The Junkheap of History

Eye on the DOJ for 10/30: DOJ Files Voting Rights Suit Against Philadelphia

2006-10-30T11:31:00.000-05:00

Eye on the DOJ for 10/30: DOJ Files Voting Rights Suit Against Philadelphia

Hrm. Voting issues all around these days, huh? Now it looks like Philadelphia isn’t providing enough material and assistance for voters who don’t speak English. Come on, Philadelphia. Get it right.

The Justice Department announced that it filed a lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia, alleging violations of the rights of Hispanic and Spanish-speaking voters under two key provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

"The right to vote is a fundamental guarantee for all American citizens," said Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "In light of the serious problems faced by minority language citizen voters in Philadelphia, we hope that city officials and the Justice Department can reach an agreement quickly to begin essential remedial measures in time for the 2006 federal elections."

The Voting Rights Act requires that certain jurisdictions with a substantial minority-language voter population provide all voting materials and assistance in the minority language as well as in English. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, charges that the city failed to provide Spanish-language assistance at the polls to the majority of its Spanish- speaking voters in recent elections.

The Voting Rights Act also assures voters who need assistance in voting, such as those unable to see or read the ballot, the right to receive that assistance from a person of their choice, other than the voter's employer or union representative. The complaint charges that the city prevented Spanish-speaking voters from receiving assistance from the persons of their choice, even in cases where bilingual assistance was otherwise unavailable.

The Civil Rights Division works to ensure compliance with all of the provisions of the Voting Rights Act with respect to all citizens of all racial groups in all areas of the United States. Since 2002, the Civil Rights Division has filed over three-fourths of all cases to protect the right of voters needing assistance in the history of the Act, and over 60 percent of all minority language cases than in the entire previous history of the Voting Rights Act. As a result of this work and other lawsuits brought, since 2002, the Department has brought a majority of all cases it ever has filed under the substantive provisions of the Voting Rights Act to protect Hispanic and Asian voters, and the first cases ever filed to protect the voting rights of Filipino and Vietnamese voters. During this time period, the Division has filed successful Voting Rights Act lawsuits across the country, with cases in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington.

-------

Looks like somebody in Congress actually cares that the DOJ is slowing investigations of the excesses of Government contractors in Iraq. Of course, it’s probably too little, too late given the proximity of the election, but I’m happy to see that some elected officials have actually noticed the stonewalling at all. Maybe it’s an election strategy, but hell, I don’t care. If it gets any publicity at all, it’s worth it.

Washington, DC –U.S. Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) today contacted the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding reports that the Department may be stalling the process of prosecuting claims of contractor abuse in the reconstruction of Iraq. In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Johnson expressed his concern and urged the Department to take immediate and concrete steps to retrieve wasted funds. Johnson is also cosponsoring a measure designed to prevent such delays.

“Reports that the Department of Justice may actually be slowing down efforts to combat contract abuse are especially troubling considering the millions of taxpayer dollars that have been squandered due to abuse and inadequate oversight in the reconstruction in Iraq,” Johnson said. “Rather than mucking up the works, the Department of Justice should be aggressively pursuing claims of fraud and abuse.”

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that a number of lawsuits have been filed on behalf of whistleblowers using the False Claims Act, which allows individuals to recoup ill-gotten funds by government contractors. However, before any claim filed under the False Claims Act can move forward, the Bush Administration must make a formal decision whether or not to be a party to the lawsuit. According to press reports, the Administration has made a formal decision in only one case, raising concerns that the DOJ is deliberately preventing cases from moving forward.

Additionally, Johnson is co-sponsoring an amendment offered by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) to the Fiscal Year 2006 Iraq Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. This amendment would require the DOJ complete their review of each lawsuit within one year. After the one year period, the allegations become public, and the cases can proceed forward.

-------

Hey, remember the Anthrax case? That little old thing from the days after September 11th that has now faded on the horizon, that was used as a specter of domestic terrorism for so long and has now been quietly and conveniently forgotten, for whatever reason? Well, it seems that Congress and the FBI are now butting heads over the investigation, and the lack of progress over it. I’ve always wondered what was happening with it…

WASHINGTON - Congress and the FBI are now openly battling over the pace and direction of the anthrax investigation.

Late Monday, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, sent a damning six-page letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales requesting a briefing on the FBI investigation, now five years old. The letter faults the agency for its handling of the case, saying "the FBI has little in the way of results to show for its work."

Meanwhile, in an unusual move, the FBI's top lobbyist has informed members of Congress that the bureau will no longer brief them on the case. The FBI's Assistant Director for Congressional Affairs wrote, "After sensitive information about the investigation citing congressional sources was reported in the media, the Department of Justice and the FBI agreed that no additional briefings to Congress would be provided."

FBI critics consider the letter rich irony, since the FBI itself is under attack for leaking key details of the case to the media.

In the fall of 2001, someone mailed anthrax-laced letters to two U.S. senators and to a number of media organizations, including NBC News. The finely milled anthrax spores were remarkably buoyant, and five people who inhaled them were killed.

After the anthrax incident, Dr. Steven Hatfill was publicly branded a “person of interest.” He’s never been charged with any crime and has since brought a libel and defamation suit against columnist Nicholas Kristof and The New York Times.

On Oct. 20, a federal magistrate judge ruled that The New York Times must reveal the names of the confidential sources on whom Kristof relied for a series of columns about the anthrax case. The judge revealed that two of Kristof's unnamed sources were FBI agents.

Meanwhile, the FBI recently installed a new team of top investigators to head up the anthrax case. Sources familiar with the case tell NBC News that the new managers are looking anew at all possible suspects, with a much broader focus than before. The sources say that the previous head of the case, inspector Richard Lambert, was moved to a new position within the FBI, in part because he had focused too much on Hatfill.

Grassley's letter picks up on that, stating that Lambert's transfer to a Tennessee FBI office "raises questions about why he was replaced [and] the focus of the FBI's investigation under his leadership." Lambert now is the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's field office in Knoxville, Tenn.

Congress Watch for 10/26: Severe Election Problems Possible in 10 States; Stem Cell Debate heats up; Green Party candidate drops out

2006-10-26T11:09:00.000-04:00

Congress Watch for 10/26: Severe Election Problems Possible in 10 States; Stem Cell Debate heats up; Green Party candidate drops out

It wouldn’t be Congress without elections, and it wouldn’t be a U.S. election without electoral problems, now would it? It seems that we’ve had nothing but voter problems since 2000, and now a new report is stating that 10 states are at risk for disputed and damaged elections which will directly impact the outcome and credibility of the next Congress.

Two weeks before the midterm elections, at least 10 states, including Maryland, remain ripe for voting problems, according to a study released yesterday by a nonpartisan clearinghouse that tracks electoral reforms across the United States.

The report by Electionline.org says those states, and possibly others, could encounter trouble on Election Day because they have a combustible mix of fledgling voting-machine technology, confusion over voting procedures or recent litigation over election rules -- and close races.

The report cautions that the Nov. 7 elections, which will determine which political party controls the House and Senate, promise "to bring more of what voters have come to expect since the 2000 elections -- a divided body politic, an election system in flux and the possibility -- if not certainty -- of problems at polls nationwide."

In a state-by-state canvass, the 75-page report singles out places, such as Indiana and Arizona, where courts have upheld stringent new laws requiring voters to show poll workers specific forms of identification. It cites states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, which have switched to electronic voting machines whose accuracy has been challenged. And it points to states such as Colorado and Washington, which have departed from the tradition of polling sites in neighborhood precincts.

-------

Here’s something I didn’t expect. When Jessica from Cellar Door sent me a message a few days ago with the Michael J. Fox stem cell ad, I admit I was clueless about just what was going on, but it didn’t take me long to learn about what had happened and what was about to happen. It took very little time for the dialog of the election to shift gears, and now it seems to be splitting the Republican party right down the middle. I don’t think that was the intended effect, but it’s very, very interesting to watch.

Michael J. Fox, staring straight into the camera, boldly shows the effects of 15 years spent battling Parkinson's disease. He wants people to see what the illness has done to his body so they will support research that involves the use of human embryonic stem cells.

What Rush Limbaugh, the outspoken conservative radio show host, saw as Fox "acting" or not "taking his medicine," as he said publicly, was ignorance, say Parkinson's experts.

"It was ignorant and inappropriate," said Dr. Michele Tagliati, director of the Parkinson's Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in Manhattan. "This movement is a side effect of years spent on these medicines. But patients with Parkinson's can't afford not to take their medicines."

The movement disorder causes tremors, rigidity and balance problems. Half a million Americans suffer from Parkinson's. Fox was diagnosed in 1991 and went public about his illness in 1998. He started a foundation that has raised millions.

Christopher Reeve, who also started a research foundation soon after the riding accident that left him paralyzed, appealed to the public with an ad that had him standing on two legs, a feat of the cameras and not science. At the time, he said he did it to be provocative and interest people in supporting the science.

-------

Now this is interesting…don’t hear much information on Green party candidates these days, but I just learned that the Connecticut Green Party candidate Richard Duffee decided to withdraw from the race, with the Party stepping forward and supporting Democratic nominee Diane Farrell.

Farrell, according to a poll this week, is running neck and neck with the Republican incumbant, Christopher Shays, who has been in Congress 19 years. Libertarian candidate Phil Maymin is also on the ballot.

Although Duffeee's withdrawal comes just two weeks before the Nov. 7 election, officials in the Westport Town Clerk's office said they will not have to reprint the absentee ballots that are to be sent out soon. Instead, officials will cross out Duffee's name on the ballot.

Duffee said this week, "Republican threats to the future and to our form of government are so serious that it is more important to bring the House of Representatives under the control of the Democrats than to run a Green candidate for Congress in the Fourth District.

"Our decision is a vote of confidence in Diane Farrell's seriousness about putting some brakes on Bush's imperial presidency and at least returning us to the rule of law." said Duffee, a former law professor.

By Connecticut law, Duffee alone has the right to take his name off the ballot. He chose in July to allow the Fairfield Greens to make that decision in caucus as the campaign developed.

"I would like to thank the Green Party and Richard Duffee for their decision today," said Farrell. "I would also like to mention the valuable voice brought to the table by Richard Duffee in this year's debates, especially on topics such as human rights, the War in Iraq and socio-economic issues affecting our country, and I believe that the Green Party should be included in future debates here in Connecticut's Fourth district."

"We share a common belief that the Bush administration has led us astray, especially as it pertains to the War in Iraq, energy policy, education and environmental issues," Farrell said.

Farrell met with members of the Fairfield County chapter of the Green Party on Saturday and explained her position on issues of concern to the Greens.

Duffee said that the Greens decided to back Farrell because she appeals to a larger audience than the Greens at the present time and she can be most effective in reversing the current war policies on Iraq.

"Our decision to back Diane Farrell is not a decision to become Democrats," Duffee said. "Nearly all of us became Greens because we believed that the Democratic Party does not adequately serve the public interest because it is not sufficiently committed to resist corporate pressure."

Large and Small for 10/25: Halloween Pet Safety Tips, Adopting Black Cats at Halloween, Gay Marriage in the Animal Kingdom, Animal Populations Falling

2006-10-25T10:24:00.000-04:00

Large and Small for 10/25: Halloween Pet Safety Tips, Adopting Black Cats at Halloween, Gay Marriage in the Animal Kingdom, Animal Populations Falling Fast, Seabed Microbe May Curb Global Warming, and Religion Expands its Role in Global Warming

With Halloween just around the corner, I wanted to share the following tips for pet owners everywhere:

Halloween's traditions of candy, costumes and trick-or-treating can be a potentially dangerous and distressing time for pets, warns the Ontario SPCA. Extra caution should be taken to protect pets from Halloween hazards, including keeping pets safely indoors to shelter them from children's "pranks" or other cruelty-related incidents - particularly black cats, the most frequent victims of abuse at Halloween.

Other precautions the Ontario SPCA recommends to help keep pets safe this Halloween include:

Ensure your pets are wearing collars with ID tags. If for any reason they escape and become lost there is a greater chance they will be returned to you if they are clearly identified with a tag, ideally combined with a microchip. For many pets the best way to spend Halloween is resting in a secure area within the house with a favourite toy, comfortable bedding and soothing music, where they won't have a chance to be spooked by strangers and dart outdoors.

Use decorations, such as pumpkins, fake cobwebs and decorative corn with caution. If ingested, many decorations can cause your pet gastrointestinal upset and even result in intestinal blockage. Lighted pumpkins or standing candles pose an additional risk. Pets, especially curious kittens, may knock candles over, cause a fire and/or get burned. Move electric lights, wires and cords or liquid potpourri beyond your pet's reach. If electric cords or lights are chewed, pets can receive a life-threatening electrical shock or damage their mouth from shards of glass; and exposure to both heated and cool liquid potpourri product can result in severe damage to the skin, mouth and eyes.

Keep candy out of your pet's reach. Chocolate, depending on the amount ingested, can be toxic to many animals including dogs, cats and ferrets. Generally the less sweet the chocolate the more dangerous it could be. In fact, as little as ¼ ounce of baking chocolate can cause diarrhea, vomiting, seizures, hyperactivity and increased thirst, urination and heart rate in a 10-pound dog. As well, if candies or gum containing the sweetener xylitol are ingested in large quantities it can produce a sudden drop in blood sugar for pets, resulting in depression, incoordination and seizures.

Keep candy wrappers away from pets. If ingested, aluminum foil and cellophane candy wrappers can cause vomiting and produce intestinal blockage.

Maintain your pet's normal diet and prevent access to alcoholic beverages. Even changing you pet's diet for one meal can give your cat or dog severe indigestion and diarrhea, and alcohol ingestion can cause your pet to become very ill and weak - and may even cause your pet to go into a coma or to suffer respiratory failure.

Don't dress your pet in a costume unless you know he (or she) enjoys it. Confining costumes can cause stress and injury to pets if it restricts their movement, hearing or ability to breath, bark or see, and small or dangling pieces may be chewed off and cause choking or intestinal obstruction. Never leave your costumed pets unsupervised.

"While Halloween is a time of fun and excitement for kids and adults, it can be distressing and potentially dangerous for our pets," says Keri Semenko, Acting Director of Animal Sheltering and Wildlife Services for the Ontario SPCA. "Far too often the Ontario SPCA hears stories of animals being abused or exposed to avoidable dangers at Halloween. Keep your pets secure and safe inside the home, choose decorations with caution, and explain to children why they shouldn't share their treats with pets. With a little caution Halloween can be a safe and enjoyable holiday for everyone."

Members of the public are urged to report anything suspicious related to animals to their local Ontario SPCA branch or affiliated humane society. Cruelty to animals is a crime and abuse causing pain and suffering should not be dismissed as a prank.

If you suspect your pet may have ingested a toxic product or substance contact your local veterinary clinic immediately.

-------

A commonly-known issue in rescue group circles is that of black cat adoptions: they lag behind almost every other animal in adoption rates, mostly because of the stupid superstitions that revolve around them. Some places go so far as to put a ban in place on their adoptions on Friday the 13ths or around Halloween. That’s why it’s encouraging to see the San Mateo, California Animal Shelter encouraging adoptions of the cats during this period:

There are superstitious souls who fear black cats are bad luck.

And there are well-meaning souls who worry that people are particularly cruel to the dusky critters around Halloween.

Some humane agencies go so far as to ban adoption of black cats close to the holiday to prevent them from becoming haunted house props or targets of teenage pranks.

But the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA is encouraging people to adopt the agency's 16 or so black cats near Halloween. It's hard to find homes for them during the rest of the year.

``It's just perplexing to shelter workers across the country -- black cats and dogs stay longer in the shelter than light-colored ones,'' said PHS spokesman Scott Delucchi. ``No one knows exactly why.''

The Los Angeles Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals plans a one-week moratorium on black cat adoptions starting Wednesday.

``We've seen all kinds. Sometimes people see a dead animal and just assume it was a satanic cult,'' said SPCA LA President Madeline Bernstein. ``Sometimes it's a cat that's been eaten by a coyote.''

Other times, she said, the agency has heard reports from police of ritual or mock-ritual killings of black cats at Halloween. Corroborating those accounts, however, is difficult.
Bernstein said commercial haunted houses will pick up a cat from a city shelter for about $30 and dump it when business stops.

“When you look at the follow-up after the holiday and you look at the number of cats that are returned,” she said, “you realize you can be a little bit prophylactic.”

Delucchi said local stories of black cat abuse appear to be tall tales, and worries of mass abandonment after Halloween are equally overblown.

“I don't know that it's really based on anything except fear,'' he said. ``In San Mateo County, we don't see cats turning up Nov. 1 that have been harmed. As far as we know, it hasn't been realized.''

At the Peninsula Humane Society shelter, would-be adopters pay $70 and go through up to an hourlong orientation before they become pet owners.

Delucchi said it's unlikely someone would go through the screening hassle to snag a black cat for some unsavory short-term use, so the agency puts its faith in its usual adoption process, rather than risk throwing up roadblocks between potential pet owners and abandoned animals.

``You really can't afford to be that restrictive,'' said Delucchi, noting that holidays are an optimal time to link people and pets. ``If your goal is to find homes and find good homes, we feel we have the right approach. We have to trust people.''

-------

I just wanted to include this because it’s cool: there’s finally an exhibit on homosexuality and bisexuality in the animal kingdom, showing that this is not an unnatural thing in humanity. This finally exposes the trump card of religious fundamentalism: if God created these animals, then why could God not also create humans in this mold?

Two male giraffes in unequivocal pose, a lesbian swan couple, two male whales stimulating each other: a new exhibit in Oslo displays examples of animal homosexuality.

"Normally," says Geir Söli with a smile, "natural history museums just show pretty boring things: rocks, stuffed birds and the like." Not so with the Norwegian zoologist's latest project. After three years of preparation, Söli and his colleagues from the Natural History Museum in Oslo have just inaugurated the world's first exhibit on animal homosexuality.

"Against Nature?" is the name of the exhibition in the red brick building on the edge of Oslo's Botanical Gardens. The question mark at the end of the title is of particular importance to exhibit director Söli. He wants to qualify the argument that homosexuality is against nature because, he says, the facts paint a different picture: homosexual behavior has been observed in at least 1,500 species, and in roughly 500 of these cases the findings have been well documented. "And that's only the tip of the iceberg."

All too often, Söli says, zoologists have simply ignored the homosexuality of their research subjects. Against the backdrop of a 4-meter-tall image of two giraffes in an unmistakable pose, Söli explains how the whole thing usually worked: In a study on giraffes in Africa, for instance, scientists classified the mere sniffing of a female by her male counterpart as "sexual interest." But when one male giraffe mounted another, the scientists recorded this as a "territorial fight" -- even when they observed an ejaculation -- because what must not be, cannot be.

Around 2,300 years ago, Aristotle had already described the remarkable behaviour of a group of hyenas: males flirting with males, females pleasuring females. But the idea of gay marriage in the animal kingdom never really fitted into the scientists' world view, and so was all too often ignored.

Not too far way, in Göteborg's Natural History Museum, an exhibition has been running since the beginning of June entitled "I love U," which presents, in laid back Scandinavian style, the mating and reproduction of all kinds of animals, including people. With a faint hint of Abba, the Swedish exhibitors illustrate "the winner takes it all" with a model of an egg surrounded by sperm. It's all about reproduction here -- up to now the only purpose for sexuality in the animal kingdom -- at least according to the traditional version.

The Oslo exhibit documents how reality has now caught up with the scientists: they observed whales, for example, rubbing up against each other with erect penises; a female dolphin gliding her fin into her partner's genital tract; or two male seagulls building a nest together. Scientists even discovered, to their great surprise, that approximately one out of ten couples in some king penguin colonies were homosexual.

The Joy of Animal Sex

"Biological Exuberance" is the name of a book published seven years ago by the biologist Bruce Bagemihl, which summarizes these types of cases. And "exuberance" is indeed the explanation for these observations, says Bagemihl. His somewhat controversial theory forms the cornerstone of the Oslo exhibition: animals enjoy sex, whatever the constellation may be. Geir Söli contends that this is especially true of more developed species like whales, dolphins, or primates. There is evidence everywhere of homosexual behavior.

Incidentally, the exhibit also shows cases where with a few tricks, homosexual animal couples can even raise offspring. Scientists have recently reported on parenthood among homosexual flamingos, vultures and storks, by means of borrowed eggs and "one-night stands." They have also found evidence of some same-sex relationships that last an animal's lifetime. "You can say what you will about homosexuality, but you can't say that it is contrary to nature," says Geir Söli, thereby answering in passing the question in the exhibit's title.

So far, there haven't been any large-scale protests against the exhibition -- it simply fits in too well with liberal Norway, where the government, by way of special subsidies, encourages the country's museums to get involved in the public debates. And so it should come as no surprise that it is above all families who crowd the dimly lit museum halls on the weekends. The merry sound of hollering children is constantly reverberating throughout the museum. "I am pleased that families continue to come here," Söli says. "We don't have any shocking images here, we don't want to hit anyone over the head."

-------

Alarming news yesterday from the World Wildlife Federation (WWF): humanity is eating up the planet’s resources as if we were living on three planets, not just one. What does this mean for the ecosystems? Terrible, catastrophic things:

The group said the world's natural ecosystems were being degraded at a rate unprecedented in human history. On current projections, this means that as a whole, humanity will need at least two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050.

The report said humanity's ecological footprint was 25 per cent greater than the planet's annual ability to provide everything from food to energy and recycle all human waste in 2003. The figure has increased from 21 per cent five years ago.

James Leape, WWF's director general, said: "We are in serious ecological overshoot. The consequences of this are predictable and dire.

"For more than 20 years, we have exceeded the earth's ability to support a consumptive life-style that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path.

"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us."

WWF said forests and fisheries will eventually be harvested to such a degree that they might disappear altogether.

The report showed there was a one-third decline in the populations of more than 1,300 fish, bird and animal species between 1970 and 2003.

It said the loss of natural habitat to farming has been particularly acute in the tropics. Pollution, tree-felling and over-fishing were major factors elsewhere, with climate change-causing fossil fuels the fastest-growing factor.

------

Here’s some cause for hope and a potential ally in the battle against global warming. Could we create more of these to help scrub out the methane in the air?

Bacteria that live in volcanically heated mud deep under the sea off the coast of Norway feed on methane, a gas that is partly to blame for climate change, a Franco-German team of scientists have discovered.

The newly-discovered creatures were found in the Haakon Mosby Mud Volcano, a place in the Barents Sea where hot methane gas from deep under the earth seeps into the slime. The bacteria have evolved to live in conditions that would be lethal to other life forms.

The research was published Thursday in the British science journal Nature. Micro-organisms that consume methane have been discovered before, but the discovery helps science better understand how methane reaches the atmosphere.

Methane is a useful fuel, but when it escapes unburned into the air, it is a greenhouse gas that leads to nearly 25 times as much global warming as an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.

The research, which was led by Antje Boetius of the Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology in the German city of Bremen, established that the three species of methane-eating micro-organisms found consumed 40 per cent of the escaping methane.

------

Finally, I’m very interested in and glad to see this. Not too long ago, I recall reading an article that talked about how the millennial nuts were embracing global warming as an agent of the coming of Christ and the end times. Now it seems that churches are remembering that, if they are supposed to focus on caring for others, that caring for others entails caring for the environment, as the world will keep on going and people will be harmed by global warming. I applaud these churches, even if I don’t agree with their views. Great work!

Religious groups have not always been at the forefront of environmental activism, but a new movement is gaining steam across this country. As the United States government continues to hem and haw about the state of global warming (they still can't decide if it actually exists), religious groups are positioning themselves to lead America to a greener future.

Organized religion has often been accused of focusing on the needs of humans while neglecting the state of the planet. However, an unprecedented wave of ecological awareness is now taking hold and changing that image. Last winter, 86 evangelical Christian leaders signed a statement acknowledging human effects on the changing climate and imploring Congress to legislate carbon dioxide emissions standards. This was just one step in a growing trend.

A Michigan coalition of congregations is working to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by taking localized steps, such as investing in fluorescent light bulbs and more efficient appliances, and powering a church with solar panels. These actions have been generally positive and the 124-member group has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 14,000 tons. Locally, the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis just announced a new parishioner-run task force. The committee will look for options to fight global warming through individual choices and local policy changes.

These programs stand to make a large impact on global warming. While government action would go a long way toward decreasing carbon dioxide emissions, it is important to remember that individual efforts make a difference. If everyone took little steps to reduce energy usage, we could see significant results.

Get Local for 10/24: More Maryland Election Woes (Diebold Source Code Stolen in Maryland!)

2006-10-24T09:54:00.000-04:00

Get Local for 10/24: More Maryland Election Woes (Diebold Source Code Stolen in Maryland!)

Maryland. What the hell. Let’s get this straight. First you completely screw up the primary, now it looks like the Diebold Source Code has been stolen from under your noses?
The FBI is investigating the possible theft of software developed by the nation's leading maker of electronic voting equipment, said a former Maryland legislator who this week received three computer disks that apparently contain key portions of programs created by Diebold Election Systems.

Cheryl C. Kagan, a former Democratic delegate who has long questioned the security of electronic voting systems, said the disks were delivered anonymously to her office in Olney on Tuesday and that the FBI contacted her yesterday. The package contained an unsigned letter critical of Maryland State Board of Elections Administrator Linda H. Lamone that said the disks were "right from SBE" and had been "accidentally picked up."

Lamone's deputy, Ross Goldstein, said "they were not our disks," but he acknowledged that the software was used in Maryland in the 2004 elections. Diebold said in a statement last night that it had never created or received the disks.

The disks bear the logos of two testing companies that send such disks to the Maryland board after using the software to conduct tests on Diebold equipment. A Ciber Inc. spokeswoman said the disks had not come from Ciber, and Wyle Laboratories Inc. said it was not missing any disks.

Diebold spokesman Mark Radke and Goldstein said that the labels on the disks referred to versions of the software that are no longer in use in Maryland, although the Diebold statement said the version of one program apparently stored on the disks is still in use in "a limited number of jurisdictions" and is protected by encryption. The statement also said the FBI is investigating the disks' chain of custody.

Michelle Crnkovich, an FBI spokeswoman in Baltimore, said she had no knowledge of an investigation.

In an unrelated development, Maryland state auditors said in a report yesterday that the State Board of Elections is not properly controlling access to a new statewide database of registered voters or verifying what changes are made to it. The report comes at a time of heightened concern over the security and effectiveness of electronic voting systems.

Legislative auditor Bruce Myers said it was unusual to allow "across-the-board access" by local election officials to a sensitive database, but Lamone defended the board's practices. In a letter released with the Office of Legislative Audits report, she wrote that the board "is unaware of any allegations of the falsification of additions or deletions to the system."

The FBI investigation into the disks could focus further scrutiny on the security of Maryland's electronic voting system.
--------

Now let’s figure out exactly WHY Maryland residents wouldn’t be inspired with confidence?
The number of Marylanders requesting absentee ballots already exceeds the number cast in the last gubernatorial election. With three weeks left before the general election, ballot requests are still coming.

A new law that took effect this year has removed all restrictions on use of absentee ballots. They previously were available only to people who could not make it to the polls on election day.

That new availability, fallout from the problem-plagued primary election and questions about the reliability of the state's voting system from some political leaders, appears to have spurred demand.

If the flood of requests continues, it could swamp election officials with extra work and delay the outcome of closely contested elections next month. Absentee ballots are not counted until local election officials canvas their results.
--------

This surprised the hell out of me. I mean, I dislike the Ehrlich Administration as much as anyone else, but apparently Ehrlich’s been underfunding predominantly black colleges and universities and is now facing a lawsuit over it. I don’t know the merits of the case, but the fact that it’s been brought at all speaks volumes:
In a move that hails back to the education battles of the last century, a local coalition filed a lawsuit in Baltimore Circuit Court Oct. 5, alleging the state of Maryland had not fulfilled its obligations under an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education to equitably fund and enhance historically Black colleges and universities with an eye to removing vestiges of legal segregation.

The Maryland Coalition for Equity and Excellence in Higher Education names Gov. Robert Ehrlich Jr. and Higher Education Secretary Calvin Burnett as two major defendants. The suit was filed on the heels of a report sent to USDE's Office for Civil Rights by the Maryland Higher Education Commission, which claimed that the state had lived up to the terms of its desegregation commitment. The coalition said it tried contacting OCR to address the matter but was ignored.

'The coalition enthusiastically embraces this action to resolve the matter of the lack of parity and equity between historically Black colleges and universities and traditionally White institutions and is resolved in making this a launching pad for a national discussion,' said coalition President David Burton. 'Previous actions to address this matter did not result in responsive action that satisfied our understanding of current law; therefore, a lawsuit is in order.'

The suit is based on premises laid out in the Supreme Court decision in {United States v. Fordice}, the higher education equivalent of {Brown v. Board of Education}. The law prohibits states from duplicating programs already established in HBCUs at proximate traditionally White institutions and requires equitable funding of Black and White state schools among other requirements. The intent of the law is to build up and raise HBCUs to a level playing field to draw White, Black and other students and complete the process of integration. Successful examples of that process are Howard University's School of Medicine and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore's hospitality management program.
--------

Here’s a bit of mixed news: while Maryland hate crimes are on the decrease, religiously-motivated crimes are on the rise, according to FBI data. According to Southern Maryland Online:

The numbers of total hate crime incidents slid 20.4 percent from 2004 to 2005 alone, following a decade-long trend, the data show. In 1995, Maryland agencies reported 353 hate crimes, the vast majority of them racially motivated. By the end of 2005, that number had dwindled to 195.

The 2005 data does not include a recent spate of hate crimes in Charles County, where police are investigating at least a dozen instances of racially motivated graffiti and vandalism, or hate crimes in Montgomery County this month involving swastikas spray-pained on vehicles and on a new section of the King Farm development in Rockville.

While Maryland's falling incidence rate outpaced a 6 percent decline nationally in hate crimes last year, the state's police agencies reported the 10th highest incidence of hate crimes among the 48 states that contributed to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program.

Interesting news.

Civil Rights Watch for 10/23: DOJ appeals Wiretapping case, Allies Keep Gitmo Open, Probe into Gitmo Abuses Begins

2006-10-23T11:38:00.000-04:00

Civil Rights Watch for 10/23: DOJ appeals Wiretapping case, Allies Keep Gitmo Open, Probe into Gitmo Abuses Begins

Due to personal commitments, today’s entry is presented with minimal commentary; tomorrow’s entry should resume as normally scheduled.

U.S. govt appeals court's NSA wiretapping decision
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration on Friday appealed a federal judge's ruling this summer that a controversial post-September 11, 2001, domestic spying program was illegal.

The U.S. Justice Department, in documents filed with a federal court in Cincinnati, argued that President George W. Bush had acted within the law in authorizing the surveillance of domestic wiretaps of international telephone calls.

In its appeal, the government stated that the federal judge's ruling "dismantles a tool that already has helped detect and disrupt al Qaeda plots."

It stated that U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's decision directly conflicts with the Supreme Court's direction to "proceed with great caution in resolving challenges in this extraordinarily sensitive context."

Nearly a year ago, media reports revealed the existence of the domestic spying by the National Security Agency.

Civil libertarians, including the ACLU, which brought the suit, have argued the government could gain the same type of intelligence information through warrants.

Judge Taylor ruled in August that NSA's five-year-old surveillance program, implemented as part of the government's war on terrorism, violates the civil rights of Americans because the government does not have to present justification for its monitoring in court and obtain a warrant.

In its appeal, the government argued the surveillance program was narrowly targeted and thus did not violate Americans' constitutional rights, while being an effective tool in stopping potential terrorist attacks.

