ruling weakens Bush spying plan

Experts: Ruling weakens Bush spying plan

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

Fri Jun 30, 7:12 PM ET

WASHINGTON - A Supreme Court ruling striking down military commissions seriously weakens the foundation of the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program, critics said Friday.

A congressional resolution President Bush relied on in creating commissions is a key rationale for the National Security Agency to listen in on phone calls without first obtaining a judge's permission.

The court "reinforces our view that the NSA operation was unlawful," said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. "The Supreme Court cut away the administration's principal legal argument for the NSA operation — the congressional resolution following Sept. 11."

Enacted a week after the Sept. 11 attacks, the congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution cannot be seen as authorization for military commissions, the court ruled.

In January, the Justice Department invoked the resolution 92 times in a 42-page paper designed to quell the outcry that the White House had broken the law with its program of warrantless surveillance. A centerpiece in the administration's counter-attack against its critics, the DOJ entitled the white paper "Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described By the President."

Asked about the NSA program, a Justice Department official said after the ruling that "I don't think the court had before it any other broader issues concerning the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force, except it clearly did recognize that it activated the president's war powers."

The official said the implications of the decision beyond military commissions is "something that we are studying and will be studying." The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the matter is under review.

In the aftermath of the high court's ruling, lawyers for the Bush administration asked a federal appeals court in Washington to order more briefing on the decision's effect on civil lawsuits filed on behalf of hundreds of detainees held at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The NSA program faces a court challenge and the Supreme Court ruling "gives new vigor to arguments that the administration does not have the power it says it has," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Romero said the language in Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion against military commissions "almost could have been speaking about the NSA litigation," providing useful material for the ACLU's lawsuit against the warrantless surveillance.

In the military commission case, the Supreme Court said the congressional resolution was insufficient.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution says that "the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent future acts of international terrorism against the United States.

In Thursday's ruling Justice Kennedy wrote that "trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order."

"Located within a single branch, these courts carry the risk that offenses will be defined, prosecuted, and adjudicated by executive officials without independent review," Kennedy added.

It was the absence of any review that fueled the outrage against the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance.

The White House decided not to obtain orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before eavesdropping on phone calls.

The Supreme Court setback for the White House comes amid a full frontal assault by the administration against The New York Times for revealing the existence of the NSA program as well as another secret government initiative accessing a huge databank of bank records.

The American Society of Newspaper Editors, responding to such criticism, said Friday that the Bush administration and some in Congress "are threatening America's bedrock values of free speech and free press with their attempts to demonize newspapers for fulfilling their constitutional role in our democratic society."

The ASNE said newspaper editors don't claim to be infallible. "However, the First Amendment makes it clear no person or branch of government has the prerogative to usurp any American's right to speak or print what he or she believes is important and relevant truth. We believe honorable debate would focus on the issues raised by the reporting, not on attacks on the truth-tellers," it said.

___

Yet Another Example of the Double Standard Against Israel

Alan Dershowitz
Bio

06.29.2006
Yet Another Example of the Double Standard Against Israel (144 comments )
READ MORE: Iraq, New York Times, Israel

Today's New York Times carries the following headline: "Putin orders death for killers of Russians in Iraq."

The story tells of Putin's decision to have Russian military intelligence target the terrorists who killed four of its embassy employees in Iraq. This is the same Putin and the same Russia that has repeatedly criticized Israel for its targeted killing of terrorists, even "ticking bomb" terrorists who are planning imminent attacks.

The Russian Foreign Minister condemns Israel's killing of Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, who was the head of the terrorist organization Hamas and who had pulled the trigger on numerous terrorist attacks. In fact, Putin invited Hamas official to Moscow as his state guests.

According to the BBC article Rantissi Killing: World Reaction, "Russia has repeatedly stressed the unacceptability of extrajudicial settling of scores and 'targeted killings'."
Except, it seems, when its own citizens are murdered by terrorists -- then it is fine to do what it condemns Israel for doing.

The rest of the world is no different: condemning Israel for what they themselves do with impunity.

The time has common to end this double standard.

(I know this posting will stimulate the usual anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and anti-Dershowitz fulminations, along with some thoughtful responses. The knee-jerk reaction to anything I write about Israel simply confirms my point about the double standard.)

Vatican to open all archives from 1922 to 1939

Vatican to open all archives from 1922 to 1939
By Rachel SandersonFri Jun 30, 11:09 AM ET
Pope Benedict has decided to open all Vatican archives from 1922 to 1939, giving new insight into what the Catholic Church knew and did as Europe saw the rise of Nazism in Germany and the Spanish Civil War.
The Vatican said on Friday it would open its central files, known as the Secret Archives, and files of its Secretariat of State for the pontificate of Pope Pius XI on September 18.
In a short announcement, it said the opening would "make available for historical research ... all documentary sources until February 1939 that are stored in different series of the Archives of the Holy See."
"The part of the archives likely to provide new insight is that regarding Spain," said a Vatican source who asked not to be named. The Church was linked to the Nationalist forces of General Francisco Franco in the 1936-1939 civil war.
Historians have long pressed the Vatican to open its wartime archives to answer questions about what it knew about the Nazi slaughter of Jews in Europe. Critics accuse Pope Pius XII of failing to help save Jews, a charge his supporters deny.
But the Vatican usually opens archives papacy by papacy, and Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli was elected pope in February 1939.
CATHOLIC-JEWISH SORE POINT
Under pressure to counter criticism from historians and Jewish groups, the Vatican published selected files concerning its pre-war relations with Germany, including correspondence from Pacelli when he was papal ambassador in Germany, in 2003.
It said more organizational work had to be done in the archives before the rest of the files could be opened.
Another Vatican source, who also requested anonymity, said the newly accessible files would include documents about the Nazis but that most information on the Vatican's relations with Germany had already been published.
The archives issue remains a sore spot for Catholics and Jews because many Jewish historians believe Pius turned a deaf ear to reports about the Holocaust.
A rabbi confronted Pope Benedict with a call for the opening of all wartime archives when the German-born Pontiff visited his synagogue in Cologne last August.
"For us, a complete opening of the Vatican archives covering the period of World War Two, sixty years after the end of the Shoah (Holocaust), would be a further sign of historical conscience and would also satisfy critics," Rabbi Abraham Lehrer said.
"You grew up in Germany during a terrible time," he told Benedict during the first papal visit to a synagogue in Germany. "We not only see in you the head of the Catholic Church but also a German who is aware of his historical responsibility."
(Additional reporting by Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor, in Paris)

Breaking News: Israel hits ministry; Hamas offers soldier

Israel hits ministry; Hamas offers soldier

By RAVI NESSMAN, Associated Press Writer 59 minutes ago

Israeli warplanes struck the Palestinian Interior Ministry early Friday, setting it ablaze as Arab leaders tried to forge a deal that would halt the Israeli offensive and free a 19-year-old soldier held by gunmen allied with the ruling Islamic Hamas.

