeda representative” and took possession of military boots from the “al Qaeda representative.”

7. On or about December 29, 2005, during this meeting, NARSEAL BATISTE again detailed his plot to take down the United States, destroy the Sears Tower, and provided the “al Qaeda representative” with another list of necessary materials and equipment which included radios, binoculars, bullet proof vests, firearms, vehicles, and $50,000 cash.

8. On or about January 28, 2006, PATRICK ABRAHAM, NAUDIMAR HERRERA, ROTSCHILD AUGUSTINE, and the “al Qaeda representative” met at a location in Miami-Dade County in order to exchange cars prior to driving to Islamorada, Florida, for a meeting with NARSEAL BATISTE.

9. On or about January 28, 2006, PATRICK ABRAHAM and NAUDIMAR HERRERA, as well as STANLEY PHANOR who followed in a second vehicle, transported the “al Qaeda representative” to Islamorada, Florida, in order to meet with NARSEAL BATISTE.

10. On or about February 19, 2006, NARSEAL BATISTE and PATRICK ABRAHAM met with the “al Qaeda representative” at an apartment in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

11. On or about February 19, 2006, during the meeting, NARSEAL BATISTE told the “al Qaeda representative” that he wanted to attend al Qaeda training, along with five of his soldiers, during the second week of April and further detailed his mission to wage a “full ground war” against the United States in order to “kill all the devils we can,” in a mission that would “be just as good or greater than 9/11,” beginning with the destruction of the Sears Tower.

12. On or about February 19, 2006, during the meeting, NARSEAL BATISTE told the “al Qaeda representative” that he needed a video camera for a trip to Chicago and asked the “al Qaeda representative” to travel with him.

13. On or about March 10, 2006, NARSEAL BATISTE and LYGLENSON LEMORIN met with the “al Qaeda representative” in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

14. On or about March 10, 2006, during this meeting, NARSEAL BATISTE swore an oath of loyalty to al Qaeda in the presence of LYGLESON LEMORIN and the “al Qaeda representative.”

15. On or about March 16, 2006, NARSEAL BATISTE, PATRICK ABRAHAM, STANLEY PHANOR, NAUDIMAR HERRERA, BURSON AUGUSTIN, LYGLENSON LEMORIN, and ROTSCHILD AUGUSTINE attended a meeting with the “al Qaeda representative” at a warehouse in Miami Dade County, where a plot to bomb Federal Bureau of Investigation buildings in five cities was discussed.

16. On or about March 16, 2006, during this meeting, PATRICK ABRAHAM, STANLEY PHANOR, NAUDIMAR HERRERA, BURSON AUGUSTIN, LYGLENSON LEMORIN, and ROTSCHILD AUGUSTINE each swore an oath of loyalty to al Qaeda.

17. On or about March 16, 2006, during this meeting NARSEAL BATISTE took possession of a digital video camera from the “al Qaeda representative” and said that within a week he would obtain “good footage” of the FBI building in North Miami Beach, Florida.

18. On or about March 23, 2006, NARSEAL BATISTE asked the “al Qaeda representative” for a rental van to be used by himself and his conspirators to take reconnaissance photographs and video of the FBI building.

19. On or about March 24, 2006, NARSEAL BATISTE and PATRICK ABRAHAM met with the “al Qaeda representative” in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

20. On or about March 24, 2006, PATRICK ABRAHAM drove NARSEAL BATISTE and the “al Qaeda representative” by car past the FBI building and the National Guard Armory in Miami-Dade, Florida.

21. On or about March 24, 2006, NARSEAL BATISTE and PATRICK ABRAHAM traveled with the “al Qaeda representative” to a store in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to purchase a memory chip for a digital camera to be used to take reconnaissance photographs of the FBI building.

22. On or about March 26, 2006, NARSEAL BATISTE and BURSON AUGUSTIN met with the “al Qaeda representative” at a warehouse in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

23. On or about March 26, 2006, during this meeting, NARSEAL BATISTE and BURSON AUGUSTIN provided the “al Qaeda representative” with photographs of the FBI building, as well as photographs and video footage of the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building, federal courthouse buildings, the Federal Detention Center, and the Miami Police Department, all located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

24. On or about March 26, 2006, during this meeting, NARSEAL BATISTE further discussed with the “al Qaeda representative” the plot to bomb the FBI building.

