Dean Raises $14 Million and Sets Record, Aides Say: "Howard Dean has raised at least $14.1 million in the fourth quarter, bringing his annual total to almost $40 million and setting what aides say is a one-year record for Democratic fund-raising in a presidential race. At the same time, aides to Gen. Wesley K. Clark's campaign said he had raised at least $10 million this quarter, putting him in a financial position to challenge Dr. Dean should he do well in next year's early primaries." When the books close Wednesday, the year-end deadline for reporting fund-raising, Dr. Dean and General Clark are expected to lead the quarterly list of nine Democratic candidates, all of whom have spent much of December scrambling to raise money before the start of primary voting next month. Though President Bush is expected to eclipse all the Democratic candidates, having raised at least $111 million so far this year, candidates are still making last-minute appeals to donors this week. Even Dr. Dean, with his strong final quarter, will be working until the last minute to increase his numbers. The campaign is sponsoring a nationwide conference call on Tuesday to more than 1,370 fund-raising house parties nationwide. The campaign's goal is to match its $14.8 million performance last quarter. Dr. Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi, said the additional money was needed because rivals were running one- and two-state strategies that allowed them to focus their resources, while Dr. Dean was running nationwide. "Everyone is against us," Mr. Trippi said. "They are all running against us in states we'd like to win." Dr. Dean is also taking advantage of an endorsement by former Vice President Al Gore, who will join him on the conference call and who sent an e-mail letter in Dr. Dean's behalf. "Think of the sonic boom that we can create in this race if every person who supports this campaign makes a contribution," Mr. Gore wrote.… http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/30/politics/campaigns/30DONA.html

American Politics: A New Movement Logs on to the Democratic Party and May Reshape It: "Even if Howard Dean's own electoral ambitions are not realized, he may take credit for ushering in an era of movement politics that could have implications for the Democrats, and Republicans, for years to come. More than any Democratic politician in years, Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, has tapped into an intensifying bitterness among his party faithful toward the administration in power, and, through the Internet, has drawn a corps of citizens who had not paid heed to electoral politics. For Democrats, the payoff is that many of these new faces have views that fit the left wing of politics, the party's old-time base." At the core of the movement is an inchoate anger stirred by the war in Iraq and, more broadly, by the rightward tilt of many policies in the Bush administration. President Bush has become the personification of much of this anger, but the Dean movement also seems to be reviving some long-held Democratic Party sentiments about the role of government in the life of the nation. Through his assertive approach, or his clever tapping into the Internet, Dr. Dean has somehow put himself at the head of this parade. Democratic activists are now turning to him to answer - and remedy - all their concerns about the environment, social programs and the economy. But the more Dr. Dean is viewed as the mouthpiece for the left, the more perilous his quest could be. The party's pragmatists are fearful. The danger, they say, is that Dr. Dean's success means that the Democrats could abandon the delicate machinations of Bill Clinton that pushed the party to the middle - and helped them take the White House. It was the first time a Democrat had won two terms since Roosevelt.… Recognizing the Dean campaign's success, Republicans are already trying to compete by beefing up their own grass-roots operations and use of the Internet. But at least some of Dr. Dean's success is because he presents himself as the candidate who best embodies the "anti-Bush.'' By seizing on his opposition to the war, Dr. Dean is essentially repudiating Mr. Bush. Yet Dr. Dean is different from movement politicians of the past like Barry M. Goldwater and Ronald Reagan because they were far more ideological - and promoted an array of values and positions. By contrast, Dr. Dean resembles George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy, Democrats whose appeal was founded in their antiwar positions but could not sustain their support because they had little to say when the war ended. Dr. Dean's ideological underpinnings are less evident: many Democrats say he is the liberal in the field (the White House is certainly trying to) but politicians in Vermont say his record was middle of the road. If he does not win the Democratic nomination, let alone the presidency, Dr. Dean could suffer the fate of Mr. McGovern and Mr. McCarthy because his appeal is so steeped in the issue of the war. On the other hand, Dr. Dean has the potential to lead an enduring movement because he is less of an establishment figure than those two former senators. There is also a practical advantage that past movement leaders did not have: the Internet could continue to be a backbone of his appeal. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/28/weekinreview/28dems.html