The expedited appeal called for the government to submit its arguments to the appeals court by Friday, with a response due a month later.
--------

U.S. allies impede Guantanamo releases

Britain and other U.S. allies have demanded closure of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but have also blocked efforts to let some prisoners return home, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

British officials recently rejected a U.S. offer to transfer 10 former British residents from Guantanamo to the United Kingdom, arguing that it would be too expensive to keep them under surveillance, the newspaper said, citing documents made public this month in London.

Britain has also staved off a legal challenge by the relatives of some prisoners who sued to require the British government to seek their release, The Washington Post said.

While all British citizens in Guantanamo were freed starting in 2004, Britain has balked at allowing former legal residents of the country to return, the newspaper said.

Germany and other European allies, which have spoken out against Guantanamo, also have balked at accepting prisoners from the facility, the Post said.

Human rights groups have condemned U.S. practices at Guantanamo, where detainees have been held indefinitely without charge.

Some 335 prisoners have been transferred out of Guantanamo since the prison camp's creation in January 2002 and another 110 of the 440 still at the jail have been declared eligible for transfer or release, the Pentagon said.

The Pentagon has already freed all but a few European citizens from Guantanamo. However, U.S. officials have struggled to persuade Britain, Germany and other allies in Europe to accept prisoners who once had legal residency there, or who are effectively stateless, The Washington Post said.
-------

U.S. Army colonel arrives at Guantanamo to investigate abuse allegations

A U.S. Army colonel arrived at Guantanamo Bay on Wednesday to investigate whether guards at the prison beat detainees, as they allegedly boasted about doing, the spokesman for the U.S. Southern Command said.

Col. Richard Basset will conduct interviews for up to a month at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in southeast Cuba, said Jose Ruiz.

"He's going to interview everyone he thinks he needs to talk to, to be able to establish the facts," Ruiz said from the Southern Command headquarters in Miami, where Basset is based.

Basset has authority to interview any member of the military Joint Task Force that runs the detention center at Guantanamo regardless of their rank, Ruiz said, clarifying an earlier statement he made that the colonel would not be able to interview senior officers.

Basset will submit his findings to the commander of the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees the detention center.

Congresswatch for 10/19: Elves and Orcs and NBA Basketball, oh my!

2006-10-19T10:40:00.000-04:00

Congresswatch for 10/19: Elves and Orcs and NBA Basketball, oh my!

Someone please tell me what is happening here.

Oh, Rick Santorum-chan! How your antics amuse me. It’s good to be able to lead off Congresswatch with some humor for once.

Santorum defends Iraq war

By ALISON HAWKES
Bucks County Courier Times

Embattled U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said America has avoided a second terrorist attack for five years because the "Eye of Mordor" has been drawn to Iraq instead.

Santorum used the analogy from one of his favorite books, J.R.R. Tolkien's 1950s fantasy classic "Lord of the Rings," to put an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq into terms any school kid could easily understand.

"As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else," Santorum said, describing the tool the evil Lord Sauron used in search of the magical ring that would consolidate his power over Middle-earth.

"It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S.," Santorum continued. "You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States."

In an interview with the Bucks County Courier Times editorial board late last week, the 12-year Republican senator from Pennsylvania said he's "a big "Lord of the Rings' fan." He's read the first of the series, "The Hobbit" to his six children.

A spokesman for Democratic opponent Bob Casey Jr. questioned the appropriateness of the analogy.

"You have to really question the judgment of a U.S. senator who compares the war in Iraq to a fantasy book," said Casey spokesman Larry Smar. "This is just like when he said Kim Jong II isn't a threat because he just wants to "watch NBA basketball.' "

According to a Harrisburg Patriot-News editorial, Santorum said the North Korea dictator "doesn't want to die; he wants to watch NBA basketball" as a reason why Iran is the bigger nuclear threat.
-----------------

All this while the GOP is trying their damnedest to save Santorum. Okay, while I understand the idea of trying to hold on to the seat for dear life, I don’t understand why they would exhaust so much effort on a guy who is most likely doomed (and really stupid, judging by the previous article). But I guess they must figure there’s something to salvage. An ’08 run? Hah! Not likely. Maybe it’s because he hates those icky queers. Oh wait, it is!

ROSYLN, Pa. — Keith Hollenberg, a member of the evangelical Assemblies of God church, is worried that one of his political heroes is about to lose his bid for reelection.

So when he saw Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) at a car show here, Hollenberg volunteered to help in what has become an urgent project for social conservatives in Pennsylvania and around the country: keeping Santorum in the Senate.

"I'm a big fan of yours," Hollenberg told him. "Keep on pulling for the right thing."

Santorum, an outspoken advocate of banning same-sex marriage, restricting abortion, and other social conservative causes, is considered this year's most-endangered senator.

It is a four-alarm fire for conservatives, who are bringing water buckets from all corners of the political world. Across Pennsylvania, pastors are preparing to stuff voter guides into their Sunday bulletins. In Washington, D.C., Paul Weyrich, a national conservative leader, hosted a conference call to give a pep talk to Republicans in Pennsylvania. In England, some Santorum fans are planning to cross the Atlantic to help campaign.

"I think it's important for people across the country to recognize how important it is not only to pay attention but to get engaged in this race, whatever way they can," said Colin Hanna, head of Let Freedom Ring, a conservative group based in Pennsylvania. "If Rick Santorum were to lose, it would be cited as a turning point in the social conservative movement."

Santorum is not just a key link between the Republican Party and Christian conservatives. He is also one of President Bush's most unapologetic allies in Congress and a member of the Senate GOP leadership. And he is the apotheosis of a younger generation of Republicans — led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — that transformed the party in the 1990s into a more confrontational, ideological political force.
Oh, and how hilarious is this picture from the same story? That’s a look of trust if I’ve ever seen one! I’m sure my own reaction to Santorum approaching me during dinner would be about the same.

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

Thanks to George for pointing this one out:

“Nixon’s secret plan to win the war is resurrected from the dead (and the secret is still safe)”

Sen. Conrad Burns said at a debate Tuesday night that President Bush does have a plan for winning the war in Iraq, but he isn’t about to share it with the world.

Democratic Senate candidate Jon Tester replied that Bush’s only plan is to stay the course in Iraq, costing more American lives and billions of dollars, and to pass the war on to the next president who will take office in January 2009.

The two candidates’ answers about the war produced the most sparks at a debate before about 800 people at Montana State University-Billings sponsored by The Billings Gazette and the university. It was the two candidates’ sixth debate; they face off for the final time in Great Falls Friday night.

For the first time, Burns publicly expressed some concern about how effectively the U.S. is waging the war in Iraq. He echoed the views of Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, who recently returned from a trip to Iraq.

“We can’t lose in Iraq,” Burns said. “The consequences of losing is too great.”

Burns, however, said the U.S. does need to change its military tactics there. “If we don’t change, we’ll pay a heavy price, but we cannot afford to lose it,” he said.

Tester said that Burns has finally admitted that his “stay the course” position in Iraq is wrong and welcomed the senator to his own side.

For nearly a year, Tester has called on Bush to develop a plan to remove U.S. troops from Iraq. Burns has criticized Tester’s position as “cut and run.”

“We’re in a quagmire over there,” Tester said.

Burns told Tester firmly not to put him in the Democrat’s camp on the issue.

“I said we’ve got to win,” Burns said. “He wants us to pull out. He wants everyone to know our plan. That’s not smart.

“He says our president don’t have a plan. I think he’s got one. He’s not going to tell everyone in the world.”

Many in the crowd, which was dominated by Tester supporters, openly laughed at Burns’ claim that Bush has a plan.

Tester said Bush’s only plan is staying the course in Iraq at considerable sacrifices to U.S. troops and the federal treasury.

“We went in under false pretenses,” Tester said. “We pulled the troops from Afghanistan and put them in Iraq. Osama bin Laden is still running free.”

The war is costing the U.S. billions of dollars a year that could be better spent on helping middle-class families and small businesses, the challenger said.

Tester said he is not for “telling our opponents what we’re going to do. The fact is, we don’t know what we’re going to do.”

Replied Burns: “We’re not going to tell you what our plan is, Jon, because you’re just going to go out and blow it.”
-----------------

Finally, looks like Ohio might be going Blue! Or at least Purple. I forgive you for putting Bush in a second time. Besides, some of my best friends live in Ohio.

The bellwether state of Ohio appears to have become hostile terrain for Republicans this year, with voters there overwhelmingly saying Democrats are more likely to help create jobs and concluding by a wide margin that Republicans in the state are more prone to political corruption than are Democrats, according to the latest New York Times/CBS

Ohio is home this year to closely watched races for governor, the United States Senate and a growing roster of competitive House seats, and the state has become one of the most contested battlegrounds of 2006 and one in which voters at this point are strongly favoring Democrats on many issues.

The Democratic candidates for governor and Senate hold commanding, double-digit leads over their Republican opponents in the poll and respondents said they intended to vote for the Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives in their district by a 50 to 32 percent margin.

The results raise alarm bells for President Bush and his party across the nation three weeks from Election Day.

The poll found a striking slippage in the president’s standing among white evangelical Christians, a constituency that has provided a strong vote cushion for Republican candidates in recent elections. In November 2004, 76 percent of white evangelical Christians in Ohio voted for Mr. Bush. When asked in this poll whether they approve or disapprove of the job Mr. Bush is doing as president, 49 percent approved while 45 percent disapproved.

Ohio is a Republican-leaning but heavily contested state that twice voted to elect Mr. Bush and gave him his Electoral College margin of victory in 2004. But it is not a perfect microcosm of the country, and in particular it has higher levels of economic anxiety, the poll found.

Large and Small for 10/19: Dog and Cat Fur, Crackdown on Puppy Mills, and Global Warming hits the wallet

2006-10-18T10:50:00.000-04:00

Large and Small for 10/19: Dog and Cat Fur, Crackdown on Puppy Mills, and Global Warming hits the wallet

Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania

The weekly Large and Small entry is a completely new feature to the Junkheap, and reflects my own growing interest in animal rights and environmental concerns.

Let’s start with something that seemed like a no-brainer to me, but is apparently a big enough problem that the EU actually required a ban on it: using cats and dogs for their fur. I applaud the ban, but holy shit, who would wear something like that?

ANIMAL welfare campaigners today welcomed a vote by the European Parliament in favour of an EU-wide ban on the sale of dog and cat fur.

MEPs approved the ban as part of the first ever European Community strategic plan on animal protection. Edinburgh West Liberal Democrat MP John Barrett, recently appointed honorary vice-president of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA), said: "This is a historic turning point in the fight to ban this inhumane trade.

"The vote by members of the European Parliament sets in motion an EU-wide commitment to ban the import of dog and cat fur products to the EU."

Mr Barrett said he had lost count of the number of constituents who had contacted him to support his calls for a total ban on the trade.

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

Here’s some more good news: Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell (a Democrat, no less, whoo) has appointed the state’s first prosecutor specializing in regulating all of those damn Pennsylvania puppy mills. Finally there’s going to be some sort of oversight and hopefully measures to make these animals’ lives better and hopefully shut down the abusive breeders.

HARRISBURG - Seeking to end the inhumane treatment of dogs in commercial breeding operations, Gov. Rendell is expected to announce today the appointment a career state prosecutor to lead the embattled office charged with regulating 2,500 kennels across the state.

Jessie Smith, a 20-year veteran of the Office of Attorney General and a former board member of the Harrisburg Humane Society, has been named special deputy secretary of the Bureau of Dog Law, according to administration sources.

Rendell, who pledged in March to take action to improve conditions in the state's "puppy mills," also is expected to announce the appointment of Jeffrey Paladina, a former assistant district attorney, as special prosecutor for dog law enforcement and the establishment of a four-member enforcement team that will be dispatched to problem kennels.

"This is the first step toward a long-term solution to the puppy-mill problem in Pennsylvania," said Bob Baker, an ASPCA consultant who served on a working group that made recommendations to Rendell early this year. "This sends a strong message to breeders to straighten up or there will be action."

Animal welfare groups say the bureau has been unable to stop the worst offenders because it had rarely used its power to suspend or revoke kennel licenses. "The excuse it gave was that it didn't have an attorney to handle that," Baker said.

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

So, global warming isn’t that important because it doesn’t personally affect you. Right? Wrong. For even the most money-headed of people, global warming can have tangible, real impacts on the most important thing: their bottom line.

Oct. 11, 2006 — U.S insurance rates are already rising because of the impacts of global warming — and consumers should prepare for even higher rates — as flooding, wildfires, and other extreme weather events become more common, a new study says.

It's an important issue for insurers, who have already suffered billions of dollars in losses due to increases in serious weather events that fit the pattern of global warming. Severe weather is on the rise, the report says, costing insurers $92 billion in the 1990s and $23 billion in 2004 hurricane losses alone.

In some cases, insurers have pulled out of high risk markets completely, shifting the burden to taxpayers.

The report, "Climate Change and Insurance: An Agenda for Action in the United States," was released by insurer Allianz Group and conservation group World Wildlife Fund.

While U.S. insurance companies have been good at looking at the historical risk from natural catastrophes, the report says they have been slow to adopt the latest scientific findings in their computer models that project future risk and in turn, set rates.

"U.S. companies have a very sophisticated set of tools, but they look backwards," said Hans Verolme, director of the World Wildlife Fund Global Climate Change Program. "What they do not yet do is take in to account some of the knowledge that has been acquired in the scientific community."

As that new knowledge is taken into account, consumers will increasingly see the focus on global warming reflected in their insurance bills.

"As a general consequence of global warming, insurance prices will go up," said Clement Booth, a board member of Allianz. "There's no question about that."

And insurance agencies are taking notice, and are doing something. What a strange, strange bedfellow for the environmentalist.

NEW YORK – Insurance companies, who like to stay out of the limelight, are becoming leading business protagonists in the assault on global warming.

• Next week, Travelers, the giant insurance firm, will offer owners of hybrid cars in California a 10 percent discount. It already offers the discount in 41 other states and has cornered a large share of the market.

• This fall, Fireman's Fund will cut premiums for "green" buildings that save energy and emit fewer greenhouse gases. When it pays off claims, it will direct customers to environmentally friendly products to replace roofs, windows, and water heaters.

• In January, Marsh, the largest insurance broker in the US, will offer a program with Yale University to teach corporate board members about their fiduciary responsibility to manage exposure to climate change.

The insurance industry's clout is sizable. It's the second-largest industry in the world in terms of assets, and has a direct link to most homeowners and businesses. It insures coal-fired power plants as well as wind farms, so it can influence the power industry's cost structure. With its financial muscle, the industry could help advance the use of new financial instruments designed to allow companies to trade greenhouse-gas emissions in the same way that commodities are bought and sold.

"The insurance industry has the ability to change behavior, policies and communicate with clients," says Nancy Skinner, US director of the Climate Group, which lobbies for business and government action to address global warming.

Some consumers are already noticing a negative effect of this shift. In the past year, some 600,000 homeowners living in a zone that an insurer considers a high storm risk in an era of climate change have seen their policies cancelled or not renewed. This includes coastal areas stretching from Texas to New York. Currently, coastal properties are valued at $7.2 trillion.

Strange bedfellows, but I welcome them.

Homes Raided In Weldon Influence Probe

2006-10-17T12:28:00.000-04:00

Homes Raided In Weldon Influence Probe

Remember this one? Yeah, the investigation continues...

Federal agents raided the homes of Rep. Curt Weldon's daughter and one of his closest political supporters yesterday as part of an investigation into whether the veteran Republican congressman used his influence to benefit himself and his daughter's lobbying firm, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

The investigation focuses on actions the Pennsylvania congressman took that may have aided clients of the business created by his daughter, Karen Weldon, and longtime Pennsylvania political ally Charles Sexton, according to three of the sources.

A grand jury, impaneled in Washington in May, has obtained evidence gathered over at least four months through wiretaps of Washington area cellphone numbers and has scrutinized whether Weldon received anything of value, according to the sources. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the investigation.

The investigation focuses on Weldon's support of the Russian-managed Itera International Energy Corp., one of the world's largest oil and gas firms, while that company paid fees to Solutions North America, the company that Karen Weldon and Sexton operate.

The congressman, for example, intervened on Itera's behalf when U.S. officials canceled a federal grant to the company. He also encouraged U.S. companies to do business with Itera at a time when its reputation had been sullied by accusations of Russian corruption.

53% of Voters Say They Back Va. Same-Sex Marriage Ban

2006-10-17T12:26:00.000-04:00

53% of Voters Say They Back Va. Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Oh, Virginia-Chan :( If this passes, I'm never moving back.

A majority of Virginians support a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, although voters split on the measure when presented with interpretations of its potential impact, according to a new Washington Post poll.

Fifty-three percent of likely voters said they would vote for the amendment, and 43 percent would oppose it, the poll found, indicating that three weeks before Election Day opponents still have a long way to go to make Virginia the first state in the country to defeat a same-sex marriage amendment.

The only part of the state to oppose the measure was Northern Virginia, where voters rejected it 55 percent to 42 percent, further evidence that the Washington suburbs have become a political and social world apart from the rest of Virginia. Respondents in the rest of the state backed the measure 58 percent to 38 percent, according to the survey, conducted over three days last week.

Despite the overall results, the poll provided some hope for opponents of the measure. Their chief argument is that the language of the amendment is too broad and would endanger contracts between unwed heterosexual couples. Supporters contend that the measure is limited to declaring that same-sex marriages would never be approved or recognized in Virginia.

Get Local for 10/17: Endorsements, Endorsements, Endorsements

2006-10-17T08:39:00.000-04:00

Get Local for 10/17: Endorsements, Endorsements, Endorsements

Tuesday’s Get Local feature (in addition to the supplements that pop up for stories that are just too juicy to wait) will eventually evolve to cover local matters other than just politics, but for the moment, it feels natural to cover elections and campaigns with state and national elections just around the corner. And boy, did today’s update catch me off guard. Good stuff ahead…

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

Regular Junkheap readers may remember some of the crap that went down during Maryland’s primary back in September: lost and delayed reader cards, late closings due to those cards, massive delays in voting, and questionable results. Ah, it truly was a great time for local elections. Well guess what? It looks like nothing’s been fixed, just in time for the real thing:

Diebold's new ExpressPoll 2000/4000 electronic poll book failed miserably in the September Maryland primary election. The poll book is separate from the Diebold TS voting machines used in the state. It contains all of the information on registered voters that was contained in the old paper poll books and it is used to check in voters. The failure of the e-poll books in Maryland, as well as the manner in which the problems have been “fixed” raises serious concern about whether they can legally be used in November’s elections.

According to the Associated Press a software patch produced by Diebold fixed one problem that plagued the equipment in Maryland's primary. Another problem, reported by the Baltimore Sun (article in archives) required a software patch that was produced by a Diebold sub-contractor, Advantech Co., Ltd., who was responsible for the e-poll books "losing synch".

The Sun goes on to say:
"The poll books contain a trove of information about each of Maryland's more than 3 million registered voters, and were designed to replace the cumbersome alphabetized binders filled with the same data. When a voter signs in at a precinct, the system marks him or her as having voted.
"When the machines stop talking to each other, different poll books at a given precinct might not agree on how many people have been checked in to vote.
"Underwood [Ross Underwood, the director of the ExpressPoll Division of Diebold] said Diebold was aware that Georgia, which uses an earlier model of the e-poll book, had similar problems during its primary in July, but had thought the problem was in the earlier model's hardware.
"Since Maryland reported its problems, Advantech concluded that was not the case.
"A solution to the third significant flaw likely will involve affixing a piece of polyester film [mylar] to the machine's hardware, so that a computer card that is programmed with a ballot for each voter makes sufficient contact with the e-poll book so that it can be configured."
According to the Associated Press article, Maryland Project Manager for Diebold, Thomas Feehan contradicted Underwood and said:

"The problem did not develop in Georgia, the only other state to use the machines statewide, because it did not use that field, Feehan said. When software was changed to bring up that field in Maryland, the company did not discover the flaw because it did not test enough names on individual machines, he said. "

"I would say it was an oversight," Feehan said."

Sounds like November 7th is going to be a lot of fun.

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

Now here’s a study in contrasts that just delights the hell out of me. Take a look at who got official endorsements in our Senate race yesterday. Ben Cardin, the Democratic candidate, received the full support and time of John Kerry:

U.S. Senate candidate Benjamin L. Cardin teamed up with his party's last presidential nominee, John F. Kerry, yesterday to build support among black business owners in Prince George's County, rally volunteers in Montgomery County and raise campaign cash at the Redskins game.

The appearances by the Massachusetts Democratic senator came as fundraising figures released by Cardin and his Republican rival, Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, show that both candidates raised about $1.3 million during the five-week period ending Sept. 30.

Steele has raised a total of $6 million and had $2 million in the bank, according to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission. Cardin, a Baltimore congressman, has collected $6.4 million and had $1.6 million on hand, according to numbers provided by his campaign.

The figures provided yesterday are two weeks old and do not account for the costly TV commercial time both campaigns have purchased since then.

Speaking to about three dozen federal contractors, lawyers and local politicians gathered in Upper Marlboro yesterday, Cardin expressed support for locating government facilities in Prince George's, leasing space for government offices in the county and providing more opportunities for minority owners to secure contracts.

"Prince George's needs to be the first priority," Cardin said.

With the retirement of Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D), Kerry emphasized the importance of keeping both of Maryland's Senate seats in Democratic hands as control of Congress is at stake in next month's election.

"People in Maryland can't be fooled by slick advertisements, by the rhetoric," said Kerry, seated between Cardin and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) at the company headquarters of Cool Wave Water. "You've got to send us Ben Cardin to fill [Sarbanes'] shoes."

In the meantime, who does Republican Candidate Michael Steele get? What political heavyweight (hee hee!) could he find to support his candidacy? That’s right: DON KING:
Boxing promoter Don King yesterday campaigned with Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in Prince George's County and Baltimore, telling black voters to support Mr. Steele's U.S. Senate candidacy even though he is a Republican.

"For black people, there can't be a fealty to party. That's not fidelity to truth," said Mr. King, a Republican.

With his trademark hair standing straight up, Mr. King appeared with Mr. Steele at a cafe in Largo Town Center and then on a street corner in West Baltimore. The two then visited a youth boxing center.

Mr. King criticized the state Democratic Party for not promoting black leaders.

"You don't have any black faces on the Democratic ticket," Mr. King said. "John Kennedy said sometimes party loyalty asks too much."
That’s right, the hair means he’s qualified. Also, I would contend that hair's not standing up nearly as much as it once did. Looking pretty lackluster, actually. I mean, look at the hair in its prime:

It just can't compare. And if the hair can't compare, what does it say about the candidate, I ask you?

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

Finally, the Democratic (Martin O’Malley) nominee for Governor and the incumbent Republican (Bob Ehrlich) faced off for their first televised debate last night, which got quite testy. WUSA 9’s webpage describes it just as well as I could: “Ehrlich portrayed O'Malley as a whiner who engages in class warfare and "drive-by attacks" on Republicans.

O'Malley criticized what he said are "two Bob Ehrlichs" -- one who made campaign promises in 2002 and another who didn't keep those promises after his election.”

Ehrlich’s a fine one to talk about class warfare. What a moron. You can find the debate in its entirety at the WJZ Baltimore website.

Eye on the DOJ/Civil Rights Watch for 10/16: All Hands on the Internet, the Porn Squad, the Abu Ghraib Sex Ring, and another Gitmo Investigation

2006-10-16T08:45:00.000-04:00

Eye on the DOJ/Civil Rights Watch for 10/16: All Hands on the Internet, the Porn Squad, the Abu Ghraib Sex Ring, and another Gitmo Investigation

Full plate today for EotD/CRW; the guys in the Administration have their hands full with the issues that are important to the American people, like regulating the Internet, checking whether people possess pornography, and torture. Okay, that last one, that might be an important one, but for all the reasons that the Administration doesn’t care about.

America has become a very strange place; in the five years since 9/11, it seems as though any terrible act, any shock to the body politic, has become an excuse to remove more civil liberties. See the Patriot act, or the recent screwing over of habeus corpus. I don’t really understand how stealing our freedoms makes us any safer, but hey, I’m not paid the big bucks to run the country. Now comes the inevitable freedom-limiter for the Foley scandal: a movement to store every user’s browsing history. This certainly couldn’t be used against a political foe, could it? Oh, Alberto, you always make me smile!
Washington, D.C. - Scripps Howard Foundation Wire - infoZine - "Already we can see the rumblings of legislation in Congress," said Tim Lordan, executive director of the advisory committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus. "It's definitely going to color the debate."

But parents of Web-browsing children should not view Foley as the classic example of an Internet predator, Lordan said.

"His interactions with these teenagers were begun with notes in the hallway, walks for ice cream down the street. I mean, he attended the pages' graduation," he said.

Yet parental fear fueled by recent events could encourage legislators to push for more stringent Internet laws, Lordan said.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., are among public officials who support legislation that would require data retention, which would force Internet service providers to document and store all users' online activities.

"One thing we've continuously heard from state and local investigators and prosecutors is that many Internet Service Providers don't retain records for a sufficient period of time," Gonzales told a Senate committee Sept. 19.

He said a department task force is working on the issue.
Now here’s something I bet you didn’t even know: registered sex offenders, even if they have served their time, are “free” for the rest of their lives to be convenient targets of local and federal sweeps. So, say, a District Attorney up for re-election decides he or shee needs to look tough on crime. Who would be the obvious target? Why, sex offenders, the easiest group to demonize. Who gives a damn about them? Not many people, apparently. Please note, I am not defending the sex offenders’ actions, but time served is time served, and also that “child porn” is cited as the “all the way up to” in this story. That means that these guys could easily have been nabbed for petty violations. Convenient, no?
Federal and local law enforcement officers swept through Calaveras and Tuolumne counties this week, checking on registered child sex offenders and whether there were any signs of child pornography in their homes.

Calaveras County Sheriff's investigators and a Modesto-area FBI agent, went to the homes of 21 registered sex offenders yesterday and Wednesday. The officers were checking that the felons were living at their registered addresses and to see if there was any salacious material at their house.

Two men were arrested — Jimmy Ray Arnold, 47, of the 5500 block of Hallas Drive, Mokelumne Hill, was arrested on a parole violation and Richard Darrell Cadle Jr., 40, of the 400 block of Main Street, West Point was arrested on a probation violation. Sheriff's officials refused to disclose why they suspect these two men were not following parole or probation rules.

"It could have been something as simple as possessing alcohol all the way to having child pornography," said Calaveras County Sheriff's Sgt. Dave Seawell. "The investigators are not releasing the circumstances on the arrests yet."

Of 14 men targeted in Tuolumne County, none were out of compliance, said Sheriff's Sgt. Matt Zelinsky. Investigators did arrest two men, on unrelated misdemeanor warrants, he said.
Speaking of porn, hot off the heels of his comment about Teddy Kennedy, Christopher Shays (R-Conn) continues to prove that he’s losing his damned mind. Apparently, in that weird, twisted mind, Abu Ghraib was about torture and sex and pornography, but absolutely not torture. But yet it was torture? Just what the hell is he saying here?

HARTFORD, Conn. --Republican Rep. Christopher Shays, who is in a tough re-election fight, said Friday the Abu Ghraib prison abuses were more about pornography than torture.

The veteran Connecticut congressman said a National Guard unit was primarily responsible for the abuses although it was actually the 372nd Military Police Company from Cresaptown, Md., an Army Reserve unit.

"It was a National Guard unit run amok," Shays said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "It was torture because sex abuse is torture. It was gross and despicable ... This is more about pornography than torture."

Shays sought to defuse controversy over his previous comments suggesting the Abu Ghraib abuses weren't torture but instead involved a sex ring of troops.

"Now I've seen what happened in Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was not torture," Shays said at a debate Wednesday.

"It was outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops from (Maryland) who were involved in a sex ring and they took pictures of soldiers who were naked," added Shays. "And they did other things that were just outrageous. But it wasn't torture."

The lawmaker's comments were in a transcript of the debate provided by his opponent, Diane Farrell. Shays' campaign, contacted Friday, did not dispute the comments.

Finally, well, well, looks like the military is continuing to defend its own, or something like that. After all the instances of torture perpetrators getting off with no sentences or not investigated at all (check those links, I dare ya), the military is now proving that it’s not afraid to get tough on whistleblowers:

MIAMI — The U.S. Marine Corps has threatened to punish two members of the military legal team representing a terrorism suspect being held at Guantanamo Bay if they continue to speak publicly about reported prisoner abuse, a civilian lawyer from the defense team said Saturday.

The action directed at Lt. Col. Colby Vokey and Sgt. Heather Cerveny follows their report last week that Guantanamo guards bragged about beating detainees, said Muneer Ahmad, an American University law professor who assists in the defense of Canadian suspect Omar Khadr.

The order has heightened fears among the military defense lawyers for Guantanamo prisoners that their careers will suffer for exposing flaws and injustices in the system, Ahmad said.

"In one fell swoop, the government is gagging a defense lawyer and threatening retaliation against a whistle-blower," Ahmad said. "It really points out what is wrong with the detainee legislation that Bush is scheduled to sign on Tuesday: It permits the abuse of detainees to continue, immunizes the wrongdoers and precludes the detainees from ever challenging it in court."

The Marine Corps said the gag order had been issued to ensure the legal team's actions were in compliance with professional standards. "The Chief Defense Counsel of the Marine Corps, as Lt. Col. Vokey's direct supervisor, has directed him not to communicate with the media on this case pending her review of the facts," said 1st Lt. Blanca E. Binstock of the Marine public affairs office.

Defense lawyers for Guantanamo prisoners say the personal stakes are high and point to the Navy's failure to promote Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift after he successfully challenged the legitimacy of the Pentagon's war-crimes commissions. Two weeks after the Supreme Court ruled the commissions unconstitutional and lacking in due process, Swift was passed over for advancement and will be forced by the Navy's up-or-out policy to retire by summer.

At least three other military defense lawyers for the 10 charged terrorism suspects have also been passed over for promotion in what some consider a subtle reprimand of their vigorous defense of their clients.

"We've all known that representing folks in these kind of circumstances would have consequences, but to actually see Charlie passed over after he takes his case to the Supreme Court and wins — that certainly put it in the forefront for me," said Army Maj. Tom Fleener, who represents Ali Hamza Bahlul of Yemen.

What a week.

Iraq sectarian spree kills 83 in 2 days

2006-10-15T14:33:00.000-04:00

Iraq sectarian spree kills 83 in 2 days

I found the part about the new Islamic Iraqi state especially interesting.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - At least 83 people were killed during a two-day spree of sectarian revenge killings, as Iraq's government said Sunday it was indefinitely postponing a much-anticipated national reconciliation conference.

Separately, the U.S. military reported the deaths of a Marine and four soldiers.

A brief statement from the Ministry of State for National Dialogue said only that the Iraqi political powers conference planned for Saturday had been put off because of unspecified "emergency reasons out of the control of the ministry."

The failure to bring Iraq's divided politicians together appeared likely to hurt Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's attempts to strengthen political consensus, underscoring the effect worsening violence is having on efforts to stabilize the U.S.-backed government and curb the bloodshed.

An Iraqi militant group that includes al-Qaida in Iraq announced Sunday in a video that it has established an Islamic Iraqi state, comprising six provinces — including Baghdad — that are largely Sunni and parts of two central provinces that are predominiately Shiite.

That statement came from the Mujahedeen Shura Council — an umbrella organization of insurgent groups in Iraq that have be trying to drive out U.S. forces and topple Iraq's fragile government.

"We bring you good news of the founding and the formation of the Islamic Iraqi State ... to protect our people," said a man identified in the video as the group's spokesman.

The man in the eight minute video, which was posted on a Web site commonly used by insurgents, wore a traditional Arab robe and had his face blocked out.