25. On or about April 6, 2006, NARSEAL BATISTE, STANLEY PHANOR, and BURSON AUGUSTIN met with the “al Qaeda representative” to review and discuss the photographs of the FBI building, as well as photographs and video footage of the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building, federal courthouse buildings, the Federal Detention Center, and the Miami Police Department.

26. On or about May 24, 2006, NARSEAL BATISTE told the “al Qaeda representative” that he was experiencing delays because of various problems within his organization but that he wanted to continue his mission and maintain his relationship with al Qaeda.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2339B.

COUNT 2

1. The general allegations section and overt acts set forth in Count 1 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.

2. From at least as early as in or about November, 2005, the exact date being unknown to the Grand Jury, and continuing until on or about the date of the return of this Indictment, in Miami-Dade County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants. . . together with others unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree to provide material support and resources, as that term is defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2339A(b)(1), that is, by agreeing to provide personnel, including themselves, knowing and intending that they were to be used in preparation for, and in carrying out, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 844(f)(1) and 844(i), and to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source and ownership of such material support and resources. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2339A.

COUNT 3

1. The general allegations section. . .

2. From at least as early as in or about November, 2005, the exact date being unknown to the Grand Jury, and continuing until on or about the date of the return of this Indictment, in Miami-Dade County. . .the defendants. . .together with others unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate, and agree to maliciously damage and destroy by means of an explosive:

a) a building leased to an agency of the United States, that is, the Federal Bureau of Investigation building, located at 16320 N.W. 2nd Avenue, North Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844 (f)(1), and

b) a building used in interstate and foreign commerce and in any activity affecting interstate and foreign commerce, that is, the Sears Tower building located in Chicago, Illinois, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(i).

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(n).

COUNT 4

1. . . . .

2. From as early as in or about November, 2005. . .the defendants did knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with persons unknown to the Grand Jury, to levy war against the Government of the United States, and to oppose by force the authority thereof, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2384.

Read More...

Summary only...

FCC approves new Internet phone taxes

CNET News.com
FCC approves new Internet phone taxes
By Anne Broache

WASHINGTON--An estimated 4 million subscribers to Internet phone services like Vonage could see new fees on their bills under a plan approved Wednesday by federal regulators.

The Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously at its monthly meeting here to require all voice over Internet Protocol services that connect to the public-switched telephone network--as opposed to using peer-to-peer technology, like Skype--to contribute to the Universal Service Fund.

The $7.3 billion fund, which has been a feature of U.S. policy for more than 70 years, subsidizes telephone service in rural and low-income areas. It also runs a controversy-plagued program called E-Rate that provides discounted Internet and phone service to schools and libraries.

Right now, only telecommunications services, including wireless, pay-phone, traditional telephone and DSL providers, are required to contribute a fixed percentage of their long-distance revenue to the multibillion-dollar fund. It had been unclear whether VoIP providers must also pay.

The same FCC order would also raise the share that cell phone providers must contribute to the pool, though it was not immediately clear how many consumers would see hikes or how much they would be. That's because the FCC raised the contribution rate for only one of three formulas that can be used by cell phone companies to determine how much they owe. If those companies choose to stick to the two unchanged formulas, their customers would likely see no additional fees.

"Certainly we're concerned whenever consumers are forced to pay higher government taxes or fees, but it depends on the carrier and what their approach is," said Joe Farren, a spokesman for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group.

The new contribution scheme takes effect immediately, and any new fees would likely appear on customers' bills later this year, said Thomas Navin, chief of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau. He declined to speculate on the differences customers of each service may see on their bills, saying it would depend on a variety of factors and "there's not one typical scenario for me to paint for you."

Calculating what's fair
Pressured by consumer groups and the telecommunications industry, the FCC has long been contemplating changes to the USF contribution scheme. Critics of the current system say the means of calculating contributions needs sweeping changes. That's because the bulk of the money comes from actual or estimated long-distance revenues, which are steadily dwindling due to changing business models in the wireless and wireline worlds.

The FCC's decision Wednesday drew applause from the U.S. Telecom Association, which represents both large and small telephone companies.

"We applaud today's ruling for ensuring that all voice service providers are treated alike," Walter McCormick, the organization's CEO, said in a statement.

By one VoIP industry estimate, customers could owe as much as $2.12 extra on a $30 monthly bill because of the changes, said Jim Kohlenberger, executive director of the VON Coalition, which represents the Internet phone industry. Traditional wireline users would pay $1.38 on a comparable bill, while wireless users pay an average of $1.21, he said.