When Workers Die: U.S. Rarely Seeks Charges for Deaths in Workplace: "very one of their deaths was a potential crime. Workers decapitated on assembly lines, shredded in machinery, burned beyond recognition, electrocuted, buried alive — all of them killed, investigators concluded, because their employers willfully violated workplace safety laws. These deaths represent the very worst in the American workplace, acts of intentional wrongdoing or plain indifference that kill about 100 workers each year. They were not accidents. They happened because a boss removed a safety device to speed up production, or because a company ignored explicit safety warnings, or because a worker was denied proper protective gear. And for years, in news releases and Congressional testimony, senior officials at the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration have described these cases as intolerable outrages, "horror stories" that demanded the agency's strongest response. They have repeatedly pledged to press wherever possible for criminal charges against those responsible. These promises have not been kept. " Over a span of two decades, from 1982 to 2002, OSHA investigated 1,242 of these horror stories mdash; instances in which the agency itself concluded that workers had died because of their employer's "willful" safety violations. Yet in 93 percent of those cases, OSHA declined to seek prosecution, an eight-month examination of workplace deaths by The New York Times has found. What is more, having avoided prosecution once, at least 70 employers willfully violated safety laws again, resulting in scores of additional deaths. Even these repeat violators were rarely prosecuted. OSHA's reluctance to seek prosecution, The Times found, persisted even when employers had been cited before for the very same safety violation. It persisted even when the violations caused multiple deaths, or when the victims were teenagers. And it persisted even where reviews by administrative judges found abundant proof of willful wrongdoing. Behind that reluctance, current and former OSHA officials say, is a bureaucracy that works at every level to thwart criminal referrals. They described a bureaucracy that fails to reward, and sometimes penalizes, those who push too hard for prosecution, where aggressive enforcement is suffocated by endless layers of review, where victims' families are frozen out but companies adeptly work the rules in their favor. "A simple lack of guts and political will," said John T. Phillips, a former regional OSHA administrator in Kansas City and Boston. "You try to reason why something is criminal, and it never flies." In fact, OSHA has increasingly helped employers, particularly large corporations, avoid the threat of prosecution altogether. Since 1990, the agency has quietly downgraded 202 fatality cases from "willful" to "unclassified," a vague term favored by defense lawyers in part because it virtually forecloses the possibility of prosecution.… http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/22/national/22OSHA.html?pagewanted=all&position=

On the Web, an Amateur Audience Creates Anti-Bush Ads: "When the Web-based political group MoveOn.org announced a contest in October for homemade commercials challenging the Bush administration (the winner to be shown on television during the week of the State of the Union address) grass-roots America proved a willing and eager advertising agency." Thirty-second spots poured in by the hundreds in e-mail attachments to MoveOn.org, which has already shown that the Internet can be a battering ram for political activism by organizing protests against the invasion of Iraq. Last week, the group posted 1,017 of the amateur commercials on a Web site (www.bushin30seconds.org), asking viewers to pick their favorites. In the first hour of polling on Wednesday, more than 5,700 votes were logged. So many people visited the site that MoveOn, experiencing bandwidth problems, limited the curious to 20 ads a day. Next month the top vote-getters will be shown to a panel of left-leaning celebrity judges including Moby, Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo, Margaret Cho and Gus Van Sant, with one or more winning entries to be broadcast as paid advertisements in Washington, D.C., in potential swing states or perhaps nationally. What the cascade of entries demonstrates is that the home-movie revolution made possible by inexpensive digital camcorders and off-the-shelf software has elevated the United States from merely being a nation of wedding videographers.… www.bushin30seconds.org http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/fashion/21MOVE.html?pagewanted=all&position=

