Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Lanya

Pages: 1 ... 69 70 [71] 72 73 ... 75
1051
3DHS / Violation of the Constitution
« on: October 20, 2006, 01:50:08 PM »
WIll this stand?

Court Told It Lacks Power in Detainee Cases

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 20, 2006; A18

Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that "no court, justice, or judge" can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.

Beyond those already imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, the law applies to all non-U.S. citizens, including permanent U.S. residents.

The new law already has been challenged as unconstitutional by lawyers representing the petitioners. The issue of detainee rights is likely to reach the Supreme Court for a third time.

Habeas corpus, a Latin term meaning "you have the body," is one of the oldest principles of English and American law. It requires the government to show a legal basis for holding a prisoner. A series of unresolved federal court cases brought against the administration over the last several years by lawyers representing the detainees had left the question in limbo.

Two years ago, in Rasul v. Bush, which gave Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their detention before a U.S. court, and in this year's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , the Supreme Court appeared to settle the issue in favor of the detainees. But the new legislation approved by Congress last month, which gives Bush the authority to try detainees before military commissions, included a provision removing judicial review for all habeas claims.

Immediately after Bush signed the act into law Tuesday, the Justice Department sent a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asserting the new authorities and informing the court that it no longer had jurisdiction over a combined habeas case that had been under consideration since 2004. The U.S. District Court cases, which had been stayed pending the appeals court decision, were similarly invalid, the administration informed that court on Wednesday.

A number of legal scholars and members of Congress, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), have said that the habeas provision of the new law violates a clause of the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention "shall not be suspended" except in cases of "rebellion or invasion." Historically, the Constitution has been interpreted to apply equally to citizens and noncitizens under U.S. jurisdiction.

The administration's persistence on the issue "demonstrates how difficult it is for the courts to enforce [the clause] in the face of a resolute executive branch that is bound and determined to resist it," said Joseph Margulies, a Northwestern University law professor involved in the detainee cases.

On Tuesday, the appeals court granted a petition by lawyers for the detainees to argue against the new law. Vincent Warren, the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents many of the detainees, said yesterday that he expected the administration to file a motion for dismissal of all the cases before the defense challenge is heard.

"We and other habeas counsel are going to vigorously oppose dismissal of these cases," Warren said. "We are going to challenge that law as violating the Constitution on several grounds." Whichever side loses in the upcoming court battles, he said, will then appeal to the Supreme Court.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

1052
3DHS / "Just sour grapes"
« on: October 20, 2006, 02:11:06 AM »


http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001845.php

CQ: Facing Fed Probe, House GOP Spending Chief Axes Investigative Staff
By Justin Rood - October 19, 2006, 7:11 PM

My goodness. As TPMm readers know well, House Appropriations chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) is under federal investigation for possible improprieties in how he oversaw Congress' spending of $900 billion annually. Yesterday, we reported that Lewis had dropped nearly $800,000 in legal fees to defend himself against the probe.

This evening, Congressional Quarterly reports (sub. req.) that in a round of calls Monday evening, Lewis fired 60 investigators who had worked for his committee rooting out fraud, waste and abuse, effective immediately. As in, don't bother coming in on Tuesday.

The investigators were contract workers, brought on to handle the extraordinary level of fraud investigations facing the panel. Sixteen permanent investigative staff are staying on, according to CQ. More:

    Lewis’ decision “has in fact stalled all of the investigations on the staff,” said one of the contractors, a former FBI agent, who asked not to be identified. “This eviscerates the investigatory function. There is little if any ability to do any oversight now.”

    . . .

    “In effect, no investigative function is going to be done,” said the contractor, who called the decision “misguided.”

    “This staff has saved billions and billions of dollars, we’ve turned up malfeasance and misfeasance,” the contractor said. “It’s results justify the expense of the staff. I have no idea why the chairman would do this.”

Lewis' spokesman, John Scofield, told CQ that such complaints were "sour grapes," and assured the publication that "there is nothing sinister going on."

1053
3DHS / Dick Armey speaks out about pandering to Dobson
« on: October 20, 2006, 01:13:55 AM »
[..........]
This year’s antagonists also include some new critics, including Mr. Gingrich’s one-time lieutenant, Dick Armey, the former House Republican majority leader.

In recent weeks, Mr. Armey has stepped up a public campaign against the influence of Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and an influential voice among evangelical protestants. In an interview published last month in “The Elephant in the Room,” a book by Ryan Sager about splits among conservatives, Mr. Armey accused Congressional Republicans of “blatant pandering to James Dobson” and “his gang of thugs,” whom Mr. Armey called “real nasty bullies” — arguments he reprised on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and in an open letter on the Web site organization FreedomWorks.