Those numbers are based on a "safe harbor" contribution rate, established by the FCC's order, that would require all VoIP providers to calculate what they owe based on the assumption that 64.9 percent of their total revenues represent long-distance calls. The safe harbor option for cell phone providers climbed to 37.1 percent from 28.5 percent under the FCC's order, but it remains far lower than the VoIP share.

The discrepancy has the industry scratching its head, Kohlenberger said. "The FCC's efforts on VoIP are like trying to solve traffic and energy problems by stifling the rollout of energy-efficient hybrid vehicles, while subsidizing SUVs," he said.

Cell phone and Internet phone providers would also have another option for calculating fees. They could do a complex analysis known as a "traffic study" to determine what percentage of their revenues are long distance. If the results prove to be lower than the safe harbor percentage, fees for consumers, in theory, wouldn't be as high.

Some Internet phone companies already contribute to the fund--albeit sometimes indirectly, via the telecommunications companies that provide pipes for their services. Vonage, for instance, already imposes a flat "regulatory recovery fee" for each phone number it issues.

Others urge caution
The VoIP industry wasn't alone in questioning the FCC's move. In a letter sent last week to commissioners, attorneys for the U.S. Small Business Administration urged the agency to postpone its action until it had done a thorough analysis of the economic effect on smaller providers.

Republican FCC Commissioner Deborah Tate said she would "continue to advocate a light regulatory touch on nascent services like VoIP." But she said she believed even more strongly that because the number of VoIP subscribers is growing rapidly, universal service obligations must be introduced early on.

The FCC made its move in its first meeting in months with a full slate of five commissioners. Each official emphasized that the move is merely an "interim step" intended to make up for an expected $350 million annual shortfall in the fund.
In other news:

* Building blocks for the smart home
* Kids' groups grapple with MySpace
* Weighing in on Web 2.0
* News.com Extra: Tech gurus say they'll 'switch from Mac'
* Video: Start of Web 3.0?

The reason for that gap is that, beginning in August, revenue from DSL services will no longer be included in the contribution mechanism. That's the result of an FCC decision last summer to exclude DSL from its definition of telecommunications services.

Some of the commissioners used the meeting to vow to conduct an even broader sweep that would incorporate all broadband providers in the USF contribution plan.

"I don't see with slam-dunk certainty that contributions from interconnected VoIP--which is, for all its impressive growth, still a nascent industry--and from wireless carriers...offset the funds lost by DSL's nonparticipation," Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps said.

Broadband's fate
The idea of making broadband providers pay has been proposed in Congress during this session but has not yet gone up for a vote. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told reporters after the meeting that he had no timeline set for additional action but recognized the importance of more-comprehensive USF reform.

He reiterated that he would prefer to pursue a system in which a Universal Service Fund fee would be levied on all phone numbers, regardless of what kind of technology does the calling. In statements released Wednesday, both the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and the CTIA urged the commission to go ahead with that approach.

A number of proposals to change the Universal Service Fund remain on the table in Congress. The provisions that are most likely to proceed this year are included in the Senate Commerce Committee's sweeping communications bill.

The latest draft would instruct the FCC to come up with new contribution rules that are as "competitively and technologically neutral as possible," while leaving it up to the regulators to decide how best to meet that aim. It would also set aside up to $500 million per year to subsidize broadband services in "unserved areas." That measure is scheduled for a committee vote on Thursday afternoon.

Read More...

Summary only...

Where You Least Expect It

Read More...

Summary only...

Santorum of Arabia

Read More...

Summary only...

Check!

Read More...

Summary only...

If you had hired Jack Abramoff . . .

Read More...

Summary only...

Kim Jong Very Il

Read More...

Summary only...

Harvest Of Shame: Republicans Seek to Destroy the Voting Rights Act

huffingtonpost.com
Harvest Of Shame: Republicans Seek to Destroy the Voting Rights Act
Brent Budowsky

Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt were Republicans who stood for egalitarian democracy. George Bush and Congressional Republicans have a different vision of the Grand OId Party: the vision of Richard Nixon and his Southern Strategy.

Their notion of freedom and democracy is voter suppression, intimidation and abusive tactics aimed at driving many African Americans and other minorities away from the polls, to destroy their fair voice in our democracy.

This is a moral and political outrage. The betrayal of the Voting Rights Act is a betrayal of a tradition of justice and democracy that has historically achieved bipartisan support that included many Republicans who believed in their party's now-abandoned tradition of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.

Democrats should fight this. John McCain, will you fight with us?