The bombing was one of more than a dozen across the Gaza Strip after midnight, though Israel called off a planned ground invasion of northern Gaza on Thursday in order to give diplomacy another chance.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said militants agreed to a conditional release of the kidnapped soldier but that Israel had yet to accept their terms, which he did not specify. Israel said it was not familiar with any such offer.

No one was hurt in the strike on the Interior Ministry in downtown Gaza City. The Israeli military said the ministry office, controlled by Hamas, was "a meeting place to plan and direct terror activity." The Interior Ministry is nominally in charge of Palestinian security forces, though moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas removed most of its authority.
Israeli warplanes also hit a Fatah office and a Hamas facility in Gaza City as well as roads and open fields. During the day, aircraft and artillery pounded sites across the coastal strip, including suspected weapons factories, an electrical transformer and militant training camps.
Palestinian hospital officials said a 5-year-old girl was wounded in a northern airstrike early Friday, the first casualty in more than two days of military action that began with a ground invasion of southern Gaza. Doctors said her condition was not serious.

On Gaza's southern border, hundreds of Palestinian and Egyptian police formed human cordons to block Palestinians trying to escape into Egypt after militants blasted a hole in a cement wall near the crossing.

Israel also vowed to hunt down the killers of a kidnapped 18-year-old, whose body was found Thursday in the West Bank with a gunshot wound to the head. Hamas-linked militants said they killed him.

Abbas, a moderate, met with Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas and spoke twice with Mubarak to try to end the crisis, an Abbas aide said.

In remarks published Friday, Mubarak told the pro-government Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram that "Egyptian contacts with several Hamas leaders resulted in preliminary, positive results in the shape of a conditional agreement to hand over the Israeli soldier as soon as possible to avoid an escalation. But agreement on this has not yet been reached with the Israeli side."

Gideon Meir, a senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official, said Israel did not know of such an offer and would have no comment until later Friday.

"The soldier will only be released unconditionally and there will be no negotiations with a gang of terrorists and criminals," Meir told The Associated Press. "There is nothing to talk with them about."

Earlier, Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said significant diplomatic developments were possible, though he did not indicate there had been a breakthrough.

"Right now, our thoughts are focused on the unconditional liberation of the kidnapped soldier," he said in a speech to air force graduates. "The efforts to bring about his return are being carried out intensively through various channels."

Israel said the crisis will end when Cpl. Gilad Shalit is released.

"If the Palestinians act now to release Cpl. Shalit and hand him back to us ... we would immediately initiate a dramatic reduction in tension," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said. "He is the primary issue, he is the primary reason for the crisis."
After previous diplomatic efforts by Egypt, Jordan, France and other nations failed, Israel sent thousands of soldiers into vacant areas of southern Gaza on Wednesday.

But on Thursday, Israel decided to delay a further offensive into northern Gaza at Egypt's request, an Israeli official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the diplomacy.

Israeli officials said the delay was also meant to defuse possible international criticism of a broad ground campaign in Gaza. In Moscow, foreign ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized nations called on the Palestinians to free the soldier and urged Israel to act with restraint.
Anger flared across the Middle East over Israel's assault, and many Arabs criticized their governments for not aiding the Palestinians. The Egyptian government's top rival, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, urged Egyptians to gather at pro-Palestinian demonstrations Friday, the Muslim Sabbath.

The request from Egypt came after Israel increased the stakes in the search for the soldier by arresting more than one-third of the Hamas-led Palestinian Cabinet, including the deputy prime minister, in a series of early morning raids in the West Bank.

Israel hinted that the 64 Hamas officials were intended as bargaining chips for Shalit, but one official said the opportunity for preventing a blowup was slipping away.
"We are at the edge of a cliff here, and I would urge the Palestinian leadership to release Cpl. Shalit," Regev said.

Osama Hamdan, an exiled Hamas official based in Lebanon, declined to say whether the group would be willing to trade Shalit for its officials.

"It is premature to discuss this matter," he said. "If the Israelis want to trade them (the Hamas politicians) for the soldier, then let them say it frankly and then we will react."
There has been no sign of life from Shalit since his abduction Sunday. The Popular Resistance Committees — one of the groups holding him — did not confirm his condition in a statement Thursday, but insisted on swapping him for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. Israel has rejected that demand.

The group also said it killed Eliahu Asheri, the 18-year-old West Bank settler whose body was discovered Thursday. The militants had said they would kill Asheri if the raid on Gaza did not stop, but an Israeli military official said he was shot in the head shortly after he was abducted Sunday.

Government spokesman Asaf Shariv said Asheri's killers would be arrested, and Israel would bring them to trial. "Their days as free people are numbered," he said.

ACLU Wins Court Case Supporting Gay Foster Parents...

Arkansas court backs gay foster parents
By ANDREW DEMILLO, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 8 minutes ago

Arkansas cannot ban homosexuals from becoming foster parents because there is no link between their sexual orientation and a child's well-being, the state's high court ruled Thursday.
The court agreed with a lower court judge that the state's child welfare board had improperly tried to regulate public morality. The ban also violated the separation of powers doctrine, the justices said.

The board instituted the ban in 1999, saying children should be in traditional two-parent homes because they would be more likely to thrive.

Four residents sued, claiming discrimination and privacy violations against homosexuals who otherwise qualified as foster parents.

The justices agreed Thursday, saying the ban was "an attempt to legislate for the General Assembly with respect to public morality."

"There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual," Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote in the opinion.

In addition, the court said, the testimony of a Child Welfare Agency Review Board member demonstrated that "the driving force between adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board's views of morality and its bias against homosexuals."

The court also said that being raised by homosexuals doesn't cause academic problems or gender identity problems, as the state had argued.

The ban had not been used since the lower court ruling in 2004, state Health and Human Services spokeswoman Julie Munsell said. She said the plaintiffs have not sought foster-parent status since then.

The department didn't know whether any homosexuals have applied, she said.
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union represented the plaintiffs in the case. Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU in Arkansas, said she was pleased by Thursday's decision.
The unanimous ruling left open the possibility for lawmakers to pursue a ban through legislation or possibly give the board authority to do so.