In an interview this week, Mr. Armey said catering to Dr. Dobson and his allies had led the party to abandon budget-cutting. And he said Christian conservatives could cost Republicans seats around the country, especially in Ohio.

“The Republicans are talking about things like gay marriage and so forth, and the Democrats are talking about the things people care about, like how do I pay my bills?” he said.

Mr. Armey also pinned some of the blame on Tom DeLay, the former Republican House majority leader, who “was always more comfortable with the social conservatives, the evangelical wing of the party, than he was with the business wing.”

Mr. Armey, who identifies himself as an evangelical, said he was tired of Christian conservative leaders threatening that their supporters would stay away from the ballot box unless they got what they wanted.
[.............]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/us/politics/20conserve.html?_r=5&ei=5094&en=b1b937b467b8fa0b&hp=&ex=1161316800&oref=login&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

1054
3DHS / One-third support some torture
« on: October 19, 2006, 11:57:09 PM »
 One-third support 'some torture'
Nearly a third of people worldwide back the use of torture in prisons in some circumstances, a BBC survey suggests.

Although 59% were opposed to torture, 29% thought it acceptable to use some degree of torture to combat terrorism.

While most polled in the US are against torture, opposition there is less robust than in Europe and elsewhere.

More than 27,000 people in 25 countries were asked if torture would be acceptable if it could provide information to save innocent lives.

Some 36% of those questioned in the US agreed that this use of torture was acceptable, while 58% were unwilling to compromise on human rights.

   

The percentage favouring torture in certain cases makes it one of the highest of all the countries polled.

The majority of those questioned in the BBC World Service poll - 19 of the 25 countries surveyed - agree that clear rules against torture in prisons should be maintained because it is immoral and its use would weaken human rights standards.

"The dominant view around the world is that terrorism does not warrant bending the rules against torture," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), whose organisation helped conduct the survey.

Saving lives?

All of the countries surveyed have signed up to the Geneva Conventions which prohibit the use of torture and cruel and degrading behaviour.

   
HAVE YOUR SAY
We are judged by how we treat our enemies rather than how we treat our friends
Jay Kandy, London
But countries that face political violence are more likely to accept the idea that some degree of torture is permissible because of the extreme threat posed by terrorists.

Israel has the largest percentage of those polled endorsing the use of a degree of torture on prisoners, with 43% saying they agreed that some degree of torture should be allowed.

However, a larger percentage - 48% - think it should remain prohibited.

   
The question
Most countries have agreed to rules prohibiting torturing prisoners. Which position is closer to yours?
Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives
Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights

Other countries that polled higher levels of acceptance of the use of torture include Iraq (42%), the Philippines (40%), Indonesia (40%), Russia (37%) and China (37%).

The Israeli figure conceals a stark difference in attitude within the country, split along religious lines.

A majority of Jewish respondents in Israel, 53%, favour allowing governments to use some degree of torture to obtain information from those in custody, while 39% want clear rules against it.

But Muslims in Israel, who represent 16% of the total number polled, are overwhelmingly against any use of torture.

Meanwhile opposition to the practise is highest in Italy, where 81% of those questioned think torture is never justified.

Australia, France, Canada, the UK and Germany also registered high levels of opposition to any use of torture.

The survey was carried out for the BBC World Service by polling firm Globescan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

Views on torturing prisoners
Country    Against all torture *    Some degree permissible *    Neither/Don't Know
Australia    75%    22%    3%
Brazil    61%    32%    8%
Canada    74%    22%    4%
Chile    62%    22%    16%
China    49%    37%    13%
Egypt    65%    25%    9%
France    75%    19%    6%
Germany    71%    21%    7%
Gt Britain    72%    24%    4%
India    23%    32%    45%
Indonesia    51%    40%    8%
Iraq    55%    42%    1%
Israel    48%    43%    9%
Italy    81%    14%    6%
Kenya    53%    38%    9%
Mexico    50%    24%    27%
Nigeria    49%    39%    12%
Philippines    56%    40%    5%
Poland    62%    27%    12%
Russia    43%    37%    19%
S Korea    66%    31%    3%
Spain    65%    16%    19%
Turkey    62%    24%    14%
Ukraine    54%    29%    18%
US    58%    36%    7%
Average    59%    29%    12%
*27,000 respondents in 25 countries were asked which position was closer to their own views:

    * Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights standards against torture.
    * Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives.