Weekend revenge killings among Shiites and Sunnis left at least 63 people dead in a city north of Baghdad. Eleven people died Sunday in a series of apparently coordinated bombings on a girls school and other targets in the northern city of Kirkuk, where Kurds and Arabs are in a tense struggle for control of the oil-rich city.

Even by Iraq's bleak standards, October has been an especially bloody month. Hundreds of Iraqi's have died in attacks and 54 U.S. military personnel have been killed in the first two weeks alone.

Gaithersburg, Maryland Approves Day Laborer Site

2006-10-14T12:35:00.000-04:00

Gaithersburg, Maryland Approves Day Laborer Site

Gaithersburg Mayor Sidney A. Katz and City Councilwoman Geri Edens listen Thursday at a session on the proposed center.

I currently live in Gaithersburg, but I work in Herndon, Virginia, and lived nearby when they opened a day laborer site last winter. The place in Herndon caused a huge uproar, even drawing the Minutemen to the site (as noted here). Now it looks like I get to relive the fun all over again. Yay!

On the other hand, I do think this is a great idea, as our neighborhood seems to have a lot of potential laborers for the site.

After a lengthy and tense public hearing, Gaithersburg leaders last night approved an empty storefront in the Festival at Muddy Branch shopping center as a day laborer center.
The City Council’s 3-1 decision clears the way for Montgomery County to negotiate the center’s lease with Nellis Corp., which owns the shopping center off Muddy Branch Road near Interstate 270.
The decision opens a new phase in the city’s two-year struggle to resolve one of its most divisive issues. The city now must clarify several details with the county, including who will run the center and whether the city will pick up any of the tab in opening the center.
Supporters of the center were gratified that the city finally made a decision.

Another Republican Under Investigation: Weldon (R-PA) Scrutinized

2006-10-13T21:03:00.000-04:00

Another Republican Under Investigation: Weldon (R-PA) Scrutinized

When it rains, it pours. And it sounds lovely, it does:

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department is investigating whether Republican Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania traded his political influence for lucrative lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, according to sources with direct knowledge of the inquiry.

The FBI, which opened an investigation in recent months, has formally referred the matter to the department's Public Integrity Section for additional scrutiny. At issue are Weldon's efforts between 2002 and 2004 to aid two Russian companies and two Serbian brothers with ties to strongman Slobodan Milosevic, a federal law enforcement official said.

The Russian companies and a Serbian foundation run by the brothers' family each hired a firm co-owned by Weldon's daughter, Karen, for fees totaling nearly $1 million a year, public records show.

Karen Weldon was 28 and lacked consulting experience when she and Charles Sexton, a Weldon ally and longtime Republican leader in Delaware County, Pa., created the firm of Solutions North America Inc. in 2002. Both are registered with the Justice Department as representatives of foreign clients.

U.S. Forces Unlawfully Killed UK Reporter

2006-10-13T15:54:00.000-04:00

U.S. Forces Unlawfully Killed UK Reporter

What a tragedy. From CNN International:

OXFORD, England (CNN) -- A coroner ruled on Friday that a British journalist who died in Iraq at the start of the war was unlawfully killed by American forces.

Terry Lloyd, a correspondent with the British TV network ITN , was killed outside Basra in southern Iraq in March 2003.

Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker said he'll be writing the director of public prosecutions to seek to bring the perpetrators to justice.

"Terry Lloyd died following a gunshot wound to the head. The evidence this bullet was fired by the Americans is overwhelming," Walker said.

The U.S. Department of Defense said its forces had followed proper rules of engagement.

Lebanese interpreter Hussein Osman also was killed in the ITN crew, and cameraman Fred Nerac remains missing. ITN cameraman Daniel Demoustier survived.

Lloyd -- who was aged 50 -- was shot in the back during U.S. and Iraqi crossfire and was apparently shot by U.S. forces when he was taken away in a minibus for treatment.

"There is no doubt that the minibus presented no threat to the American forces. There is no doubt it was an unlawful act of fire upon the minibus," Walker said.

Sleeping with the Government: The AT&T/Bellsouth Deal

2006-10-13T10:13:00.000-04:00

Sleeping with the Government: The AT&T/Bellsouth Deal

First of all, I have to say I'm surprised at the FCC for delaying a decision on AT&T. Maybe they're trying to draw concessions from the companies involved in an attempt to protect other companies who are "expressing" their "needs ($)? That couldn't be, could it? Oh wait, it certainly could be:

AT&T Inc. wants unanimous approval from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to acquire BellSouth Corp. and has offered some concessions to the agency, a top company lawyer told Reuters Thursday.
The FCC was scheduled to vote on the $80.6 billion acquisition Thursday. However, the vote was postponed until Friday while Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin tried to broker a deal on conditions sought by the two Democratic commissioners.

Martin had initially proposed approving the deal with no conditions, according to sources, but later offered one requiring the company to provide competitors access to at least 30 commercial buildings in BellSouth's territory so they can offer service.

"We have put a full set of conditions on the table that are reasonable and protect consumers," Robert Quinn, AT&T's senior vice president for regulatory affairs, told Reuters. "I want a deal with these guys; we want a 4-0 vote."

Quinn declined to elaborate on the conditions offered. He took the unusual step of pressing AT&T's case by attending an FCC commissioners' meeting that went forward with votes on other issues and did not address the merger.

Meanwhile, the DOJ offers us a view into why business and government should not be so damn entwined. I think it's awesome that AT&T is doing Government contracting these days, because it leads to things like this: the DoJ approved the AT&T/Bellsouth merger with absolutely no reservations on Thursday. You don’t suppose the whole deal with sharing information with the NSA (which is basically just an arm of the Administration, along with the DOJ, who also probably got some of that information) had anything to do with this, do you?

The Department of Justice (DoJ) on Wednesday approved the $67 billion merger of AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corp. Tomorrow, the FCC is expected to do the same. The DoJ did not impose any conditions on the combination, and it was not known whether the FCC would follow suit.

"The presence of other competitors, changing regulatory requirements and the emergence of new technologies in markets for residential local and long- distance service indicate that this transaction is not likely to harm consumer welfare," Assistant Attorney General Thomas Barnett said in a statement. "The proposed acquisition does not raise competition concerns with respect to Internet services markets or 'net neutrality.'"

An AT&T executive called the “unequivocal and unconditional approval” a sign of the competitive nature of the industry. “AT&T is focused on bringing more video choices and next-generation broadband services to as many consumers as possible and our merger with BellSouth will help deliver these benefits to more consumers, more quickly,” said AT&T General Counsel James D. Ellis.

The Competition Coalition, an alliance composed of various competitive carriers and pro-consumer organizations, decried the move.

“Unfortunately, by endorsing the largest telecommunications merger in history, the DoJ ignored the interests of consumers and the valid concerns raised by many experts and organizations that the reconstitution of Ma Bell will lead to higher prices, job cuts, violations of customer privacy and a widening of the digital divide,” said Andrew Schwartzman of the Competition Coalition. He also serves as president and CEO of the Media Access Project. “AT&T, with the help of a complicit government, is poised to control nearly half of the nation’s phone lines, and will also be the largest wireless and broadband Internet company in the country. … If the FCC joins DoJ in shirking its responsibilities, all Americans will be beholden to this massive beast.”

There's certainly nothing suspicious about that, especially when you consider this:

AT&T seeks change in NSA case

October 13, 2006

By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau
MONTPELIER – The phone company AT&T has proposed moving to California a federal lawsuit that seeks to block Vermont from investigating whether phone companies improperly provided phone records to the National Security Administration.

If successful, the request filed in Washington D.C. before a group of federal judges called the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation would add Vermont's case to a growing list of related litigation being heard in San Francisco.

All of the cases involve lawsuits over access to records of domestic phone calls. They allege that phone companies provided records of calls to the federal government without going through established procedures.

Vermont is involved because phone customers, the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont and the state's Public Service Department, which advocates for customers, have asked the Public Service Board to investigate whether two companies which operate in the state, AT&T and Verizon, made such records available or violated the state's consumer protection rules.

The U.S. Department of Justice sued the state to stop the inquiry, arguing that the investigation could threaten national security. Walt Sharp, a spokesman for AT&T, said the Vermont suit should be consolidated with at least 17 other cases in the federal court district of Northern California. The panel of judges hearing those lawsuits has recommended combining them, he said.

Nothing funny going on here at all, is there, AT&T?

Fordham Completes Testimony

2006-10-12T19:36:00.000-04:00

Fordham Completes Testimony

From Yahoo! News:

WASHINGTON - Former Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record)'s one-time aide, in the House ethics committee, didn't waver Thursday from his contention that he told the speaker's chief of staff about Foley's approaches to male pages at least three years ago, the witness' lawyer said.

Kirk Fordham would not comment after emerging from nearly five hours of closed-door testimony, but his lawyer, Timothy Heaphy, said Fordham was "consistent in his accounts." Fordham has spoken out publicly on his timeline and was questioned by the FBI.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said he personally learned of the inappropriate approaches by Foley in late September and his aides found out in the fall of 2005. The speaker's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, has denied that Fordham contacted him at least three years ago, contradicting Fordham and creating one of the major conflicts the committee will have to resolve.

Heaphy told reporters Kirk was "forthcoming" in his testimony. "He has been consistent in his accounts of these events when he talked to the FBI and today met with the ethics committee.

"He's been truthful and cooperative and will continue to be throughout this and other investigations."

Heaphy said Fordham has been asked not to comment on the substance of the inquiry because of the ongoing investigation.

Foley resigned from Congress Sept. 29, after being confronted with sexually explicit instant messages.

Warner will not run in '08, wants 'a real life'

2006-10-12T15:00:00.000-04:00

This makes me a really, really sad panda.

Democrat Mark R. Warner, the former governor of Virginia, has decided not to run for president in 2008, Democratic officials said Thursday.

Warner, 51, scheduled a late morning news conference in Richmond to make the announcement, according to two Democratic officials who refused to be identified because they did not want to upstage Warner's announcement.

Since Warner left the governor's office in January, he has busily toured key states in the Democratic nomination process, particularly New Hampshire and Iowa. His political action committee, Alexandria-based Forward Together, has raised money for Warner's exploratory effort and for other Democratic candidates in this year's midterm elections.

The reason for Warner's announcement was not immediately known.

The centrist governor who had won in a Republican-leaning state was seen as a viable Democratic alternative to perceived front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. Warner's decision still leaves a crowded field of potential Democratic candidates.

Warner was elected governor in 2001, defeating Republican Attorney General Mark Earley. The former state Democratic Party chairman, who made a fortune in the infancy of the cellular telephone industry, had never held elected public office.

After a difficult start with a Republican-controlled General Assembly, Warner in 2004 brokered a compromise between Democrats, moderate senators and 17 House Republicans to pass a budget-balancing $1.4 billion tax increase. The tax increase was widely regarded as the signature initiative of his four-tear term.

Warner then returned to private business. Virginia does not allow its governor to seek re-election.

The Foley Case Hits the Hill

2006-10-12T10:23:00.000-04:00

The Foley Case Hits the Hill

Welcome to the first installment of Congress Watch, a weekly feature here at the Junkheap. This is also the first of its kind, as the Junkheap will now feature general news and more concentrated bursts of big stories or uncovered aspects of the news.

Today, with Kirk Fordham set to testify before the laughable House ethics panel, we'll be focusing on the Foley scandal and its reverberations. First, how about a sample of what to expect from that testimony? From CNN:

An ex-congressional aide will tell a House ethics panel Thursday that he delivered warnings about former Rep. Mark Foley to House Speaker Dennis Hastert's top aide years ago.

Kirk Fordham, who once served as Foley's chief of staff, plans to testify under oath that he warned more than one congressional official several times about Foley's inappropriate behavior with pages and that the warnings came much earlier than Republican leaders have reported.

And now it seems that there is a bit of doubt (shock shock) about Foley's alcoholism. How could this be?? See, one of the keys of his defense is that the poor fellow was a secret drinker, ashamed of his addiction. But...well, it just turns out not to be so. So sayeth The Hill:

When former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) entered alcohol-abuse treatment amid scandal over his relationships with congressional page boys, his attorney said the ex-lawmaker never drank alcohol in public.

Attorney David Roth categorically stated that the disgraced lawmaker hid his abuse by drinking alone.

But the photograph from The Hill’s archives shows Foley holding a glass of wine at a Capitol Hill reception on May 19, 2004.

He went to the reception with several other House members. This and other evidence suggests Foley was a social drinker and a wine aficionado.

The photograph and first-hand accounts of Foley’s public drinking told by acquaintances in Washington and Florida could reinforce doubts about the veracity of the claim that a drinking problem fueled his behavior, which included carrying on sexually explicit instant-message chats with former pages.

Meanwhile, the case seems to be dragging down the re-election effort of yet another, as yet mostly uncovered, member of the House: Ohio Representative Deborah Pryce, one of Foley's close friends:

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Oct. 11 — Representative Deborah Pryce is a former municipal court judge, a Republican and a member of the House leadership who has represented her central Ohio district for 14 years. She is also friends with Mark Foley, the congressman who resigned in the page scandal, as she told Columbus Monthly for a feature it published just last month.

Ms. Pryce always thought she would have a difficult re-election campaign this year in a state raked by Republican scandals. But since Mr. Foley quit, she said in an interview on a tense day of campaigning here, her own internal polls have measured a steady drop in support under the weight of attacks by Mary Jo Kilroy, her Democratic opponent.
Ms. Kilroy has emphasized Ms. Pryce’s connections to Mr. Foley, who was on a list of five people Ms. Pryce said she considered Washington friends in the Columbus Monthly interview.
“I’m totally convinced,” Ms. Pryce said, her voice faint, as she described why her support had declined. “All our polling showed we were going in the right direction until this happened. It fell precipitously.”

To take a step away from the House and the Foley scandal, here's another so-far-neglected story from the Senate: Arlen Specter and one of his top aides are being investigated for funneling $48.7 million in Pentagon spending to clients of the aide's lobbyist husband, Michael Herson. From the Seattle PI:

WASHINGTON -- Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter has acknowledged the FBI is looking into allegations that one of his aides illegally helped her lobbyist husband get federal dollars for his clients.
The Republican lawmaker on Wednesday provided The Associated Press a copy of a letter sent by the FBI in August to his office that said staff member Vicki Siegel Herson is under investigation in connection with allegations reported earlier this year.

USA Today first reported in February that Specter helped direct $48.7 million in Pentagon spending over the past five years to clients of the staff member's lobbyist husband, Michael Herson. Specter has said the institutions that ultimately got the money were represented by people not associated with Herson. He added that he was never lobbied by Herson or his firm.

Siegel Herson was Specter's legislative assistant for appropriations at the time.

Specter said the FBI asked for and received the findings of an internal investigation of the matter conducted by his former chief of staff.

Specter, a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has denied violating any Senate ethics rules.

Makes you wonder what was really going on when Specter changed his convinctions and votes so often.

Jose Padilla was Tortured

2006-10-11T22:25:00.000-04:00

Unbelievable. From the motion filed by his laywer...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 04-60001-CR-COOKE/BROWN(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs.

JOSE PADILLA,

Defendant,
____________________________________/

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT CONDUCT

Mr. Jose Padilla, through undersigned counsel, moves this Court to dismiss the
indictment based on outrageous government conduct and in support thereof states:

BACKGROUND

Mr. Padilla was arrested on May 8, 2002, in Chicago O'Hare International Airport, as he stepped off an airplane from Zurich, Switzerland. The arrest was purportedly authorized by a material witness warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in connection with the grand jury investigation into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Mr. Padilla was transported to New York where he was held in custody. He was appointed counsel, and a motion was filed to vacate the material witness warrant.

On June 9, 2002, President George W. Bush declared Mr. Padilla an A enemy combatant and directed Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld to take custody of Mr. Padilla from the Attorney General. Mr. Padilla was transferred to the Naval Consolidated Brig at the Naval Weapons Station in Charleston, South Carolina (hereinafter A Naval Brigade), where he was denied all access to counsel. The government argued that Mr. Padilla should not be allowed to see a lawyer because he might pass illicit communications through his attorney. The government also asserted that allowing Mr. Padilla access to counsel or to learn that a court was hearing his case could provide him with the expectation that he would some day be released:

Only after such time as Padilla has perceived that help is not on the way can the United States reasonably expect to obtain all possible intelligence information from Padilla Y Providing him access to counsel now Y would break B probably irreparably B the sense of dependency and trust that the
interrogators are attempting to create.

Declaration of Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, sworn to January 9, 2003, p. 8, available at
http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc/archive/Padilla_vs_Rumsfeld/Jacoby_declaration_20030109.pdf#search=%22%22Jacoby%20Declaration%22%22 (hereinafter AJacoby Declaration@).

In an effort to gain Mr. Padilla’s "dependency and trust," he was tortured for nearly the entire three years and eight months of his unlawful detention. The torture took myriad forms, each designed to cause pain, anguish, depression and, ultimately, the loss of will to live. The base ingredient in Mr. Padilla’s torture was stark isolation for a substantial portion of his captivity. For nearly two years – from June 9, 2002 until March 2, 2004, when the Department of Defense permitted Mr. Padilla to have contact with his lawyers – Mr. Padilla was in complete isolation. Even after he was permitted contact with counsel, his conditions of confinement remained essentially the same. He was kept in a unit comprising sixteen individual cells, eight on the upper level and eight on the lower level, where Mr. Padilla’s cell was located. No other cells in the unit were occupied. His cell was electronically monitored twenty-four hours a day, eliminating the need for a guard to patrol his unit. His only contact with another person was when a guard would deliver and retrieve trays of food and when the government desired to interrogate him.

His isolation, furthermore, was aggravated by the efforts of his captors to maintain complete sensory deprivation. His tiny cell – nine feet by seven feet – had no view to the outside world. The door to his cell had a window, however, it was covered by a magnetic sticker, depriving Mr. Padilla of even a view into the hallway and adjacent common areas of his unit. He was not given a clock or a watch and for most of the time of his captivity, he was unaware whether it was day or night, or what time of year or day it was.

In addition to his extreme isolation, Mr. Padilla was also viciously deprived of sleep. This sleep deprivation was achieved in a variety of ways. For a substantial period of his captivity, Mr. Padilla’s cell contained only a steel bunk with no mattress. The pain and discomfort of sleeping on a cold, steel bunk made it impossible for him to sleep. Mr. Padilla was not given a mattress until the tail end of his captivity. Mr. Padilla’s captors did not solely rely on the inhumane conditions of his living arrangements to deprive him of regular sleep. A number of ruses were employed to keep Mr. Padilla from getting necessary sleep and rest. One of the tactics his captors employed was the creation of loud noises near and around his cell to interrupt any rest Mr. Padilla could manage on his steel bunk. As Mr. Padilla was attempting to sleep, the cell doors adjacent to his cell would be electronically opened, resulting in a loud clank, only to be immediately slammed shut. Other times, his captors would bang the walls and cell bars creating loud startling noises. These disruptions would occur throughout the night and cease only in the morning, when Mr. Padilla’s interrogations would begin.

Efforts to manipulate Mr. Padilla and break his will also took the form of the denial of the few benefits he possessed in his cell. For a long time Mr. Padilla had no reading materials, access to any media, radio or television, and the only thing he possessed in his room was a mirror. The mirror was abruptly taken away, leaving Mr. Padilla with even less sensory stimulus. Also, at different points in his confinement Mr. Padilla would be given some comforts, like a pillow or a sheet, only to have them taken away arbitrarily. He was never given any regular recreation time. Often, when he was brought outside for some exercise, it was done at night, depriving Mr. Padilla of sunlight for many months at a time. The disorientation Mr. Padilla experienced due to not seeing the sun and having no view on the outside world was exacerbated by his captors’ practice of turning on extremely bright lights in his cell or imposing complete darkness for durations of twenty-four hours, or more.

Mr. Padilla’s dehumanization at the hands of his captors also took more sinister forms. Mr. Padilla was often put in stress positions for hours at a time. He would be shackled and manacled, with a belly chain, for hours in his cell. Noxious fumes would be introduced to his room causing his eyes and nose to run. The temperature of his cell would be manipulated, making his cell extremely cold for long stretches of time. Mr. Padilla was denied even the smallest, and most personal shreds of human dignity by being deprived of showering for weeks at a time, yet having to endure forced grooming at the whim of his captors.

A substantial quantum of torture endured by Mr. Padilla came at the hands of his interrogators. In an effort to disorient Mr. Padilla, his captors would deceive him about his location and who his interrogators actually were. Mr. Padilla was threatened with being forcibly removed from the United States to another country, including U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was threatened his fate would be even worse than in the Naval Brig. He was threatened with being cut with a knife and having alcohol poured on the wounds. He was also threatened with imminent execution. He was hooded and forced to stand in stress positions for long durations of time. He was forced to endure exceedingly long interrogation sessions, without adequate sleep, wherein he would be confronted with false information, scenarios, and documents to further disorient him. Often he had to endure multiple interrogators who would scream, shake, and otherwise assault Mr. Padilla. Additionally, Mr. Padilla was given drugs against his will, believed to be some form of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) or phencyclidine (PCP), to act as a sort of truth serum during his interrogations.

Bombs kill 17; bullets, torture claim 50 more in Baghdad

2006-10-11T20:59:00.000-04:00

From the Houston Chronicle...with body counts like this, it becomes much easier to believe the statistics from Johns Hopkins.

Baghdad: another bloody day
Bombs kill 17; bullets, torture claim 50 more

By MICHAEL LUO
New York Times

BAGHDAD, IRAQ - Dozens of bodies turned up in Baghdad and a series of bombs killed at least 17 people on Tuesday, indicating that the sectarian violence in the capital showed little sign of easing, despite efforts by the U.S. military and its Iraqi counterparts to quell it.

At least 50 bodies, riddled with bullets and many bearing signs of torture, were discovered across Baghdad, an Interior Ministry official said. About 60 bodies were discovered the day before.

Meanwhile, a troubled neighborhood at the center of the U.S. military's push to secure the capital was hit by three deadly bomb blasts, including one at a busy bakery, the authorities said.

The bombings came in addition to a series of huge explosions that shook the capital over several hours late Tuesday evening, apparently caused by a fire inside an ammunition holding area at a U.S. military base in southern Baghdad.

The deadly blasts took place in the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Dora. The area was one of the earliest to experience the sectarian bloodletting in Baghdad.

U.S. and Iraqi soldiers moved into the neighborhood in force in August, as part of a new security plan for the capital that involved neighborhood-by-neighborhood sweeps in which troops would secure and hold areas.

Dora had been mostly quiet over the past two months, aside from periodic explosions that killed small numbers of people. Residents were able to sleep on their rooftops again. Garbage crews moved through and cleaned its streets for the first time in months.

On Tuesday, at about 12:30 p.m. a bomb exploded outside a bakery and killed 10 civilians and wounded four others. The blast reduced the bakery to rubble.

About the same time, six policemen were killed when, as they responded to a report about a body in a car, the car exploded, he said. Four others were wounded.

A half hour earlier, a roadside bomb killed one policeman and wounded four others, according to an Interior Ministry official.

The Iraqi immigration minister, Abdul-Samad Sultan, said that more than 300,000 Iraqis have fled their homes since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, the Associated Press reported. Half of them left after the February bombing of a sacred Shiite shrine in Samarra set off cascades of sectarian violence.

He estimated that about 890,000 Iraqis have moved to Jordan, Iran and Syria since 2003, after the U.S.-led invasion toppled the government of Saddam Hussein.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military reported that a joint U.S. and Iraqi patrol killed 11 militants Monday evening in a clash in the southern Shiite city of Diwaniya, a stronghold of the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia, the Mahdi Army.

Abdul Razzaq al-Nedawi, the head of al-Sadr's office in Diwaniya, insisted no Mahdi Army members were killed in Monday's clash. He said it was provoked by U.S. and Iraqi troops.

The Iraqi defense ministry issued a statement denying the patrol had raided the mosque and said militants had opened fire on the soldiers.

The military announced the death of an U.S. soldier in Tikrit on Sunday from a roadside bomb.

Site Overhaul Soon

2006-10-11T08:41:00.000-04:00

Just wanted to post an update on what's going on with the Junkheap - I have every intention to carry on with this site, as I have for close to three years now, in various forms, but for a long while my contribution to the site has devolved to simply sharing news bites every day, sometimes more, sometimes less. With the important midterm elections just around the corner and a possible Democratic majority in at least one house of Congress along with the Bush Administration's continuing war on freedom, it is now more important than ever to continue getting the word out as much as possible.

I know this is not a huge site by any stretch of the imagination; I consider myself fortunate if I garner 100 visitors a day, but I still like to think that I'm getting the information out there in numerous search engines, if nothing else, which truly lives up to the original concept of the site, as a repository of information that might have been overlooked during the crush of the media to certain other facets of news stories.

So I am going to be overhauling both the site design and the format and tenor of entries beginning very soon. I find that, often, people are more likely to be held by a story that features a related image, so every story will feature either a video or image related to the story, as well as a return to covering some of the lesser-known facts of bigger stories, which will most likely necessitate two articles in most posts. I will also offer deeper analysis of the stories, but will still maintain my distance as more of an observer rather than an overwhelming personality, as so many political blogs have devolved into cults of personality.

So keep reading - good things are coming!

Study estimates 600,000 Iraqis killed by war

2006-10-11T08:37:00.000-04:00

Good job, America. Not counting the Iran-Iraq War (and I think we're approaching that), we're officially worse than Saddam. Freedom is on the march!

Study estimates 600,000 Iraqis dead by violence

By Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY

More than 600,000 Iraqis have died by violence since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to a study released today by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

The figure is based on surveys of households throughout most of the country. It vastly exceeds estimates cited by the Iraqi government, the United Nations, aid and anti-war groups, and President Bush.

The new estimate was immediately challenged by the Pentagon. Lt. Col. Mark Bellesteros, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Iraqi government "would be in a better position ... to provide more accurate information on deaths in Iraq."

Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council said "many experts" found that a 2004 study by the same group "wildly inflated the findings." That study said the war had caused 100,000 Iraqi deaths.

"This study appears to be equally flawed," he said. The new study said the deaths have resulted from coalition military activity, crime and religious violence.

Iraq's Health Ministry estimated 50,000 violent deaths since the war began, through June. Last December, President Bush put the figure at 30,000. The Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, estimated the death toll at 60,000.

Overall, the analysis estimates that 2.5% of the Iraqi population has died as a result of the conflict.

The research relied on random sampling of 1,800 Iraqi households by researchers from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the School of Medicine at Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. Based on deaths suffered by those households, analysts calculated an average of about 600 deaths a day since the invasion.

"I think it's perfectly plausible," said the study's lead author, Gilbert Burnham, professor of international health at Johns Hopkins.

Then-British foreign secretary Jack Straw was among those who criticized the earlier study.

This time the researchers doubled the size of their random survey. In 92% of the homes in which residents reported deaths, families had death certificates, they said.

Beyond violent deaths, the study said about 53,000 deaths from other causes, such as accident and illness, were attributable to the war because of its effect on health care.

Gunfire was the leading cause of violent death; car bomb fatalities are rising, the study said.

James Fearon, a Stanford University political scientist and Iraq expert, said, "One thing (the study may) certainly do is confirm the view that there is a very, very serious civil war going in Iraq."

Marine: Gitmo guards bragged of beatings

2006-10-10T09:35:00.000-04:00

Let's take a break from the Foley/North Korea thing, shall we? There are still important issues out there...

AP learns Gitmo guards brag of beatings

By THOMAS WATKINS, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 19 minutes ago

Guards at Guantanamo Bay bragged about beating detainees and described it as common practice, a Marine sergeant said in a sworn statement obtained by The Associated Press.

The two-page statement was sent Wednesday to the Inspector General at the Department of Defense by a high-ranking Marine Corps defense lawyer.

The lawyer sent the statement on behalf of a paralegal who said men she met on Sept. 23 at a bar on the base identified themselves to her as guards. The woman, whose name was blacked out, said she spent about an hour talking with them. No one was in uniform, she said.

A 19-year-old sailor referred to only as Bo "told the other guards and me about him beating different detainees being held in the prison," the statement said.

"One such story Bo told involved him taking a detainee by the head and hitting the detainee's head into the cell door. Bo said that his actions were known by others," the statement said. The sailor said he was never punished.

The statement was provided to the AP on Thursday night by Lt. Col. Colby Vokey. He is the Marine Corps' defense coordinator for the western United States and based at Camp Pendleton.

Calls left for representatives at Guantanamo Bay on Friday were not immediately returned. A Pentagon spokesman declined immediate comment.

Other guards "also told their own stories of abuse towards the detainees" that included hitting them, denying them water and "removing privileges for no reason."

"About 5 others in the group admitted hitting detainees" and that included "punching in the face," the affidavit said.

"From the whole conversation, I understood that striking detainees was a common practice," the sergeant wrote. "Everyone in the group laughed at the others stories of beating detainees."

Vokey called for an investigation, saying the abuse alleged in the affidavit "is offensive and violates United States and international law."

Guantanamo was internationally condemned shortly after it opened more than four years ago when pictures captured prisoners kneeling, shackled and being herded into wire cages. That was followed by reports of prisoner abuse, heavy-handed interrogations, hunger strikes and suicides.

Military investigators said in July 2005 they confirmed abusive and degrading treatment of a suspected terrorist at Guantanamo Bay that included forcing him to wear a bra, dance with another man and behave like a dog.

However, the chief investigator, Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, said "no torture occurred" during the interrogation of Mohamed al-Qahtani, a Saudi who was captured in December 2001 along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Last month, U.N. human rights investigators criticized the United States for failing to take steps to close Guantanamo Bay, home to 450 detainees, including 14 terrorist suspects who had been kept in secret CIA prisons around the world.

Described as the most dangerous of America's "war on terror" prisoners, fewer than a dozen inmates have been charged with crimes. This fall, the Navy plans to open a new, $30-million maximum-security wing at its prison complex there, a concrete-and-steel structure replacing temporary camps.

More Dirt on Foley

2006-10-05T11:29:00.000-04:00

Here's an article with detail on more of his exchanges with other kids...

Lawmaker's Intentions Appear Clear In Exchanges

By Jonathan Weisman and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 5, 2006; A01

The message exchanges included plenty of kid stuff -- talk of killer finals and botched SATs, cramming to learn the lines of a school play, picking up a sister at cheerleading practice. But when two former pages sat down at their computers to furtively chat with then-Rep. Mark Foley, they were also acting out a parent's nightmare with a man with clear designs.

"BRB [Be right back] . . . my mom is yelling," one teenage boy wrote just after Foley coaxed him into discussing his anatomy with a lascivious "ummmmmmmmm . . . beautiful."

"back," the boy continued.

"cool hope s[h]e didnt see any thing," Foley responded.

"no no . . . she is computer dumb," the boy offered.

The instant messages that surfaced last Friday drove the Florida Republican from office and ignited a political firestorm over the handling of the matter that has engulfed House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.) and other senior Republicans. The controversy could tip the balance of Congress to the Democrats in an election that is just five weeks away.

Now, with the help of a former House page who served with the two male pages who conversed online with Foley, The Washington Post obtained dozens of America Online instant messages yesterday that illuminate the apparent predations of the disgraced former congressman. David Roth, Foley's attorney in Florida, said last night of the messages: "I'm not going to comment on anything unless it's in a public forum before everyone."

Some of the instant messages were previously reported by ABC News. The conversations occurred between December 2002 and October 2003, according to the date stamps on the computer files. The vast majority of the messages were between Foley and one of the two former pages. Some of the exchanges took place before the boy turned 18. Attempts by The Post to contact the two former pages were unsuccessful.

Taken together, the chats seem to make clear that Foley tried to lure the boys into sexual encounters, and certainly encouraged lurid behavior online. In one conversation, it appears clear that Foley met with one boy in San Diego.

There is no clear evidence that Foley and the boys had sexual contact. But they frequently talked about getting together.