Voters should challenge every Republican to join us in opposing to our last breath this attempt to destroy the Voting Rights Act and all it embodies to American democracy. We should begin a massive, all-out campaign to make certain that voting machines are honest; to make certain that no one seeks to bully or intimidate any American to take away their franchise and that anyone who does is prosecuted and punished under law.

The Voting Rights Act must stay. Senators and Congressmen who seek to destroy it must go. Democrats and all of freedom's friends must wage this fight relentlessly until we win, which if we fight, we will. The media should report this attack on voting rights without fear or favor. We will never have credibility in the world speaking of democracy in Iraq until we defeat those seeking to demean democracy at home.

Read More...

Summary only...

Stay the Course = Indefinite Occupation

huffingtonpost.com
Stay the Course = Indefinite Occupation
Cenk Uygur

We're clearly no longer fighting the original war we went into Iraq for in 2003. Our goals of getting rid of the non-existent WMDs, stopping the non-existent cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and even regime change have all been met, in one way or another.

So, now when the administration says we should stay the course so that we can "win," clearly they can't be referring to any of our original objectives.

As Thom Hartmann and others have written about, at this point, our presence in Iraq is an occupation. It is nearly impossible to describe it in any other way. If we're not occupying Iraq, then what are we doing with it?

The definition of an occupation is "control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces." Though we might wish we had a bit more control than that seems to indicate, it is clear that our forces, not sovereign Iraqi forces, are in control in the nation or territory of Iraq. Our presence in Iraq is an occupation by definition. So, if reporters do not call it that, they are simply not doing their job. Their job is to be accurate. Occupation is inarguably the accurate description of our situation in Iraq.

I want to add something else to this though, the administration is not simply arguing for an occupation of Iraq. They are arguing for an indefinite occupation. This is also literally true. They say that we cannot ever have a timetable for withdrawal, which apparently would encourage the enemy to stay and fight (ignoring the fact that the "enemy" lives in Iraq and hence can wait us out no matter how long we stay). They are steadfast in refusing to outline any exit strategy. Therefore, it is indisputable that they are arguing for an indefinite occupation. That's the very definition of indefinite.

Words matter. Accuracy in journalism matters. Every time a reporter mentions the administration's "stay the course" strategy in Iraq and doesn't describe it as a plan for indefinite occupation, they should get a letter demanding they use accurate terminology. Because if they don't, then they are taking part in a concerted effort to mislead the American people.

There's a lot of hand wringing in the media about how they should have been more vigilant before the lead up to the Iraq War (among print journalists, the TV guys don't seem to give a damn about anything). They think in retrospect that they should have questioned the government more and not blindly accepted all their suppositions. I agree. But that's a lot of empty talk if you continue to make the same mistake today.

So, when the administration claims they are trying to "help" the Iraqis by keeping hundreds of thousands of US soldiers in Iraq for an undetermined period of time, reporters should accurately point out that they are in reality arguing for an indefinite occupation of Iraq.

And now that even the Iraqi Prime Minister has begun the call for a timetable for withdrawal, if we continue to stay, we don't even have the excuse of trying to "help" the Iraqis stand up. Any further US presence in Iraq, including our permanent military bases there, would start our transition from an indefinite occupation to a permanent occupation.

Read More...

Summary only...

Doomed Immigration Bill Makes Twice In Two Years Bush Failed To Drive Major Domestic Plans Through Friendly GOP Congress

The New York Times
Bush's Immigration Plan Stalled as House G.O.P. Grew More Anxious
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

This article is by Adam Nagourney, Carl Hulse and Jim Rutenberg.

WASHINGTON, June 24 — For the White House, the Congressional picnic last week seemed like the perfect setting to mend strained relations with Republican allies on Capitol Hill: President Bush and his advisers eating taquitos and Mexican confetti rice on the lawn of the White House with Republican Congressional leaders.

But moments before Mr. Bush was to welcome his guests, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert told the president that House Republicans were effectively sidelining — and in the view of some Congressional aides probably killing — what had become Mr. Bush's signature domestic initiative of the year: an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws.

That disappointing news for Mr. Bush signaled the apparent collapse of a carefully orchestrated White House strategy to push a compromise immigration bill through Congress this summer — and in the process invigorate Mr. Bush's second term with a badly needed domestic victory.

The decision by the House leadership to defy the president after he had put so much prestige on the line — including a rare prime-time Oval Office speech for a domestic initiative — amounted to a clear rebuke of the president on an issue that he has long held dear.