Source: BBC/Globescan/PIPA


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/in_depth/6063386.stm

1055
3DHS / 52 year old soldier dies in Iraq
« on: October 19, 2006, 08:00:52 PM »
Vancouver soldier killed after unexpected call-up
Vancouver soldier killed after unexpected call-up
    Story Published: Oct 18, 2006 at 2:17 PM PST

Story Updated: Oct 19, 2006 at 10:42 AM PST


VANCOUVER, Wash. (AP) - A Vancouver soldier is one of ten killed this week by a roadside bomb in Iraq.

Ron Paulsen spent 14 years in the Army and then another 13 years as an inactive reservist.  At 52 years old, he was called up for active duty.

When Paulsen finished his service in 1992, soldiers were given a choice - take a lump sum of $30,000 and be done, or take an annual payment of $7,000 with a catch.

He said he went for the annual, but that meant he had to stay in the inactive reserve to get it, which is why he ended up getting called back in to service.

Paulsen said that roadside bombs were his biggest concern.  His family confirmed his death Wednesday.

(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
http://www.katu.com/news/local/4429767.html

1056
3DHS / Helping the hungry on base
« on: October 19, 2006, 05:22:13 PM »
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061013/news_7m13bread.html


Helping the hungry on base

Many military families rely on donated goods

By Rick Rogers
STAFF WRITER

October 13, 2006

The women and children who formed a line at Camp Pendleton last week could have been waiting for a child-care center to open or Disney on Ice tickets to go on sale.


EDUARDO CONTRERAS / Union Tribune
Volunteer Marisela Helgeson (left) and Military Outreach Ministry associate director Patty Dutra prepared to distribute food to Marine families at Camp Pendleton. Behind them, some family members waited to pick up the donated items.
Instead, they were waiting for day-old bread and frozen dinners packaged in slightly damaged boxes. These families are among a growing number of military households in San Diego County that regularly rely on donated food.

As the Iraq war marches toward its fourth anniversary, food lines operated by churches and other nonprofit groups are an increasingly valuable presence on military bases countywide. Leaders of the charitable groups say they're scrambling to fill a need not seen since World War II.

Too often, the supplies run out before the lines do, said Regina Hunter, who coordinates food distribution at one Camp Pendleton site.

“Here they are defending the country. . . . It is heartbreaking to see,” said Hunter, manager of the on-base Abby Reinke Community Center. “If we could find more sources of food, we would open the program up to more people. We believe anyone who stands in a line for food needs it and deserves it.”

The base's list of recipients swells by 100 to 150 people a month as the food programs streamline their eligibility process, word spreads among residents and ever-proud Marines adjust to the idea of accepting donated goods.

At least 2,000 financially strapped people in North County qualify for food and other items given out at the center and a Camp Pendleton warehouse run by the Military Outreach Ministry.

Ways to help

People interested in donating food, furniture or money to help military families in San Diego County can call:

Military Outreach Ministry at Camp Pendleton: (760) 908-7043

Military Outreach Ministries at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station: (619) 843-8964
To the south, about 1,500 individuals pick up free food, diapers or furniture at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station and several military-oriented distribution sites supported by churches and the San Diego Food Bank.

The numbers don't include military households that frequent other charities countywide to get enough to eat.

“I cry tears of joy every week,” said Patty Dutra of the Military Outreach Ministry. “You are looking at them and saying 'thank you' and they say, 'No, thank you.' ”

Some of the women in last week's food line at Camp Pendleton were newbies like Jennifer Stocker, 25. A friend told Stocker, the mother of 7-week-old Shylah and wife of Cpl. James Stocker, about the service. She arrived an hour early to get first picks.

“It looks good,” Jennifer Stocker said as she glanced at the tables stacked with loaves of French bread and doughnuts covered with red, white and blue sprinkles.

“It looks helpful,” Stocker added as Shylah gummed her mother's wrist. “I'm definitely going to start doing more of this.”

Also present were food-line veterans trying to make ends meet. Michelle Rankins counts herself as a reluctant regular.

“I do this for the kids,” said Rankins, whose husband is a corporal deployed in Iraq. “They need the protein from the bread. For me and my family – for a lot of the families at Camp Pendleton – this (program) is a necessity. I come every week.”

Barbara Chavez deals with many similarly challenged families in San Diego County. She is director of Military Outreach Ministries, which supplies bread and other staples to troops and their loved ones at the Miramar base, a Navy housing community in Lakeside and other locations.