Sklar said the ACLU would be prepared to fight any legislative efforts to enact a ban, but said the court's ruling would make it difficult for lawmakers to justify such restrictions.
A Florida ban on adoptions by gays and lesbians was upheld in a federal court and the U.S. Supreme court rejected an appeal by the ACLU.

Mississippi prohibits gay couples from adopting, but not gay or lesbian individuals. Utah bars any cohabiting couples who are unmarried — gay or heterosexual — from adopting or becoming foster parents.
___
On the Net:
State Division of Children & Family Services: http://www.arkansas.gov/dhhs/chilnfam
State ACLU: http://www.acluarkansas.org

Thursday

Thursday, June 29, 2006
BREAKING: 5-3 decision, Supreme Court smacks down Bush over Gitmo detainees by John in DC - 6/29/2006 10:29:00 AM

UPDATE: Washington Post:
The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions are unconstitutional.Just coming in now.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.Not so quaint after all, those Geneve Conventions.This is apparently the Ahmed Hamdan case, the "driver" of Osama bin Laden. The court said Bush overstepped his authority in setting up military war crime tribunals to deal with the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The government has to come up with new procedures to either repatriate the detainees at Gitmo, let them go, or try them. The Geneva Convention must be applied, and the US has not properly established the military commissions to try the detaineesMore in a bit. But note one thing. The Supreme Court is now 7-2 Republican to Democrat. The court is even further to the right than it was when Bush took office since he replaced Sandra Day O'Connor with Alito, who is far to the right of her.That means that even with the most conservative Supreme Court in decades, Bush still got slapped down for his handling of civil liberties under the war on terror. Enough of this "activist judges" bs. Even the Republican-run court slaps down Bush (and apparently the legislative branch gets slapped too).And what a surprise:

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying the court's decision would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy."The court's willingness, Thomas said, "to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous."Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito also filed dissents.Three of the four horsemen of the apocalypse would have given Bush a blank check, big surprise. And had Roberts been involved, he recused himself, it's not hard to imagine that he'd have supported Bush's power grab as well. One more vote folks, and there is no stopping this administration. The next Supreme Cour vacancy, if it's one of the reasonable judges, and there will be no more checks on this administration.
Comment

Bush is on the warpath -- against Democrats and the media by Joe in DC - 6/29/2006 09:36:00 AM

Campaign 2006 will be all war all the time. Bush has nothing to run on, so he's running on the biggest failure of all -- Iraq. He can't vanquish the insurgents in Iraq and he can't capture Osama, but he's playing the tough guy against the Democrats and the press. And, like the Bush strategy for Iraq, the campaign strategy is based on lies and falsehoods:

With opposition to the war threatening to hurt the GOP in this fall's congressional elections, Bush gave an impassioned plea for voters to re-elect Republicans who have supported his national security policies. He repeatedly pointed his finger in the air to emphasize his points and at several points his voice rose to a shout."Make no mistake about it, there's a group in the opposition party who are willing to retreat before the mission is done," Bush said. "They're willing to wave the white flag of surrender. And if they succeed, the United States will be worse off and the world will be worse off."As Think Progress noted, White House aide Dan Bartlett couldn't really name anyone who wants to wave the white flag. But we all know that doesn't stop Bush from saying it. He lies. In the new campaign speech, Bush, whose staff outed an undercover CIA spy, had the audacity to say this:

"There can be no excuse for anyone entrusted with vital intelligence to leak it, and no excuse for any newspaper to print it," Bush said.How can anyone take this line of attack seriously when the biggest offenders work for Bush?

Hey Media: That's what the communists did by Joe in DC - 6/29/2006 08:20:00 AM
Last night, I watched Paula Zahn interview Susan Milligan, a reporter with the Boston Globe who also chairs the committee on credentials for House and Senate correspondents about the NY Times smear.Paula was giddy because Congressman JD Hayworth wants to have the press credentials yanked from the Times.Milligan gave the answer that every reporter needs to hear:
But the important thing here is the principle, is that we don't let Congress tell the press what they can and cannot publish. You know, I -- I lived in Eastern Europe for five years during the 1990s and reported there. And I know what happens in countries where the government tries to suppress or intimidate or censor the press, because that's what the communists did to my friends. Yes, that's what communists did -- not what nations with freedom of the press do.Paula Zahn seemed completely oblivious to the fact that she was doing an interview about the government of the United States bullying and censoring the press. She seemed oblivious to the fact that she is also a member of the media. Unfortunately, Zahn is acting like most of the press.I also saw Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC actually say that this action by the Bush administration wasn't necessarily political. She really should know better.Note to reporters: If the Bush administration can threaten the NY Times with espionage, they can do the same thing to you. You all reported on the Times story. Does that make you all accomplices to treason? STOP treating this attack on the NY Times like it's some normal story where both sides deserve a fair hearing. It's not. Has the media in America been so emasculated by the Bush administration that they are not willing to defend the First Amendment?

6/29/06

Thursday, June 29, 2006BREAKING: 5-3 decision, Supreme Court smacks down Bush over Gitmo detainees by John in DC - 6/29/2006 10:29:00 AM
UPDATE: Washington Post:
The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions are unconstitutional.Just coming in now.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.Not so quaint after all, those Geneve Conventions.This is apparently the Ahmed Hamdan case, the "driver" of Osama bin Laden. The court said Bush overstepped his authority in setting up military war crime tribunals to deal with the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The government has to come up with new procedures to either repatriate the detainees at Gitmo, let them go, or try them. The Geneva Convention must be applied, and the US has not properly established the military commissions to try the detaineesMore in a bit. But note one thing. The Supreme Court is now 7-2 Republican to Democrat. The court is even further to the right than it was when Bush took office since he replaced Sandra Day O'Connor with Alito, who is far to the right of her.That means that even with the most conservative Supreme Court in decades, Bush still got slapped down for his handling of civil liberties under the war on terror. Enough of this "activist judges" bs. Even the Republican-run court slaps down Bush (and apparently the legislative branch gets slapped too).And what a surprise:

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying the court's decision would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy."The court's willingness, Thomas said, "to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous."Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito also filed dissents.Three of the four horsemen of the apocalypse would have given Bush a blank check, big surprise. And had Roberts been involved, he recused himself, it's not hard to imagine that he'd have supported Bush's power grab as well. One more vote folks, and there is no stopping this administration. The next Supreme Cour vacancy, if it's one of the reasonable judges, and there will be no more checks on this administration.
Comment
myCount('115159161056418552');
s (61) Permanent Link