An account of the administration's push for the initiative, based on interviews with members of Congress and senior White House and Congressional officials, shows that Mr. Bush's immigration measure was derailed by an overly optimistic assessment by the White House of the prospects for building a bipartisan coalition in support of the bill. It was also hurt by a fundamental misreading of the depth of hostility to the measure among House Republicans.

It was undone as well, White House and Congressional leaders acknowledged, by a sharp division over whether to focus on the short term or on the party's long-term political prospects. Mr. Bush's aides saw the House bill, which would make it a felony to live in this country illegally and would close off any chance to win legal status, as a threat to their attempts to broaden the party's appeal to Hispanic voters.

House Republican leaders saw Mr. Bush's approach — calling for tougher enforcement as well as avenues to legalize the illegal workforce and create a possible path to citizenship — as a threat to House Republicans already fearful of losing control of this fall's elections by angering voters who viewed the plan as amnesty.

Mr. Bush's first attempt to advocate for the measure was described even by allies as initially muddled and tentative, permitting opponents to build a case against it before he made his Oval Office address. Republicans' apprehensions were cemented in June, when, in a special election for a vacant Congressional seat in California, Brian P. Bilbray, who ran on a pledge to build a fence along the border with Mexico, was elected after running against the president's position on immigration.

Coming in the same week that the White House showed effectiveness in rallying Republicans behind the war in Iraq, the setback raised questions about Mr. Bush's chances to achieve major domestic victories from a solidly Republican Congress. Unless a compromise is reached, it will mark the second time in two years, after Social Security in 2005, that Mr. Bush has failed to steer his major domestic initiative through the friendly terrain of a Republican Congress.

"This immigration legislation is very important, and if he doesn't get something in his administration, it will hurt his legacy domestically," said James A. Thurber, a presidential scholar at American University.

White House officials said they could point to several areas of progress in Congress — on extending tax cuts, pushing a line-item veto and overhauling the pension system. They said that they were under no illusions about the difficulties facing the immigration plan, but that it would never have gotten this far without the president, who will keep pushing for it. Aides say it is still possible to reach a compromise after the November elections, if not before. "We believe by being patient and sticking with it, in time people are going to be pretty happy with what the president proposes," said Tony Snow, the White House spokesman.

But several analysts were skeptical, noting that in just the past week a Republican candidate for governor in Arizona called for building prison camps for illegal immigrants. And the first campaign advertisement for Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who many believe is the most endangered Republican in the Senate, featured him talking about stringent border measures.

From the start of the year, after House Republicans passed a tough immigration measure that Mr. Bush's political advisers worried would undercut their effort to appeal to Hispanic voters, the White House tentatively pushed a more moderate, "comprehensive" bill that was gathering support in the Senate.

But Mr. Bush was criticized by both sides as not taking a public stand on specifics and permitting conservative members of the House to define the debate. Aides said the president was trying to stay above the discussion to remain flexible enough to broker a compromise.

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said that in one strategy session Mr. Bush told the senator he could not be identified as publicly supporting the Senate bill, which sought to tighten border control but also give illegal immigrants a chance to become citizens after paying fines. "Don't quote me, Arlen," Mr. Specter recalled the president saying, implying that Mr. Bush had spoken approvingly of the bill.

In April, Mr. Bush brought Joshua B. Bolten on as the new chief of staff, shaking up a White House that had been criticized as adrift. With a new team in charge, Mr. Bush took a more forceful stand, using the issue as a way to reassert his leadership. In a speech televised in prime time, he supported the enforcement measures advocated by conservatives and called for sending National Guard troops to the border, but he also said that some illegal immigrants should be allowed legal status.

White House officials now credit Mr. Bush's address with providing impetus for passage of a compromise bill by the Senate that had earlier faltered, opening the door for a final compromise with the House, in a process that now hangs in the balance. Some officials privately had said failure to produce compromise before Congress's summer break would seriously hinder their effort.

But House Republicans said they never stopped pressing the case to the White House that the bill was a political disaster for endangered incumbents, and they were baffled at what they said was the failure of Mr. Bush's aides to appreciate their conviction.

One lawmaker said House Republicans who had attended two closed-door briefings on the issue by the White House deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, and others, kept waiting for the administration to reverse their concerns that passing the bill would hurt Republicans; in the lawmakers' view, the administration never made a convincing case.