“The bases are in the more expensive parts of the county and things like gas, food, insurance and rent are just higher here,” Chavez said. “I got a call last night from a lady in need. She ran out of baby formula and diapers. She's 22 with two kids under 3 and her husband is in Iraq. She was distraught and cried for 10 minutes. This happens more often than not.”

On the Miramar base last week, Melissa Dixon came to receive diapers, paper plates and canned goods. Her husband, John, is a lance corporal stationed there.

“Believe it or not, there are a lot of military families struggling,” said Dixon, 22, as fighter jets flew overhead.

At the Navy housing complex in Lakeside, Nicole Purselley said she wouldn't know what to do without the donated food.

“One week we couldn't come to get food because we didn't have gas money,” said Purselley, a mother of three whose husband is a hull technician aboard the Bonhomme Richard, an amphibious assault ship based in San Diego.

Purselley's disabled mother, Kathy Frisbie, lives with the family. Frisbie said the gracious spirit in which the food is given makes taking it easier on their pride.

“They don't look down on us because we are here,” Frisbie said.

During World War II, the National Presbyterian Church started an outreach program for military families coast to coast. In 1968, the Presbytery of San Diego took responsibility for the local chapter.

The presbytery spun off its military food program this year, with oversight now divided between the Military Outreach Ministry in North County and Military Outreach Ministries in the rest of the region.

“(Service members) struggle because of our cost of living,” said Faye Bell, executive director for the Military Outreach Ministry. “The lower-ranking enlisted guys do all the hard work and still have the stress of not being able to take care of their families the way they wish they could.”

Rick Rogers: (760) 476-8212; rick.rogers@uniontrib.com

1057
3DHS / Question that Bush can't answer
« on: October 19, 2006, 01:20:48 AM »
A Question Bush Can't Answer

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, October 18, 2006; 12:16 PM

There are a lot of questions -- about a lot of things -- that President Bush can't seem to answer.

But Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, of all people, asked Bush one of the most important ones in an interview aired last night.

This one was about torture.

Here's the transcript ; here's the video .

O'Reilly raised the issue of waterboarding, a particularly appalling technique that CIA interrogators reportedly used on terror suspects.

O'Reilly: "Is waterboarding torture?"

Bush: "I don't want to talk about techniques. But I do assure the American people that we were within the law and we don't torture. I have said all along to the American people we won't torture. But we need to be in a position where we can interrogate these people."

Then came the question I've been waiting for someone to ask.

O'Reilly: " But if the public doesn't know what torture is or is not, as defined by the Bush Administration, how can the public make a decision on whether your policy is right or wrong? " [My emphasis.]

Bush's ducking of such an important question, it seems to me, is highly newsworthy. Here's the president's response, in its entirety:

Bush: "Well, one thing is that you can rest assured we are not going to talk about the techniques we use in a public forum, no matter how hard you try, because I don't want the enemy to be able to adjust their tactics if we capture them on the battlefield.

"But what the American people need to know is we have a program in place that is able to get intelligence from these people and we have used it to stop attacks. The intelligence community believes strongly that the information we got from the detainee questioning program yielded information that made America safer, that we stopped attacks.

"Secondly, the courts. Yeah, I believe it is necessary to have military tribunals because I ultimately want these people to be tried. And it took a while to get these tribunals in place. The Supreme Court ruled that the president didn't have the authority to set up these courts on his own, that he needed to work with Congress to do so, and we did.

"What's interesting about these votes that took place in the Congress is the number of Democrats that opposed questioning people we picked up on the battlefield. And I think that's an issue that they will have to explain to the American people."

So apparently that's his answer to O'Reilly's excellent and important question: Democrats are pro-terrorist.

(And let's not even get into the fact that he misrepresented the views of Democrats, all of whom to the best of my knowledge favor questioning suspects -- just not necessarily torturing them.)
[]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/10/18/BL2006101800799_pf.html

1058
3DHS / Note for anyone with type 2 diabetes
« on: October 18, 2006, 10:20:19 PM »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101700437.html


Merck Diabetes Drug Wins Federal OK

By ANDREW BRIDGES
The Associated Press
Tuesday, October 17, 2006; 7:01 PM

WASHINGTON -- Diabetics gained a new way of controlling their blood sugar levels Tuesday with federal approval of a novel pill for Type 2 diabetes, which affects about 20 million Americans.