Bush is on the warpath -- against Democrats and the media by Joe in DC - 6/29/2006 09:36:00 AM
Campaign 2006 will be all war all the time. Bush has nothing to run on, so he's running on the biggest failure of all -- Iraq. He can't vanquish the insurgents in Iraq and he can't capture Osama, but he's playing the tough guy against the Democrats and the press. And, like the Bush strategy for Iraq, the campaign strategy is based on lies and falsehoods:
With opposition to the war threatening to hurt the GOP in this fall's congressional elections, Bush gave an impassioned plea for voters to re-elect Republicans who have supported his national security policies. He repeatedly pointed his finger in the air to emphasize his points and at several points his voice rose to a shout."Make no mistake about it, there's a group in the opposition party who are willing to retreat before the mission is done," Bush said. "They're willing to wave the white flag of surrender. And if they succeed, the United States will be worse off and the world will be worse off."As Think Progress noted, White House aide Dan Bartlett couldn't really name anyone who wants to wave the white flag. But we all know that doesn't stop Bush from saying it. He lies. In the new campaign speech, Bush, whose staff outed an undercover CIA spy, had the audacity to say this:
"There can be no excuse for anyone entrusted with vital intelligence to leak it, and no excuse for any newspaper to print it," Bush said.How can anyone take this line of attack seriously when the biggest offenders work for Bush?
Comment
myCount('115158835042182620');
s (73) Permanent Link

Hey Media: That's what the communists did by Joe in DC - 6/29/2006 08:20:00 AM
Last night, I watched Paula Zahn interview Susan Milligan, a reporter with the Boston Globe who also chairs the committee on credentials for House and Senate correspondents about the NY Times smear.Paula was giddy because Congressman JD Hayworth wants to have the press credentials yanked from the Times.Milligan gave the answer that every reporter needs to hear:

But the important thing here is the principle, is that we don't let Congress tell the press what they can and cannot publish. You know, I -- I lived in Eastern Europe for five years during the 1990s and reported there. And I know what happens in countries where the government tries to suppress or intimidate or censor the press, because that's what the communists did to my friends. Yes, that's what communists did -- not what nations with freedom of the press do.Paula Zahn seemed completely oblivious to the fact that she was doing an interview about the government of the United States bullying and censoring the press. She seemed oblivious to the fact that she is also a member of the media. Unfortunately, Zahn is acting like most of the press.I also saw Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC actually say that this action by the Bush administration wasn't necessarily political. She really should know better.Note to reporters: If the Bush administration can threaten the NY Times with espionage, they can do the same thing to you. You all reported on the Times story. Does that make you all accomplices to treason? STOP treating this attack on the NY Times like it's some normal story where both sides deserve a fair hearing. It's not. Has the media in America been so emasculated by the Bush administration that they are not willing to defend the First Amendment?

Dictator Dubya

Derailing Dictator Dubya (2 comments )

READ MORE: Washington Post, New York Times, Afghanistan, Investigations, George W. Bush, 9/11, Iraq, 2006, CIA, Homeland Security
Many progressives view the November mid-term elections as a referendum on the Presidency of George Bush and the ineptitude of his rubber-stamp Republican Congress. Voters have an opportunity to express their views on the war in Iraq, the economy, and immigration. Yet lurking behind these serious problems is an issue that most Americans are only vaguely aware of: Bush's ruthless drive to increase the power of the Presidency.

His plan to move the US away from a system with three equally powerful branches of government--the executive, legislative, and judicial--and replace them with an omnipotent, "unitary," President. The critical issue to be decided on November 7th is whether or not Congress will stand up to Dictator Dubya.

In a May interview in the Washington Post, House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, gave some indication of what Democrats plan to do if they take back control of the House in the November Elections. She said that during their first week in power Dems "would raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls." Pelosi went on to promise "a series of investigations of the Bush administration" including their use of intelligence data to justify the invasion of Iraq. It is the threat of these investigations that has riled Republicans. They don't want the public made aware of Bush's power grab. They don't want average Americans to comprehend that Dubya has become a greater threat to democracy than the terrorists he frequently warns us about.

In a recent article in the The New York Review of Books, veteran political reporter Elizabeth Drew described the elements of Administration's design for an omnipotent presidency. The first is the widespread use of the "signing statement." First described in a Boston Globe article, Bush has amended more than 750 laws by attaching a statement saying that because, in his opinion, the law in question impinges on the power of the Presidency, he considers it "advisory in nature." In other words, George Bush doesn't veto laws; he signs them in carefully-orchestrated photo-ops and later attaches a signing statement indicating that he plans to ignore the provisions in the law he doesn't agree with.

The fact that Bush consciously subverts the will of Congress is, in itself, the basis for public hearings and national dialogue about his abrogation of the separation of powers. But "signing statements" are just one of the devices that Dubya has used to expand the power of the Presidency.

According to Republicans, since 9/11 the United States has been in a perpetual state of war and this justifies George Bush's repeated use of his constitutional powers as "commander in chief." First, the Administration created the designation of "enemy combatant" for those captured in Afghanistan. The White House decided that combatants were not to be treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva conventions or to be accorded the due process rights give to defendants in the US; most were lodged in Guantanamo or in CIA-administered prisons outside the United States. At the same time, the President decided that it was permissible to torture these detainees in order to determine whether they knew of any plans to attack the US. The fact that the Administration condoned torture influenced the interrogation techniques used in Iraq, resulting in the scandals at Abu Ghraib and other facilities.

Subsequently, Congress passed "the McCain amendment," which banned cruel, inhuman, or degraded treatment" of POWs. After he signed the McCain amendment, George Bush attached as signing statement: "The executive branch shall construe [the torture provision] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judiciary." In other words, Bush would do what he thought was best, regardless of the intent of Congress.

In December, The New York Times revealed that President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to monitor domestic phone calls in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Bush justified this both on the basis of his war powers as commander-in-chief and his contention that the FISA act was illegal as it limited the "inherent powers" of the Executive branch. (On June 22nd, the Times reported that Bush authorized the CIA and Treasury Departments to monitor all flows of funds in and out of the US.)

Since 9/11, George Bush and his closest advisers have seized upon the threat of another terrorist attack as the basis for an unprecedented expansion of Presidential Powers. A Republican-controlled Congress is unwilling to check this power grab because they are beholden to Bush the politician for much of their financial support. Thus, Capitol Hill "business as usual" has seen the GOP ignore Dubya's dictatorial designs. That's why it so important that Democrats seize control of one or both wings of Congress in November. Our democratic form of government is at risk and someone needs to do something about it.