It's Pork on the Hill: "Like most other members of Congress, Representative Jim Gibbons, Republican of Nevada, tries to do what he can for the folks back home. So when the House passed a catchall spending bill this month, Mr. Gibbons wasted no time in announcing that he had secured millions of dollars for Nevada, including $6 million for a bus terminal, $2 million for a truck climbing lane and $1.6 million for drinking water improvements." But it was a lesser appropriation — $225,000 to repair a swimming pool in Sparks, Nev., his hometown — that got Mr. Gibbons in hot water. The 59-year-old congressman confessed that he sought the money because he had always felt guilty about clogging the pool's drain with tadpoles when he was 10 years old. "Congressman Gibbons is using taxpayer dollars to repay his debt to society," Brian M. Reidl, a federal budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a research organization, said in describing the pool money as his "favorite pork story." Mr. Gibbons, who defends the project as "very meritorious," is far from the only lawmaker riding the pork gravy train this year. The spending bill, called an omnibus, is stuffed with an estimated 7,000 special interest provisions, from $50 million for an indoor rain forest in Iowa to $150,000 for a stop light and traffic improvements in Briarcliff Manor, N.Y. If the Senate approves it, total spending on pet projects — which has more than doubled in the last five years — will reach roughly $23 billion this year, the most ever, according to watchdog groups that track federal spending. Pork barrel projects are a time-honored tradition in Washington. But observers of the Congressional efforts are surprised, and in some cases dismayed, by the size of the special-interest projects this year, at a time when the federal deficit is rising and Republicans, who fashion themselves as fiscally conservative, run both houses of Congress. The spending bill, which the Senate will take up in January, treats the home states of powerful appropriators especially well. Alaska, home to Senator Ted Stevens, the Republican chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, would reap millions under the measure, including $1 million for the Anchorage Museum and $1 million for the Tongass Coast Aquarium. Florida, the home state of Representative C. W. Bill Young, a Republican who is Mr. Stevens's counterpart in the House, also stands to gain millions. Every state — indeed nearly every Congressional district, no matter Democratic or Republican — is the recipient of one pork project or another. The measure includes $200,000 for the University of Hawaii to produce a documentary on the Kalahari Bushmen, $220,000 to renovate a blueberry research center at the University of Maine and, in a provision Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader, called "most ironic," $500,000 for the "Exercise in Hard Choices" program at the University of Akron, which examines how Congress makes budget decisions.… http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/20/politics/20PORK.html?pagewanted=all&position=

Electronic Voting: "Electronic voting has garnered significant attention in recent months. Controversy abounds over whether e-voting machines are secure and reliable, while strong movements toward expanding their use have arisen. India, for instance, announced in July 2003 that it would use exclusively electronic polls in its future elections. This trend and its associated security risks are examined in this Topic in Depth." The NSDL Scout Report for Mathematics Engineering and Technology-- Volume 2, Number 25 Topic in Depth 1. The Free E-Democracy Project
http://www.free-project.org/learn/
2. Caltech-MIT/Voting Technology Project [pdf, RealOne Player]
http://web.mit.edu/voting/
3. Electronic Voting and Counting [pdf]
http://www.elections.act.gov.au/Elecvote.html
4. The Open Voting Consortium
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/
5. Election Reform and Electronic Voting Systems (DREs): Analysis of Security Issues [pdf]
http://www.epic.org/privacy/voting/crsreport.pdf
6. Electronic Voting: What You Need to Know
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/102003A.shtml
7. Can Voting Machines Be Trusted?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/11/politics/main583042.shtml From The NSDL Scout Report for Math, Engineering, & Technology, Copyright Internet Scout Project 1994-2003. http://www.scout.wisc.edu/ http://scout.wisc.edu/Reports/NSDL/MET/2003/met-031219-topicindepth.php#1