At one point Foley wrote: "i miss you lots since san diego."

"ya i cant wait till dc," the former page replied. "did you pick a night for the dinner"?

"not yet," Foley said, "but likely friday."

In another sequence, Foley suggested that a page meet him at his house a few blocks from the Capitol.

"I could give you a massage here . . . just a block and a half," he wrote. Later in the online conversation, Foley asked, "so you do see us palyin around"?

"sure," the page responded. "weve gone over this before . . . havent we"? "i excuse your memory when you are drinking . . . cause i dont remember much when i drink," the page continues.

Foley then wrote: "I wish i would have jumped you after dinner in san diego, but I was good."

In another particularly lurid conversation, Foley and the teenager engaged in graphic Internet sex, with the boy apparently masturbating as time was running out on a vote the lawmaker had to cast on the House floor.

As the pornographic discussion concluded, the youth said, "ya go vote . . . i dont want to keep you from doing your job."

"can I have a good kiss goodnight"? Foley asked.

":-*," the boy typed.

Often implicit in the chats is an exchange of professional advancement in exchange for sex that plays on the allure of power that Foley used to entice one of the teenagers. Foley at one point promised to help him become the "stylish elite type" person the teenager said he wanted to be.

"We will make you successful," Foley promised, "as long as you don't mind me grabbing your [deleted] once in a while."

Such conversations occurred under the noses of parents who clearly took interest in their children but knew little about their online life.

"sorry my mom walked in," a page wrote after an interruption.

"whta did she want"? Foley asked.

"to spend time with me . . . she just came in and sat down . . . apparently she doesnt see enough of me or something," he replied.

"thats a good mom," Foley said.

Such instant messages were the subject of Foley's own political efforts when he helped sponsor legislation to lower the threshold for law enforcement officers to go after online predators.

But in his own messages, Foley encouraged mutual masturbation, even when the boys protested that they had too much schoolwork.

"im doing homework," one wrote.

"better do you[r] homework . . . I am a bad influence," Foley wrote.

He fished for compliments on his looks, flattered them on theirs, frequently brought up the subject of sex, encouraged their attractions and frowned on girlfriends. He was impervious to the misgivings of his online chat mates.

"so . . . where does that leave us"? Foley asked once, after he seemed to encourage a sexual encounter, to no avail.

"i dunno . . . same as we are now," the boy replied, ". . . just saying that im not sure what im totaly comfortable with . . . we will still have fun."

Moreover, Foley appeared aware that he was behaving badly, chastising himself but unable to stop. It was that behavior that his former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, seemed to allude to when he said yesterday that he turned to the most senior House leadership officials to intervene when his own efforts to stop Foley's actions had failed.

"to be honest I am a little to interested in you," Foley said to one page, "so thats why I need to back off a little."

"ya slow things down a little im still young . . . like under 18 dont want to do anything illegal," the teenager cautioned.

"nothing will happen . . . just dreaming," Foley assured him. "i was good in SD."

"I am not a sicko," he concluded.

Yesterday, several Web sites said that bloggers had been able to learn the name of one of the two former pages because ABC News had briefly posted his screen name on its site.

"We always want to keep the identities of people involved in any kind of alleged sexual crimes confidential," ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider said last night. "On Friday, there was a glitch in our posting, and it's possible that an actual, unredacted screen name was posted for an extremely short period of time. Obviously, it was fixed almost instantly."

A Sample of Fox News "Headlines"

2006-10-05T11:20:00.000-04:00

Thanks to the Something Awful Forums...

7:16pm: “Pres Chavez: Narcissistic personality disorder?”;

10:54am: “How dare Hugo Chavez blast the United States?”;

11:02am: “Should we stop buying Chavez’s gas from [Venezuela-owned] Citgo stations?”;

11:59am: “Chavez insults U.S.: Where is the outrage?”;

12:29pm: “Should U.S. continue to fund U.N. after applause for Chavez?”;

12:54pm: “Will leaders pay the price for supporting Chavez?”;

1:26pm: “Is President Chavez becoming a threat to U.S. national security?”;

4:06pm: “Taking cheap oil from Hugo Chavez: Act of treason?”;

5:34pm: “NY audience gives Chavez standing ovation… Why?”

Also, the comment: “U.S. giving U.N. $5 mil a day to get insulted.”

2006-10-05T03:02:00.000-04:00

Hypocrite Foley on America's Most Wanted

It's lolleriffic! Oh and what's the other word? Hypocritical. That's it...

Sick of Fox News's Outright Lies? Nothing Can or Will Be Done

2006-10-04T17:07:00.000-04:00

Here are just a few shots of how Fox is trying to spin this: selling Foley as a Democrat.

Surely this constitutes some kind of fraud, right? Well, according to the Florida Court of Appeals, Fox News is allowed to lie all it wants:

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”

It Just Gets Better: White House Possibly Involved in Coverup

2006-10-03T17:04:00.000-04:00

Heh.

October 3, 2006 -- WMR has learned from informed sources in the Justice Department that the salacious e-mails from Rep. Mark Foley were leaked to ABC News by career Justice Department prosecutors and FBI agents who are incensed that Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales covered up the House page scandal for political reasons. The back story of Pagegate is that there was a criminal conspiracy by the top political leadership of the Justice Department to cover up the predatory activities of Foley and other GOP members of Congress since at least 2003 and, likely, as early as 2001.

Other informed sources in the nation's capital report that Pagegate will soon implicate a number of GOP staffers in both the House and the Senate who intimidated and pressured male pages into inappropriate sexual relationships. One source confided that the staff members' contact with pages was "more egregious" than Foley's behavior.

The Pagegate scandal also involves senior officials of the Republican National Committee, located near the House Office Buildings, according to our Capitol Hill sources.

The bottom line is that the GOP is facing its worst political scandal since Watergate and the White House, already under assault from the revelations in Bob Woodward's insider account of the Bush presidency and the Iraq war, has told GOP members of Congress that they are on their own as far as Pagegate damage control is concerned.

Oh snap: ABC producer says network to name names in Foley scandal

2006-10-03T17:02:00.000-04:00

Check this out!

ABC producer says network to name names in Foley scandal

RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday October 3, 2006

Print This Email This

ABC will soon report who had knowledge of the Mark Foley page scandal, and when they became aware of it, RAW STORY has learned.

In an interview with DemocracyNow, ABC's Maddy Sauer shared some startling facts about the story.

Pages have, according to Sauer, been able to produce instant message conversations going back as far as five years. Some of them are reportedly sexually explicit.

The FBI, Sauer claims, will be interviewing pages starting today.

Sauer also indicated that ABC's next wave of reports on the Foley scandal will focus on who in Congress was aware of the situation, how much they knew, and when they were alerted.

You Cannot Be Serious: The Fifth Column Idea Returns

2006-10-03T12:14:00.000-04:00

Jesus Christ.

In THE ENEMY AT HOME, bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza makes the startling claim that the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist acts around the world can be directly traced to the ideas and attitudes perpetrated by America’s cultural left.

D’Souza shows that liberals—people like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Bill Moyers, and Michael Moore—are responsible for fostering a culture that angers and repulses not just Muslim countries but also traditional and religious societies around the world. Their outspoken opposition to American foreign policy—including the way the Bush administration is conducting the war on terror—contributes to the growing hostility, encouraging people both at home and abroad to blame America for the problems of the world. He argues that it is not our exercise of freedom that enrages our enemies, but our abuse of that freedom—from the sexual liberty of women to the support of gay marriage, birth control, and no-fault divorce, to the aggressive exportation of our vulgar, licentious popular culture.

The cultural wars at home and the global war on terror are usually viewed as separate problems. In this groundbreaking book, D’Souza shows that they are one and the same. It is only by curtailing the left’s attacks on religion, family, and traditional values that we can persuade moderate Muslims and others around the world to cooperate with us and begin to shun the extremists in their own countries.

GOP ready to concede "nearly a third" of critical House seats

2006-10-03T09:54:00.000-04:00

How about this...

Republican strategists said yesterday that public revulsion over the sexually graphic online conversations between Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and former House pages could compound the party's problems enough to tip the House to the Democrats in November -- and could jeopardize the party's hold on the Senate as well.

As House GOP leaders defended their role in handling revelations that forced Foley on Friday to give up his House seat, party strategists said the scandal threatens to depress turnout among Christian conservatives and could hamper efforts to convince undecided and swing voters that Republicans deserve to remain in the majority.

There was intense anger among social conservative activists in Washington yesterday, and some called for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to resign.

Republican operatives closely following the battle for the House and Senate said that they are virtually ready to concede nearly a third of the 15 seats the Democrats need to recapture control of the House, and that they will spend the next five weeks trying to shelter other vulnerable incumbents from the fallout of the Foley scandal in hopes of salvaging a slender majority.

Districts in which Republicans have effectively walked off the field include Foley's own in South Florida. House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a radio interview with conservative commentator Sean Hannity that the party's replacement candidate is all but doomed. Because of ballot procedures in Florida, "to vote for this candidate, you have to vote for Mark Foley," Boehner said. "How many people are going to hold their nose to do that?"

Others warned that the impact could be much greater. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and an important social conservative leader, said "there's a real chance" that the episode could dethrone the Republican majority. "I think the next 48 hours are critical in how this is handled," he said, adding that "when a party holds itself out as the guardian of values, this is not helpful."

Series of blows

Foley's sudden resignation came at the end of a week that had delivered a series of blows to Republican hopes in November. A National Intelligence Estimate asserted that the war in Iraq is fueling new threats from Islamic jihadists faster than the United States and allies can contain them, then a new book by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post said the administration's private assessments of Iraq are far worse than officials are telling the public. Taken together, GOP strategists said, the events of the past 10 days reversed what some Republicans had seen as a modest rebound in September after the worst days of the summer.

By yesterday, a number of GOP strategists reported widespread gloom about the party's prospects, combined with intense anger at the House leadership.

Joe Gaylord, who was the top adviser to Newt Gingrich (Ga.) when Republicans seized control of the House in 1994, was pessimistic about the party's midterm prospects. He said the fallout from Foley's resignation comes "very close" to ensuring a Democratic victory in November.

"The part that causes the greatest fallout is the obvious kind of pall that an incident like this would put on our hardest-core voters, who are evangelical Christians," he said. "The thing I have said almost since this cycle began is the real worry you have is that [Republicans] just won't turn out. This is one more nail in that coffin."

Depressed turnout would not only hurt vulnerable House incumbents but also make it more difficult for Republicans to hold the most competitive Senate seats -- many of those races are now virtually even, according to recent polling.

Hastert faces a spreading revolt among some conservatives over the way he and other GOP leaders handled the matter when first alerted to the contact between Foley and one former House page. Hastert said again yesterday that no House Republican leader knew about the most graphic communications until they surfaced on Friday, but that did little to satisfy some conservative activists.

David Bossie, who runs a group called Citizens United, called yesterday for Hastert's resignation and said other conservative leaders are likely to follow suit. Bossie said the initial e-mails alone, which included Foley's request of a minor's picture, should have prompted an immediate inquiry. "That was a cry for an investigation," Bossie said. "Why couldn't the speaker of the House muster the will to stop this?"

Leaders from about six dozen socially conservative groups held a conference call late yesterday afternoon, and participants were described as livid with House GOP leaders.

‘Let down, left aside’
"They are outraged by how Hastert handled this," said Paul M. Weyrich, a conservative activist who participated in the call. "They feel let down, left aside. How can they allow a guy like [Foley] to remain chairman of the committee on missing and exploited children when there is any question about e-mails?"

Vin Weber, a GOP lobbyist close to the White House and to congressional leaders, said many Republicans outside of Washington are echoing Bossie.

"From what I hear, it is resonating badly and our candidates are on the defensive about this," Weber said. "The maddening thing about this is if they had done the right thing" by informing Democrats early on and investigating it fully, "there would be no political fallout," he said.

Top GOP strategists said party leaders will concentrate on trying to keep the focus of the unfolding story on Foley, rather than on how House leaders responded when informed about his contacts with former pages.

"I don't know of any race ever where the action of one member has impacted the race of another," said Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Bracing for ads
Republicans are bracing for ads that link previous scandals with the Foley case and ask, "Had enough?" Several strategists said this could be devastating in tight races. The most optimistic scenario offered by GOP strategists is that no new information surfaces and the controversy ends in the next five weeks.

Republicans have designated state Rep. Joe Negron as the substitute candidate in Florida's 16th District, even as Boehner and others denigrate his prospects.

Republicans say they are in grave danger of losing the seat of former House majority leader Tom DeLay (Tex.), as well as those held by Rep. Robert W. Ney (Ohio) -- who agreed to plead guilty to corruption charges in the investigation into the activities of convicted former lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- and Rep. Don Sherwood (Pa.), who has been embroiled in a scandal over an affair.

In addition, Republicans have largely given up on holding the seat of retiring Rep. Jim Kolbe (Ariz.), and strategists are pessimistic about retaining open seats in Colorado and Iowa and the seat now held by Rep. John N. Hostettler (Ind.).

Some Republicans also said Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (N.Y.), the NRCC's chairman and one of the GOP leaders who knew about a non-graphic communication between Foley and a former page, could face an even tougher challenge for his Buffalo area seat. Reynolds and Hastert sniped at each other over the weekend about who knew what and when.

North Korea to Test Nuke

2006-10-03T09:47:00.000-04:00

Will this be as much of a farce as the missile tests, or is there genuine cause to be concerned? How will China react? What a can of worms...

N. Korea Says It Will Conduct Nuke Test
Oct 3, 7:14 AM (ET)

By BO-MI LIM

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea said Tuesday that it will conduct a nuclear test to bolster its self-defense capability amid what it calls increasing U.S. hostility toward the communist regime.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said that the U.S. would bring up North Korea's statement for discussion Tuesday morning in a regular meeting of the U.N. Security Council.

"A nuclear test by North Korea would be extraordinarily serious," Bolton said in an interview with The Associated Press. "The threat is serious enough that we're certainly going to take this action in the council this morning, by raising it."

Using the acronym for the country's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the North's Foreign Ministry said in the official English translation of its statement that: "The DPRK will in the future conduct a nuclear test under the condition where safety is firmly guaranteed."

The statement gave no precise date of when a test might occur.

Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso called the purported nuclear test plan a threat to peace, and said a nuclear test would have graver implications than North Korean missile tests in July. Aso called the North's self-described plan "totally unforgivable," and said Japan would react "sternly" if the North conducted a nuclear test, according to Kyodo News agency.

China, North Korea's neighbor, ally and chief benefactor, had no immediate comment. The North Korean announcement appeared to have caught Chinese officialdom off-guard, coming in the midst of a weeklong National Day holiday.

Pyongyang has said it has nuclear weapons, but is not known to have conducted any test to prove its claim. It has not mentioned a nuclear test in previous public statements.

"The U.S. extreme threat of a nuclear war and sanctions and pressure compel the DPRK to conduct a nuclear test, an essential process for bolstering nuclear deterrent, as a corresponding measure for defense," said the statement, carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.

The North's "nuclear weapons will serve as reliable war deterrent for protecting the supreme interests of the state and the security of the Korean nation from the U.S. threat of aggression and averting a new war and firmly safeguarding peace and stability on the Korean peninsula under any circumstances," the statement said.

Multilateral talks on the North's nuclear program have been stalled for almost a year. Pyongyang has boycotted the six-nation talks to protest U.S. financial restrictions imposed for its alleged illegal activity, including money laundering and counterfeiting.

The North said Tuesday that its ultimate goal is "to settle hostile relations between the DPRK and the U.S. and to remove the very source of all nuclear threats from the Korean Peninsula and its vicinity," accusing the U.S. of posing a nuclear threat in the region.

Mark Foley: A Scandal Writ Large

2006-10-02T11:11:00.000-04:00

Why did this have to break on Friday? Holy crap, the ins and outs of this thing are going to make it incredibly difficult to catch up with. At the moment, however, it appears that House Republicans were aware of Foley's predilection for teenage boys and even warned pages about it as early as 2001, Republicans are trying to cover their ass by calling for investigations, and the Democrats are trying their damnedest to press their advantage here. Meanwhile it's turning out that Foley took at least one boy out to a "private dinner", and has now settled on the alcoholism defense, as if that somehow makes him unaccountable for his behavior. Oh, and somewhere in there is a faction that thinks that this is entirely about people attacking the guy for being gay - but let's make this clear - it has nothing at all to do with that. If this had been a 16-year-old girl, the outrage would be just the same.

This is going to be an interesting one to cover...

Foley in Alcoholism Treatment Center

Monday, October 2, 2006; Posted 9:00 a.m. (CDT)

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Former Rep. Mark Foley, who resigned Friday amid allegations that he sent inappropriate e-mails to teenage pages, told a Florida television station that he is in a treatment facility for alcoholism.

A letter containing the information was faxed by Foley to WPBF in West Palm Beach, said David Roth, Foley's attorney.

The fax was apparently sent from Clearwater, Florida, but Roth would not say Monday if that's where Foley is being treated.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement said Monday it was launching an investigation into allegations Foley sent sexually suggestive e-mails to pages.

FDLE spokesman Tom Berlinger said that the agency on Sunday contacted the FBI -- which is looking into whether any federal laws were broken in the matter -- to inform federal authorities of the Florida probe.

The state agency will be trying to determine whether any of Foley's alleged communications originated in Florida.

The Justice Department, at the request of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, also is considering an investigation of how lawmakers handled the allegations against Foley.

The rare move by Hastert followed calls by Democratic leaders in the House and Senate for a swift inquiry, questioning whether the GOP leadership in the House had improperly squelched concerns about Foley's contacts with pages.

The Florida Republican resigned Friday amid scrutiny of his e-mail and instant-message contacts with pages.

Foley, a six-term Florida congressman, was co-chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus and a prominent backer of legislation to crack down on online predators and criminalize child pornography on the Internet.

The House voted to launch an investigation of his dealings with pages. But in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Hastert urged the Justice Department to look into who knew about the content of any sexually explicit messages involving Foley "and what actions such individuals took, if any, to provide them to law enforcement."

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the department will review "whether we can conduct an investigation."

Hastert, an Illinois Republican, also asked the Justice Department and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to investigate whether the former lawmaker violated federal or state law.

Earlier Sunday, White House Counselor Dan Bartlett said he expected a criminal investigation. The administration was unaware of the Foley allegations until last week, he said.

Top House Republicans have said they were aware months ago of e-mail contact between Foley and a teenage male page, but that they had no knowledge of sexually explicit messages that have subsequently come to light.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said House Republican leaders knew of the Foley allegations and "chose to cover it up rather than to protect these children."

In a letter to the leaders of the Ethics Committee, the California Democrat said that GOP leaders should be questioned under oath immediately and that a preliminary report should be issued within 10 days.

After Hastert's request for an investigation, she said the Ethics Committee still needs to look into the actions of the GOP leadership. "Congress must not pass the buck on investigating this cover-up," she said.
Too graphic to report

In a brief resignation statement, Foley apologized to his own family and constituents but did not mention the allegations. He has made no public comment since his resignation.

After the e-mails were publicized, ABC News released instant text messages allegedly sent by the congressman to other teenage male pages in 2003. (More details)

The chamber's three top Republicans -- Hastert, Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri -- said in a joint statement Saturday that Foley's "improper communications" were "unacceptable and abhorrent."

The scandal comes just weeks before the November 7 midterm elections. Republicans are hurriedly trying to find someone to replace Foley.

Foley had been favored to defeat Democratic candidate Tim Mahoney and win re-election to a seventh term.

"The Republican leadership knew this was going on, and they had to make a choice," Mahoney said. "They decided to try to hold on to a seat."
Reynolds informed Hastert

Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-New York, said during the weekend that he told Hastert about the initial complaint -- that Foley had been e-mailing a 16-year-old Louisiana boy who had served as a page, asking for a picture of the teen and asking what he wanted for his birthday.

Reynolds chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is the election campaign arm for House Republicans.

Reynolds said that when Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-Louisiana, told him about the e-mails, he said the teen's parents didn't want the matter pursued. Alexander was the boy's sponsor.

After an initial denial, Hastert's office said Reynolds brought up the issue of the e-mails in a meeting with the speaker earlier this year.

Reynolds told Hastert in that meeting that an investigation had been done by Rep. John Shimkus and the clerk of the House, who manages the work-study program for youths under 18. Shimkus is an Illinois Republican and chairman of the House Page Board.

Rep. Dale Kildee, the only Democratic member of the House Page Board, insisted Saturday the board did not investigate Foley.

Boehner learned about allegations against Foley from Alexander in the spring, said Kevin Madden, the majority leader's spokesman.

Shimkus said Foley told him he was only mentoring the teen in the first complaint and was concerned about his fate after Hurricane Katrina.

Shimkus said he warned Foley "to cease all contact with this former House page" -- and he said Foley assured him the e-mails would stop.

Approximately 100 youths age 16 and older serve as congressional pages at any one time. Both boys and girls may serve, usually for a semester or two or a summer session, according to congressional documents.

Senate Approves Detainee Bill Backed by Bush

2006-09-29T13:51:00.000-04:00

The United States legalized the torture and execution of people without fair trials. Just re-read that sentence again and let it sink in. Holy crap, what is happening?

Senate Approves Detainee Bill Backed by Bush
Constitutional Challenges Predicted

By Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 29, 2006; Page A01

Congress approved landmark changes to the nation's system of interrogating and prosecuting terrorism suspects last night, preparing the ground for possible military trials for key al-Qaeda members under rules that critics say will draw stiff constitutional challenges.

The Senate joined the House in embracing President Bush's view that the battle against terrorism justifies the imposition of extraordinary limits on defendants' traditional rights in the courtroom. They include restrictions on a suspect's ability to challenge his detention, examine all evidence against him, and bar testimony allegedly acquired through coercion of witnesses.

Detainee Policy

Bush acknowledged the existence of secret CIA prisons abroad Sept. 6, 2006, as he called for the authority to try prisoners by military commissions.
• Analysis: President Shifts Argument
• Pentagon War Policy: New Interrogation Rules

CIA'S SECRET PRISONS
Washington Post reporter Dana Priest reported on Nov. 2 that the CIA operates a network of secret prisons where it holds terror suspects. Priest was awarded a Pulitzer Prize on April 17 for her beat reporting on the CIA and the War on Terror.
• From the Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Summary of the High Value Terrorist Detainee Program (pdf)

GUANTANAMO DETAINEES
Detainee Database
View the largest list of names made public thus far, comprising men whose identities have appeared in media reports, on Arabic Web sites and in legal documents.

TRANSCRIPTS
President Bush delivers remarks on terrorism, Sept. 6, 2006.

FROM FINDLAW

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.

* The Strata-Sphere
* 1 Boring Old Man
* BlueHerald - News You Can Abuse

Full List of Blogs (80 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

Save & Share

* Tag This Article

Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Subheadline
Byline
2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Subheadline Blurb None
3. Tag This Article

The Senate's 65 to 34 vote marked a victory for Bush and fellow Republicans a month before the Nov. 7 elections as their party tries to make anti-terrorism a signature campaign issue. Underscoring that strategy, the House last night voted 232 to 191 to authorize Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, with GOP leaders hoping to add it to their list of accomplishments even though it has no chance of Senate passage before this weekend's scheduled adjournment. On the final wiretapping vote, 18 Democrats joined 214 Republicans to win passage. Thirteen Republicans, 177 Democrats and one independent voted nay.

Democrats resisted both measures and nearly amended the detainee bill to allow foreigners designated as enemy combatants to challenge their captivity by filing habeas corpus appeals with the federal courts. But Republicans held fast, gambling that Democrats will fail in their bid to convince voters that the GOP is sacrificing the nation's traditions of justice and fairness in the name of battling terrorists and winning elections.

"As our troops risk their lives to fight terrorism, this bill will ensure they are prepared to defeat today's enemies and address tomorrow's threats," Bush said after the vote.

With control of both houses possibly at stake this fall, yesterday's debates were often impassioned and deeply partisan. House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called Democrats "dangerous." Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the nation is losing its "moral compass."

The Senate approved the detainee legislation after Bush's allies narrowly fended off five amendments. The vote on final passage drew support from 53 Republicans and 12 Democrats, while 32 Democrats, one independent and one Republican -- Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) -- voted nay.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) voted for the bill after telling reporters earlier that he would oppose it because it is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He cited its denial of the habeas corpus right to military detainees. In an interview last night, Specter said he decided to back the bill because it has several good items, "and the court will clean it up" by striking the habeas corpus provisions.

Detainee bill may allow US citizens to be classified as "enemy combatants"

2006-09-26T16:27:00.000-04:00

Who needs unitary executive theory and signing statements when you've got a Congress that will approve any authoritarian measure the Bush Admin desires?

Detainee Measure to Have Fewer Restrictions
White House Reaches Accord With Lawmakers

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A01

Republican lawmakers and the White House agreed over the weekend to alter new legislation on military commissions to allow the United States to detain and try a wider range of foreign nationals than an earlier version of the bill permitted, according to government sources.

Lawmakers and administration officials announced last week that they had reached accord on the plan for the detention and military trials of suspected terrorists, and it is scheduled for a vote this week. But in recent days the Bush administration and its House allies successfully pressed for a less restrictive description of how the government could designate civilians as "unlawful enemy combatants," the sources said yesterday. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations over the bill.

The government has maintained since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that, based on its reading of the laws of war, anyone it labels an unlawful enemy combatant can be held indefinitely at military or CIA prisons. But Congress has not yet expressed its view on who is an unlawful combatant, and the Supreme Court has not ruled directly on the matter.

As a result, human rights experts expressed concern yesterday that the language in the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.

The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant. It is broader than that in last week's version of the bill, which resulted from lengthy, closed-door negotiations between senior administration officials and dissident Republican senators. That version incorporated a definition backed by the Senate dissidents: those "engaged in hostilities against the United States."

The new provision, which would cover captives held by the CIA, is more expansive than the one incorporated by the Defense Department on Sept. 5 in new rules that govern the treatment of detainees in military custody. The military's definition of unlawful combatants covers only "those who engage in acts against the United States or its coalition partners in violation of the laws of war and customs of war during an armed conflict."

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said that by including those who "supported hostilities" -- rather than those who "engage in acts" against the United States -- the government intends the legislation to sanction its seizure and indefinite detention of people far from the battlefield.

Martin noted that "the administration kidnapped an innocent German citizen" and "held him incommunicado for months . . . because the CIA or Pentagon wrongly suspected him of terrorist ties." She was referring to Khalid al-Masri, who the Bush administration eventually acknowledged was detained on insufficient grounds.

Nothing in the proposed legislation -- which mostly concerns the creation of new military panels, known as "commissions," to try terrorism suspects -- directly addresses such CIA apprehensions and "renditions."

But the bill's new definition "would give the administration a stronger basis on which to argue that Congress has recognized that the battlefield is wherever the terrorist is, and they can seize people far from the area of combat, label them as unlawful enemy combatants and detain them indefinitely," said Suzanne Spaulding, an assistant general counsel at the CIA from 1989 to 1995.

Traditionally, courts have found it reasonable for parties to armed conflicts to seize or try people they encounter on a battlefield, to keep them from returning to the hostilities, added Spaulding, who was also a general counsel for the House and Senate intelligence committees. "The Supreme Court could potentially look at this and say Congress has now defined how anyone anywhere in the world" is subject to detention and military trial, even when far from an active combat zone, she said.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We are satisfied with the definition because it will allow us to prosecute the terrorists, and it also has important limitations that say a terrorist must have purposefully and materially supported terrorism."

Spokesmen for John W. Warner (R-Va.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) -- the senators leading negotiations with the Bush administration -- did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the new language, but others on Capitol Hill said the three had accepted it.

Under a separate provision, those held by the CIA or the U.S. military as an unlawful enemy combatant would be barred from challenging their detention or the conditions of their treatment in U.S. courts unless they were first tried, convicted and appealed their conviction.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) yesterday assailed the provision as an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus, which he said was allowable only "in time of rebellion or in time of invasion. And neither is present here."

He was joined by the committee's senior Democrat, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), who said that under the provision, legal U.S. immigrants could be held "until proven innocent, not until proven guilty."

Bruce Fein, a senior Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, testified against the provision at a Senate hearing. Kenneth W. Starr, a solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush, said in a letter to Specter that he concerned the legislation "may go too far in limiting habeas corpus relief."

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) defended the provision, saying alien enemy combatants are not "entitled to rights under the United States Constitution similar to those accorded to a defendant in a criminal lawsuit."

Congressional sources said Specter is unlikely to derail the compromise legislation over those objections.

Cardin has huge lead over Steele in Maryland

2006-09-26T11:04:00.000-04:00

Awwww right.

Poll shows Cardin lead over Steele
Bush's low ratings, Democratic majority help build 11-point edge

By Jennifer Skalka and Matthew Hay Brown
Sun reporters

Originally published September 25, 2006
With a down-to-the-wire primary behind him, Democratic Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin enters the U.S. Senate general election contest with an 11-point lead over his rival, Republican Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, according to a new poll for The Sun.

Six weeks before the November vote, Cardin leads Steele, 51 percent to 40 percent, according to the statewide survey of 815 likely voters. But with Republican and Democratic parties expected to flood the state with money and appearances in the weeks to come, the race remains volatile.

"This is not the kind of lead that's insurmountable at this stage," said James G. Gimpel, a professor of government at the University of Maryland, College Park. "Cardin has a lead to protect, and Steele has to be the more aggressive campaigner, probably take a few more risks."

Cardin's support stretches across the state, according to the poll, and he dominates in Maryland's most solidly African-American communities: Baltimore and Prince George's County.

Cardin, who beat former NAACP chief Kweisi Mfume in the Democratic primary by fewer than 20,000 votes, holds a nearly 3-to-1 advantage over Steele among black voters, a traditionally Democratic constituency into which the lieutenant governor has attempted to make inroads.

Steele, the highest-ranking statewide black official, leads Cardin, who is white, in rural Maryland, a typically Republican stronghold, and with voters younger than 50. Self-described conservatives strongly favor Steele, a former chairman of the Maryland Republican Party.

Cardin has maintained an 11-point lead over Steele through three Sun polls taken during the past year. The number of undecided voters, meanwhile, has dwindled, from about one in four last November to fewer than one in 10 in the current poll.

The undecided could include supporters of Kevin Zeese, who is backed by the Green, Libertarian and Populist parties.

The telephone survey conducted Sept. 15 to Sept. 18 has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

Keith Haller of Potomac Inc. of Bethesda, the independent firm that conducted the survey for The Sun, said Cardin appears to have emerged from a tight primary race with Mfume "no worse for wear."

Cardin benefits from the 2-to-1 registration advantage Democrats enjoy over Republicans in Maryland and the unpopularity of President Bush and the Republican Party in the state, Haller said.

Thirty-five percent of those surveyed said they had more confidence in Republicans to handle the most important problems facing the state. Forty-nine percent believed the Democrats would do a better job.

Only 34 percent, meanwhile, approve of Bush's performance as president. Fifty-nine percent disapprove.

"Maryland remains one of his worst states," Haller said of the president. "He's kind of like raw meat for the Democratic wolf pack."

For that reason, Gimpel said he expects Steele to talk more like a Democrat and play down his ties to the Republican Party.

Elected with Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. in 2002, Steele, 47, has never won office on his own. During the Senate campaign, he has received fundraising help from Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and a host of White House loyalists - support that Democrats regularly mention.

But Steele has a panache that Cardin lacks and is working to craft a likable, moderate persona in a series of quirky television ads that do not mention his party affiliation.

The poll shows Steele gaining unusually high support for a Republican among African-American voters. While Cardin is leading with 66 percent of the black vote, 24 percent now favor Steele.

"It's an unprecedented number for a Republican running statewide against a prominent Democrat," Haller said.