The Food and Drug Administration said it approved Januvia, which enhances the body's own ability to lower blood sugar levels, after clinical trials showing the new pill works just as well as older diabetes drugs, but with fewer side effects like weight gain. The drug is made by Merck and Co. Inc.
[]

1059
3DHS / Think we can keep this up till 2010?
« on: October 18, 2006, 08:03:42 AM »
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061018/ts_nm/iraq_dc_1

[]
The U.S. military announced on Wednesday the deaths of 10 U.S. troops in
Iraq on Tuesday, an unusually bloody day for American soldiers battling sectarian violence and a Sunni Arab insurgency.
[]

At least 68 U.S. troops have been killed in October -- a pace, that if continues, would make it the deadliest month for U.S. forces since January 2005. At least 2,777 have died since the invasion in 2003.
[]

Cheney said yesterday we're doing "remarkably well" in Iraq.

Cheney: ‘General Overall Situation’ In Iraq Is Going ‘Remarkably Well’

Rush Limbaugh interviewed Vice President Cheney on his show today. At one point, Limbaugh asked Cheney to respond to growing frustration over U.S. efforts in Iraq.

Cheney acknowledged there is a “natural level of concern out there” because fighting didn’t end “instantaneously.” (Next month, the war will have lasted longer than U.S. fighting in World War II.) Cheney then pointed to various news items to paint a positive picture of conditions in Iraq and concluded, “If you look at the general overall situation, they’re doing remarkably well.”


Full transcript:

  http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/17/cheney-rush/

1060
3DHS / I'll take the ACLU any day
« on: October 18, 2006, 01:55:55 AM »
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/politicalmuscle/2006/10/doolittle_defen.html


Doolittle Defended Friend Accused of Sexual Assault

Rep. John T. Doolittle — under fire for his connection to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff — has been attacking his Democratic opponent, Charlie Brown, for belonging to the ACLU. To Doolittle, Brown's membership in the ACLU is enough to characterize him as an extremist liberal, since the group has defended sexual predators such as the North American Man Boy Love Assn. in the past.

"It is astounding that anyone could defend a group dedicated to aiding and abetting pedophiles," Doolittle said in a recent press release.

DoolittleportraitBut Doolittle himself came to the defense of a dentist accused of sexually assaulting six patients while they were in his chair. Doolittle told a criminal jury in 1987 about his friend: "I consider him to be a very truthful individual," according to a transcript of his testimony.

Doolittle, then a state senator and attorney, served as an important character witness for the friend, David Roy Phipps, who eventually was sentenced to three years' probation. Phipps also had his dental license placed on probation for five years by the state dental board, which required him to attend to patients only with an assistant at his side.

"I've known him of, I guess, approximately three years," Doolittle testified at the August 1987 trial.

"And how is it that you know Dr. Phipps?" a defense attorney asked.

"I got acquainted with him initially through our mutual involvement in the church, and then we became personal friends as well," Doolittle replied. "...I consider him to be a very truthful individual."

"If Dr. Phipps were to give you his word on something, would you believe that?" the attorney asked.

"Without question," Doolittle replied.

Doolittle's efforts may have proved effective for his friend in 1987. But in 1994, Phipps assaulted another patient, according to court documents filed with the 3rd Appellate District Court of Appeal.

One patient in 1994, listed as Marie Y., said after being administered nitrous oxide she "felt Phipps's hand go underneath the dental bib to give her breast a sudden squeeze or caress, putting his hand completely over it; he squeezed her right breast three times and her left breast once."

In December of that year, Phipps was charged with attempted sexual battery by restraint, a felony, and misdemeanor sexual battery. The case went to trial in 1995, and Phipps eventually pleaded no contest to two counts of misdemeanor sexual battery. He served 365 days in the Placer County jail, the documents show.

A psychologist hired by Phipps testified before the dental board, which again had initiated disciplinary action. The psychologist said Phipps experienced "some arousal" from the touching and that he saw himself as a "pleaser" to women patients.

A spokeswoman for Doolittle called back to gather information about this story, but then did not respond for further comment after several hours. Phipps could not be reached.

One historical footnote: The Superior Court judge in the 1987 case was Earl Warren Jr., the son of the legendary former California governor and U.S. chief justice.

(Photo: Dennis Cook / AP)



1061
3DHS / Values
« on: October 17, 2006, 03:53:17 AM »

The current Congress has shown no inclination to investigate the Bush administration. Last year The Boston Globe offered an illuminating comparison: when Bill Clinton was president, the House took 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether Mr. Clinton had used the White House Christmas list to identify possible Democratic donors. But in 2004 and 2005, a House committee took only 12 hours of testimony on the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_10_15_atrios_archive.html#116101656816512784

1062
3DHS / An American Sentenced to Death in Iraq
« on: October 16, 2006, 02:34:47 AM »
I'm just speechless.  About all I can do is post links.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/14/europe/EU_GEN_Romania_Iraq_Death_Sentence.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101301457.html

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_4495078

Saturday, October 14, 2006

An American Sentenced to Death in Iraq

Scott Horton

"Logic may indeed be unshakeable, but it cannot withstand a man who is determined to live. Where was the judge he had never seen? Where was the High Court he had never reached? He raised his hands and spread out all his fingers. But the hands of one of the men closed round his throat, just as the other drove the knife deep into his heart and turned it twice."