Remember 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'? For Bush, They Are a Nonissue:

"This was a pre-emptive war, and the rationale was that there was an imminent threat," said Senator Bob Graham of Florida, a Democrat who has said that by elevating Iraq to the most dangerous menace facing the United States, the administration unwisely diverted resources from fighting Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

"On Tuesday, with Mr. Hussein in American custody and polls showing support for the White House's Iraq policy rebounding, Mr. Bush suggested that he no longer saw much distinction between the possibilities. 'So what's the difference?' he responded at one point as he was pressed on the topic during an interview by Diane Sawyer of ABC News. To critics of the war, there is a big difference. They say that the administration's statements that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons that it could use on the battlefield or turn over to terrorists added an urgency to the case for immediate military action that would have been lacking if Mr. Hussein were portrayed as just developing the banned weapons." The overwhelming vote in Congress last year to authorize the use of force against Iraq would have been closer "but for the fact that the president had so explicitly said that there were weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to citizens of the United States," Mr. Graham said in an interview on Wednesday. As early as last spring, Mr. Bush suggested that the Iraqis might have dispersed their biological and chemical weapons so widely that they would be extremely difficult to find. And some weapons experts have suggested that Mr. Hussein may have destroyed banned weapons that he had in the early 1990's but left in place the capacity to produce more. This week, at a news conference on Monday and in the ABC interview on Tuesday, Mr. Bush's answers to questions on the subject continued a gradual shift in the way he has addressed the topic, from the immediacy of the threat to an assertion that no matter what, the world is better off without Mr. Hussein in power. Where once Mr. Bush and his top officials asserted unambiguously that Mr. Hussein had the weapons at the ready, their statements now are often far more couched, reflecting the fact that no weapons have been found — "yet," as Mr. Bush was quick to interject during the interview. In trying to build public and international support for toppling Mr. Hussein, the administration cited, with different emphasis at different times, the banned weapons, links between the Iraqi leader and terrorist organizations, a desire to liberate the Iraqi people and a policy of bringing democracy to the Middle East. When it came to describing the weapons program, Mr. Bush never hedged before the war. "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" Mr. Bush asked during a speech in Cincinnati in October 2002. In the weeks after the fall of Baghdad in April, the White House was equally explicit. "One of the reasons we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction," Ari Fleischer, then the White House spokesman, told reporters on May 7. "And nothing has changed on that front at all." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/18/politics/18PREX.html

Advertising: Two Unions Criticize Ads for Attacks Against Dean: "Two labor unions that provided financing for a shadowy Democratic political group running tough commercials against former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont criticized the advertising campaign yesterday, and one said it might ask for its money back. Both unions, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the Laborers' International Union of North America, have endorsed Representative Richard A. Gephardt, who said yesterday that he knew nothing about the group running the commercials." Rick Sloan, a spokesman for the machinists, said the union donated $50,000 to the group, Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values. Mr. Sloan said the group's treasurer, David Jones, solicited the money by saying it would pay for "issues ads." The union, Mr. Sloan said, believed the group's commercials would focus on economic and health care policies. But in the end, he said, the advertisements were not what the union had bargained for, especially the latest one, in which an announcer questions Dr. Dean's national security qualifications as a camera zooms in on a magazine cover showing Osama bin Laden's face. "Osama bin Laden has nothing at all to do with this campaign; it's a travesty," Mr. Sloan said. "We think the ads are despicable and if it was up to me, we'd ask for a refund." He said the union's leadership had not yet had a chance to meet and discuss requesting its money back. Noting Mr. Gephardt's slippage in some polls since the group began running advertisements against Dr. Dean two weeks ago, Mr. Sloan said, "They are doing more damage to Dick Gephardt than any of his opponents could have hoped to have done or dreamed of doing." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/17/politics/campaigns/17ATTA.html