Temple Hills resident Robert W. Chandler, 53, is a registered Democrat who said he plans to vote for Ehrlich in the gubernatorial contest and Cardin for Senate. Chandler, who is black, said he believes Ehrlich has done a good job and cheered his pro-slots position. But Steele, he said, has yet to articulate where he stands on issues.

Congress Looks to Slash HIV/AIDS funding to New York

2006-09-25T11:09:00.000-04:00

This feels an awful lot like the slashing of terrorism funds to New York and feels like pandering to the Southern states. Could it be a form of political punishment?

AIDS/HIV care money might leave New York
As local cases rise, Congress might shift some funding to Southern states.
Monday, September 25, 2006
By James T. Mulder
Staff writer

If testing for the AIDS virus becomes routine for everyone, Syracusans who test positive might have a hard time finding care, according to the coordinator of the Central New York HIV Care Network.

Stephen Waldron said at the same time the federal government is encouraging routine testing, Congress is considering legislation that would cut the amount of federal funding New York gets to help care for people with HIV and AIDS by as much as $78 million over four years.

"If you are promoting or encouraging or at some point requiring testing, the system needs to be able to respond with care," Waldron said. "It's only half of the equation to get people tested."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week recommended routine testing for all Americans ages 13 to 64, saying that an HIV test should be as common as a cholesterol check. HIV - short for human immunodeficiency virus - causes AIDS. HIV is spread most often through sexual contact, contaminated needles shared by drug users, infected blood and from infected women to their babies. The CDC estimates 250,000 Americans are infected and don't even know it.

There are 1,477 Central New Yorkers living with HIV and AIDS, about half of them Onondaga County residents.

Testing alone isn't the answer, according to Waldron.

"We are concerned that any emphasis on testing is matched with an emphasis on appropriate levels of funding," said Waldron, whose network links those living with and responding to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Central New York.

AIDS advocates are worried because bills pending in Congress would shift federal money spent on uninsured AIDS patients away from states like New York, New Jersey and California to Southern states. The bills would reauthorize the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act, the nation's largest HIV-specific grant program, for another five years. The program has a budget this year of about $2.1 billion. New York's share is about $349 million.

The bills would redirect some money from states like New York with large urban areas to more rural states like Alabama that have seen sharp increases in AIDS and HIV in recent years. Alabama's share of the Ryan White money would grow from $11 million to $18 million annually under a bill approved last week by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. James T. Walsh, R-Onondaga, oppose the new funding distribution formula.

Southern states need more money to combat the epidemic, but they should not get it at the expense of New York, which has more HIV and AIDS cases than any other state, Waldron said.

The proposals come at a time when the number of people in the region with HIV and AIDS is increasing, and the cost of caring for them is soaring, he said.

The active patient caseload at SUNY Upstate Medical University, the region's designated AIDS center, is about 700, up from about 350 four years ago, according to Waldron.

The numbers are growing because better treatments are helping infected people live longer, according to Waldron. The increase also reflects outreach efforts that encourage people to get tested, he said.

Medications to treat people with HIV and AIDS can cost $10,000 to $15,000 annually, he said. Ryan White money is used to help pay some drug costs for patients not covered by Medicaid or other health insurance.

Congress could take final action on the bills this week, Waldron said.

"Rogue" Republicans give in on torture

2006-09-22T11:08:00.000-04:00

To decode the crap that's flying around right now, it seems that our senators are "compromising" on this:

The three senators have contended that the administration was undermining Geneva Convention protections in a way that could leave Americans vulnerable in the future, and that its plan for military tribunals of terror suspects would allow evidence obtained coercively, and information they were not allowed to see to be used against them.

Another fantastic Legislative/Executive compromise: The congress does everything exactly as George wants, and in return he'll pretend that he's the one giving in so they can claim they tried to stand up against his unpopular policies. Our government at work.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 — President Bush and three Republican senators said this afternoon that they had reached an agreement on legislation to clarify which interrogation techniques can be used against terror suspects and to establish trial procedures for those in military custody.

“We did our duty,” said Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, one of the three. He noted that the legislation would still need close study by both houses of Congress.

Mr. Warner and the other two rebellious Republicans, Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, met at the White House with Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, who stood behind Mr. Warner’s shoulder as the senator announced the agreement.

“It is good news and a good day for the American people,” Mr. Hadley said.

Mr. McCain said the agreement means “that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved.” The senator said the agreement “gives the president the tools that he needs to continue to fight the war on terror and bring these evil people to justice.”

But Mr. Hadley added a note of conditionality, calling it a “framework for compromise,” and Mr. Warner said that only President Bush’s signature on the bill would complete the agreement.

Mr. Bush welcomed the accord, which he said met his key test of allowing the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogations of terror suspects to continue.

“I’m pleased to say this agreement preserves the most single, the most potent tool we have in protecting America and foiling terrorist attacks,” he said, adding, "The agreement clears the way to do what the American people expect us to do — to capture terrorists, to detain terrorists, to question terrorists, and then to try them.”

Mr. Bush urged the Congress to send him legislation before it goes into recess next week before the fall elections.

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said the agreement had two key points. “Classified information will not be shared with the terrorists” tried before the tribunals, he said. And "the very important program of interrogation continues.”

US Threatened to Bomb Pakistan Back to Stone Age

2006-09-22T10:34:00.000-04:00

Classy. Very, very classy.

US Threatened to Bomb Pakistan, Musharraf Says
The Associated Press

Friday 22 September 2006

Washington - Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said the U.S. threatened to bomb his country back to the Stone Age if he did not assist the administration's war on terrorism.

The threat was delivered after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, by Richard L. Armitage, then deputy secretary of State, to Musharraf's intelligence director, the Pakistani leader told CBS' "60 Minutes" for Sunday's broadcast.

Musharraf said the intelligence chief quoted Armitage as saying, "Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age."

It was insulting, Musharraf said. "I think it was a very rude remark."

Armitage told CNN on Thursday that he never threatened to bomb Pakistan, wouldn't say such a thing and didn't have the authority to do it.

Armitage said he delivered a tough message to Pakistan, saying the Muslim nation was either "with us or against us," CNN reported. But he said he didn't know how his message had been recounted so differently to Musharraf.

The White House and State Department declined to comment.

Musharraf said he reacted responsibly to Armitage's remarks.

"One has to think and take actions in the interests of the nation, and that is what I did," he said.

In January 2002, four months after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Musharraf gave a speech in which he came down on the side of reform at home and opposition to Islamic fundamentalism.

Pakistan is considered a close ally of the United States, but it has been accused of being reluctant to go after members of the Taliban, which controlled neighboring Afghanistan until 2001.

Musharraf is scheduled to meet with President Bush today at the White House. He will see Bush again next week in a meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Bush blocks campaign to put pressure on Sudan over Darfur

2006-09-20T11:27:00.000-04:00

Very classy. God damnit, can't you see we're making money off this genocide? Piss off!

Bush blocks campaign to put pressure on Sudan over Darfur

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 19 September 2006

The Bush administration and big business interests have been accused of undermining efforts to exert financial pressure on the Sudanese government to stop the killing in Darfur.

A bill that passed the US Congress endorsing state legislation to force publicly owned entities to sell off holdings in companies that do substantial business with Sudan, or sell Khartoum weapons, has now been blocked in the Senate, with campaigners blaming the White House. They say the long-delayed draft put forward last week by the Foreign Relations Committee had removed a clause known as Section 11 that would have thrown its weight behind a celebrity-backed campaign requiring publicly owned entities to dump stock.

"If the federal government is for divestment outright, they should publicly state so," said Jason Miller, a US-based Darfur campaigner. " If they are against divestment, they should publicly state so. If there's some middle ground where they agree with certain types of divestment but not others, they should have been open to compromise on Section 11 language. Instead, they gave us complete ambiguity."

The half dozen states that have already passed such measures, and the 15 more said to be studying them, now face the prospect of legal action from a big business pressure group with a track record of lobbying against economic sanctions.

The National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) has already sued the state of Illinois, which has enacted the most sweeping such measure. Despite the Senate action, California has become the latest state to draft a bill that would require state pension funds to identify companies in which they invest, and are involved with Sudan. These would then have 90 days to end the association. Failing that the funds would be obliged to sell the stock.

The move in California, which was inspired by a divestment initiative of the University of California, is another vivid sign of how individual states, academic bodies and celebrities such as George Clooney are now taking the action that the US government is unable or unwilling to take itself.

In fact, Washington was one of the first to identify the scale of the atrocities in Darfur, with the then Secretary of State Colin Powell declaring back in September 2004 that "genocide has been committed" in the south-western Sudanese province. Since then however, efforts have stalled.

Mr Bush himself has blown hot and cold on the issue, but last night finally named a special envoy to try to end the violence.

The envoy was not named but Andrew Natsios, a former Bush administration aid official, was considered the front-runner. The envoy would likely be named at the UN today.

Mr Bush will address the General Assembly today as the international community tries to persuade Khartoum to drop its objections to a UN peacekeeping force in the territory.

The US Congress has also been criticised, for failing to deliver a bill that would back up the individual state measures to step up financial pressure on Khartoum, by protecting individual states from being sued by companies affected.

In April, the House of Representatives approved a Darfur Peace and Accountability Act by an overwhelming 416 votes to three, containing such a provision. But the Senate has dragged its feet on moves to reconcile the House bill with its own version, passed in November 2005, so that an agreed measure can be sent to President Bush.

In fact, the prime targets of the legislation by the states are not American companies already barred from doing business with the government of Sudan but Chinese concerns helping the development of the country's oil industry, and various European companies including Siemens, Shell, and Finmeccanica of Italy.

Sudan is also considered an important intelligence ally in the "war on terror".

Browne admits 'we underestimated Taliban'

2006-09-19T10:49:00.000-04:00

Funny how Afghanistan has kind of dropped off the map, isn't it? Well, take a look at this...

Browne admits 'we underestimated Taliban'
By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent
(Filed: 19/09/2006)

Britain and Nato seriously underestimated the resilience of the Taliban when sending troops into Afghanistan, Des Browne, the Defence Secretary has admitted.

Addressing the Royal United Services Institute in London, he said the task had proved “harder than we expected”.

But he urged Nato countries who are now resisting sending extra troops to think again.

The Taliban’s tenacity in the face of massive losses has been more than we expected,” Mr Browne said. Referring to Nato’s attempts to assemble another 2,500 more troops, he said some nations had “doubts that the mission could ever succeed” while others were concerned about “the level of risk” their soldiers would be exposed to.

“Nato nations must decide whether to back their investment, re-affirm their original intent and send a clear signal that Nato as an alliance is strong and determined to see the task through,” he said.

“All partners should be prepared to face equal risk. No-one has a monopoly on determination and courage.”

“Success won’t be what we understand to be security and prosperity and proper governance, but it will be progress and it will be massively worth it,” he added.

He stressed that Nato’s Afghan foes had been “fought to a standstill” and added: “They cannot beat us.”

But that was only the first step, the Defence Secretary said. There remained a “hard core” of possibly 1,000 Taliban who were “implacable, irreconcilable and determined to keep their impunity in the south and possibly reclaim control of the whole country”.

They were adept at forming alliances with the drugs barons and at recruiting footsoldiers from among ordinary Afghan tribesmen.

Mr Browne said it was essential that Nato was able to demonstrate to such recruits that it would not be defeated in combat and that the Taliban lacked the strength to impose their vision of the future on the country.

“These tribesmen are persuaded to fight not because they hate us, or because of an Afghan culture of resistance, but simply because they are paid - often with money made from drugs,” he said.

“We don’t want to kill them, or defeat them - we want to convince them to back peace, to back the view of the future represented by the Afghan government, rather than by the Taliban or the drug lords.

“I fully acknowledge that if we cannot do this, if we cannot persuade them to put down their guns, then we will struggle to make progress, and there will be a real danger that their deaths will motivate others to join the fight, and potentially turn ends.”

Big Brother has truly arrived

2006-09-18T11:01:00.000-04:00

Uhm...UK? Hello? This is incredibly creepy. I think my first instinct when one of these things yelled at me might be to tear the speakers down, but I have an issue with authority.

Big Brother is not only watching you - now he's barking orders too. Britain's first 'talking' CCTV cameras have arrived, publicly berating bad behaviour and shaming offenders into acting more responsibly.

The system allows control room operators who spot any anti-social acts - from dropping litter to late-night brawls - to send out a verbal warning: 'We are watching you'.

Middlesbrough has fitted loudspeakers on seven of its 158 cameras in an experiment already being hailed as a success. Jack Bonner, who manages the system, said: 'It is one hell of a deterrent. It's one thing to know that there are CCTV cameras about, but it's quite another when they loudly point out what you have just done wrong.

'Most people are so ashamed and embarrassed at being caught they quickly slink off without further trouble.

'There was one incident when two men started fighting outside a nightclub. One of the control room operators warned them over the loudspeakers and they looked up, startled, stopped fighting and scarpered in opposite directions.

'This isn't about keeping tabs on people, it's about making the streets safer for the law-abiding majority and helping to change the attitudes of those who cause trouble. It challenges unacceptable behaviour and makes people think twice.'

The Mail on Sunday watched as a cyclist riding through a pedestrian area was ordered to stop.

'Would the young man on the bike please get off and walk as he is riding in a pedestrian area,' came the command.

The surprised youth stopped, and looked about. A look of horror spread across his face as he realised the voice was referring to him.

He dismounted and wheeled his bike through the crowded streets, as instructed.

Law-abiding shopper Karen Margery, 40, was shocked to hear the speakers spring into action as she walked past them.

Afterwards she said: 'It's quite scary to realise that your every move could be monitored - it really is like Big Brother.

'But Middlesbrough does have a big problem with anti-social behaviour, so it is very reassuring.'

The scheme has been introduced by Middlesbrough mayor Ray Mallon, a former police superintendent who was dubbed Robocop for pioneering the zero-tolerance approach to crime.

He believes the talking cameras will dramatically cut not just anti-social behaviour, but violent crime, too.

And if the city centre scheme proves a success, it will be extended into residential areas.

The control room operators have been given strict guidelines about what commands they can give. Yelling 'Oi you, stop that', is not permitted.

Instead, their instructions make the following suggestions: 'Warning - you are being monitored by CCTV - Warning - you are in an alcohol-free zone, please refrain from drinking'; and Warning - your behaviour is being monitored by CCTV. It is being recorded and the police are attending.'

Mr Bonner said: 'We always make the requests polite, and if the offender obeys, the operator adds 'thank you'. We think that's a nice finishing touch.

'It would appear that the offenders are the only ones who find the audio cameras intrusive. The vast majority of people welcome these cameras.

'Put it this way, we never have requests to remove them.'

But civil rights campaigners have argued that the talking cameras are no 'magic bullet', in the fight against crime.

Liberty spokesman Doug Jewell said: 'None of us likes litterbugs or yobs playing up on a Saturday night, but talking CCTV cameras are no substitute for police officers on the beat.'

14,000 held in Secret US Prisons

2006-09-18T10:54:00.000-04:00

I had no idea there were so many. I mean, I might have guessed it, but to actually see it laid out like that...wow. What on Earth are we doing?

US War Prisons Legal Vacuum for 14,000
By Patrick Quinn
The Associated Press

Sunday 16 September 2006

In the few short years since the first shackled Afghan shuffled off to Guantanamo, the U.S. military has created a global network of overseas prisons, its islands of high security keeping 14,000 detainees beyond the reach of established law.

Disclosures of torture and long-term arbitrary detentions have won rebuke from leading voices including the U.N. secretary-general and the U.S. Supreme Court. But the bitterest words come from inside the system, the size of several major U.S. penitentiaries.

"It was hard to believe I'd get out," Baghdad shopkeeper Amjad Qassim al-Aliyawi told The Associated Press after his release - without charge - last month. "I lived with the Americans for one year and eight months as if I was living in hell."

Captured on battlefields, pulled from beds at midnight, grabbed off streets as suspected insurgents, tens of thousands now have passed through U.S. detention, the vast majority in Iraq.

Many say they were caught up in U.S. military sweeps, often interrogated around the clock, then released months or years later without apology, compensation or any word on why they were taken. Seventy to 90 percent of the Iraq detentions in 2003 were "mistakes," U.S. officers once told the international Red Cross.

Defenders of the system, which has only grown since soldiers' photos of abuse at Abu Ghraib shocked the world, say it's an unfortunate necessity in the battles to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan, and to keep suspected terrorists out of action.

Every U.S. detainee in Iraq "is detained because he poses a security threat to the government of Iraq, the people of Iraq or coalition forces," said U.S. Army Lt. Col. Keir-Kevin Curry, a spokesman for U.S.-led military detainee operations in Iraq.

But dozens of ex-detainees, government ministers, lawmakers, human rights activists, lawyers and scholars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the United States said the detention system often is unjust and hurts the war on terror by inflaming anti-Americanism in Iraq and elsewhere.

Building for the Long Term

Reports of extreme physical and mental abuse, symbolized by the notorious Abu Ghraib prison photos of 2004, have abated as the Pentagon has rejected torture-like treatment of the inmates. Most recently, on Sept. 6, the Pentagon issued a new interrogation manual banning forced nakedness, hooding, stress positions and other abusive techniques.

The same day, President Bush said the CIA's secret outposts in the prison network had been emptied, and 14 terror suspects from them sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to face trial in military tribunals. The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the tribunal system, however, and the White House and Congress are now wrestling over the legal structure of such trials.

Living conditions for detainees may be improving as well. The U.S. military cites the toilets of Bagram, Afghanistan: In a cavernous old building at that air base, hundreds of detainees in their communal cages now have indoor plumbing and privacy screens, instead of exposed chamber pots.

Whatever the progress, small or significant, grim realities persist.

Human rights groups count dozens of detainee deaths for which no one has been punished or that were never explained. The secret prisons - unknown in number and location - remain available for future detainees. The new manual banning torture doesn't cover CIA interrogators. And thousands of people still languish in a limbo, deprived of one of common law's oldest rights, habeas corpus, the right to know why you are imprisoned.

"If you, God forbid, are an innocent Afghan who gets sold down the river by some warlord rival, you can end up at Bagram and you have absolutely no way of clearing your name," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch in New York. "You can't have a lawyer present evidence, or do anything organized to get yourself out of there."

The U.S. government has contended it can hold detainees until the "war on terror" ends - as it determines.

"I don't think we've gotten to the question of how long," said retired admiral John D. Hutson, former top lawyer for the U.S. Navy. "When we get up to 'forever,' I think it will be tested" in court, he said.

The Navy is planning long-term at Guantanamo. This fall it expects to open a new, $30-million maximum-security wing at its prison complex there, a concrete-and-steel structure replacing more temporary camps.

In Iraq, Army jailers are a step ahead. Last month they opened a $60-million, state-of-the-art detention center at Camp Cropper, near Baghdad's airport. The Army oversees about 13,000 prisoners in Iraq at Cropper, Camp Bucca in the southern desert, and Fort Suse in the Kurdish north.

Neither prisoners of war nor criminal defendants, they are just "security detainees" held "for imperative reasons of security," spokesman Curry said, using language from an annex to a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the U.S. presence here.

Questions of Law, Sovereignty

President Bush laid out the U.S. position in a speech Sept. 6.

"These are enemy combatants who are waging war on our nation," he said. "We have a right under the laws of war, and we have an obligation to the American people, to detain these enemies and stop them from rejoining the battle."

But others say there's no need to hold these thousands outside of the rules for prisoners of war established by the Geneva Conventions.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared last March that the extent of arbitrary detention here is "not consistent with provisions of international law governing internment on imperative reasons of security."

Meanwhile, officials of Nouri al-Maliki's 4-month-old Iraqi government say the U.S. detention system violates Iraq's national rights.

"As long as sovereignty has transferred to Iraqi hands, the Americans have no right to detain any Iraqi person," said Fadhil al-Sharaa, an aide to the prime minister. "The detention should be conducted only with the permission of the Iraqi judiciary."

At the Justice Ministry, Deputy Minister Busho Ibrahim told AP it has been "a daily request" that the detainees be brought under Iraqi authority.

There's no guarantee the Americans' 13,000 detainees would fare better under control of the Iraqi government, which U.N. officials say holds 15,000 prisoners.

But little has changed because of these requests. When the Americans formally turned over Abu Ghraib prison to Iraqi control on Sept. 2, it was empty but its 3,000 prisoners remained in U.S. custody, shifted to Camp Cropper.

Life in Custody

The cases of U.S.-detained Iraqis are reviewed by a committee of U.S. military and Iraqi government officials. The panel recommends criminal charges against some, release for others. As of Sept. 9, the Central Criminal Court of Iraq had put 1,445 on trial, convicting 1,252. In the last week of August, for example, 38 were sentenced on charges ranging from illegal weapons possession to murder, for the shooting of a U.S. Marine.

Almost 18,700 have been released since June 2004, the U.S. command says, not including many more who were held and then freed by local military units and never shipped to major prisons.

Some who were released, no longer considered a threat, later joined or rejoined the insurgency.

The review process is too slow, say U.N. officials. Until they are released, often families don't know where their men are - the prisoners are usually men - or even whether they're in American hands.

Ex-detainee Mouayad Yasin Hassan, 31, seized in April 2004 as a suspected Sunni Muslim insurgent, said he wasn't allowed to obtain a lawyer or contact his family during 13 months at Abu Ghraib and Bucca, where he was interrogated incessantly. When he asked why he was in prison, he said, the answer was, "We keep you for security reasons."

Another released prisoner, Waleed Abdul Karim, 26, recounted how his guards would wield their absolute authority.

"Tell us about the ones who attack Americans in your neighborhood," he quoted an interrogator as saying, "or I will keep you in prison for another 50 years."

As with others, Karim's confinement may simply have strengthened support for the anti-U.S. resistance. "I will hate Americans for the rest of my life," he said.

As bleak and hidden as the Iraq lockups are, the Afghan situation is even less known. Accounts of abuse and deaths emerged in 2002-2004, but if Abu Ghraib-like photos from Bagram exist, none have leaked out. The U.S. military is believed holding about 500 detainees - most Afghans, but also apparently Arabs, Pakistanis and Central Asians.

The United States plans to cede control of its Afghan detainees by early next year, five years after invading Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaida's base and bring down the Taliban government. Meanwhile, the prisoners of Bagram exist in a legal vacuum like that elsewhere in the U.S. detention network.

"There's been a silence about Bagram, and much less political discussion about it," said Richard Bennett, chief U.N. human rights officer in Afghanistan.

Freed detainees tell how in cages of 16 inmates they are forbidden to speak to each other. They wear the same orange jumpsuits and shaven heads as the terrorist suspects at Guantanamo, but lack even the scant legal rights granted inmates at that Cuba base. In some cases, they have been held without charge for three to four years, rights workers say.

Guantanamo received its first prisoners from Afghanistan - chained, wearing blacked-out goggles - in January 2002. A total of 770 detainees were sent there. Its population today of Afghans, Arabs and others, stands at 455.

Described as the most dangerous of America's "war on terror" prisoners, only 10 of the Guantanamo inmates have been charged with crimes. Charges are expected against 14 other al-Qaida suspects flown in to Guantanamo from secret prisons on Sept. 4.

Plans for their trials are on hold, however, because of a Supreme Court ruling in June against the Bush administration's plan for military tribunals.

The court held the tribunals were not authorized by the U.S. Congress and violated the Geneva Conventions by abrogating prisoners' rights. In a sometimes contentious debate, the White House and Congress are trying to agree on a new, acceptable trial plan.

Since the court decision, and after four years of confusing claims that terrorist suspects were so-called "unlawful combatants" unprotected by international law, the Bush administration has taken steps recognizing that the Geneva Conventions' legal and human rights do extend to imprisoned al-Qaida militants. At the same time, however, the new White House proposal on tribunals retains such controversial features as denying defendants access to some evidence against them.

In his Sept. 6 speech, Bush acknowledged for the first time the existence of the CIA's secret prisons, believed established at military bases or safehouses in such places as Egypt, Indonesia and eastern Europe. That network, uncovered by journalists, had been condemned by U.N. authorities and investigated by the Council of Europe.

The clandestine jails are now empty, Bush announced, but will remain a future option for CIA detentions and interrogation.

Louise Arbour, U.N. human rights chief, is urging Bush to abolish the CIA prisons altogether, as ripe for "abusive conduct." The CIA's techniques for extracting information from prisoners still remain secret, she noted.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government's willingness to resort to "extraordinary rendition," transferring suspects to other nations where they might be tortured, appears unchanged.

Prosecutions and Memories

The exposure of sadistic abuse, torture and death at Abu Ghraib two years ago touched off a flood of courts-martial of mostly lower-ranking U.S. soldiers. Overall, about 800 investigations of alleged detainee mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to action against more than 250 service personnel, including 89 convicted at courts-martial, U.S. diplomats told the United Nations in May.

Critics protest that penalties have been too soft and too little has been done, particularly in tracing inhumane interrogation methods from the far-flung islands of the overseas prison system back to policies set by high-ranking officials.

In only 14 of 34 cases has anyone been punished for the confirmed or suspected killings of detainees, the New York-based Human Rights First reports. The stiffest sentence in a torture-related death has been five months in jail. The group reported last February that in almost half of 98 detainee deaths, the cause was either never announced or reported as undetermined.

Looking back, the United States overreacted in its treatment of detainees after Sept. 11, said Anne-Marie Slaughter, a noted American scholar of international law.

It was understandable, the Princeton University dean said, but now "we have to restore a balance between security and rights that is consistent with who we are and consistent with our security needs."

Otherwise, she said, "history will look back and say that we took a dangerous and deeply wrong turn."

Back here in Baghdad, at the Alawi bus station, a gritty, noisy hub far from the meeting rooms of Washington and Geneva, women gather with fading hopes whenever a new prisoner release is announced.

As she watched one recent day for a bus from distant Camp Bucca, one mother wept and told her story.

"The Americans arrested my son, my brother and his friend," said Zahraa Alyat, 42. "The Americans arrested them October 16, 2005. They left together and I don't know anything about them."

The bus pulled up. A few dozen men stepped off, some blindfolded, some bound, none with any luggage, none with familiar faces.

As the distraught women straggled away once more, one ex-prisoner, 18-year-old Bilal Kadhim Muhssin, spotted U.S. troops nearby.

"Americans," he muttered in fear. "Oh, my God, don't say that name," and he bolted for a city bus, and freedom.

Ney Becomes First Lawmaking Casualty of Abramoff

2006-09-15T10:25:00.000-04:00

Well, here we go. Looks like Bob Ney, the Republican rep from Ohio, is pleading guilty. I'm curious to see exactly what kind of deal he might have cut. I have an incredibly hard time believing that a Republican Justice Department would have cut a deal that incriminates other Republicans, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Representative Ney to Plead Guilty in Abramoff Case, People Say

By Kristin Jensen and Michael Forsythe

Sept. 15 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Representative Bob Ney, an Ohio Republican, will become the first lawmaker to plead guilty to charges in connection with the investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, people with knowledge of the probe said.

The U.S. Justice Department called a news conference for 10:30 a.m. in Washington to announce what it said was a development in a public corruption case. Phone calls and e-mails from Bloomberg News to Ney's office and his lawyer, William Lawler, weren't returned. Ney in the past denied wrongdoing in the case.

The plea agreement may include charges of conspiracy and making false statements, the New York Times reported.

Ney, 52, announced in August that he wouldn't seek re- election, citing the Abramoff probe and its effect on his family. Prosecutors have been building a case against Ney by getting Abramoff and three of the lobbyist's former colleagues to plead guilty to improperly influencing him. In court papers, the government alleged that Ney helped Abramoff clients in exchange for gifts such as a golf outing to Scotland.

Former Ney aide Neil Volz on May 8 pleaded guilty to violating lobbying rules and conspiring to corrupt public officials. Volz was Ney's chief of staff before going to work for Abramoff in 2002. Volz testified in court on May 30 that Ney routinely helped Abramoff's team.

``We had a champion in the Congress,'' Volz said of Ney during the criminal trial of former Abramoff colleague David Safavian. Champions, Volz said, were ``people that operate at a higher level. They can provide much better information -- inside information.''

Federal Subpoena

Ney disclosed in November 2005 that he received a subpoena for documents from Justice Department investigators leading a federal task force examining Abramoff's activity. In January, the congressman gave up his post as chairman of the House Administration Committee, citing the ``distraction'' of the probe.

In leading the Administration Committee, Ney was a powerful figure in the House of Representatives. The panel's jurisdiction covers federal elections and day-to-day operations of the House, such as doling out coveted parking spots and playing a role in contracts awarded for work in the Capitol.

Ney drew national attention after his name surfaced in e- mails released by a Senate committee investigating Abramoff's work for American Indian tribes. On March 20, 2002, Abramoff wrote to his partner Michael Scanlon, ``Just met with Ney!!! We're f'ing gold!!! He's going to do Tigua.''

Reopen Casino

Abramoff was referring to language that Ney agreed to insert in federal legislation to allow an Abramoff client, the Tigua Indians of El Paso, Texas, to reopen a casino closed by state authorities. Six days later, Abramoff sent an e-mail to a tribal representative seeking $32,000 in campaign donations for Ney and his political action committees.

The Tigua provision didn't make it into the final measure, and Ney later said he was deceived by Abramoff. Ney's former spokesman, Brian Walsh, said in May that the lawmaker agreed to help Abramoff's team after being told that Senator Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, favored the measure.

Ney had also agreed to attach a provision that would help Abramoff obtain federal land for a school, according to Volz's May 30 testimony. When Abramoff's team didn't get the needed information in time, Ney suggested another piece of legislation as a vehicle for the language, Volz said.

Helpful to Abramoff

Ney had helped Abramoff before. In 2000, Ney placed two statements into the Congressional Record helpful to Abramoff's purchase of SunCruz Casino, a Florida casino ship company. Abramoff in January pleaded guilty to separate fraud charges in connection with that acquisition.

Ney's trip to Scotland with Abramoff has received the most attention. The 2002 outing also included Ney aides Will Heaton and Paul Vinovich, Christian activist Ralph Reed, lobbyist Volz and Safavian, at the time the chief of staff at the General Services Administration. Abramoff arranged for a private jet that cost more than $91,000 to take the group over to Scotland's famed St. Andrews golf course.

Safavian in June was found guilty of lying and obstructing justice in connection with Abramoff and the Scotland trip. The jury found Safavian guilty of hiding help he gave Abramoff with GSA properties when seeking permission to accept the outing from the lobbyist and then obstructing an inquiry into his actions.

Tom DeLay

In 2000, another congressman went on an Abramoff golf trip - - then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who has become mired in the lobbying scandal as well. Former Abramoff associates Scanlon and Tony Rudy, who have also pleaded guilty, previously worked for DeLay, 59, a Republican from Texas.

DeLay has denied wrongdoing. He resigned from Congress on June 9 after saying he didn't want Republicans to lose his Texas seat in a campaign battle focused in part on Abramoff. DeLay had already given up his leadership post because of an indictment in a separate campaign fund-raising-abuse case.

Ney was the only member of Congress to accept donations from both Abramoff and Scanlon between 2001 and 2004. He took at least $61,225 in that period from Abramoff's associates and the lobbyist's tribal clients.

That's more than all but three of more than 170 members of Congress who received contributions from Abramoff's lobbying team and the tribes during that time, according to Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service records.

National Security Surveillance Act: What the hell is this shit?

2006-09-14T11:12:00.000-04:00

Specter is hilarious. He's very upset and deeply troubled over the warrantless wiretapping, so he champions a bill allowing for more of it.

A bill radically redefining and expanding the government's ability to eavesdrop and search the houses of U.S. citizens without court approval passed a key Senate committee Wednesday, and may be voted on by the full Senate as early as next week.

By a 10-8 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved SB2453, the National Security Surveillance Act (.pdf), which was co-written by committee's chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) in concert with the White House.