- Franz Kafka, Der Process, chapter 10 (1925)

Today the Associated Press reports the case of an American citizen, Mohammed Munaf, seized by US Forces in Iraq in 2005. Munaf was hauled before the Central Criminal Court of Iraq, and sentenced to death following a proceeding that appears to have been extracted from a novel by Franz Kafka. By far the most distressing aspect of the entire affair is the role played in it by US Forces. "[T]wo U.S. military officials - including a soldier claiming to represent the Romanian Embassy - demanded that Munaf be found 'guilty and should be executed,' the papers say."

Yesterday afternoon I spoke with one of Munaf's American lawyers, and in the evening I discussed the case with one of the Iraqi lawyers who handled it. The judge, he said, had at a prior hearing informed defense counsel that he had reviewed the entire file and had reached a decision to dismiss the charges. "There is no material evidence against your client," he was quoted as stating. When two US officers appeared at the trial date with the prisoner, they reacted with anger when told of the Court's decision – and made clear it was "unacceptable." One of these US officers purported to speak on behalf of the Romanian Embassy, which, he said "demanded the death penalty." (The Government of Romania has since stated both that it had no authorized representative at the hearing and that it did not demand the death penalty). They then insisted upon and got an ex parte meeting with the judge - from which the defendant and his lawyers were excluded. Afterwards an ashen-faced judge emerged, returned to his court and proceeded to sentence the American to death. No evidence was taken; no trial was conducted. The sentence was entered on the basis of a demand by the two American officers that their fellow countryman be put to death.

Further details of this amazing development are found in papers filed by the Brennan Center in an emergency application to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

On Tuesday, the President intends to sign the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which purports to terminate the writ of habeas corpus for US detainees overseas. In so doing, he may well be confirming a death sentence for Mohammed Manaf. This case is shocking because it deals with an American citizen who is being stripped of his rights under a foreign legal process, including the right to a trial, at the insistence of US Forces. It provides strong grounds to question what US Forces are doing in the Central Criminal Court of Iraq. As a practitioner in that court, I can only say that none of the facts detailed in the Brennan Center's papers or described by the defendant's attorney strike me as surprising. They are consistent with things I observed with my own eyes in Baghdad in the spring of this year.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/10/american-sentenced-to-death-in-iraq.html

1063
3DHS / From an Ohio blog
« on: October 16, 2006, 12:36:03 AM »

1064
3DHS / Weldon of PA under FBI investigation
« on: October 15, 2006, 09:03:07 PM »
   via AP:

 The FBI is investigating whether Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., used his influence to secure lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, two people familiar with the inquiry said Saturday.

    The inquiry focuses on lobbying contracts worth $1 million that Weldon's daughter, Karen Weldon, obtained from foreign clients and whether they were assisted by the congressman, they said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality of the criminal investigation.

    Weldon, a 10-term Republican from the Philadelphia suburbs, long has denied any wrongdoing, and his top aide Saturday said no one had notified him of an investigation.

    "I think if there was an investigation, somebody would have contacted us," said Russ Casso, Weldon's chief of staff.

    Casso said Weldon and his staff were "100 percent caught off guard" when they learned of the investigation, first reported late Friday by McClatchy Newspapers. This account cited two individuals with specific knowledge of the existence of the investigation; they declined to be identified because of the confidentiality of criminal investigations.

    Casso, whose boss is in a tight race for re-election on Nov. 7 against Democrat Joe Sestak, tried to cast doubt on reports of the investigation. "Unidentified sources mean nothing," Casso said. "There's no substance in that story. It's a flimsy story."

    Two people familiar with the investigation told the AP on Saturday that the inquiry was being handled by agents from the FBI's field offices in Washington and Philadelphia and was being coordinated by the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section. Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the FBI declined comment Saturday.

    Those two people familiar with the investigation confirmed that federal agents were examining Weldon's work between 2004 and 2004 to help two Russian companies and two Serbian brothers connected to former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. They had hired Solutions North America Inc., a company operated by Karen Weldon and Charles Sexton, a Republican ally of the congressman.