6/28/06

'Fahrenheit' recruiter killed by bomb in IraqAppeared in Michael Moore film unaware it was critical of war in Iraq.22 Replies - Links

Pentagon removes gay 'mental illness'Decades after psychologists debunk, Pentagon reverses claim on homosexuality.5 Replies - Links

Firms offer US 'mind reading' technologyACLU challenges brain scanners that companies say can act as lie detectors.5 Replies - Links

Helen Thomas - Video

Helen Thomas: Tony Snow Yelled At Me Because I Called Him “A Johnny-Come-Lately”...

Dems Vow To Block Pay Raise For Congress Until Minimum Wage Is Increased...

Democrats: No raises for Congress until minimum wage is increased

From Ted Barrett
CNN Washington Bureau

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, says he has the votes to block any congressional pay raise.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A week after the GOP-led Senate rejected an increase to the minimum wage, Senate Democrats on Tuesday vowed to block pay raises for members of Congress until the minimum wage is increased.

"We're going to do anything it takes to stop the congressional pay raise this year, and we're not going to settle for this year alone," Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said at a Capitol news conference.

"They can play all the games the want," Reid said derisively of the Republicans who control the chamber. "They can deal with gay marriage, estate tax, flag burning, all these issues
and avoid issues like the prices of gasoline, sending your kid to college. But we're going to do everything to stop the congressional pay raise."

The minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Democrats want to raise it to $7.25. During the past nine years, as Democrats have tried unsuccessfully to increase the minimum wage, members of Congress have voted to give themselves pay raises -- technically "cost of living increases" -- totaling $31,600, or more than $15 an hour for a 40-hour week, 52 weeks a year, according to the Congressional Research Service.

In floor debate last week Republicans argued the raise for low-income workers would hurt small businesses. They offered an alternative measure to raise the minimum wage that was tied to tax breaks for small businesses.

The main proposal fell eight votes short of the 60 it needed to pass with 46 opposing; the alternative measure mustered only 45 votes in favor, while 53 senators opposed.

Reid wouldn't spell out the specific tactics he would employ to block the congressional pay raise -- which is triggered each year with the passage of an appropriations bill not by a vote on a stand alone bill to increase pay for members.

But he warned, "I know procedures around here fairly well."

6/27/06

Ghraib detainee: I was held 8 months for cell phone...

AUDIO: LIMBAUGH DEFENDS VIAGRA SNARE

Associated Press accuses Bush of ignoring laws...

Cost of US wars to top $500b in 2007

More spying: Feds got 28,000 US bank records...

Right-wing posters threaten to kill Times reporters

Video: The Daily Show skewers Sears Tower terror plot 'hype.'

Buzz

Bush: Breaking the Law, Again and Again; The Bush administration is using the Treasury Department and the CIA to mine American banking records, all in an effort to find the next terra cell. 6/27

Bush appointed a shill for industrial polluters who immediately used his power to doctor critical public health information about the effects of massive pollution immediately after September 11th. 6/27

Skipping Towards Armageddon: The Politics and Propaganda of the Left Behind Novels and the LaHaye Empire - A BuzzFlash Review and Premium

Axis of Cheating: What if three admitted adulterers run for president and the GOP didn't care? 6/26

As Army wives get death threat phone calls from Iraq, commanders warn that insurgents have intercepted phone calls home 6/26

Columnist: The real space aliens are the Republicans 6/26Alito breaks tie, Kan. death penalty stays 6/27

As people breathe their last on his orders, Bush is yukking it up again with that impersonator. You know, the one from the White House Correspondents dinner. FOX News Gets the "Tasteless Headline of the Week" Award for This One: "Bush Impersonator 'Kills' Crowd at Ford's Theatre Benefit." 6/26

Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says 6/26

Raw

Exclusive: Ex-Bush official calls US intelligence 'crap'

Ex-Powell aide links Cheney to intelligence manipulation...

White House says bank story might threaten 'right to live'

NYT Tues: Soldiers' widows benefits fall short...

Katrina fraud estimated at two billion...

US monitoring student protest emails

Right-wing posters threaten Times reporters, editors

Limbaugh detained for illegal drugsRush Limbaugh held at airport, poss. possession of illegal prescription drugs.

DeLay tries to get off Texas ballotSwears at hearing he is a Virginian; Dems dispute it; Judge: 'Run like a rabbit.'

Bush: Global warming 'serious problem'But Administration fighting tougher emission standards in Supreme Court.


World drug problem 'contained,' UN says'Drug control is working' but same report says marijuana use is '
out of control

Post Mon: Afghans lose faith in Karzai: Developing...

Post Monday: Foreign backers, Afghans losing faith in president
RAW STORYPublished: Sunday June 25, 2006

"Many Afghans and some foreign supporters say they are losing faith in President Hamid Karzai's government, which is besieged by an escalating insurgency and endemic corruption and is unable to protect or administer large areas of the country," the Washington Post will report on Monday page ones, RAW STORY has learned. Excerpts:
#
As a sense of insecurity spreads, a rift is growing between the president and some of the foreign civilian and military establishments whose money and firepower have helped rebuild and defend the country for nearly five years. While the U.S. commitment to Karzai appears solid, several European governments are expressing serious concerns about his leadership.

"The president had a window of opportunity to lead and make difficult decisions, but that window is closing fast," said one foreign military official in Kabul, who like others, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

"This is a crucial time, and there is frustration and finger-pointing on all sides," the official told the POST. "President Karzai is the only alternative for this country, but if he attacks us, we can't help him project his vision. And if he goes down, we all go down with him."

DEVELOPING........

Update

14 Saudi Arabians Released From Guantanamo...


After Criticism Of Dems For Pushing Timeline, Bush Admin. Now Has ‘Adjustable' Troop Withdrawal Schedule...

Navy Finds Personal Data On 28,000 Sailors Posted Online...

Gay Pride Edition

Threat To Overturn Gay Marriage Law Focus Of Toronto Pride(Toronto, Ontario) Leather-clad dancers and drag queens in full bloom will march to the beat of their own drum Sunday _ even if the federal Conservatives are trying to call the tune.

New HIV Drug Approved(Washington) The Food and Drug Administration has approved Prezista for the treatment of the human immunodeficiency virus.

Sox GM May Refuse League Ordered 'Gay Sensitivity' Program(Chicago, Illinois Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen reacted angrily during Friday night's post-game news conference when asked about a report on ESPNdeportes.com that quoted him as saying he would not undergo the sensitivity training that commissioner Bud Selig ordered.