The committee also passed two other surveillance measures, including one from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), one of the few senators to be briefed on the National Security Agency program. Feinstein's bill, which Specter co-sponsored before submitting another bill, rebuffs the administration's legal arguments and all but declares the warrantless wiretapping illegal.

In contrast, Specter's bill concedes the government's right to wiretap Americans without warrants, and allows the U.S. Attorney General to authorize, on his own, dragnet surveillance of Americans so long as the stated purpose of the surveillance is to monitor suspected terrorists or spies.

Lisa Graves, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the bill "stunning."

"The administration has taken their illegal conduct in wiretapping Americans without court orders, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Constitution, and used it as springboard to not only get FISA changed to allow the Terrorist Surveillance Program, but to actually, going forward, not give protections to Americans' privacy rights," Graves said.

Jim Dempsey, the policy director for the more moderate Center for Democracy and Technology, described the bill's passage out of committee as "light years or miles beyond the Patriot Act."

"What started out as Sen. Specter wanting to rein in the president's program has turned on its head and is now not just a legislative ratification of the program, but an expansion of warrantless wiretapping of Americans," Dempsey said. "It would allow the NSA to turn its vacuum cleaners on even domestic phone calls and e-mails of citizens.

"They do all of this in Alice in Wonderland fashion by defining all kinds of categories of surveillance to be not surveillance," said Dempsey.

Specter, who called NSA's warrantless surveillance a "festering sore on our body politic," champions his bill, since it allows, but does nor require, the administration to submit the whole surveillance program to review by a secretive court. Specter says President Bush promised to submit the NSA program to the court, if the bill passes.

The bill also strikes from U.S. law a requirement that all surveillance of suspected spies and terrorists be done in accordance with FISA. But an aide for Specter disputes that this radically changes FISA or the balance of powers: Specter considers this to be an update to FISA that moves the law toward where technology is now, according to the aide, who spoke on background.

Bush has acknowledged the NSA program monitors Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without court authorization, but says the program only targets communications where one side or the other has suspected terrorist connections.

Feinstein says her briefings lead her to believe the current system needs only minor changes, such as increasing the number of judges that issue warrants.

"I have been briefed on the terrorist-surveillance program, and I have come to believe that this surveillance can be done, without sacrifice to our national security, through court-issued individualized warrants for content collection on U.S. persons under the FISA process," Feinstein said Wednesday in a press release.

That program has recently been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Detroit, and is being challenged by more than 20 lawsuits across the country.

The bill:

* Redefines surveillance so that only programs that catch the substance of a communication need oversight. Any government surveillance that captures, analyzes and stores patterns of communications such as phone records, or e-mail and website addresses, is no longer considered surveillance.
* Expands the section of law that allows the attorney general to authorize spying on foreign embassies, so long as there's no "substantial likelihood" that an American's communication would be captured.
* Repeals the provision of federal law that allows the government unfettered wiretapping and physical searches without warrants or notification for 15 days after a declaration of war. The lack of any congressional restraint on the president's wartime powers arguably puts the president at the height, rather than the ebb, of his powers in any time of war, even an undeclared one.
* Repeals the provision of federal law that limits the government's wartime powers to conduct warrantless wiretapping and physical searches to a period of 15 days after a declaration of war.
* Repeals the provision of federal law that puts a time limit on the government's wartime powers to conduct warrantless wiretapping and physical searches against Americans. Under current law, the president has that power for only 15 days following a declaration of war.
* Allows the attorney general, or anyone he or she designates, to authorize widespread domestic spying, such as monitoring all instant-messaging systems in the country, so long as the government promises to delete anything not terrorism-related.
* Moves all court challenges to the NSA surveillance program to a secretive court in Washington, D.C., comprised of judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Only government lawyers would be allowed in the courtroom.
* Allows the government to get warrants for surveillance programs as a whole, instead of having to describe to a judge the particular persons to be monitored and the methods to be used.

A markup of the corresponding House bill, sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-New Mexico) was scheduled for Wednesday, but was canceled.

Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill.

Report from Maryland Election Judge on September 12th Election

2006-09-14T11:00:00.000-04:00

This story really puts the exclamation point on Maryland's election debacle. What a nightmare.

My Day at the Polls - Maryland Primary '06

By Avi Rubin

I don't know where to start. This primary today is the third election that I have worked as an election judge. The last two elections were in 2004, and I was in a small precinct in Timonium, MD. This time, I was in my home precinct about 1/2 a mile from my house. We had 12 machines, over 1,000 voters and 16 judges. I woke up at 5:30 in the morning and was at the precinct before 6:00. It is now 10:18 pm, and I just got home a few minutes ago. As I have made it my custom, I sat down right away to write about my experience while everything was still fresh. In anticipation of this, I took some careful notes throughout the day.

The biggest change over the 2004 election was the introduction of electronic poll books that we used to check in voters. I was introduced to these in election judge training a few weeks ago. These are basically little touchscreen computers that are connected to an Ethernet hub. They each contain a full database of the registered voters in the county, and information about whether or not each voter has already voted, in addition to all of the voter registration information. The system is designed so that the machines constantly sync with each other so that if a voter signs in on one of them and then goes to another one, that voter will already be flagged as having voted. That was the theory anyway. These poll books turned out to be a disaster, but more on that later.

Around 7:15, when we had been open for business for 15 minutes already, a gentlemen shows up saying that he is a judge from another precinct nearby and that they did not receive any smartcards, so that they could not operate their election. We had 60 smartcards, and the chief judge suggested that we give them 20 so that they could at least get their election started. As she was handing them over, I suggested that we had to somehow verify his claim. After all, anyone could walk in off the street and claim this guy's story, and we would give them 20 access cards. The chief judge agreed with me. The guy pulled out his driver's license to prove who he was, but I told him that we were not doubting who he was, we just wanted to verify that we should give him the cards. He seemed to understand that. After calling the board of elections, we were told to give him the cards and we did. A little later, several voters who came in informed us that news reports were saying that in Montgomery county, there was a widespread problem of missing smatcards. I could only imagine what a nightmare that was for those poll workers because as it was, our precinct did not have this problem, and as you'll see, it was still tough going.

My precinct uses Diebold Accuvote TS, the same one that we analyzed in our study 3 years ago. The first problem we encountered was that two of the voting machine's security tag numbers did not match our records. After a call to the board of elections, we were told to set those aside and not use them. So, we were down to 10. We set up those machines in a daisy chain fashion, as described in the judge manual, and as we learned in our training. We plugged the first one into the wall and taped the wire to the floor with electric tape so nobody would trip over it. About two hours into the voting, I noticed that the little power readout on the machines was red, and I thought that this meant that the machines were on battery power. I pointed this out to one of the chief judges, but she said this was normal. An hour later, I checked again, and this time, the machines were on extremely low power. This time, I took the plug out to of the wall and tried another outlet nearby. The power icon turned green. I showed several of the judges, and we confirmed that the original outlet was indeed dead. Had I not checked this twice, those machines would have died in the middle of the election, most likely in the middle of people voting. I hate to think about how we would have handled that. A couple of hours later, the board of elections informed us that we should use the two voting machines with the mismatched tags, so we added them and used them the rest of the day (!).

When we were setting up the electronic poll books, I took over because I was more comfortable with the technology, and the others quickly deferred to me. So, a couple of hours into the election, when one of the poll books seemed to be out of sync with the others, the judges came and brought me to have a look. It appeared that this poll book was not getting synced with the others. I tested it by waiting for someone to sign in with a different poll book, and then a few minutes later trying to sign in that voter on the one in question. The voter was shown as having not voted yet. I repeated this test for about 20 minutes, but it never registered that voter as having voted, and the poll book was falling behind - about 30 by then - the other poll book machines. I suggested rebooting that machine, and we tried that, but it did not change anything. I pointed out to the chief judges who were huddled around me as I experimented, that as time went by, this poll book was going to fall further and further behind the others, and that if someone signed in on the others, they would be able sign in again on this one and vote again. After a call to the board of elections, we decided to take this one out of commission. This was very unfortunate, because our waiting lines were starting to get very long, and the check-in was the bottleneck. The last few hours of the day, we had a 45 minute to an hour wait, and we had enough machines in service to handle the load, but it was taking people too long to sign in.

The electronic poll books presented an even bigger problem, however. Every so often, about once every 15-25 minutes, after a voter signed in, and while that voter's smartcard was being programmed with the ballot, the poll book would suddenly crash and reboot. Unfortunately, the smartcard would not be programmed at the end of this, so the poll worker would have to try again. However, the second time, the machine said that the voter had already voted. The first few times this happened, we had some very irate voters, and we had to call over the chief judge. Soon, however, we realized what was happening, and as soon as the poll book crashed, we warned the voter that it would come up saying that they had already voted, but that we knew they hadn't. Then, the chief judge would have to come over, enter a password, and authorize that person to vote anyway. Then we had to make a log entry of the event and quarantine the offending smartcard. Unfortunately, the poll books take about 3 minutes to reboot, and the chief judges are very scarce resources, so this caused further delays and caused the long line we had for most of the afternoon and evening while many of the machines were idle. Another problem was that the poll book would not subtract a voter from its total count when this happened, so every time we had an incident, the poll book voter count was further off the mark. We had to keep track of this by hand, so we could reconcile it at the end of the day.

At times, the remaining two poll books were way out of synch, but after a while, they caught up with each other. When the lines got really long, we considered the idea of trying to use the third one that had caused problems, but we all agreed that we would feel very stupid if all of them started crashing more. I was worried that synching three of these on an Ethernet hub was more complex than 2, and in fact, they were crashing a bit less often when we had only 2. The whole time I was worried about what we would do if these thing really died or crashed so badly and so often that we couldn't really use them. We had no backup voter cards, so the best we could have done would have been to start letting everybody vote by provisional ballots. However, we had two small pads of those ballots, and we would have run out quickly. I can't imagine basing the success of an election on something so fragile as these terrible, buggy machines.

Throughout the early part of the day, there was a Diebold representative at our precinct. When I was setting up the poll books, he came over to "help", and I ended up explaining to him why I had to hook the ethernet cables into a hub instead of directly into all the machines (not to mention the fact that there were not enough ports on the machines to do it that way). The next few times we had problems, the judges would call him over, and then he called me over to help. After a while, I asked him how long he had been working for Diebold because he didn't seem to know anything about the equipment, and he said, "one day." I said, "You mean they hired you yesterday?" And he replied, "yes, I had 6 hours of training yesterday. It was 80 people and 2 instructors, and none of us really knew what was going on." I asked him how this was possible, and he replied, "I shouldn't be telling you this, but it's all money. They are too cheap to do this right. They should have a real tech person in each precinct, but that costs too much, so they go out and hire a bunch of contractors the day before the election, and they think that they can train us, but it's too compressed." Around 4 pm, he came and told me that he wasn't doing any good there, and that he was too frustrated, and that he was going home. We didn't see him again.

I haven't written at all about the Accuvote machines. I guess I've made my opinions about that known in the past, and my new book deals primarily with them. Nothing happened today to change my opinion about the security of these systems, but I did have some eye opening experiences about the weaknesses of some of the physical security measures that are touted as providing the missing security. For example, I carefully studied the tamper tape that is used to guard the memory cards. In light of Hursti's report, the security of the memory cards is critical. Well, I am 100% convinced that if the tamper tape had been peeled off and put back on, nobody except a very well trained professional would notice it. The tamper tape has a tiny version of the word "void" appear inside it after it has been removed and replaced, but it is very subtle. In fact, a couple of times, due to issues we had with the machines, the chief judge removed the tamper tape and then put it back. One time, it was to reboot a machine that was hanging when a voter was trying to vote. I looked at the tamper tape that was replaced and couldn't tell the difference, and then it occurred to me that instead of rebooting, someone could mess with the memory card and replace the tape, and we wouldn't have noticed. I asked if I could play with the tamper tape a bit, and they let me handle it. I believe I can now, with great effort and concentration, tell the difference between one that has been peeled off and one that has not. But, I did not see the judges using that kind of care every time they opened and closed them. As far as I'm concerned, the tamper tape does very little in the way of actual security, and that will be the case as long as it is used by lay poll workers, as opposed to CIA agents.

As we were computing the final tallies towards the end of the evening, one of the Diebold machines froze. We had not yet printed the report that is used to post the results. One of the judges went to call the board of elections. She said she was transfered and then disconnected. We decided to do a hard reboot of it after we closed down the other machines. When we finished the other machines, we noticed that the problem one had somehow recovered, and we were able to finish. Strange because it was frozen for about 10 minutes.

So, this day at the polls was different from my two experiences in 2004. I felt more like an experienced veteran than a wide eyed newbie. The novelty that I felt in 2002 was gone, and I felt seasoned. Even the chief judges often came to me asking advice on how to handle various crises that arose. Several other suggested that I should apply to be a chief judge in the next election cycle, and I will probably do that. The least pleasant part of the day was a nagging concern that something would go terribly wrong, and that we would have no way to recover. I believe that fully electronic systems, such as the precinct we had today, are too fragile. The smallest thing can lead to a disaster. We had a long line of "customers" who were mostly patient, but somewhat irritated, and I felt like we were not always in a position to offer them decent customer service. When our poll books crashed, and the lines grew, I had a sense of dread that we might end up finishing the day without a completed election. As an election judge I put aside my personal beliefs that these machines are easy to rig in an undetectable way, and become more worried that the election process would completely fail. I don't think it would have taken much for that to have happened.

One other thing struck me. In 2004, most voters seemed happy with the machines. This time around, many of them complained about a lack of a paper trail. Some of them clearly knew who I was and my position on this, but others clearly did not. I did not hear one voter say they were happy with the machines, and a dozen or so expressed strong feelings against them.

I am way too tired now (it's past 11 pm) to write any kind of philosophical ending to this already too long blog entry. I hope that we got it right in my precinct, but I know that there is no way to know for sure. We cannot do recounts. Finally, I have to say a few words about my fellow poll workers. We all worked from 6 a.m. to past 10 p.m. These volunteers were cheerful, pleasant, and diligent. They were there to serve the public, and they acted like it. I greatly admire them, and while the election technology selection and testing processes in this country make me sick, I take great hope and inspiration from a day in the trenches with these people.

Maryland Primary Election: What the hell, Maryland?

2006-09-13T10:12:00.000-04:00

I don't know how well-covered this was outside of this area, but it's stunning how incompetent the Maryland board of elections proved themselves yesterday. It's not as if this was some surprise election or something. Amazing. I don't care if it was the fault of Democrats or Republicans; all I know is someone needs to lose their job over this shit. Raffles are run better than this.

Election Board Workers' Error Hinders Voting

By Christian Davenport and Miranda S. Spivack
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 13, 2006; Page A01

The most basic of human errors threw Maryland's primary election into chaos yesterday: Someone forgot the wallet-size plastic cards needed to operate the voting machines in Montgomery County, frustrating early morning voters who lined up outside polling places and often were turned away without voting.

Courts ordered polls to remain open an extra hour in the county and in Baltimore, where at least two dozen polling places opened late, but it seemed doubtful that the extensions would resolve the confusion.

Some Montgomery County polling places didn't receive word of the order to remain open until minutes before 8 p.m., when they had been scheduled to close. Others ran short on the paper ballots that the court instructed be used during the extended hour of voting, with voters scribbling their choices on scraps of paper in Takoma Park.

"You had to laugh. It got more and more ludicrous," said Dennis Desmond, who cast his "vote" on a discarded flier handed to him by election officials after ballots ran out in Takoma Park.

He said election workers rushed to a nearby pharmacy to buy envelopes in which the makeshift ballots could be sealed.

The number of paper ballots cast won't be known until today. They will not be counted until Monday.

When all of the county's 238 polling places opened in Montgomery, the state's most populous jurisdiction, the electronic voting machines were inoperable. Many precincts handed out provisional paper ballots as soon as the precinct doors opened at 7 a.m., but at some polls those ballots ran out, and at others election officials didn't know that paper ballots were an option. They just told people to come back later.

Although the cards necessary to activate most of the voting machines arrived by 8:30, election officials said some of the machines weren't working until 10 a.m. -- three hours after polls opened. Voters said some didn't start operating until even later.

Partisan bickering broke out, with the governor blaming the Democratic legislature, and the Democrats pointing the finger at the governor.

Nancy H. Dacek, who was appointed as president of the county's Board of Elections by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R), apologized for the error.

"We regret what happened this morning. It was just a fluke," Dacek said. "There was a glitch. It's now been taken care of."

The cards that went astray are called voter access cards and look like white ATM cards with a golden computer chip embedded in them. They are issued to voters once election judges verify they are registered to vote. When the cards are placed into the voting machines, the ballot appears on the touch screen.

Rove back to his Disgusting Tricks

2006-09-12T09:36:00.000-04:00

Whoah, two Andrew Sullivan articles in one year. What the hell is going on?

Anyway, Rove's strategy is...well, he's intending to attack those who oppose torture and abuse of the Constitution, including those in the Republican party. Absolutely disgusting. Can someone kill this bastard already?

Next week, I'm informed via troubled White House sources, will see the full unveiling of Karl Rove's fall election strategy. He's intending to line up 9/11 families to accuse McCain, Warner and Graham of delaying justice for the perpetrators of that atrocity, because they want to uphold the ancient judicial traditions of the U.S. military and abide by the Constitution. He will use the families as an argument for legalizing torture, setting up kangaroo courts for military prisoners, and giving war crime impunity for his own aides and cronies. This is his "Hail Mary" move for November; it's brutally exploitative of 9/11; it's pure partisanship; and it's designed to enable an untrammeled executive. Decent Republicans, Independents and Democrats must do all they can to expose and resist this latest descent into political thuggery. If you need proof that this administration's first priority is not a humane and effective counter-terror strategy, but a brutal, exploitative path to retaining power at any price, you just got it.

GOP Plans to get Personal

2006-09-12T09:29:00.000-04:00

When you can't run on successes, sling mud, I guess. I like to think that this will fail, that the people are sick and tired of negative campaigning, but I also thought that Bush would lose in 2004, so I'm obviously not a very good predictor of the American people. But please, people, PLEASE prove me right. Please prove to me that enough is enough, that you understand that this negative crap has nothing to do with representing our interests.

Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.

The hope is that a vigorous effort to "define" opponents, in the parlance of GOP operatives, can help Republicans shift the midterm debate away from Iraq and limit losses this fall. The first round of attacks includes an ad that labeled a Democratic candidate in Wisconsin "Dr. Millionaire" and noted that he has sued 80 patients.

"Opposition research is power," said Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (N.Y.), the NRCC chairman. "Opposition research is the key to defining untested opponents."

The Republican National Committee, meanwhile, has enlisted veteran party strategist Terry Nelson to run a campaign that will coordinate with Senate Republicans on ads that similarly will rely on the best of the worst that researchers have dug up on Democrats. The first ad run by the new RNC effort criticizes Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) for voting against proposals designed to toughen border protection and deport illegal immigrants.

Because challengers tend to be little-known compared with incumbents, they are more vulnerable to having their public image framed by the opposition through attacks and unflattering personal revelations.

And with polls showing the Republicans' House and Senate majorities in jeopardy, party strategists said they have concluded that their best chance to prevent big Democratic gains is a television and direct-mail blitz over the next eight weeks aimed at raising enough questions about Democratic candidates that voters decide they are unacceptable choices.

"When you run in an adverse political environment, you try to localize and personalize the race as much as you can," Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said.

In a memo released last week, Cole, who is running to succeed Reynolds at the NRCC, expanded on that strategy. The memo recommended that vulnerable incumbents spend $20,000 on a research "package" to find damaging material about challengers and urged that they "define your opponent immediately and unrelentingly."

GOP officials said internal polling shows Republicans could limit losses to six to 10 House seats and two or three Senate seats if the strategy -- combined with the party's significant financial advantage and battled-tested turnout operation -- proves successful. Democrats need to pick up 15 seats to win control of the House and six to regain power in the Senate.

Against some less experienced and little-known opponents, said Matt Keelen, a Republican lobbyist heavily involved in House campaigns, "It will take one or two punches to fold them up like a cheap suit."

Republicans plan to attack Democratic candidates over their voting records, business dealings, and legal tussles, the GOP officials said.

John Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University and the author of a book on negative advertising, said Republicans and Democrats alike lack positive issues on which to run because of divisions over the war and economic policy. This will be a "very negative campaign and probably a more negative campaign than any in recent memory," Geer said.

As Republicans try to localize races, Democrats' hopes for the most part hinge on being able to nationalize the election and turn it into a referendum on the Iraq war, President Bush, and the performance of the Republican Congress -- all faring poorly in polls this year.

Bush will try to make terrorism the issue nationally, casting the election as a choice between two distinct approaches for protecting the nation from attack. Beyond that, however, most Republicans want to distance their elections from the national context.

That strategy is born of necessity. Republicans are alarmed by the large number of House and Senate incumbents who are trailing or tied in their internal polling. Many are attracting the support of less than 45 percent of likely voters -- a danger zone for any incumbent 60 days before an election. The political rule of thumb is that incumbents rarely draw a majority of voters who make up their minds in the days shortly before Election Day.

History shows how the combination of opposition research and negative advertising can work. In 2000, Republicans unleashed a furious attack on the spending practices of Democratic House candidate Linda Chapin, including her purchase of an $18,500 bronze frog as a legislator in Florida. Chapin, then the favorite to win an open Florida House seat, lost to Republican Ric Keller. That same election cycle, Republicans dug up a tape of state Rep. Eleanor Jordan (D-Ky.) asking to speed up a vote so she could attend a fundraiser, an image that destroyed her chances of knocking off Rep. Anne M. Northup (R).

This year, the challenge is tougher, as national polling shows voters dissatisfied with the party in power and ready for a change.

"When all [Republicans] do is launch potshots, they look like they're trying to cover up the fact that they have no solutions" said Phil Singer, communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

As in past elections, the bulk of negative advertising this year probably will be delivered by party committees -- a strategy that allows the candidates to distance themselves from the trash-talking messages that turn off some voters.

Wisconsin's 8th District offers an example. Earlier this summer, the NRCC sent a young staff member to the district for one week to look through court records, government and medical documents, and local newspapers to find embarrassing information about physician Steve Kagen, one of the leading Democratic candidates in an important swing district, an NRCC aide said. The researcher discovered that Kagen's allergy clinic has sued more than 80 patients, mostly for failing to pay their bills.

A new NRCC ad airing in the Green Bay area, the district's main media market, warns: "What Dr. Millionaire doesn't want you to know is his clinic left more than 80 patients behind -- suing them. That's right, suing more than 80 patients."

In recent elections, Democratic officials have complained that Republicans are much better at opposition research. But Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chair the Democrats' House and Senate campaign committees, have invested more heavily in research. Notably, the researchers dig not only into Republicans, but also their own candidates. This allows Democrats to anticipate what is coming and be ready to respond quickly.

One Democratic research success this year came when Emanuel's staff combed though the archives of several universities to find a copy of an article Colorado Republican candidate Rick O'Donnell wrote for an obscure publication in the mid-1990s. A researcher eventually found the article at George Washington University. In it, O'Donnell argued that Social Security should be abolished -- a revelation that was highlighted in three sharply worded DSCC mailings in the district.

Direct-mail appeals often carry the most negative and potentially damaging messages. Dan Hazelwood, a leading GOP direct mail consultant, said that if a hypothetical Democratic candidate favors the establishment of a garbage dump in a section of the district, for instance, it makes more sense to "narrow-cast" this message by mail to the people most affected rather than buying an expensive, districtwide television ad.

The RNC's expanded role in part reflects concerns that Senate Republicans may not have enough money to take the fight to Democrats. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, under Chair Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), had $15 million less to spend than the DSCC at the end of July. But, the RNC is planning to make up the difference. The committee ended July with nearly $44 million in the bank, four times what the Democratic National Committee had on hand.

In setting up a separate arm to spend money on Senate races, the RNC is altering its past practice. In the past, the RNC simply transferred a large sum of money to the House and Senate campaign committees and let the chairmen decide how to spend it. This year, Nelson -- a former top official in the Bush reelection effort and political strategist for House Republicans -- will work with consultants Tony Feather and Curt Anderson to oversee the TV and direct-mail campaign, which by law must remain independent of coordination directly with candidates.

Marines Chief Intelligence Officer: Anbar Province is a lost cause

2006-09-11T10:35:00.000-04:00

Al-Anbar is really big. How could we lose control of all of it? Are things really that bad? Wait, don't answer that.

I think the best thing we can do at this point is guard the border of Al-Anbar the best we can and try to stop the transfer of arms and guerillas in and out of the territory. It probably won't work at all, but I can't think of much else at this point.

Situation Called Dire in West Iraq
Anbar Is Lost Politically, Marine Analyst Says

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 11, 2006; A01

The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.

The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq.

One Army officer summarized it as arguing that in Anbar province, "We haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically -- and that's where wars are won and lost."

The "very pessimistic" statement, as one Marine officer called it, was dated Aug. 16 and sent to Washington shortly after that, and has been discussed across the Pentagon and elsewhere in national security circles. "I don't know if it is a shock wave, but it's made people uncomfortable," said a Defense Department official who has read the report. Like others interviewed about the report, he spoke on the condition that he not be identified by name because of the document's sensitivity.

Devlin reports that there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force, said the Army officer, who has read the report. Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar.

Devlin offers a series of reasons for the situation, including a lack of U.S. and Iraqi troops, a problem that has dogged commanders since the fall of Baghdad more than three years ago, said people who have read it. These people said he reported that not only are military operations facing a stalemate, unable to extend and sustain security beyond the perimeters of their bases, but also local governments in the province have collapsed and the weak central government has almost no presence.

Those conclusions are striking because, even after four years of fighting an unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq, the U.S. military has tended to maintain an optimistic view: that its mission is difficult, but that progress is being made. Although CIA station chiefs in Baghdad have filed negative classified reports over the past several years, military intelligence officials have consistently been more positive, both in public statements and in internal reports.

Devlin, as part of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) headquarters in Iraq, has been stationed there since February, so his report isn't being dismissed as the stunned assessment of a newly arrived officer. In addition, he has the reputation of being one of the Marine Corps' best intelligence officers, with a tendency to be careful and straightforward, said another Marine intelligence officer. Hence, the report is being taken seriously as it is examined inside the military establishment and also by some CIA officials.

Not everyone interviewed about the report agrees with its glum findings. The Defense Department official, who worked in Iraq earlier this year, said his sense is that Anbar province is going to be troubled as long as U.S. troops are in Iraq. "Lawlessness is a way of life there," he said. As for the report, he said, "It's one conclusion about one area. The conclusion on al Anbar doesn't translate into a perspective on the entire country."

No one interviewed would quote from the report, citing its classification, and The Washington Post was not shown a copy of it. But over the past three weeks, Devlin's paper has been widely disseminated in military and intelligence circles. It is provoking intense debate over the key finding that in Anbar, the U.S. effort to clear and hold major cities and the upper Euphrates valley has failed.

The report comes at an awkward time politically, just as a midterm election campaign gets underway that promises to be in part a referendum on the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war. It also follows by just a few weeks the testimony of Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee early last month that "it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."

"It's hard to be optimistic right now," said one Army general who has served in Iraq. "There's a sort of critical mass of tough news," he said, with intensifying violence from the insurgency and between Sunnis and Shiites, a lack of effective Iraqi government and a growing concern that Iraq may be falling apart.

"In the analytical world, there is a real pall of gloom descending," said Jeffrey White, a former analyst of Middle Eastern militaries for the Defense Intelligence Agency, who also had been told about the pessimistic Marine report.

Devlin, who is in Iraq, could not be reached to comment. Col. Jerry Renne, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, said Saturday that "as a matter of policy, we don't comment on classified documents."

Anbar is a key province; it encompasses Ramadi and Fallujah, which with Baghdad pose the greatest challenge U.S. forces have faced in Iraq. It accounts for 30 percent of Iraq's land mass, encompassing the vast area from the capital to the borders of Syria and Jordan, including much of the area that has come to be known as the Sunni Triangle.

The insurgency arguably began there with fighting in Fallujah not long after U.S. troops arrived in April 2003, and fighting has since continued. Thirty-three U.S. military personnel died there in August -- 17 from the Marines, 13 from the Army and three from the Navy.

A second general who has read the report warned that he thought it was accurate as far as it went, but agreed with the defense official that Devlin's "dismal" view may not have much applicability elsewhere in Iraq. The problems facing Anbar are peculiar to that region, he and others argued.

But an Army officer in Iraq familiar with the report said he considers it accurate. "It is best characterized as 'realistic,' " he said.

"From what I understand, it is very candid, very unvarnished," said retired Marine Col. G. I. Wilson. "It says the emperor has no clothes."

One view of the report offered by some Marine officers is that it is a cry for help from an area where fighting remains intense, yet which recently has been neglected by top commanders and Bush administration officials as they focus on bringing a sense of security to Baghdad. An Army unit of Stryker light armored vehicles that had been slated to replace another unit in Anbar was sent to reinforce operations in Baghdad, leaving commanders in the west scrambling to move around other troops to fill the gap.

Devlin's report is a work of intelligence analysis, not of policy prescription, so it does not try to suggest what, if anything, can be done to fix the situation. It is not clear what the implications would be for U.S. forces if Devlin's view is embraced by top commanders elsewhere in Iraq. U.S. officials are wary of simply abandoning the Sunni parts of Iraq, for fear that they could become havens for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

One possible solution would be to try to turn over the province to Iraqi forces, but that could increase the risk of a full-blown civil war. Shiite-dominated forces might begin slaughtering Sunnis, while Sunni-dominated units might simply begin acting independently of the central government.

Earthquake in the Gulf

2006-09-11T10:18:00.000-04:00

Haven't seen this reported too many places, but it certainly begs the question of what a more powerful tsunami might do to the region. And what aftershocks might we see?

Central Floridians have a new natural disaster to contend with: earthquakes.

A strong and unusual earthquake Sunday morning in the Gulf of Mexico sent ripples through Central Florida. It was felt south in Miami and north as far as coastal Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama and northern Georgia.

The U.S. Geological Survey, which monitors seismic activity, recorded the earthquake at 10:56 a.m., about 260 miles southwest of Tampa. It reached magnitude 6, the strongest and most widely felt of only about a dozen temblors that have been recorded in the Gulf in 30 years.

No injuries or property damage had been reported, and the operations of Central Florida theme parks, ports and airports were not disrupted by the sudden shocks. No resulting tsunami was reported in the Gulf, and none was expected, the National Weather Service said.

But many residents experienced chandeliers swinging and walls shaking. They filed thousands of incident reports at the USGS Web site.

"I had never heard of an earthquake in Florida," Eleanor Loke, a retiree from New Jersey who has lived in Clermont 10 years, said Sunday afternoon.

Loke was at home with her husband, Bill, when he alerted her to an unusual shaking around him.

"He got really worried thinking that it was his pacemaker [causing the shaking]," Eleanor Loke said. "But then we realized the lamp was shaking, too, and we knew it had to be something else."

Scientists had a better explanation.

"Earthquakes are very unusual for the Gulf," said Don Blakeman, a seismologist with the National Earthquake Information Center in Golden, Colo., which is part of the USGS. "One of this magnitude is even more uncommon."

Before Sunday's earthquake, the most recent temblor in the Gulf was Feb. 10 and was a magnitude 5.2, USGS data show.

That another one followed seven months later puzzled scientists even more. "It's just usually not an active area," Blakeman said.

There are occasional earthquakes off Florida's coast, but rarely are they felt on shore. Strong quakes were felt in St. Augustine and Daytona Beach in 1879 and in northwest Florida in 1780.

Some of Central Florida's worried residents called 911 on Sunday, police agencies across the region confirmed.