Two people familiar with the investigation told the AP on Saturday that the inquiry was being handled by agents from the FBI's field offices in Washington and Philadelphia and was being coordinated by the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section. Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the FBI declined comment Saturday.

Those two people familiar with the investigation confirmed that federal agents were examining Weldon's work between 2002 and 2004 to help two Russian companies and two Serbian brothers connected to former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. They had hired Solutions North America Inc., a company operated by Karen Weldon and Charles Sexton, a Republican ally of the congressman.

Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services committee, is a Russian speaker regarded by some as a foreign policy expert who has clashed at times with the Bush administration.

Over the last few days, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has mailed fliers to voters in Weldon's district accusing Karen Weldon of getting help from her father on lobbying projects.

Michael Puppio, Weldon's campaign manager, questioned the timing of the mailing and published reports about the investigation. He accused Democrats of "attempting to smear the congressman and his entire family" in the final weeks of the campaign.

Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for the DCCC, said it's "bizarre, paranoid and absurd" for the Weldon campaign to imply there's a link in the timing of the mailing and the published reports.

The Weldon investigation comes at a critical time for Republicans who are fighting to maintain a majority in the House of Representatives in a midst of scandals.

On Friday, Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, pleaded guilty in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, which has touched on federal lawmakers, former aides and members of the Bush administration.

At the same time, an inquiry is under way on Capitol Hill into whether Republican House leaders or their top aides covered up questionable behavior of former Rep. Mark Foley toward teenage males who worked as House pages.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/breaking_news/15760501.htm

1065
3DHS / Anything for you, Jack
« on: October 15, 2006, 04:00:28 AM »
Displease a Lobbyist, Get Fired
E-mails show Jack Abramoff's ability to influence White House staffing decisions through his highly placed friends.
By Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writer
October 15, 2006

WASHINGTON — For five years, Allen Stayman wondered who ordered his removal from a State Department job negotiating agreements with tiny Pacific island nations — even when his own bosses wanted him to stay.

Now he knows.

Newly disclosed e-mails suggest that the ax fell after intervention by one of the highest officials at the White House: Ken Mehlman, on behalf of one of the most influential lobbyists in town, Jack Abramoff.

The e-mails show that Abramoff, whose client list included the Northern Mariana Islands, had long opposed Stayman's work advocating labor changes in that U.S. commonwealth, and considered what his lobbying team called the "Stayman project" a high priority.

"Mehlman said he would get him fired," an Abramoff associate wrote after meeting with Mehlman, who was then White House political director.

The exchange illustrates how, more than two years after the corruption scandal surrounding the now-disgraced Abramoff came to light, people are still learning the extent of the lobbyist's ability to pull the levers of power in Washington. The latest revelations provide more detail than the Bush administration has acknowledged about how Abramoff and his team reached into high levels of the White House, not just Capitol Hill, which has been the main focus of the influence-peddling investigation.

The e-mails, disclosed as part of a report by the House Government Reform Committee, show how Abramoff manipulated the system through officials such as Mehlman, now the chairman of the Republican National Committee. Doing so, Abramoff directed government appointments, influenced policy decisions and won White House endorsements for political candidates — all in the service of his clients.

The report found more than 400 lobbying contacts between Abramoff's team and the White House.

Besides the Stayman matter, the e-mails reveal Mehlman's role in helping an Abramoff client, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, secure $16.3 million for a new jail that government analysts concluded was not necessary. Mehlman also helped Abramoff obtain a White House endorsement in 2002 of the Republican gubernatorial ticket in the U.S. territory of Guam.

Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to federal charges in a congressional bribery investigation that continues to loom over Capitol Hill and the GOP. A Senate subcommittee concluded that Abramoff fleeced Indian tribes out of millions of dollars in fees that he split with one of his associates.

The scandal has touched just one West Wing staffer, Susan Ralston, a onetime Abramoff aide who resigned this month as executive assistant to strategist Karl Rove after congressional investigators documented frequent contact with the lobbyist's team.

Mehlman said he did not recall the details of his contacts with the Abramoff team, including discussions about Stayman, the former State Department official. But he said such interactions were part of his job as White House political director.

"I was a gateway," Mehlman said in an interview. "It was my job to talk to political supporters, to hear their requests, and hand them on to policymakers."

Mehlman said he had known Abramoff since the mid-1990s and would listen to his requests along with those of other influential Republicans.

"I know Jack," Mehlman said. "I certainly recall that if he and others wanted to meet I would have met with them, as I would have met with lots of people."