Created Early Gay-Positive Characters TV's Aaron Spelling Dies(Los Angeles, California) Aaron Spelling, the man behind some of television's most successful series has died following a stroke. He was 83.

Prince Disowned For Being Gay(New Delhi) The eldest son and heir of one of India's princely families has been disowned after coming out publicly.

NJ Majority Support For Gay Marriage Remains Strong (Trenton, New Jersey) A new poll shows that support for same-sex marriage remains high in the state. (Trenton, New Jersey) A new poll shows that support for same-sex marriage remains high in the state.

Rainbow Flag Theft Rattles Gay Friendly Church(Wrightstown, Pennsylvania) The Rev. Ginny Miles has one message for whoever stole a Rainbow flag from in front of Penns Park United Methodist Church in Wrightstown: Put it back or I'll put two more flags in its place.

Lesbian Hoops Star Named To All-Decade Team(New York City) Houston Comets forward Sheryl Swoopes has been named to the WNBA's All-Decade Team.

Aviance Unwired For Pride(New York City) Gay singer-performance artist Kevin Aviance returns to hospital Friday to have his broken jaw unwired so that he can appear at this weekend's Pride Day parade.
Earlier:
•
Law Profs Support Challenge To Georgia Anti-Gay Amendment
•
7000 Gay Couples Say 'I Do' In UK

From Crooks and Liars

Turley and the Secret Bank Program Turley and the Secret Bank Program Jonathan Turley has been beside himself over this administration's penchant for doing what it wants without worrying about the constitution. Let's see what he has to say over this new story... Video-WMP Video-QT Same as the last rant..If you missed this clip, it's required viewing...

The boys who cried wolf?

The boys who cried wolf?

Dick Cheney said yesterday that the group of would-be terrorists caught in Miami were "a very real threat." Except, after scratching beneath the surface just a little, there's ample reason to believe that's not the case.

Anyone who claims that the administration just broke up a plot to attack the Sears Tower is overstating what's occurred here. The "Miami 7" could hardly attack a convenience store .

-- Guest Post by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report

Saddam thinks he may run Iraq again

Saddam believes U.S. may reinstate him as president

RAW STORY

Published:
Saturday June 24, 2006

Saddam Hussein believes that President Bush may reinstate him as president some day, according to a story slated for Sunday's New York Times, RAW STORY has found.

"Saddam Hussein has no illusions, his chief lawyer says," writes Edward Wong. "As he sits in his prison cell reading the Quran and writing poetry, he knows the inevitable is coming -- a death sentence handed down by the Iraqi court trying him for crimes against humanity."

"Yet Saddam refuses to submit to the fate that awaits him, Khalil al-Dulaimi, said, for he believes there is a way out," the article continues. "President Bush will use the court's sentence as leverage to try to persuade Saddam to tamp down the insurgency, he said, so desperate are the Americans to stanch their losses."

"Saddam believes the Americans might even reinstall him as president of Iraq," Wong writes.

DEVELOPING...

The Bush code of secrecy

The Bush code of secrecy
How the White House is covering up CIA abductions, brutal interrogations and spying on Americans.
By Mark Follman
Pages 1 2

June 23, 2006 American presidents have long tested the bounds of executive power during wartime. But when it comes to protecting its secrets, the Bush administration has flexed unilateral power to a degree never before seen in U.S. history.

Since 2001, the administration has wielded the "state secrets" privilege as a wide-ranging weapon to snuff out legal challenges to its most Draconian tactics in the global war on terror. At stake are no less than bedrock American moral and legal principles. Bush lawyers have aimed to shoot down court cases involving the indefinite detention and brutal interrogation of prisoners, the covert transfer of terror suspects to foreign governments known to torture, and domestic surveillance prying into the lives of thousands of Americans.

Established by a Supreme Court ruling in 1953, the state secrets privilege allows the executive branch to limit or dismiss court cases that may expose sensitive information and jeopardize national security. To that end, a judge can decide to disallow certain evidence, or even go so far as to quash the whole case, without further remedy in the court system.

When asked, U.S. judges have almost always consented to state secrets claims. But it has come up rarely -- just four times in the first 23 years following the 1953 decision. After that, state secrets claims were filed at a fairly even pace during the Cold War, once or twice per year, under Democratic and Republican presidents alike.

But over the past five years, lawyers representing the Bush administration have asked federal judges to throw out cases entirely at least 21 times -- and likely more often than that, according to Meredith Fuchs, the general counsel for the National Security Archive at George Washington University. Beyond the 21 cases, there could be others that have yet to turn up in her research, Fuchs says, simply because the court or the news media doesn't always report on such cases to the public. Other cases facing demise by state secrets privilege may have begun under seal because of their sensitivity and are therefore unknown to the public -- Fuchs says she knows of at least one such case pending in federal district court in Washington.

The White House appears to have realized how powerful a tool the state secrets privilege can be, Fuchs says. "There's no question that this administration is using it at a significantly higher rate than any other before it."

But even more than the pace, what now matters is the potency of the tactic, says John Kroger, a professor at Lewis and Clark law school and a former federal prosecutor. "We're seeing a radical departure in how state secrets is being invoked," he says. "We're talking about government actions affecting millions of Americans. We're facing major questions about constitutional law, and the Bush government is saying they can't be adjudicated at all. It's a huge shift in the landscape from how this doctrine has been used in the past."

Three cases challenging domestic spying -- what the Bush White House calls its "terrorist surveillance program" -- are stirring in federal court. Bush lawyers have moved to suppress all of them, citing state secrets privilege. A pivotal decision could come today in San Francisco, where U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker could be the first to rule on such a claim in a domestic surveillance case. He'll decide whether the Bush administration's argument should mean the end -- before it ever begins -- of a class action lawsuit against AT&T for secretly handing over customers' phone calls to the government in the name of battling terrorists.


In the hands of the Bush administration, the baseline for state secrets is no longer scrubbing a case of sensitive evidence, but wiping the case away completely. Historically, most state secrets claims were about stopping the disclosure of specific evidence, and the cases proceeded with those limits in place. Particularly sensitive cases could even be conducted entirely under seal. Kroger points to the trial that followed the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. All the defense attorneys in the case had to get classified security clearance, and evidence was reviewed inside a secure facility.

"To prevent a case from going forward at all by claiming that the entire case itself would jeopardize national security," Kroger says, "is a really drastic remedy."