"People called to say they had felt a tremor," said Barbara Miller, a spokeswoman for the Orange County Sheriff's Office. She didn't have a specific number of callers.

Ann Harvey, 82, of Sanford was home alone when she felt the earthquake and called 911.

"I wasn't sure what was going on," Harvey said. "I wondered if it was a sinkhole opening up, so I called wondering if I'd be needing help."

Others called their loved ones in panic.

Carolyn Beno was working on the top floor of a six-story building near Mall at Millenia when "it almost felt like the building swayed." Thinking a building nearby had collapsed, she called her boyfriend, scared.

"He said, I was just imagining things and I must have been tired," she said. "He said to not worry, I must have gotten dizzy or something, to go eat."

She didn't find out there had been an earthquake until hours later, when a co-worker came in to begin her shift.

Meanwhile, meteorologists with the National Weather Service were keeping a watchful eye on the Gulf, looking for any abnormality.

"Our primary concern is the development of a tsunami," said Scott Kelly, a meteorologist with the Weather Service in Melbourne. "Fortunately, there hasn't been any indication of that."

Kelly explained that for a tsunami, or fast-moving tidal wave, to develop, the seismic activity usually has to reach magnitude 6.5 or higher. It is possible, however, for such waves to develop at lower magnitudes. Aftershocks, he said, also are a concern.

William Beem, a Sanford resident, said he hopes earthquakes continue to be a fluke and not the norm in the Sunshine State. He was working at his home office when he felt the tremors.

"It dawned on me, the ground's shaking," he said. At first he thought it was an airplane flying too low.

"We get hurricanes and tourists," he said. "I don't want earthquakes to add to the list."

Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone who planned post-invasion Iraq strategy

2006-09-09T20:30:00.000-04:00

I just...wow.

FORT EUSTIS, Va. — Long before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists to develop plans for securing a postwar Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday. In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a postwar plan.

Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff in 2003, after Shinseki told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure postwar Iraq. Scheid, who is also the commander of Fort Eustis, made his comments in an interview with the Daily Press. He retires in about three weeks.

In 2001, Scheid was a colonel with the Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East. On Sept. 10, 2001, he was selected to be the chief of logistics war plans. On Sept. 11, he said, "life just went to hell."

That day, Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of Central Command, told his planners, including Scheid, to "get ready to go to war." A day or two later, Rumsfeld was "telling us we were going to war in Afghanistan and to start building the war plan. We were going to go fast.

"Then, just as we were barely into Afghanistan, Rumsfeld came and told us to get ready for Iraq." Scheid said he remembers everyone thinking, "My gosh, we're in the middle of Afghanistan, how can we possibly be doing two at one time? How can we pull this off? It's just going to be too much."

There was already an offensive plan in place for Iraq, Scheid said. To start, the planners were just expanding on it.

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay." But Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations such as security and reconstruction.

Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.
"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," he said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today. "He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war," Scheid said.

Arnold finds reason "Latinos" are hot tempered

2006-09-08T16:08:00.000-04:00

Nice one, Arnie.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger tells advisers on a tape that Cubans and Puerto Ricans are naturally temperamental because of their combination of “black blood” and “Latino blood.”

“I mean Cuban, Puerto Rican, they are all very hot,” the governor says on the recording of a closed-door meeting obtained by the Los Angeles Times and made available on its Web site Friday. “They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it.”

The six-minute tape was made earlier this year. On it, Schwarzenegger and Chief of Staff Susan Kennedy speak affectionately of Republican Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia and speculate about her nationality.

Garcia, who is Puerto Rican and a Republican like Schwarzenegger, told the Times the governor’s remarks did not bother her.

“I love the governor because he is a straight talker just like I am,” she said. “Very often I tell him, ‘Look, I am a hot-blooded Latina.’ I label myself a hot-blooded Latina that is very passionate about the issues, and this is kind of an inside joke that I have with the governor.”

Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson called the governor’s remarks “a small part of a long conversation that is taken totally out of context.”

“The governor respects every member of the Legislature and holds them in the highest regard,” Thompson said in a statement. “It is not uncommon for him to have fun and joke with the members while they’re working, especially during very tense negotiations.”

The recording is full of frank and comic assessments of fellow Republicans from Schwarzenegger and his staff.

Kennedy, a Democrat who also worked for former governor Gray Davis, says Republican Assembly leader George Plescia looks like a “startled deer,” and the governor calls Republican legislators a “wild bunch” and a “unique, unruly group.”

It was not known why the session was taped. The Times said Schwarzenegger sometimes records private meetings so speechwriters have a record of his thoughts and speaking patterns.

The newspaper did not say how the tape was obtained. The participants suggest during the meeting that they know they are being recorded.

Iraq deaths multiply in new August count - Yahoo! News

2006-09-08T10:39:00.000-04:00

Remember that security crackdown in Baghdad that was supposed to fix things? Yeah, well...

This shit, along with the attack on the media for not reporting "good news," and those that go so far as to suggest that the media's reporting of events consitutes a fifth column, and the numerous other authoritarian rantings of those who once constituted the "extreme right" and the goddamn President and his administration, makes me feel disturbed about what's gone wrong to allow us to get to this point. I truly cannot understand Bush supporters, nor do I want to try to anymore.

Iraq deaths multiply in new August count

By RAWYA RAGEH, Associated Press Writer Thu Sep 7, 1:20 PM ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Updated figures from
Iraq's Health Ministry show there was no significant decline in violent deaths in Baghdad last month, but the U.S. military insisted Thursday the murder rate in the capital had fallen by 52 percent.
ADVERTISEMENT

Baghdad recorded more than 1,500 violent deaths in August, according to final figures released this week by the Health Ministry. The final count was roughly the same as the figure the ministry released for July, before the U.S.-led security crackdown began in the Baghdad area.

The final figure also was nearly three times the preliminary count released by the same ministry last week.

If accurate, the final figures cast doubt on U.S. and Iraqi claims of a significant reduction in the level of violence here since the crackdown was launched Aug. 7.

Asked about the latest Iraqi figures Thursday, U.S. spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Johnson refused to provide an explanation, merely referring The Associated Press to a statement on a U.S. military Web site that said the murder rate in Baghdad dropped 52 percent from the daily rate for July.

"The violence Baghdad endured in July receded during the month of August," the statement added. "Attacks in Baghdad were well below the monthly average for July."

Deputy Health Minister Hakem al-Zamly this week put the August violent death count for Baghdad at 1,536, based on figures from the city morgue.

However, preliminary Health Ministry figures released last week showed violent deaths in August in Baghdad at just 550, according to Dr. Riad Abdul Amir of the ministry's statistics bureau.

Iraqi officials could provide no explanation for the difference between the preliminary and final August figures, but it could have resulted in part from a late August surge in deaths. More than 250 people were killed in Baghdad in the final week of the month.

Efforts by the AP to contact Amir on Thursday for an explanation were unsuccessful.

Accurate figures on the number of people who have died since the Iraq conflict began in March 2003 have long been difficult to obtain. The Health Ministry relies on reports from government hospitals and morgues.

Poor phone lines and shortages of trained staff and computers can delay entering death reports into databases, which means the preliminary count may have lagged sharply.

But accurate figures are important because Iraqi and U.S. officials — anxious to demonstrate progress as support for the war declines in the U.S. — have used them to claim success in curbing violence in Baghdad.

Last month, U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell said the murder rate in Baghdad fell by 46 percent from July to August.

Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie insisted last week that execution-style killings and sectarian violence had dropped by 45 percent in the last six weeks.

Bush admits to secret prisons

2006-09-07T10:13:00.000-04:00

Hmmm. This is either a brilliant political move that could save the Republicans' hash or sink them utterly. Knowing Americans, I have a sinking feeling, but I could be wrong. Maybe this will utterly backfire. All I know is that these "trials" are going to be jokes if they allow evidence acquired through torture, and I can't imagine them going forward any other way.

Bush admits to secret prisons
President defends clandestine program, announces trials for 14 top terror suspects

ALAN FREEMAN

WASHINGTON -- U.S. President George W. Bush admitted for the first time that the CIA has been operating clandestine prisons as he announced plans to try 14 high-profile terrorist suspects -- including the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks -- who have been held at the secret jails.

After his administration spent months steadfastly refusing to confirm the existence of the widely criticized "black sites," Mr. Bush not only acknowledged that terrorists had been "held and questioned outside the United States" by the Central Intelligence Agency but he praised the program as one that had broken up several plots and kept "potential mass murderers off the streets before they were able to kill us." The presumed terrorists, including suspects in the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000 and the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, have already been transferred to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba where 455 other suspects are also being held.

Mr. Bush strongly defended the clandestine program, saying it had saved lives and remained "vital to the security of the United States and our friends and allies." While admitting that procedures used in the detention centres were "tough," Mr. Bush denied any use of torture. "It's against our laws and against our values."

The group of transferred prisoners includes Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001; Abu Zubaydah, a key link between Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda operatives; and Ramzi Binalshibh, a would-be Sept. 11 hijacker.

The surprise admission by Mr. Bush was part of a series of announcements yesterday timed for maximum political effect just days before the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Bush said he was introducing legislation that would allow "enemy combatants" to be tried by special military commissions.

The Pentagon also made public new rules banning abusive treatment of prisoners, marking a reversal from earlier policy which said the terrorists did not qualify for that kind of legal protection.

In asking Congress to set out the rules for the military commissions, Mr. Bush was responding to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that earlier trial plans violated U.S. and international law. He was making it clear that in the future the United States will play by the rules of the Geneva Conventions when it comes to the treatment of prisoners.

But by announcing the transfer of the 14 suspects to Guantanamo, Mr. Bush was anxious to portray himself as the leader of the war on terrorism and to put his Democratic opponents on the defensive in the run-up to crucial congressional mid-term elections in November. The families of Sept. 11 victims were invited to witness the President's 35-minute speech in the White House, which was broadcast live on national TV.

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer lashed out at the Bush administration for flouting international law for so long. "Their bull-in-the-china-shop approach -- ignore the Constitution, ignore the rule of law -- has made us worse off than if we had gone to Congress originally."

The existence of the secret prisons and the surreptitious transfer of suspects by chartered aircraft across Europe and Asia was first revealed in November of 2005 by The Washington Post, touching off a wave of indignation, particularly among European governments.

A month later, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spent several days in Europe, refusing to answer any questions about the prisons, pleading that "we have an obligation to defend our people, and we will use every lawful means to do so." National-security adviser Stephen Hadley was no more forthcoming, but he insisted that even if the secret prisons did exist, they wouldn't be used for torture. In his own tortured language, he stated, "The fact that they are secret, assuming there are such sites, does not mean" that torture would be tolerated.

In yesterday's speech, Mr. Bush divulged details of how the questioning of Mr. Zubaydah led first to the capture of Mr. Binalshibh and then to Mr. Mohammed's arrest. He said that the CIA interrogations led to the breakup of a South Asian cell of al-Qaeda that was planning an attack on the United States, likely with the use of aircraft, in addition to breaking up a separate plot involving the use of deadly anthrax.

Mr. Bush said the clandestine facilities were now empty of all prisoners but he said that "having a CIA program for questioning terrorists will continue to be crucial to getting life-saving information." Mr. Bush did not identify where the secret prisons had been located but a report from the Council of Europe in June said it believed there had been sites in Romania and Poland.

Mr. Bush urged Congress to pass the new rules for military commissions during their current month-long session prior to their election recess. But the President's proposed law is likely to prompt a battle in the Senate involving Republican moderates John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who have drafted a proposal that would include the right of defendants in terrorism cases to have access to all evidence used against them.

Mr. Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, worried that keeping evidence away from a terrorism suspect would set a precedent that other countries could follow if a U.S. soldier were arrested and put on trial.

Critics were quick to lash out at the Bush administration for failing to fully enforce the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners of war. They also are leery of a section of the proposed law that would exempt civilian interrogators of terrorist prisoners from being subject to the U.S. War Crimes Act for abuses they may commit. Mr. Bush claims that if the law isn't changed, "our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing terrorists and questioning terrorists could now be at the risk of prosecution."

"We must not abandon the very freedoms that define America, and we urge Congress to reject the President's proposal," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who said that interrogators who threatened detainees with death or subjected them to other forms of abuse would have a "get out of jail free" card under the proposed law.

Transferred from secret prisons

U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday that 14 detainees have been transferred from secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons to Guantanamo Bay for trial. He said the CIA facilities have held several well-known terrorist suspects, including:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed: Born in Pakistan. Alleged to have been a top-tier al-Qaeda leader before being arrested in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, in 2003. Thought to have been the principal planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against targets in Washington and New York.

Ramzi Binalshibh: Born in Yemen. Believed to have been the "20th hijacker" and to have belonged to an al-Qaeda cell in Germany, where he shared an apartment with ringleader Mohamed Atta. Denied a U.S. visa before the Sept. 11 attacks, and was arrested in Karachi on Sept. 11, 2002.

Abu Zubaydah: Born in Saudi Arabia. Thought to have worked as a recruiter for al-Qaeda and to have led the failed 2000 "Millennium plot" attacks against targets in Amman and Los Angeles. He was captured in Faisalabad, Pakistan, in March of 2002.

Riduan Isamuddin: Born in Indonesia. Known as Hambali and often described as Southeast Asia's answer to Osama bin Laden, he was linked to the 2002 Bali bombings and efforts to spread Islamic theocracy across the region. He was captured in Ayutthaya, Thailand, in August of 2003.

Telegraph | News | I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader

2006-09-05T10:02:00.000-04:00

This is a great sign. Not only was Al-sistani basically the glue holding the country together, but we also learn that he hasn't met with any Americans for months. That means that Rumsfeld probably started giving this up months ago too, but still maintains the public idea that we are staying the course and things are going well just for the November elections.

I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader
By Gethin Chamberlain and Aqeel Hussein in Baghdad
(Filed: 03/09/2006)

The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.

Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands
to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.

"I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."

It is a devastating blow to the remaining hopes for a peaceful solution in Iraq and spells trouble for British forces, who are based in and around the Shia stronghold of Basra.

The cleric is regarded as the most important Shia religious leader in Iraq and has been a moderating influence since the invasion of 2003. He ended the fighting in Najaf between Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army and American forces in 2004 and was instrumental in persuading the Shia factions to fight the 2005 elections under the single banner of the United Alliance.

However, the extent to which he has become marginalised was demonstrated last week when fighting broke out in Diwaniya between Iraqi soldiers and al-Sadr's Mehdi army. With dozens dead, al-Sistani's appeals for calm were ignored. Instead, the provincial governor had to travel to Najaf to see al-Sadr, who ended the fighting with one telephone call.

Al-Sistani's aides say that he has chosen to stay silent rather than suffer the ignominy of being ignored. Ali al-Jaberi, a spokesman for the cleric in Khadamiyah, said that he was furious that his followers had turned away from him and ignored his calls for moderation.

Asked whether Ayatollah al-Sistani could prevent a civil war, Mr al-Jaberi replied: "Honestly, I think not. He is very angry, very disappointed."

He said a series of snubs had contributed to Ayatollah al-Sistani's decision. "He asked the politicians to ask the Americans to make a timetable for leaving but they disappointed him," he said. "After the war, the politicians were visiting him every month. If they wanted to do something, they visited him. But no one has visited him for two or three months. He is very angry that this is happening now. He sees this as very bad."

A report from the Pentagon on Friday said that the core conflict in Iraq had changed from a battle against insurgents to an increasingly bloody fight between Shia and Sunni Muslims, creating conditions that could lead to civil war. It noted that attacks rose by 24 per cent to 792 per week – the highest of the war – and daily Iraqi casualties soared by 51 per cent to almost 120, prompting some ordinary Iraqis to look to illegal militias for their safety and sometimes for social needs and welfare.

Hundreds of thousands of people have turned away from al-Sistani to the far more aggressive al-Sadr. Sabah Ali, 22, an engineering student at Baghdad University, said that he had switched allegiance after the murder of his brother by Sunni gunmen. "I went to Sistani asking for revenge for my brother," he said. "They said go to the police, they couldn't do anything.

"But even if the police arrest them, they will release them for money, because the police are bad people. So I went to the al-Sadr office. I told them about the terrorists' family. They said, 'Don't worry, we'll get revenge for your brother'. Two days later, Sadr's people had killed nine of the terrorists, so I felt I had revenge for my brother. I believe Sadr is the only one protecting the Shia against the terrorists."

According to al-Sadr's aides, he owes his success to keeping in touch with the people. "He meets his representatives every week or every day. Sistani only meets his representatives every month," said his spokesman, Sheik Hussein al-Aboudi.

"Muqtada al-Sadr asks them what the situation is on the street, are there any fights against the Shia, he is asking all the time. So the people become close to al-Sadr because he is closer to them than Sistani. Sistani is the ayatollah, he is very expert in Islam, but not as a politician."

Even the Iraqi army seems to have accepted that things have changed. First Lieut Jaffar al-Mayahi, an Iraqi National Guard officer, said many soldiers accepted that al-Sadr's Mehdi army was protecting Shias. "When they go to checkpoints and their vehicles are searched, they say they are Mehdi army and they are allowed through. But if we stop Sistani's people we sometimes arrest them and take away their weapons."

Western diplomats fear that the vacuum will be filled by the more radical Shia clerics, hastening the break-up of the country and an increase in sectarian violence.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former special representative for Iraq, said the decline in Ayatollah al-Sistani's influence was bad news for Iraq.

"It would be a pity if his strong instincts to maintain the unity of Iraq and to forswear violence were removed from influencing the scene," he said.

Poll: U.S. Not Ready for Major Disaster

2006-08-28T10:05:00.000-04:00

I'm not surprised that the majority of people think this; what I am interested in is seeing how this translates when it comes time to vote again.

Poll: U.S. Not Ready for Major Disaster
AP Poll: a Year After Katrina, Most Americans Say Nation Isn't Ready for Another Disaster

President Bush walks with Kim Bassier, left, 21, of Biloxi, Miss., and her sister Bronwynne Bassier, 23, in a Biloxi neighborhood devastated by Hurricane Katrina in this Sept. 2, 2005 file photo. Bush was touring Gulf Coast communities battered by Hurricane Katrina, hoping to boost the spirits of storm victims and exhausted rescuers. When Katrina shredded the Gulf Coast, it also damaged President Bush's image as a effective, take-charge commander in chief. Ever since, the president has sought to overcome the harm done when he appeared initially remote from the misery and oversaw a halting early response. This week, Bush is returning to the region for the first time in more than three months. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)
US Headlines

* Pain, Fury Still Rage a Year After Katrina
* Area Codes: Hometown Pride | STORY
* Coors Beer Exec Pleads Guilty to DWI

US Videos

* Tonight's Menu: Cheese Soufflé
* Dish du Jour: Snail Fricassee
* Air Scare Disrupts Flights

By HOPE YEN

WASHINGTON Aug 27, 2006 (AP)— Their confidence shaken by Katrina, most Americans don't believe the nation is ready for another major disaster, a new AP-Ipsos poll finds.

Poor people are more likely to fear becoming victims of the next disaster.

The survey, conducted one year after the devastating hurricane and with much of New Orleans still in shambles, found diminishing faith in the government's ability to deal with emergencies. It also gave President Bush poor marks for his handling of the storm's aftermath.

The first hurricane of the Atlantic season could provide an eerily timed test of preparedness. Forecasters believe Ernesto could strengthen near Florida and grow into a Category 3 hurricane by Thursday.

Fifty-seven percent in the poll said they felt at least somewhat strongly the country was ill-prepared up from 44 percent in the days after the storm slammed ashore on Aug. 29, 2005. Just one in three Americans polled believe Bush did a good job with Katrina, down from 46 percent a year ago.

"Nobody actually realized soon enough what the scope of this thing was," said Frank Sheppard, a 63-year-old retiree in Valrico, Fla., who considers himself strongly Republican. "The day after, people were actually celebrating."

"They didn't realize that the levees were deteriorating and breaking at that time," he said.

One year after Katrina, large areas of New Orleans remain virtually uninhabitable with piles of debris and wrecked cars.

Only $117 million in at least $25 billion in federal aid has reached the city, while federal investigators determined that roughly $2 billion in taxpayer money was wasted in no-bid contracts and disaster aid to people who did not need the help.

Norma Guelker, 55, of Bay St. Louis, Miss., still lives in a FEMA trailer after Katrina flooded her home with seven feet of water. She says there's no way the government is ready.

Blaming Bush, she said: "There's no reason for him to be concerned about the people who live here. They're not the people who vote for him."

A touching story of a Katrina victim taking a chance and meeting Bush

2006-08-24T08:48:00.000-04:00

From the Something Awful Forums (stay with it after the story, it gets BETTER):

Katrina Victim: 'The Job's Not Done'
New Orleans Resident Arrives at White House to Ask Bush for Help Rebuilding

WASHINGTON, Aug. 23, 2006 — - President Bush was visited today by a Hurricane Katrina victim who drove to Washington in a FEMA trailor as a pointed reminder of the rebuilding that remains to be done nearly a year after the storm battered the region.

Rocky Vaccarrella, 41, traveled from Lousiana and through the Gulf Coast to the capital with the intention of meeting the president. The St. Bernards Parish resident lost his home last year when the storm hit New Orleans.

Vaccarella said he wanted to thank Bush for the federally provided trailers that have provided temporary housing to many in the region who lost homes, but also to keep the pressure on.

"I wanted to remind the president that the job's not done and he knows that," Vaccarell said. "I just don't want the government and President Bush to forget about us."

Bush spoke on the South Lawn of the White House after meeting in the Oval Office with Vaccarella. The president cautioned against placing too much importance on the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's Gulf Coast strike, saying a long, sustained rebuilding effort is still needed.

"It's a time to remember that people suffered and it's a time to recommit ourselves to helping them," Bush said. "But I also want people to remember that a one-year anniversary is just that, because it's going to require a long time to help these people rebuild."

A day earlier, the Bush administration's Gulf Coast coordinator, Don Powell, said $44 billion has been spent to get the still-battered region back on its feet. A far larger sum -- more than $110 billion -- has been designated for the massive rebuilding project. Of that money, approximately $17 billion will help rebuild an estimated 204,000 homes in Louisiana and Mississippi.

Oh God, that's so touching. Vaccarella even called for another Bush term. You can read about it in all 386 related articles covered by all the major news outlets » http://news.google.com/news?sourcei...neKatrina/story%3Fid%3D2348028%26page%3D1&hl=en

And now, wow, What are the odds.....

The Shocking twist revealed
Rockey Vaccarella is a Republican supporter, failed GOP candidate, and had the date to meet with the president for dinner already written down on his schedule before such an event happened.

http://www.attytood.com/archives/003647.html

At least he was a real Katrina Victim, that isn't faked. I am shocked they couldn't find a black man or woman though. Is an upper class rich white guy from New Orleans still supporting Bush the best PR coup they could pull off. Worse that all the news orgs ate it up.

Bush OKs involuntary Marine recall

2006-08-23T09:46:00.001-04:00

God, this has to suck.

Bush OKs involuntary Marine recall
Initial recall is for 2,500, but there is no cap
Wednesday, August 23, 2006; Posted: 8:10 a.m. EDT (12:10 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush has authorized the U.S. Marine Corps to recall 2,500 troops to active duty because there are not enough volunteers returning for duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, Marine commanders announced Tuesday.

The recall was authorized last month, and will begin in spring 2007 to fill positions for upcoming rotations, Marine officials said. The Marine Corps is taking volunteers from the Marine Individual Ready Reserve, the officials said.

Marine Col. Guy A. Stratton, head of the manpower mobilization section, told The Associated Press that there is a shortfall of about 1,200 Marines needed to fill positions in upcoming unit deployments.

"Since this is going to be a long war, we thought it was judicious and prudent at this time to be able to use a relatively small portion of those Marines to help us augment our units," Stratton said, according to the AP.

Tours for recalled Marines could last 12 to 18 months, according to Marine officials.

Marines are trying to fill combat, communications, intelligence, engineering and military police positions, according to the Marine Corps.

Though the initial recall is for 2,500 troops, there is no cap on how many could be called up in the future.

Marines in the Individual Ready Reserve have fulfilled their four-year, active duty requirement, but are on call for another four years.

Marines in their second or third years of on-call service will be tapped, because those in their first years just finished active duty and those in their fourth years have almost completed their military obligations.

About 59,000 Marines are in the Individual Ready Reserve, according to Marine officials.

Recalled Marines will have five months before reporting for duty, and will receive refresher courses and training before being deployed.

This is not the first time the corps has called on the Individual Ready Reserve since fighting started in Iraq in 2003. The Marines recalled more than 2,600 troops in the early days of the Iraq war.

The Army has recalled about 10,000 soldiers since September 11, 2001, the majority of those coming in 2004 to help in Iraq.

Bush OKs involuntary Marine recall

2006-08-23T09:46:00.000-04:00

Asset Forfeiture Laws Continue to Spiral Out of Control

2006-08-21T09:43:00.000-04:00

I am so sick of this bullshit. We're basically resorting to legal trickery (suing the money) to evicerate the right to due process for criminal activity. I agree with the dissent that it sure looks like something wasn't kosher with that money, but if the government's siezing your shit you deserve more of a trial than this mockery.

Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime

Eighth Circuit Appeals Court ruling says police may seize cash from motorists even in the absence of any evidence that a crime has been committed.

US Court of Appeals, Eighth CircuitA federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the case entitled, "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a "lack of significant criminal history" neither accused nor convicted of any crime.

On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez's name was not on the rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez -- who did not speak English well -- and search the car. The trooper found a cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.

Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez's story.

Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."

Judge Donald Lay found the majority's reasoning faulty and issued a strong dissent.

"Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money," Judge Lay wrote. "There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of
drug use or distribution."

"Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense," Judge Lay concluded.

Racism is everywhere these days...

2006-08-18T09:02:00.000-04:00

Here's a fun little video of GOP Congressional Candidate Tramm Hudson telling us that, thanks to his experience growing up in Alabama, he knows black people can't swim. He's running for Katherine Harris's seat in FL-17.

Christians Only, Please

2006-08-17T08:38:00.000-04:00

I'm so disgusted with my country these days, which is why my posting has slowed down.

Thanks to President Bush and his plan to Christianize the nation's provision of social services, one's relationship with Jesus Christ has become a real resume booster. As author Michelle Goldberg reports in her new book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, Bush has ushered in affirmative action for the born- again.

In 2005 alone, more than $2-billion in federal tax money went to faith-based programs for such services as job placement programs, addiction treatment and child mentoring. Overwhelmingly, this money went to groups affiliated with Christian religions.

This reallocation of social service money from secular agencies to religiously affiliated programs has also resulted in shifting employment opportunities. But some of these new employers have a shocking job requirement - only Christians need apply.

Goldberg cited the publicly funded Firm Foundation of Bradford, Pa., as a blatant example. The group provides prison inmates with job training, something one would think any trained professional could do. Well, think again. According to Goldberg, the group posted an ad for a site manager. It said that the applicant must be "a believer in Christ and Christian Life today, sharing these ideals when the opportunity arises." Apparently, experience and qualifications are secondary.

Transforming social welfare into conversion therapy was Bush's design when he made faith-based initiatives the priority of his administration's domestic agenda. And his success has been astounding.

Before Bush upended things, religious groups had always been enlisted by government as providers of social services. They just had to wholly separate their religious mission from their government-funded services. Under Bush, there has been substantial blurring of the line.

As to hiring, the law always allowed religious groups to discriminate on religious grounds - so that the Catholic Church could hire Catholic priests, for example - but that exemption did not extend to employees hired with public funds to provide social welfare. It was a simple, clear rule. If you took public money, you hired on the basis of merit, not piety.

But Bush wiped away this calibrated distinction by issuing a series of executive orders early in his presidency approving taxpayer financed religious discrimination.

Some of the resulting collateral damage has been tragic. Just talk to Anne Lown. She worked for 24 years for the Salvation Army in New York City before resigning due to the hostility she felt toward her non-Christian beliefs. The office she ran had hundreds of employees with an annual budget of $50-million, almost all of which came from public sources. Lown oversaw foster care placements, day care services, residential services for the developmentally disabled and many other programs.

In Lown's experience, the Salvation Army had always in the past been meticulous about keeping its evangelical side from mingling with its provision of social services, but all that changed in 2003. She attributes the change directly to Bush's policies. A lawsuit filed by Lown and another 17 current and former employees of the Salvation Army alleges that religion suddenly pervaded the agency's personnel decisions.

Lown says she was handed a form that all employees were expected to complete, asking for list of churches she attended over the last 10 years and the name of her present minister. Lown says she was told that indicating "not applicable" was not an option. A lawyer for the Salvation Army says the form was modified after complaints were received.

But Lown said that atmosphere was fear-inducing for the professional staff.

She pointed to a mission statement that all employees were required to support as a condition of employment. It stated that the organization's mission "is to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Margaret Geissman, who is also part of the lawsuit, claims that she was asked by a supervisor to point out gay and non-Christian employees, with the overt suggestion that there would eventually be a purge of sorts. The Salvation Army denies this.

Despite the Salvation Army's disclaimers, Goldberg cites an internal Salvation Army document describing a deal struck in 2001 with the White House. In exchange for the administration passing regulations protecting faith-based groups from state and local antidiscrimination regulations relative to gays, the Salvation Army agreed to promote the administration's faith-based agenda.

Forget the proverbial wall. Here it is, church and state working hand-in-glove, with tax money and the government-sanctioned intolerance as the prize.

Meanwhile, money is flowing into religious coffers without anyone watching. A June report from the Government Accountability Office found that few government agencies that award grants to faith-based organizations bother to monitor whether the recipient is improperly mixing religion into their programs or discriminating against clients on the basis of religion. A few organizations contacted by the GAO even admitted to praying with clients while providing government-funded services. As to kicking out non-Christians on the staff, the Bush Justice Department says that it is perfectly okay.

Just another example of how, under this president, I hardly recognize my country anymore.

For GOP, Bad Gets Worse in Northeast

2006-08-14T10:23:00.000-04:00

These elections couldn't be going better. I hope we see a revolt at the ballot box.

For GOP, Bad Gets Worse in Northeast
Incumbents Shy From Party and President

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 14, 2006; Page A01

PHOENIXVILLE, Pa. -- When it comes to President Bush and the Republican Congress, Rep. Jim Gerlach says voters in his suburban Philadelphia district are in a "sour mood."

That's why when it comes to his reelection, the two-term incumbent says "the name of the game" is to convince those same voters that he can be independent of his own party. He has turned his standard line about Bush -- "When I think he's wrong, I let him know" -- into a virtual campaign slogan, repeated in interviews and TV ads.

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.

* DoubleSpeak with Matthew and Peter Slutsky
* DoubleSpeak with Matthew and Peter Slutsky
* Mad As Hell

Full List of Blogs (25 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

Save & Share

* Tag This Article

Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Subheadline
Byline
2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Subheadline Blurb None
3. Tag This Article

"It is a combination of things, from the war in Iraq to gas prices to what they are experiencing in their local areas," Gerlach said of the surly electorate whose decision he will know on Nov. 7.

The Iraq war and Bush's low approval ratings have created trouble for Republicans in all regions. But nowhere is the GOP brand more scuffed than in the Northeast, where this year's circumstances are combining with long-term trends to endanger numerous incumbents.

Sounding very much like Gerlach, state Sen. Raymond Meier, a Republican running for an open seat in Upstate New York, observed: "People around here are anxious and concerned not just about the national state of affairs, but also their personal state of affairs. As a Republican candidate, the challenge is to show you have even a clue about what their lives are like."

Also sounding very much like Gerlach is Rep. Rob Simmons. His eastern Connecticut seat is the most Democratic-leaning district in the country still held by a Republican. "My friend calls me Salmon Simmons . . . because I am always swimming upstream" against a Democratic current, he said.