White House aides said Republicans had overestimated the bill's political liabilities and underestimated the long-term damage it could do to the party if Republicans were identified among Hispanics as anti-immigrant. "This is a bad trajectory for the Republican Party right now," said a senior Republican official who was granted anonymity to discuss the unusual friction in the Republican ranks.

Positions hardened when lawmakers went home for recess at the end of May and were confronted by constituents agitated over the issue. They returned to Washington to the news that Mr. Bilbray had narrowly won the seat vacated by Randy Cunningham, a Republican now jailed after a corruption scandal.

When House Republicans met for a conference that Wednesday, conservative members seized on the Bilbray victory as vindication of their argument that embracing the Senate and White House position would be poison in the fall elections, according to one participant in the meeting who was granted anonymity because the meetings were private.

Mr. Hastert and the House majority leader, John A. Boehner, told Mr. Bush in the Oval Office that the already long odds for passage of an immigration bill before the summer break had faded even more. But, aides said, the president, who has been concerned about the issue since his days as governor of Texas, where immigration is an important political and cultural issue, responded that he would not let up.

Over the next few days, Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, the head of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, went to Mr. Boehner and Mr. Hastert and, using polling data and pointing to what he described as politically implausible sections of the bill, warned of the consequences of enactment of the Senate legislation.

"Reynolds made clear to the leaders that the House had already staked out its position, and from a political standpoint it would be irresponsible to accept a bill that was much different," said Carl Forti, his communications director. He said Mr. Reynolds had told House leaders that supporting the bill would be "suicide for some of our members."

The White House and its supporters pointed to a poll that found strong support among Republican voters for a bill that allowed illegal immigrants to "earn" legal status. And senior White House aides argued that fellow party members were over-interpreting the meaning of Mr. Bilbray's victory in a traditionally solid Republican area. "We're happy he won," Mr. Snow said Friday. "But he barely got 50 percent."

When Mr. Hastert announced that he was postponing action on the bill until after a series of hearings around the country, the White House described the delay as temporary.

But in the Senate, the reaction to the House move was quite different.

"Thank God for the House," said a senior Senate Republican strategist, who was granted anonymity in order to discuss the party's concerns about the debate.

Read More...

Summary only...

Durable goods orders post first back-to-back monthly declines in 2 years

USA TODAY
Durable goods orders post first back-to-back monthly declines in 2 years

WASHINGTON (AP) — Orders to U.S. factories for big-ticket manufactured goods fell in May, reflecting a second straight month of weakness in demand for commercial aircraft.

The Commerce Department reported Friday that orders for durable goods dropped 0.3% last month after an even bigger 4.7% plunge in April. The weakness in both months was led by big declines in orders for commercial aircraft, an extremely volatile category that had been enjoying large gains at the beginning of the year.

It was the first time that total orders have registered back-to-back declines in two years and provided further evidence that the U.S. economy is slowing under the impact of rising interest rates, soaring gasoline prices and a cooling housing market.

The 0.3% decline, which was a weaker-than-expected showing, pushed orders down to a seasonally adjusted $208.7 billion in May.

Excluding transportation, orders for durable goods, items expected to last at least three years, rose 0.7% following a 1% drop excluding transportation in April.

Orders for transportation equipment fell 2.6%, reflecting a 17.9% plunge in demand for commercial aircraft.

Offsetting somewhat the weakness in commercial aircraft was a big 26.4% rise in orders for military aircraft, an increase that followed a 34% decline in April.

Orders for autos and auto parts rose 2.5% in May following a 2% drop in April. Analysts are expecting continued weakness in this area as U.S. automakers face falling demand for sport-utility vehicles and light trucks as consumers opt for more fuel efficient cars in the face of soaring gasoline prices.

Outside of transportation, orders for computers and electronic equipment fell 1.1% while orders for primary metals such as steel rose by 3.5%.

The category of non-defense capital goods excluding aircraft posted a 1% gain in May after a 1.9% drop the previous month. This category is closely watched for signals it can give about business plans to expand and modernize their facilities.


Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/production/2006-06-23-durables_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Summary only...

Senators' Report On Abramoff Case Disputes Rep. Ney

washingtonpost.com
Senators' Report On Abramoff Case Disputes Rep. Ney
By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer

In the fall of 2004, Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) told Senate investigators that he was unfamiliar with a Texas Indian tribe represented by lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Days later, evidence emerged that the congressman had held numerous discussions with Abramoff and the Indians about getting Congress to reopen their shuttered casino.