It's a remedy administration lawyers are using with progressively more brazen rationale. At issue in San Francisco, in Hepting v. AT&T, is whether the telecom company gave Uncle Sam access to customer phone calls with or without necessary court authorization. Yet, administration lawyers filed a brief late last week claiming that "the court -- even if it were to find unlawfulness upon in camera, ex parte review [a review done privately by the judge in chambers] -- could not then proceed to adjudicate the very question of awarding damages because to do so would confirm Plaintiffs' allegations."

In other words, the Bush lawyers argue that even if Walker determined behind tightly closed doors that the Bush government broke the law, he could do nothing -- because to continue with any court proceedings or ruling, they argue, would confirm the existence of domestic surveillance operations and thereby jeopardize national security. Apparently, they've taken that position even though domestic surveillance activity under Bush has been covered by every major news outlet and has been acknowledged, albeit only narrowly, by top Bush officials and the president himself.

Next page: Cheney's plans to bury a legacy of Vietnam and Watergate -- and seize more presidential power

Time to get rid of Snow

Did Santorum show classified documents to FOX about his WMD's scam?

Greg Sargent picked up my original assertion the other night that Rick might have violated federal laws by holding up a classified document to the camera on H&C: I wrote

"If that is the document that's classified, isn't little Ricky breaking about a gazillion different federal laws by exposing them? I've taken the precaution of blackening it a bit. Of course, I'm no attorney, but I believe this is the law."

Sargent: Turley told me this:

"If the document he had with him was classified, it was a violation of security protocol and classification rules to take such a document to an interview, let alone wave it around before a camera. Presumably he didn't have a transport card or a security officer transporting the document . Presumably the interview location is not considered an authorized location for such material."

...read on"

permalink1:03:07 PM

Snow gets rattled by Helen Thomas: I'm the Teacher! Snow gets rattled by Helen Thomas: I'm the Teacher! Tony Snow was asked about the news that the country is going through bank records... Video-WMP Video-QT later Snow: Helen, will you stop heckling and let me conduct a press conference... Well no, I'm making an argument, and you're, you're pestering the teacher... Tony hasn't faired too well in his new job. Developing...(h/t Lawrence)

Bill O'Reilly vs Clarence Page Bill O'Reilly vs Clarence Page Bill went a little ballistic and Mr. Page did remarkably well for a pretty soft spoken man against the bloviater. Video-WMP Video-QT later (Sorry the servers are re-uploading the clip) He came pretty prepared with Bill's own words and O'Reilly was losing his cool. Newshounds has more. "Columnist Clarence Page, also of the Chicago Tribune, was a last-minute replacement for Wycliff, and witnessing the bullying he was subjected to as a welcome guest it's no wonder Wycliff kept his distance. O'Reilly started the segment by opining that the paper has been fair in its coverage of the "war on terror" but erred in publishing the critical column, which he said was "grossly irresponsible and a lie, which makes (him) angry," In a role reversal, Page asked BORe how it was irresponsible and a lie. O'Reilly says that saying the US government is to blame for the grisly murders is irresponsible. Page invites him to look at Wycliff's logic and at his own commentary the past week, saying BORe praised Saddam Hussein's tactics of martial law and curfews, but, as Wycliff notes, there can't be martial law without adequate police and military force and there hasn't been adequate troop strength from the get-go...read on" permalink10:56:11 AM

Santorum's WMD claim is pummeled again Santorum's WMD claim is pummeled again I think this has sunk Ricky's chances to be re-elected. They are holding contests on "Who wants to be Santorum," in Philly. Olbermann took a deeper look into this bogus claim by Santorum and: Video-WMP Video-QT Olbermann: "Good Evening from New York. We have found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. 15-year old Weapons of Mass Destruction that could give you the equivalent of a serious rug burn. Our fifth story on the Countdown: Independent experts and the level-headed, staggering in amazement today, that deteriorated mustard gas canisters -- at least fifteen years old and as much as "eighteen" years old -- could be "palmed off" by desperate politicians as some kind of rationale for the deaths of 2500 American servicemen in Iraq. Republican Senator, Rick Santorum, down 18 percent in the polls in his own re-election bid... "joined" by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Pete Hoekstra of Michigan... in pimping part of a two-month old military intelligence report describing the existence of old munitions shells with chemical weapons that are degraded, unusable, and non-threatening.... More transcripts coming... permalink10:21:56 AM

Geraldo Rivera: 'I've seen a hell of a lot more combat than John Kerry Geraldo Rivera: " I've seen a hell of a lot more combat than John Kerry" And the insane hits just keep on coming. Geraldo, the man who mapped our troop movements in the sand, told O'Reilly on The Factor that: Video-WMP Video-QT Rivera: ...To withdraw at a date certain. I've know John Kerry for over thirty five years. Unlike me-he is a combat veteran, so he gets some props, but in the last thirty five years, I've seen a hell of a lot more combat than John Kerry... How many medals did Rivera win? Do I really have to comment on the idiocy of his statement? Here's another moment of objective journalism from Geraldo in Iraq. TV Newser too... Update: I remember when he got into a brawl on the set in NY and broke his nose. Rising Hegemon has some great photos of Geraldo's past exploits. Duncan reminds me when he got his ass kicked by Frank Stallone. permalink12:41:26 AM

6/23/06

Southern Republican bigots are trying to kill the Voting Rights Act by John in DC - 6/23/2006 12:31:00 PM

Gee, first the Republicans showed last summer that they had an affinity for lynching blacks, and now they don't want blacks and Latinos to vote. Do we need any more evidence for blacks, Latinos and other minorities to realize that the Republican party hates people who aren't rich, white, straight, Amurican men?And, you just have to love the argument from the Southern Republican Members of Congress trying to kill this landmark civil rights legislation. You see, the legislation unfairly tarnishes southern states as bigots.First off, you southern states are the reason the law exists in the first place. Loving v. Virginia, anyone? Not to mention Virginia's penchant for being possibly the most homophobic state in the Union. It seems there is still a special place for hatred and bigotry in the soul of the south, so spare us the victim crap. And how about that old civil war war-horse you people can't seem to ever get over. A people who get beyond your past you are most certainly not. (Yes, yes, many of you are sane liberals and independents, and that's great, but far too many are not, and your representation in Congress proves what the majority of your brethren really are.)Secondly, the very fact that you're trying to kill a civil rights law is proof enough of why it's needed. As your own Republican Representatives so often like to tell the rest of us, if you have nothing to hide, then what are you afraid of?