Last week's defeat of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut moderate who has supported the Iraq war, in the Democratic primary gave Republicans a vivid look at some of the same angry currents likely to buffet them this fall. A Washington-Post ABC News poll this month found Bush's approval rating at 28 percent in the Northeast -- 12 points below his national average. The Republican Congress fared no better.

Republican losses in the region could echo well beyond the 2006 campaign. Because much of the region is tilting Democratic, history suggests Republicans would find it hard to recapture seats once lost.

That is why GOP operatives in Washington are alarmed not just about Gerlach's predicament, but about that of two congressional neighbors in suburban Philadelphia: Reps. Michael G. Fitzpatrick and Curt Weldon, both in tough districts.

In Connecticut, Republican Reps. Nancy L. Johnson and Christopher Shays -- like Simmons -- are in highly competitive contests. And several New York Republicans are facing their most difficult reelection fights ever.

One reason Republicans understand the risk is that they were beneficiaries of a strikingly similar regional upheaval a decade ago.

Before the 1994 elections, when Republicans won control of the House for the first time in 40 years, Democrats held dozens of Southern districts in which the electorate had been gradually growing more conservative. That year, Republicans picked up 20 of those Southern seats, including several held by Democratic incumbents who -- like Northeast Republicans today -- tried to distance themselves from an unpopular White House and Congress controlled by their party.

What a Surprise: Ass Kicked, Joementum Goes "Independent"

2006-08-09T09:30:00.000-04:00

Make no mistake, this man only cares about one thing: power.

Lieberman Vows to Run As Independent

Joe Lieberman Vows Independent Run After Primary Loss Despite Democratic Opposition

By ROBERT TANNER AP National Writer

Aug 9, 2006 (AP)— Hours after losing his Democratic primary to an anti-war businessman, Sen. Joe Lieberman vowed to continue his run for a fourth term as an independent, saying Wednesday that he had to do it for the good of the country and no one could persuade him to drop out.

"I'll always take the calls of friends, but my mind is made up," Lieberman told NBC's "Today" show Wednesday. "I'm going forward. I'm going forward because I'm fed up with all the partisanship in Washington that stops us from getting anything done."

Asked if there was anyone who could call and get him to change his mind, Lieberman replied:

"Respectfully no. I'm committed to this campaign."

Voters in Connecticut on Tuesday rejected Lieberman for political newcomer Ned Lamont in the nation's first major test of the depth of anger over the Iraq war. Lamont won with 52 percent of the vote, or 146,061 votes, to 48 percent for Lieberman, or 136,042, with 99 percent of precincts reporting.

A jubilant Lamont told supporters: "Tonight we voted for big change." The millionaire owner of a cable television company has held local political offices in Greenwich, Conn., but never at the state level. His campaign focused on Lieberman's support for the war in Iraq and his perceived closeness to President Bush.

Lieberman conceded the primary but, undaunted, said he would file papers Wednesday morning to run as an independent.

"For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand," Lieberman said.

Democratic Party leaders in Connecticut and Washington aimed to change his mind. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and other officials are expected to endorse Lamont. New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg last week suggested that his colleague drop plans to run as an independent if he loses by a wide margin.

"I think he really has to take a look at what reality is," Lautenberg said.

Two other incumbents in Congress lost their re-election bids Tuesday.

U.S. Generals See Growing Threat of Civil War in Iraq

2006-08-04T10:01:00.000-04:00

Wow, our leadership is awake, alive, and aware, huh? "Threat" of Civil War? It's been in civil war for quite some time now, geniuses. Does the death toll need to be at a certain point or something for it to qualify? If "Iraqis already believe they're living through a civil war" then guess what? They are. Obviously it is the Iraqis who determine when they are or aren't in civil war, not the United States, and I can't believe this article implies otherwise.

U.S. Generals See Growing Threat of Civil War in Iraq

By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 — Two senior American military commanders said today that the wave of sectarian bloodshed in Iraq has heightened the danger that the country will slide into all-out civil war.

“I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war,” Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of United States forces in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

A similarly sobering assessment was offered by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said he can envision the present situation “devolving to a civil war.”

“But that does not have to be a fact,” General Pace added. In the long run, he said, peace in Iraq depends not just on American forces helping the Iraqis secure their own country but on Iraqis of different heritages deciding that they “love their children more than they hate each other.”

General Abizaid, too, said he remained hopeful. “Am I optimistic whether or not Iraqi forces, with our support, with the backing of the Iraqi government, can prevent the slide to civil war?” he asked rhetorically. “My answer is yes, I’m optimistic that the slide can be prevented.”

But the tone of the hearing, coinciding as it did with the continuing carnage in Iraq and the Israeli conflict with the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, was not one of optimism. Nothing in the testimony of the commanders, or in that of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, pointed to an early withdrawal of United States forces.

“We can persevere in Iraq, or we can withdraw prematurely, until they force us to make a stand nearer home,” said Mr. Rumsfeld, appearing before the panel after sharp criticism of his earlier intention not to go to Capitol Hill. “But make no mistake: they’re not going to give up whether we acquiesce in their immediate demands or not.”

Mr. Rumsfeld said, as he has many times before, that the possibility of pulling out some American troops depended on the judgment of ground commanders. He counseled patience, from the lawmakers and their constituents. “Americans didn’t cross oceans and settle a wilderness and build history’s greatest democracy only to run away from a bunch of murderers and extremists who try to kill everyone that they cannot convert, and to tear down what they could never build,” he said.

General Pace sounded the same theme: “Our enemy knows they cannot defeat us in battle. They do believe, however, that they can wear down our will as a nation.”

But the committee chairman, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, signaled that political support for the conflict could be fraying. “I think we have to examine very carefully what Congress authorized the president to do in the context of a situation if we’re faced with all-out civil war and whether we have to come back to the Congress to get further indication of support,” Mr. Warner said.

When General Abizaid was asked about the prospects for reducing American forces in Iraq by the end of the year, he replied, “It’s possible, depending on how things go in Baghdad and how Prime Minister Maliki and his government grab a hold of the security situation.” The general said he was confident that the Iraqis understood that the United States military commitment to Iraq was not open-ended.

In any event, Mr. Rumsfeld said it was difficult to gauge the ideal number of troops the United States and its allies should have in Iraq. Too many troops, and the Iraqis would see them as occupiers, leading to more unrest. To few, and the violence could spiral out of control. “There’s no rulebook,” Mr. Rumsfeld said.

The valor and sacrifice of America’s sons and daughters serving in Iraq was praised by Senator Warner and the committee’s ranking Democrat, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, along with other panel members.

But the session was full of sharp, and occasionally angry, exchanges. For instance, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, accused Mr. Rumsfeld of being inconsistent over the months in his assessment of the military situation.

“Senator, I don’t think that’s true,” Mr. Rumsfeld said, declaring that the senator would have “a dickens of a time” documenting her assertion that he had been overly optimistic in the past. But Senator Clinton did not back down, and she said she would introduce evidence of her assertion into the committee record.

And Senator John S. McCain, Republican of Arizona, who is a firm supporter of the campaign in Iraq, voiced concern about the effects of shifting of United States troops into Baghdad, thereby lessening troop strength elsewhere. “What I worry about is, we’re playing a game of whack-a-mole here,” the senator said.

Mr. McCain had pointed exchanges with both generals, who conceded that events had taken them by surprise.

“General Pace,” the senator said, you said there’s a possibility of the situation in Iraq evolving into civil war. Is that correct?”

“I did say that, yes, sir,” the general replied.

“Did you anticipate this situation a year ago?”

“No, sir.”

“Did you, General Abizaid?”

“I believe that a year ago it was clear to see that sectarian tensions were increasing,” General Abizaid said. “That they would be this high, no.”

The general gave a positive evaluation of the 275,000 members of the Iraqi police, border security and military forces who had completed training. “They are much improved, and they continue to improve every month,” he said.

Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who graduated from West Point and served in the Army for 12 years, said that under Mr. Rumsfeld’s tenure the Army had been stretched beyond its capacity, a situation he called “a stunning indictment of your leadership.”

“It think it’s an inaccurate statement,” Mr. Rumsfeld shot back, going on to say that the situation was more complicated than Mr. Reed had suggested.

Lamont extends lead on Lieberman

2006-08-03T10:21:00.000-04:00

Just five days until the primary! Go Ned!

BOSTON (Reuters) - A novice anti-war candidate seeking the Connecticut Democratic Party's nomination to run for the U.S. Senate has extended his lead against three-term incumbent and 2000 vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, a poll showed on Thursday.

Ned Lamont, a millionaire businessman and opponent of the U.S. military presence in Iraq, now leads rival Lieberman by 54 percent to 41 percent among those likely to vote in the August 8 primary, the Quinnipiac University poll found.

"The incumbent has just five days to turn this race around, but never count out a veteran with his experience," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz.

The poll found that 65 percent of Lamont supporters said their vote would primarily be against Lieberman, with his support for the war in Iraq their primary objection.

Lieberman has said that he will run as an independent if denied the Democratic nomination. Previous polls have shown him likely to win the November election if he runs as an independent.

The university surveyed 890 likely Connecticut Democratic primary voters from July 24-31. The survey has a margin of error of 3.3 percentage points.

Blogger jailed after defying court orders

2006-08-02T11:05:00.000-04:00

Hmmm...this bears watching.

Blogger jailed after defying court orders

He was subpoenaed by grand jury, ordered to turn over video he took at anticapitalist protest in San Francisco.

The New York Times
By Jesse McKinley

SAN FRANCISCO--A freelance journalist and blogger was jailed on Tuesday after refusing to turn over video he took at an anticapitalist protest here last summer and after refusing to testify before a grand jury looking into accusations that crimes were committed at the protest.

The freelancer, Josh Wolf, 24, was taken into custody just before noon after a hearing in front of Judge William Alsup of Federal District Court. Found in contempt, Wolf was later moved to a federal prison in Dublin, Calif., and could be imprisoned until next summer, when the grand jury term expires, said his lawyer, Jose Luis Fuentes.

Earlier this year, federal prosecutors subpoenaed Wolf to testify before a grand jury and turn over video from the demonstration, held in the Mission District on July 8, 2005. The protest, tied to a Group of 8 meeting of world economic leaders in Scotland, ended in a clash between demonstrators and the San Francisco police, with one officer sustaining a fractured skull.

A smoke bomb or a firework was also put under a police car, and investigators are looking into whether arson was attempted on a government-financed vehicle.

Wolf, who posted some of the edited video on his Web site, www.joshwolf.net, and sold some of it to local television stations, met with investigators, who wanted to see the raw video. But Wolf refused to hand over the tapes, arguing that he had the right as a journalist to shield his sources.

On Tuesday, Judge Alsup disagreed, ruling that the grand jury "has a legitimate need" to see what Wolf filmed.

Wolf, a recent college graduate, is the latest journalist to face prison time for refusing to cooperate with federal investigators. Last year, the New York Times reporter Judith Miller served nearly three months in jail after refusing to divulge her sources in the investigation of the leak of a covert CIA agent's name.

Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, said that although the jailing of journalists had become more common, Wolf's case was the first she had heard of in which a blogger had been pursued and eventually jailed by federal authorities.

"There is a tendency on the part of the prosecutors to go aggressively after people not perceived to have a big gun behind them," Kirtley said. "They are the most vulnerable links in the chain."

While California has a so-called shield law meant to protect journalists and their sources, no such law exists at the federal level. Even if there was such a law, Kirtley said, it is unclear whether a blogger and freelancer would fall under it.

According to his Web site, Wolf has been active in his defense, holding news conferences and posting interviews and newspaper articles on his site. On Tuesday, however, the site's last message read, "This blog will be updated sometime shortly after my hearing ... wish me luck guys!"

Wolf has attracted supporters, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which introduced a resolution objecting to the federal government's role in the investigation. The Society of Professional Journalists contributed to Wolf's legal defense fund.

Fuentes said he had already prepared an appeal and would file it immediately. He also planned to ask for bail, though he was not certain where the money to post it would come from. "His mother has been trying to fund-raise," Fuentes said. "But he might lose his job."

Entire contents, Copyright © 2006 The New York Times. All rights reserved.

F.D.A. Shifts View on Next-Day Pill

2006-08-01T09:31:00.000-04:00

And it's about damned time. I mean, please, look at the state of the opposition to this method:

One conservative organization, Concerned Women of America, voiced opposition to the plan.

“There’s clearly no way that the F.D.A. or Barr Labs could put a gender restriction on who buys the drug,” said Wendy Wright, the president of that group. “You could have a statutory rapist buy the drug in order to cover up his abuse.”

Yep, how about all those date rapists who mix royphonol with morning after pills to make sure they don't leave a trace? Jesus, morons. Oh, wait, I guess that's kind of the point...Jesus, I mean. Whatever.

F.D.A. Shifts View on Morning-After Pill

By STEPHANIE SAUL

The Food and Drug Administration said yesterday that it was moving toward endorsing sale of the morning-after pill without a prescription for women 18 and older, signaling what may be the end of one of the most stubborn health policy debates of the Bush administration.

The agency’s acting commissioner, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, asked the drug’s manufacturer, Barr Pharmaceuticals, for a meeting to complete plans that would allow the over-the-counter sale of the emergency contraceptive, called Plan B. In a statement, the F.D.A. said it hoped “the process can be wrapped up in a matter of weeks.”

While the agency’s letter to Barr was not a final approval, both the F.D.A. and the company expressed optimism about the drug’s future.

An agency spokeswoman, Susan Bro, said the move was intended to bring “this particular issue to a conclusion,” and a federal health official said the agency was committed to making the drug available over the counter.

“We see this as a positive development,” said Carol A. Cox, a spokeswoman for Barr.

In 2003, an F.D.A. advisory committee voted 23 to 4 to allow the drug’s over-the-counter sale without age restrictions. But a top official of the agency overruled that committee and agency staff members, raising concerns that young teenagers might engage in riskier sex if the morning-after pill was easily available. The company revised its application, asking that over-the-counter sale be allowed for women older than 16.

In the letter sent yesterday, Dr. Von Eschenbach said the agency would not approve that request but that, if the company met certain restrictions, it would allow over-the-counter sales to women 18 or older.

It is up to Barr to assure the agency that the drug would not be sold to those under 18. The company has said that it has already developed a program to restrict sales.

Under that program, Plan B would not be available in convenience stores or at gasoline stations, but only in places where there is a pharmacy. Rather than being placed on drugstore shelves, the contraceptive would be behind a pharmacy counter. To buy it, women would have to show photo identification to prove their age.

Many women’s groups expressed cautious optimism that the announcement meant that the drug’s over-the-counter sales would finally be approved. The drug is most effective when taken soon after intercourse, the reason its supporters have argued that it should be available without a prescription.

Planned Parenthood, which has supported the drug’s over-the-counter availability, issued a statement saying that the agency’s announcement “holds the potential for improving women’s health if the F.D.A. keeps its word this time.”

But the timing of the announcement — the day before Dr. von Eschenbach’s confirmation hearing in a Senate committee — raised skepticism on Capitol Hill about whether it might be intended to deflect criticism about delays in the drug’s application without a clear guarantee of action.

“Today’s announcement is nothing more than a delay tactic,” Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Patty Murray of Washington, both Democrats, said in a joint news release. The senators are members of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is scheduled to hold its hearing on Dr. von Eschenbach today but is not scheduled to vote.

Assuming that the committee approves Dr. von Eschenbach’s nomination, Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Murray said they would block a floor vote on his confirmation until the F.D.A. made a final yes-or-no decision on the drug’s sale. Under Senate rules, any senator may place a “hold” on a floor vote to approve a nominee.

The senators removed a similar hold last year that had blocked a former F.D.A. commissioner, Lester Crawford, who then faced confirmation hearings. At that time, Dr. Crawford assured them that a decision on the drug would be made by Sept. 1, 2005, the senators said.

“We lifted our hold in July 2005 on Dr. Crawford’s nomination after receiving assurances that the F.D.A. would act by September,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Instead, what they did was to make a decision, and their decision was not to make a decision. Almost a year later, we’re still waiting for a decision.”

Ms. Bro, the agency spokeswoman, said the letter’s timing yesterday was partly related to today’s Senate committee hearing because Dr. von Eschenbach felt strongly that he wanted to inform the committee of the agency’s framework for moving on Plan B. It was a “transparent, science-led process,” she said.

“This is a model for how he currently makes decisions and will continue to as the leader of this critically important public health issue," Ms. Bro said.

One conservative organization, Concerned Women of America, voiced opposition to the plan.

“There’s clearly no way that the F.D.A. or Barr Labs could put a gender restriction on who buys the drug,” said Wendy Wright, the president of that group. “You could have a statutory rapist buy the drug in order to cover up his abuse.”

A group called Advocates for Youth, a national nonprofit organization, said it was concerned that many sexually active teenagers would not have access to the emergency contraceptive.

“We are gravely concerned that once again politics, rather than science, is at play and the most vulnerable women — teens — will be penalized,” said the group’s president, James Wagoner.

The emergency contraceptive is actually a two-pill regimen containing a high dose of drugs used in birth-control pills. It is already available by prescription without age restrictions and is designed for emergency use by women who have unprotected sexual intercourse. It is also available in nine states without a prescription, under certain conditions.

To be effective, the first pill must be taken within 72 hours after intercourse. The second pill is supposed to be taken 12 hours after the first.

Plan B was first approved for sale in the United States as a prescription drug in 1999. Barr moved in 2003 to make it available without age restriction over the counter, but its approval has been the subject of a series of F.D.A. delays.

Critics of the agency, including a former women’s health official who resigned over Plan B, have said that the decision-making process has been bogged down in political delays inspired by reproductive policy conservatives influential within the Bush administration, including abortion opponents, who view the drug as a form of abortion because it is taken after intercourse.

Dr. Crawford initially signaled that the government might go along with over-the-counter sales to women 17 and older. But saying that the agency had never approved an over-the-counter drug at the same dosage and administration as a prescription drug, he initiated a review to determine whether a new rule-making process was necessary.

Dr. von Eschenbach, a urology surgeon who has directed the National Cancer Institute, was appointed after Dr. Crawford resigned last year.

In a letter yesterday to Barr’s subsidiary Duramed, Dr. von Eschenbach said the review had concluded that no rule-making was necessary, clearing the way for final consideration of the company’s application.

Dr. Susan Wood, who resigned as director of women’s health for the drug agency last year in protest over its handling of Plan B, said the agency reviewers had believed the drug safe for younger women. Still, Dr. Wood said yesterday that she was “heartened” at the possibility for a positive outcome for the drug raised by Dr. von Eschenbach’s letter.

Shares in Barr, based in Woodcliff Lake, N.J., closed up 93 cents yesterday at $49.76.

Some products, like nicotine gum, are already kept behind the counter and require proof of age for purchase.

Dr. Jennifer Wu, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan, said she gave many of her patients who use condoms for contraception Plan B prescriptions to keep in their purses. “Really having Plan B over the counter will help those patients who don’t necessarily have an ob-gyn at the time,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Wu said that having the drug available over the counter would also increase education about the drug. “Some women do not know about it,” she said.

The spokeswoman for Barr Laboratories, Ms. Cox, said the company did not yet know how quickly it could market the over-the-counter product. Currently, the drug costs about $25 by prescription, but Ms. Cox said the company would probably charge more for the over-the-counter version to recoup costs associated with monitoring its sales.

Bush's New Bill Permits Gov To Throw US Citizens In Jail Forever Without Trial

2006-07-30T19:47:00.000-04:00

By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Fri Jul 28, 6:53 PM ET

WASHINGTON - U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.

A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the
Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.

Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made.

Senior officials are expected to discuss a final proposal before the
Senate Armed Services Committee next Wednesday.

According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute."

Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda.

"That's the big question ... the definition of who can be detained," said Martin Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University who posted a copy of the bill to a Web blog.

Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court — and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.

The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.

Senior Republican lawmakers have said they were briefed on the general discussions and have some concerns but are awaiting a final proposal before commenting on specifics.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England are expected to discuss the proposal in an open hearing next Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Military lawyers also are scheduled to testify Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The legislation is the administration's response to a June 29 Supreme Court decision, which concluded the Pentagon could not prosecute military detainees using secret tribunals established soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The court ruled the tribunals were not authorized by law and violated treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which established many international laws for warfare.

The landmark court decision countered long-held assertions by the Bush administration that the president did not need permission from Congress to prosecute "enemy combatants" captured in the war on terror and that al Qaeda members were not subject to Geneva Convention protections because of their unconventional status.

"In a time of ongoing armed conflict, it is neither practicable nor appropriate for enemy combatants like al Qaeda terrorists to be tried like American citizens in federal courts or courts-martial," the proposal states.

The draft proposal contends that an existing law — passed by the Senate last year after exhaustive negotiations between the White House and Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz. — that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should "fully satisfy" the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

Sen. John W. Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Friday he expects to take up the detainee legislation in September.

Police spies chosen to lead war protest

2006-07-29T12:20:00.000-04:00

COINTELPRO is alive and well, folks.

Two Oakland police officers working undercover at an anti-war protest in May 2003 got themselves elected to leadership positions in an effort to influence the demonstration, documents released Thursday show.

The department assigned the officers to join activists protesting the U.S. war in Iraq and the tactics that police had used at a demonstration a month earlier, a police official said last year in a sworn deposition.

At the first demonstration, police fired nonlethal bullets and bean bags at demonstrators who blocked the Port of Oakland's entrance in a protest against two shipping companies they said were helping the war effort. Dozens of activists and longshoremen on their way to work suffered injuries ranging from welts to broken bones and have won nearly $2 million in legal settlements from the city.

The extent of the officers' involvement in the subsequent march May 12, 2003, led by Direct Action to Stop the War and others, is unclear. But in a deposition related to a lawsuit filed by protesters, Deputy Police Chief Howard Jordan said activists had elected the undercover officers to "plan the route of the march and decide I guess where it would end up and some of the places that it would go."

It was revealed later that the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center, which was established by the state attorney general's office to help local police agencies fight terrorism, had posted an alert about the April protest. Oakland police had also monitored online postings by the longshoremen's union regarding its opposition to the war.

The documents showing that police subsequently tried to influence a demonstration were released Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union, as part of a report criticizing government surveillance of political activists since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The ACLU said the documents came from the lawsuit over the police use of force.

Jordan, in his deposition in April 2005, said under questioning by plaintiffs' attorney Jim Chanin that undercover Officers Nobuko Biechler and Mark Turpin had been elected to be leaders in the May 12 demonstration an hour after meeting protesters that day.

Asked who had ordered the officers to infiltrate the group, Jordan said, "I don't know if there is one particular person, but I think together we probably all decided it would be a good idea to have some undercover officers there."

Several months after the rally, Jordan told a city police review board examining the April 2003 port clash that "our ability to gather intelligence on these groups and this type of operation needs to be improved," according to a transcript provided by the ACLU.

"I don't mean same-day intelligence," Jordan told the civilian review panel. "I'm talking about long-term intelligence gathering."

He noted that "two of our officers were elected leaders within an hour on May 12." The idea was "to gather the information and maybe even direct them to do something that we want them to do," Jordan said.

"I call that being totalitarian," said Jack Heyman, a longshoremen's union member who took part in the May 12 march. He said he was not certain whether he had any contact with the officers that day.

Jordan declined to comment when reached at his office Thursday. In his deposition, he said the Police Department no longer allows such undercover work.

City Attorney John Russo said he was not familiar with the police infiltration of the protest, but said the city had made "significant changes" in its approach toward demonstrations after the port incident. Police enacted a new crowd-control policy limiting the use of nonlethal force in 2004.

The ACLU said the Oakland case was one of several instances in which police agencies had spied on legitimate political activity since 2001.

Mark Schlosberg, who directs the ACLU's police policy work and wrote the report released Thursday, cited previously reported instances of spying on groups in Santa Cruz and Fresno in addition to the Oakland case. He called on state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and local police to ensure that law-abiding activist groups don't come under government investigation.

"It's very important that there be regulation up front to prevent these kinds of abuses from occurring," Schlosberg said at a news conference.

Schlosberg said the state needs an independent inspector looking into complaints and keeping an eye on intelligence gathering at such agencies as the California National Guard and the state Department of Homeland Security.

Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for Lockyer, said the attorney general had not yet read the ACLU report. But he said his boss "won't abide violations of civil liberties. There's no room in this state or anywhere in this country for monitoring the activity of groups merely because they have a political viewpoint."

Following the Oakland port protest and disclosures about the monitoring of activists, Lockyer issued guidelines in 2003 stating that police must suspect that a crime has been committed before collecting intelligence on activist groups.

But Schlosberg said the ACLU had surveyed 94 law enforcement agencies last year and found that just eight were aware of the guidelines. Only six had written policies restricting surveillance activities, he said.

Republicans energize the base, alienate the rest of the country

2006-07-28T10:31:00.000-04:00

Shweeeeet...

With Election Day just a little more than three months away, the Morning Edition polling team was asked to take the pulse of likely voters in the most competitive districts across the country.

Democrat Stan Greenberg and Republican Glenn Bolger found that, while republicans do a little bit better with these voters than they do in a nationwide sample, the numbers still point to trouble for the party in power.

Midterm congressional elections aren't conducted nationally, district by district, so this poll ignores the districts where the incumbent is safe, and looks only at districts where either party might win.

"This one is different than any of our prior polls and is different than any of the national polls you get through the national media," says Democrat pollster Stan Greenberg. "This is a poll only done in the 50 competitive House races where, in fact, control of the House of Representatives will be decided."

Forty of those seats are currently held by republicans; 10 by democrats. And those contests are where both parties will be concentrating their resources come fall, says Republican pollster Glenn Bolger.

"This is where the effort's going to be made," Bolger says. "This is where the money's going to be spent, and this is where the messages are going to be sharpest …This is where the House hangs in the balance."

In 2004, the total vote in these 50 districts went republican by about 12 points. In our current survey, voters in these same districts say they would vote for the Democrat over the Republican by about six points.

We asked the question about a generic Democrat or Republican, then we plugged in the names of actual incumbents and challengers. The numbers didn't change much and the voters seemed pretty firm about their choices.

Only 18 percent of those favoring a Democrat said there was any chance they'd change their minds. Only 16 percent of those favoring a Republican said they might switch.

Tracie Galla is a music teacher who is at home on maternity leave.

She lives in the 4th District of Connecticut and plans to vote for Democrat challenger Diane Farrell over the Republican incumbent Chris Shays.

"I'm afraid that, nationally, there've been a lot of things over the past years that haven't gone in the right direction, in my opinion," Galla says. "So I'm concerned about everything going on in the Middle East, and I just think we need a change. I think that unfortunately the Republicans, you know, for the most part, support what Bush has done, and I just don't agree with it."

But Republicans will be working hard to turn out voters like Julius Brown, who is retired and living in South Carolina's 5th District. Brown favors the Republican challenger Ralph Norman over Democratic incumbent John Spratt.

"Well, first thing, I don't approve of the general abortion stand that … Democrats hold," Brown says. "Second, I believe the tax breaks that Republicans give, even though I didn't benefit much by them, I believe the country did."

Then there are undecided voters like Peggy Beekler, a retired social worker who lives in the 3rd District of Kentucky, represented by Ann Northup.

"Well, I'm rather disappointed in the Republicans," Beekler says. "I think they've made a mess of things, even though I've been a Republican."

Beekler is not happy about the war, but she's also unhappy about the so-called values issues that Republicans have counted on to get their voters to the polls.

"I think to do an amendment on burning the flag would be totally ridiculous," Beekler says. "I also think when Bush vetoed the stem-cell research … I feel like that's ridiculous because they're just going to destroy all those embryos anyway, so even though I am for life, I think that shouldn't have been vetoed. I think that was a really bad thing."

Beekler represents one of our most surprising findings: On the question of which party would do a better job on "values issues," like stem-cell research, flag-burning and gay marriage, Democrats prevailed by their biggest margin in the entire poll: 51 percent to 37 percent.

"And when we list values issues like stem-cell research, flag-burning and gay marriage, these are the issues that Republicans took the initiative, used their control in Congress to get on the air to be voting on, to be talking about," Greenberg says. "What this says: By 13 points, voters say they are more likely to vote Democratic because of hearing about these issues. Which suggests that the strategy of using the Congress to get out the base is one that's driving away a lot of voters."

On other issues like the war in Iraq, or the state of the economy, Democrats have a smaller advantage.

Only on the issue of illegal immigration are the parties tied -- in the view of likely voters in the most competitive districts.

All of which leaves Republican Glenn Bolger hoping that Republicans will be able to rely on what, in the past, has been a superior effort at fundraising and mobilizing voters.

"Again, this is going to come down to: Is it an election where national political environment determines the outcome, or is it an election where what happens on the ground in the individual campaigns is what happens?" Bolger says. "And we won't know that, obviously, until they count the votes."

Congress to Internet: Stop misusing children's toys

2006-07-27T10:23:00.000-04:00

What the fuck is wrong with Congress? You heard it here first, folks, the term "felony" has officially lost all meaning.

The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a bill that would make it a federal felony for Webmasters to use innocent words like "Barbie" or "Furby" but actually feature sexual content on their sites.

Anyone who includes misleading "words" or "images" intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site could be imprisoned for up to 20 years and fined, the bill says.

Because the U.S. Senate already approved the measure in a voice vote last week, it now goes to President Bush for his signature. Bush, who previously endorsed the bill, has scheduled a signing ceremony for Thursday afternoon on the White House grounds.

"America's children will be better protected from every parent's worst nightmare--sexual predators--thanks to passage" of the legislation, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in a statement on Tuesday.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, in a statement issued after the House approved the bill by voice vote, said: "We've all seen the disturbing headlines about sex offenders and crimes against children. These crimes cannot persist. Protecting our children from Internet predators and child exploitation enterprises are just as high a priority as securing our border from terrorists."

The 163-page Child Protection and Safety Act represents the most extensive rewriting of federal laws relating to child pornography, sex offender registration and child exploitation in a decade.

If the bill becomes law, it's not clear which Webmasters would become federal felons. Sites like Kontraband.com, which show Barbie and Ken dolls having simulated sex, could be in trouble, depending on how prosecutors and juries interpret the language. (Kontraband offers video clips and photographs, some of which are racy.)

Kontraband.com representative Dylan Close said in an e-mail message to CNET News.com that he was familiar with the congressional legislation and that the site already rates the pages using a system borrowed from the British Board of Film Classification. For instance, a page showing topless images was marked as not safe for work. Close also said that the site's Barbie and Ken clip was intended for adults and older teenagers, not children.

Also, Close said, "we are increasing the level of awareness and differentiation between our levels of safe and not safe content."

A key phrase in the legislation (click for PDF) promises prison time only if a Webmaster has the "intent to deceive" a casual visitor.

In addition, the Child Protection and Safety Act, or Walsh Act (named for Adam Walsh, who was abducted and murdered in 1981 at 6 years old), would:

• Punish the intentional Internet sale or distribution of "date rape drugs" by making the act a new federal crime with up to 20 years in prison. The list of offending drugs would include gamma hydroxybutyric acid (sometimes called liquid ecstasy), ketamine, and flunitrazepam (better-known under the trade name Rohypnol).

• Force sex offenders to provide a DNA sample, a requirement that many states already have adopted.

• Create a national sex offender registry to be run by the FBI, with "relevant information" on each person. It's supposed to permit geographical lookups based on ZIP code.

• Fund a series of pilot programs, lasting up to three years, to tag sex offenders with tracking devices that would let them be monitored in real time. The devices would include a GPS downlink (to provide exact coordinates), a cellular uplink (to transmit the coordinates to police), and two-way voice communications.

Separately, the Senate is expected to vote this year on a related but broader proposal dealing with Web labeling. That legislation says that Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must slap warning labels on their pages or face prison terms of up to five years.

CNET News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report.