Ney's statements to staff members of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee were included in the panel's 357-page report on tribal lobbying, released yesterday after two years of hearings and investigation. Accompanied by more than 1,000 pages of e-mails and financial ledgers, the report catalogues the now mostly familiar story of how Abramoff and his lobbying team of former congressional aides bilked half a dozen tribes out of more than $80 million.

The report includes new details about some of Abramoff's activities, including his collaboration with former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed and conservative strategist Grover Norquist. The Senate report recommended that the Senate Finance Committee investigate the use of tax-exempt organizations "as extensions of for-profit lobbying operations."

Ney's comments to the panel could add to his problems with the Justice Department. Federal prosecutors have secured guilty pleas from Abramoff and three former associates implicating Ney in a string of official acts allegedly performed in exchange for favors such as a golf trip to Scotland and campaign contributions.

A spokesman for Ney said yesterday that in his interview with the Senate committee, the congressman did not initially recognize the name of the tribe.

Ney's Nov. 12, 2004, interview with committee staffers took place amid a flurry of front-page newspaper articles about how Abramoff and his associate Michael Scanlon had flimflammed the Tigua tribe. The two first worked secretly with anti-gambling forces to close the casino and then convinced the tribe that for $4.2 million, they could get Congress to come to its rescue.

In his interview with the committee staff, "Congressman Ney said he was not at all familiar with the Tigua" and could not recall meeting with members of the tribe, the report said.

Six days after the interview, Tigua representatives testified at a committee hearing that Abramoff had set up a lengthy meeting with Ney in his office in August 2002 as well as a conference call, and that the congressman had assured them he was working to insert language that would reopen their casino into an unrelated election reform bill. Team Abramoff and the tribe that year became Ney's biggest donors, contributing $47,500 to his campaign committees.

Ney said Abramoff had pushed for legislative language in the election reform bill. Ney asserted that Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) "wanted to insert a provision into the Election Reform Bill that would benefit a tribe in Connecticut," the report said. "Congressman Ney said there was never any mention of any tribe in El Paso, Texas and no reference to any Tigua Indian tribe."

Ney's statements to the committee have been contradicted by others as well, including his former longtime chief of staff, Neil G. Volz, in admissions he made this year as part of his guilty plea to corruptly seeking to influence Ney on the Tigua issue. "Congressman Ney said that, aside from Abramoff, no one -- including Volz -- approached him about the provision that Abramoff had brought to his attention," the report said.

Brian Walsh, a spokesman for Ney, said yesterday that the congressman's meeting with the committee "was a voluntary meeting -- it was not conducted under oath."

The committee report said that those witnesses who were not placed under oath were reminded of "the applicability of the false statements act" and of statutes dealing with obstruction of a congressional investigation.

Walsh said the committee report relied on e-mails written by "convicted felons," Volz among them. He said that Ney had not recognized the name of the tribe when questioned about it by committee staffers, and that the report notes that sometime after the interview, his attorney found a calendar reference indicating he had had a meeting with the "Taqua."

Abramoff asked the Tigua to pay for a golf trip to Scotland for Ney in the summer of 2002, but Ney told the committee he never asked that the tribe finance the trip. He said he thought the costs were covered by a private foundation. The report said: "Congressman Ney said the purpose of the trip was to raise money for underprivileged kids in Scotland and Washington, D.C. The itinerary consisted of golfing, meeting two parliamentarians, and watching the Marine Band."

Documents attached to the report show that the wife of another member of Congress received funds from Abramoff. An event-planning firm owned by Julie Doolittle, wife of Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.), was paid $66,000 from retainer fees that Abramoff's law firm collected from the Agua Caliente tribe in Southern California. The report said there is no evidence that Julie Doolittle knew the funds she was paid to plan fundraising events for Abramoff's personal charity group were coming from a lobbying client.

The report extensively details Abramoff's use of nonprofit charities and advocacy groups to advance his lobbying interests. The Indian Affairs Committee said the way such groups were used to move money around and evade tax liability raises questions about whether existing federal laws are sufficient. It urged the Senate Finance Committee to take up an investigation that it has been mulling for months.

The report traces Abramoff's business dealings with Reed, who is running for Georgia lieutenant governor, and Norquist, the prominent conservative thinker and anti-tax advocate. Both are longtime Abramoff friends who became involved in his work for Indian tribes. Reed conducted grass-roots anti-gambling campaigns against casino initiatives that would rival those of Abramoff's clients; Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform served as a "conduit," according to the committee, to move money from Abramoff's gambling clients to Reed's Christian groups while taking a small cut.