ZDNet AnchorDesk: How to stop spam? Don't look to legislation: "After months of debate, Congress has approved an antispam bill, known as the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act, or the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. President Bush has indicated he will sign it before the end of the year. That sounds like good news for anyone who uses e-mail. But once you look beyond the spin, you'll find there's much less here than meets the eye. " IN A NUTSHELL, CAN-SPAM prohibits the use of fraudulent e-mail headers, the use of robotic means to collect e-mail addresses from Web sites, and the sending of unsolicited adult advertising. It requires e-mail marketers to provide a working URL in messages so recipients can remove themselves from any future mailings. Down the road, the law also calls for the creation of a federal Do Not Spam list, much like the FTC's Do Not Call list, which gives you the ability to remove your phone number from telemarketers' databases. The law also prohibits unwanted commercial messages via mobile services on mobile phones and PDAs.� SO WHY DID the attorneys general from California, Kansas, Maryland, Nevada, Texas, Vermont, and Washington urge the House of Representatives to vote against the act? Because CAN-SPAM ignores and supercedes any existing or pending junk e-mail laws in 30 states--including the toughest, California's--with a decidedly weaker federal law. The state laws, which are now obsolete, were more stringent than the federal one in several ways. For example, the laws in Utah and California would allow recipients to sue spammers who use false e-mail headers. One provision of a California law would even use the penalties claimed from such cases to help fund the state's high-tech crime task forces. However, under CAN-SPAM, while recipients can still sue spammers, the burden of proof has been extended beyond showing that the e-mail header was false and now requires that plaintiffs show the sender also knew it was false. It's the opinion of several state attorneys general that this is a much higher standard of proof than other consumer protection laws, and that spam recipients will now tie up the legal system with new cases without being able to stop unsolicited e-mails in the meantime. That is what the direct-marketing associations wanted: judicial gridlock. ANOTHER SHORTCOMING of the law: According to Spamhaus.org, an antispam clearinghouse, CAN-SPAM allows 23 million U.S. businesses to spam U.S. e-mail addresses legally as long as they also provide a means for users to opt-out of future mailings. It turns out the direct marketers got their way this time around. With telemarketing restricted by the Do Not Call list, direct-marketing associations now see e-mail advertising as their last and best option, since automatically sending hundreds of thousands of e-mails is much cheaper than maintaining call centers. These groups made the rounds in Washington D.C. and managed to get this muted federal antispam bill passed quickly. For the legislators in Congress, CAN-SPAM allows them to say, "Look, we did something about spam," when, in reality, the act does little to actually solve the problem.� http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/AnchorDesk/4520-7297_16-5113118.html?tag=ns

New Economy: Considering Computer Voting: "HIGH-TECH voting is getting a low-tech backstop: paper. Most new voting machines are basically computers with touch screens instead of keyboards. Their makers promise that the new machines will simplify voting and forever end the prospect of pregnant and hanging chads. But as the market for computerized voting equipment has intensified, a band of critics has emerged, ranging from the analytical to the apoplectic." The opponents of the current machines, along with the people who make them and election officials who buy them, gathered to spar in Gaithersburg, a Washington suburb, last Wednesday and Thursday, at a symposium optimistically titled, "Building Trust and Confidence in Voting Systems." The critics complained that the companies were putting democracy into a mystery box, and that the computer code for the systems was not written to standards that ensure security. Critics are uneasy about the major vendors' political ties, and they worry about what a malevolent insider or a hacker could do to an election. But above all, they complain that few of the new machines allow voters to verify their votes, whether with a paper receipt or another method, an idea favored by computer scientists including David L. Dill of Stanford University. The companies generally respond that the lever-style, mechanical voting machines offer no such backup, either. The critics counter that the computerized systems are the first to need voter verification methods. Now a growing number of election officials and politicians seem to be agreeing with the skeptics. Last week, Nevada said it was buying voting machines for the entire state, and it demanded paper receipts for all voters. Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller said he received an overwhelming message from voters that they did not trust electronic voting. "Frankly, they think the process is working against them, rather than working for them," Mr. Heller, a Republican, said. Last month, the California secretary of state, Kevin Shelley said that his state would require all touch-screen voting machines to provide a "voter-verified paper audit trail." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/15/technology/15neco.html?pagewanted=all&position=