Mehlman, a Baltimore native and graduate of Harvard Law School, has remained a GOP power player since stepping down as political director in 2003. He built the party's grass-roots get-out-the-vote strategy, managing President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign before taking over the RNC last year.

Democrats charge that Mehlman may have acted unethically during his time at the White House, lobbying for government actions at Abramoff's behest, even when policy experts disagreed with the decision.

The senior Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, Rep. Henry A. Waxman of Los Angeles, points to e-mails suggesting that in June 2001, amid negotiations over whether to fire Stayman, Mehlman requested and might have been given two U2 concert tickets in Abramoff's suite at what was then the MCI Center (now the Verizon Center).

Ethics rules prohibit officials from accepting gifts worth more than $20 from a person doing business with the government, although there are exceptions. Ethics officials typically consider such suite tickets to be worth the same as the event's most expensive tickets, which in this case was $133 apiece, according to Waxman's office.

"Please tell me we can fit two more in for Friday," lobbyist and Kevin Ring wrote to Abramoff, his partner. "Ken Mehlman of the White House apparently wants to go." On the day before the concert, Ring wrote to Abramoff that a resume for a Stayman replacement had been "sent to our conduit."

Referring in the same e-mail to an unrelated Labor Department appointment, Ring said he "will talk to Mehlman at the concert tomorrow night."

A former Abramoff associate remembers Mehlman attending the concert. Mehlman said he did not recall it. "I've been to several U2 concerts, but I don't know whether I went to that one," he said. "But I can tell you that as political director I was always very careful to make sure everything I did was above board and consistent with the rules."

Waxman said the e-mails suggested Mehlman may have "violated fundamental ethics regulations and the law."

"There are serious questions that Mr. Mehlman needs to address with candor and that Congress should investigate thoroughly," Waxman said.

The e-mails disclosed in the House report showed that Mehlman was involved in a variety of matters of interest to Abramoff, one of which bore fruit for the lobbyist after he discussed delivering campaign contributions to GOP causes.

Tony Rudy, a onetime aide to former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), referred to Mehlman on Nov. 9, 2001, as a "rock star" after Mehlman agreed to "take care of" the Choctaws' jail, despite a Justice Department finding that the tribe's existing jail was adequate.

Several days after that meeting, on Nov. 13, Rudy recommended a $15,000 contribution to the Republican National Committee. "Let's give the check to Ken Mehlman at the White House," wrote Rudy, who later pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges in the broader investigation.

On Nov. 15, campaign finance records show, the tribe gave $10,000 to the RNC. Overall, the tribe gave $120,000 in the 2002 election cycle to Republican committees and $95,000 to Democratic committees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Two weeks after the RNC received its check, Susan Butler, chief of staff to U.S. Rep. Charles W. "Chip" Pickering, a Mississippi Republican whose district includes the Choctaws, e-mailed Rudy to say that she had discussed the issue with Mehlman and others and that "they were very positive and promised to work with us on it."

When Justice Department officials relented and released the money for the jail, giddy Abramoff associates planned to host agency officials in a suite at a Dave Matthews concert.

"I have the suite filling up with DOJ staffers who just got our client $16 million," one wrote. Another replied that the agency officials deserve any reward they want, "opening day tickets, Skins v. Giants, oriental massages, hookers, whatever."

Mehlman, meanwhile, also helped Abramoff with another client, Guam, the e-mails show.

On Oct. 9, 2002, Abramoff asked Mehlman to secure a White House endorsement for the island's GOP gubernatorial ticket.

Three weeks later, Abramoff received a note from Ralston, then Rove's assistant, saying that Mehlman had gotten a quote from the White House for "your Guam candidates." She also asked Abramoff to send his requests in the future to "Ken only."

For Stayman, learning more about how Abramoff used White House connections helped him understand why, five years ago, he found himself looking at a career change.

His job was up for renewal, but his State Department supervisors wanted to keep him on to finish a project that was expected to take more time.

"With only about a year left on my appointment, I didn't think it would trigger any interest from the White House," Stayman said. "I assumed that Abramoff was behind it, but I didn't know the details, who called whom and how much effort it took."

Unbeknownst to Stayman, though, within weeks of Bush taking office, the "Stayman project" was in full swing.

State Department officials resisted the dismissal, and negotiations dragged on for months. In May 2001, one of Mehlman's deputies assured Abramoff's team that, "Obviously, this guy cannot stay."

That July 9, Ralston e-mailed Abramoff with news of a deal on Stayman: "He'll be out in four months."

And he was.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mehlman15oct15,0,6427529,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Pages: 1 ... 69 70 [71] 72 73 ... 75