The report cited interviews with Mississippi Choctaw and Louisiana Coushatta tribal representatives. Reed "did not want to be paid directly by a tribe with gaming interests," said Choctaw official Nell Rogers. "It was our understanding that the structure was recommended by Jack Abramoff to accommodate Mr. Reed's political concerns."

Coushatta official William Worfel said Abramoff let the tribe know that its funding of Reed's operation had to be kept quiet. "It can't get out. He's Christian Coalition. It wouldn't look good if they're receiving money from a casino-operating tribe to oppose gaming. It would be kind of like hypocritical."

In a statement to the Associated Press yesterday, Reed said, "The report confirms that I have not been accused of any wrongdoing."

Reed said he was assured he would not be paid with money derived from gambling. "While I believed at the time that those assurances were sufficient, it is now clear with the benefit of hindsight that this is a piece of business I should have declined," Reed said.

Norquist has said his group shared an anti-tax philosophy with tribes opposed to business taxes being levied at casinos.

Rogers told the committee that the Choctaw tribe had no interest in Americans for Tax Reform other than as a conduit for its money to Reed's for-profit consulting firm, Century Strategies. She told the committee that "when we discussed needing a vehicle for doing the pass-through to Century Strategies that Jack had told me that Grover would want a management fee. And we agreed to that, frankly didn't know any other way to do it at the time."

The report and investigation have been among the most extensive by the Indian Affairs Committee, which is chaired by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). If Abramoff had had his way, the investigation would never have gotten off the ground, the report said.

After the first articles about Abramoff's dealings were published in The Washington Post in 2004, the lobbyist asked his tribal clients for help in derailing McCain's probe. Choctaw representative Rogers told the committee that "Abramoff asked me if I would ask the Chief to approach Sen. McCain and suggest that each of the tribes, since they had their own police departments and courts, conduct their own internal investigations."

Read More...

Summary only...

Navy Finds Data on Thousands of Sailors on Web Site

washingtonpost.com
Navy Finds Data on Thousands of Sailors on Web Site
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer

Navy officials discovered this week that personal information on nearly 28,000 sailors and family members was compromised when it appeared on a Web site, fueling more concerns about the security of sensitive information belonging to federal employees.

Five spreadsheet files of data -- including names, birth dates and Social Security numbers of sailors and their relatives -- were found exposed on a Web site Thursday night during routine internal sweeps of the Internet for sensitive material, said Lt. Justin Cole, a spokesman for the chief of naval personnel. He said the material was removed from the Web site within two hours.

"It was information you don't want on a public Web site," Cole said. "But there was no indication it was being used for illegal purposes."

The potential security breach is one of several losses of important personal data reported in Washington in recent weeks, part of an unusual string of thefts and Internet hacks that have compromised information belonging to millions of federal workers. Five other agencies and the D.C. government have reported similar problems since the beginning of May.

The largest breach occurred May 9, when a Department of Veterans Affairs laptop computer and external hard drive were stolen from an Aspen Hill home, a theft that officials said included personal information on up to 26.5 million retirees and active-duty personnel. There was no indication the thief was targeting the information.

Yesterday, the Government Accountability Office said it removed from its Web site archival records with names and Social Security numbers on fewer than 1,000 government workers.

Earlier this week, the Agriculture Department reported that data on as many as 26,000 employees had been compromised by a hacker. A laptop containing data on 13,000 D.C. workers and retirees was stolen last week. The Energy Department said that similar data for 1,500 employees may have been accessed by a hacker in September, and Internal Revenue Service officials said a laptop containing names, Social Security numbers and fingerprints of 291 employees and applications was misplaced in May.

In the Navy case, officials are unsure how the information ended up on an insecure Web site, and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service is looking into whether the person who posted it was supposed to have access to the data. Cole said it is possible the information was posted inadvertently.

The Navy plans to contact the people affected and urge them to closely monitor bank and credit card accounts for fraudulent activity.

Congress is considering a measure that would pay for credit monitoring for those affected by the VA data loss. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) called yesterday for the Defense Department to provide immediate free credit monitoring for sailors who may have been affected by the Internet posting.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Markey said the incident "raises serious questions about the nature and adequacy of privacy protections afforded to active duty military personnel, their families, and military veterans."

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the Government Reform Committee, applauded the Navy's speedy response to get the information removed from public view.

Cole said sailors may contact the Navy Personnel Command call center to determine whether their names were on the compromised list: 866-827-5672.

Read More...

Summary only...