Divided Court Says Government Can Ban 'Soft Money': "A 5-to-4 majority upheld most provisions of the McCain-Feingold Law, finding that the law's ban on soft-money donations was not an unconstitutional curb on free speech, as its opponents have argued, but rather a legitimate response to perceptions that big money has stained the political system. The court also upheld two other pillars of the law: a ban on the solicitation of soft money by federal candidates, and a prohibition against political advertisements by special interest groups in the weeks just before an election. 'The idea that large contributions to a national party can corrupt or create the appearance of corruption of federal candidates and officeholders is neither novel nor implausible,' the court said in a summary of its 298-page decision as it alluded to debates about the potent mix of money and politics over the years." Today's decision means that the candidates for president, the House and Senate can run their campaigns under the fund-raising rules laid down in 2002, when Congress passed the McCain-Feingold Law after years of bitter argument over how political contributions should be regulated. (The law, formally the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, is usually known by its chief Senate sponsors, John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.) "We are under no illusion," Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority. "Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/10/national/10CND-SCOT.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=

Chicago Tribune | Gore Endorses Dean for Party Nomination: "Gore said Dean 'really is the only candidate who has been able to inspire at the grass-roots level all over the country.' He said the former Vermont governor also was the only Democratic candidate who made the correct judgment about the Iraq war. 'I realized it's only one of the issues, but my friends, this nation has never in our two centuries and more made a worse foreign policy mistake,' Gore told the Iowa crowd. " http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-gore-dean,1,6428598.story

Pentagon and Bogus News: All Is Denied: "Early last year Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld disbanded the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence after it became known that the office was considering plans to provide false news items to unwitting foreign journalists to influence policymakers and public sentiment abroad. But a couple of months ago, the Pentagon quietly awarded a $300,000 contract to SAIC, a major defense consultant, to study how the Defense Department could design an 'effective strategic influence' campaign to combat global terror, according to an internal Pentagon document. " Sound familiar? Senior Pentagon officials said Thursday that they were caught unawares by the contract and insisted its language was a "poor choice of words" by a low-level staffer. They said the work did not reflect any backdoor effort to resurrect the discredited office and was merely a study to understand Al Qaeda better and find ways to combat it. "We are not recreating that office," said Thomas O'Connell, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, the policy arm of the Pentagon that deals with the military's most secretive operators and whose staff wrote the document. But some critics of the former office voiced skepticism, saying that the contract amounted to a veiled attempt to create a low-budget copy of its ill-fated predecessor. A spokesman for SAIC referred all questions to the Pentagon.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/politics/05STRA.html