Bruce Unplugged by Joe in DC - 6/23/2006 11:06:00 AM
Bruce Springsteen is one of the best advocates for progessive politics in America -- and his smackdown of Coulter works, too:
O’BRIEN: In 2004 you came out very strongly in support of John Kerry and performed with him - your fellow guitarist, I think is how you introduced him to the crowd. And some people gave you a lot of flack for being a musician who took a political stand. I remember…SPRINGSTEEN: Yeah, they should let Ann Coulter do it instead. Think Progress has the both the video and the full transcript.

Bush is snooping into your bank records without a warrant by John in DC - 6/23/2006 10:13:00 AM
Let me guess: it was too hard to get a search warrant?Whatever. The Republicans have destroyed our country, killed our troops, spat upon the Constitution and the founding principles of our democracy, and now they're violating our bank records privacy too. And we're supposed to be surprised? These people have no respect for democracy, for civil rights, for civil liberties, for blacks, for women, for gays, for Latinos, for Muslims, for democracy and for any Christian religion other than hate-filled Baptists. Republicans have become petty thugs who do whatever they please because it feels good, to hell with the law. This isn't the America we fight wars for. It's the America we fight wars to avoid becoming.


Ralph Reed: the mighty is falling...crashing...and burning by Joe in DC - 6/23/2006 08:46:00 AM
Back in the 90s, Ralph Reed was portrayed as the poster boy for GOP moral values. He was a Republican kingmaker. In return, the GOP was putting him in their pipeline to leadership -- starting with the Lieutenant Governor's office in Georgia. In reality, he's just another one of the 21st century poster boys for GOP corruption:
A bipartisan Senate report released on Thursday documented more than $5.3 million in payments to Ralph Reed, the former director of the Christian Coalition and a leading Republican Party strategist, from an influence-peddling operation run by the corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff on behalf of Indian tribe casinos.The report by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee portrayed Mr. Reed, now a candidate for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor in his home state of Georgia, as a central figure in Mr. Abramoff's lobbying operation, the focus of a criminal investigation by the Justice Department.Mr. Reed was depicted as having used his contacts among conservative Christian groups in the South and Southwest beginning in the late 1990's to block the opening or expansion of casinos that might compete with the gambling operations of Mr. Abramoff's clients.Ralph Reed really is the face of the GOP.

friday

DEMOCRATS TO HOLD IRAQ INTELLIGENCE HEARINGS: POWELL'S EX-CHIEF OF STAFF,DOWNING STREET REPORTER TO SPEAK...

BBC questions gravity of Sears Tower plot: 'A lot of talk'

U.S. Not Prepared For Web Disruption

In Event of Big Web Disruption,U.S. Is Ill-Prepared, Study Says
By VAUHINI VARAJune 23, 2006; Page B2

The U.S. is poorly prepared for a major disruption of the Internet, according to a study that an influential group of chief executives will publish today.

The Business Roundtable, composed of the CEOs of 160 large U.S. companies, said neither the government nor the private sector has a coordinated plan to respond to an attack, natural disaster or other disruption of the Internet. While individual government agencies and companies have their own emergency plans in place, little coordination exists between the groups, according to the study.

"It's a matter of more clearly defining who has responsibility," said Edward Rust Jr., CEO of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., who leads the Roundtable's Internet-security effort.

Other companies with leaders active in the effort include FedEx Corp., International Business Machines Corp., Dow Chemical Co., Hewlett-Packard Co., CA Inc., Alcoa Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc. and Pfizer Inc.

The study points out that a massive Web disruption could potentially paralyze banks, transportation systems, health-care providers and voice calling over the Internet.
The chief problem: There are so many public and private institutions that handle security-related tasks that their responsibilities often overlap, creating inefficiencies that can bog down an emergency response, according to the study.

Security officials at some banks and other companies have established groups to swap data about Internet threats. Companies that make the technology behind the Internet itself have an informal group of their own to discuss security issues. Meanwhile, a government body called the National Cyber Response Coordination Group is meant to manage a response to Internet emergencies.

Yet those groups' roles are often unclear, and no system is in place to coordinate their efforts, the study says. It cited "serious problems stemming from the lack of consolidation, including the fact that these organizations are not accountable for their actions."

The group said the public and private sectors should develop a closer relationship in preparing for an Internet disruption.

It also suggested that the government fund a panel of experts who could assist in developing plans for restoring Internet services in the event of a massive disruption
The government should invest in developing a good early-warning system for Internet emergencies -- the cyber equivalent of the warnings provided ahead of a hurricane or other natural disaster, the Roundtable said. The private sector should also decide on one process for sharing information with each other and the government during an Internet emergency, the group added.

Specter To Grill Atty. General Gonzales On Ignoring And Overriding Laws...

Gonzales to be grilled on ignoring laws
750 'signing statements' signal possible bypass of spying and torture rules

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration will have to explain why it thinks it can ignore or overrule laws passed by Congress in a hearing next week, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said Wednesday.

Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said he hoped to force the Bush administration to reduce its use of "signing statements" -- memos that reserve the right to ignore laws if the president thinks they impinge on his authority.
"Our legislation doesn't amount to anything if the president can say, 'My constitutional authority supersedes the statute.' And I think we've got to lay down the gauntlet and challenge him on it," Specter said in a telephone interview.

A Justice Department official is scheduled to testify at a hearing on signing statements next Tuesday, Specter said.

Administration's top law enforcer to testifyAttorney General Alberto Gonzales, who had lunch with Specter on Wednesday, will face questions about the presidential memos when he appears before the committee on July 18 to discuss the National Security Agency's domestic spying program.

Bush has signed at least 750 such memos since taking office in 2001, according to the Boston Globe, more than previous presidential administrations combined.

Bush has used signing statements to signal that he might bypass a ban on the torture of U.S.-held prisoners and ignore new provisions in an anti-terrorism law that call for increased congressional oversight.

Specter said the heavy use of signing statements fits in with a larger pattern of overreaching by the Bush administration, from the NSA's surveillance program to a first-ever raid on a congressman's office as part of a bribery probe.

Finding a solutionTrying to legislate against signing statements probably would not work, Specter said, but there might be other ways to force the administration to curb their use.
"Maybe we can find some pressure point on the budget or appropriations or confirmations or something of that sort," he said. "I'm thinking about all the alternatives."
A White House spokeswoman was not immediately available for comment.

Specter has clashed with the White House in recent months about the spying program and recently accused Vice President Dick Cheney of meddling in his committee's affairs.
Specter has been trying to reach a compromise with Cheney and other officials on legislation that would allow a special court to review the surveillance program.
"We've made some progress on it but I'm not prepared to give you the details," he said. "This is a major matter for them that they have not yet finished."