Op-Ed Columnist: Hack the Vote: "You don't have to believe in conspiracy to worry that partisans will take advantage of an insecure, unverifiable voting system. Inviting Bush supporters to a fund-raiser, the host wrote, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." No surprise there. But Walden O'Dell � who says that he wasn't talking about his business operations � happens to be the chief executive of Diebold Inc., whose touch-screen voting machines are in increasingly widespread use across the United States. For example, Georgia � where Republicans scored spectacular upset victories in the 2002 midterm elections � relies exclusively on Diebold machines. To be clear, though there were many anomalies in that 2002 vote, there is no evidence that the machines miscounted. But there is also no evidence that the machines counted correctly. You see, Diebold machines leave no paper trail. Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey, who has introduced a bill requiring that digital voting machines leave a paper trail and that their software be available for public inspection, is occasionally told that systems lacking these safeguards haven't caused problems. 'How do you know?' he asks. What we do know about Diebold does not inspire confidence. The details are technical, but they add up to a picture of a company that was, at the very least, extremely sloppy about security, and may have been trying to cover up product defects." Early this year Bev Harris, who is writing a book on voting machines, found Diebold software � which the company refuses to make available for public inspection, on the grounds that it's proprietary � on an unprotected server, where anyone could download it. (The software was in a folder titled "rob-Georgia.zip.") The server was used by employees of Diebold Election Systems to update software on its machines. This in itself was an incredible breach of security, offering someone who wanted to hack into the machines both the information and the opportunity to do so. An analysis of Diebold software by researchers at Johns Hopkins and Rice Universities found it both unreliable and subject to abuse. A later report commissioned by the state of Maryland apparently reached similar conclusions. (It's hard to be sure because the state released only a heavily redacted version.) Meanwhile, leaked internal Diebold e-mail suggests that corporate officials knew their system was flawed, and circumvented tests that would have revealed these problems. The company hasn't contested the authenticity of these documents; instead, it has engaged in legal actions to prevent their dissemination.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/opinion/02KRUG.html

Bush Aides Say Attacks Won't Scare Allies Into Leaving Iraq:

Meanwhile, a toy gun can shut down congress. A radar glitch, the White House

"But all was not smooth on Monday after the latest attacks, and officials said the United States was not especially pleased with the latest move by the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, in setting up a meeting in New York on Iraq with Security Council and Arab diplomats." Secretary Powell has been stepping up the pressure on Mr. Annan to appoint a special personal representative in Iraq to replace Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was killed last summer. But United Nations diplomats say they doubt that Mr. Annan will move quickly, in part because of anxiety in the United Nations ranks. The fear at the United Nations, said one diplomat there, is that the attacks against the latest targets � coming on top of earlier attacks against Jordanian, Italian and United Nations offices � appeared well organized, as if they were an extension of the defense of Iraq by Saddam Hussein. "You may have toppled the statue, but you didn't take out the wiring that he set up to organize these attacks," said one diplomat, referring to Mr. Hussein. Some diplomats cautioned that although leaders of the nations fighting with the United States in Iraq were standing firm, the same could not be guaranteed of the people in their countries, where the attacks have had a huge and devastating psychological impact. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/politics/02DIPL.html

Self-Appointed Israeli and Palestinian Negotiators Offer a Plan for Middle East Peace: "'Our critics say that officials should make such agreements, not representatives of civil society,' Mr. Rabbo said. 'We could not agree more. But what can we do if officials do not meet, if governments do not negotiate? We can't wait and watch as the future of our two nations slides deeper into catastrophe.' [The full text of the Geneva Accord is available at www.nad-plo.org/cigeneva.php or www.heskem.org.il/Heskem_en.asp] " http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/international/europe/02PEAC.html?pagewanted=all&position=

Broad Bills Stuffed With Lawmakers' Pet Items: "In public, members of Congress have spent hundreds of hours debating the future of Medicare and the need for a national energy policy. Behind the scenes, they have spent even more time working on little-known provisions of the legislation that would benefit specific health care providers and energy companies." Tucked inside the Medicare bill is an assortment of provisions that have nothing to do with providing prescription drug benefits to the elderly. The energy bill and the annual spending bills for federal agencies are also stuffed with pet projects, intended to win votes for the legislation. Congress gave final approval to the Medicare bill on Tuesday, but is still wrestling with the energy measure. The two bills � top priorities for President Bush and the Republican leaders of Congress � provided convenient vehicles for spending narrowly focused on special interests. Hundreds of health care providers and colleges now receive such largess, and the numbers have soared in recent years.� A provision benefiting a specific hospital in Tennessee was added to the Medicare bill at the last minute in an effort to get the vote of Representative Harold E. Ford Jr., Democrat of Tennessee.� The Medicare bill also increases payments for doctors in Alaska for a cancer treatment known as brachytherapy and for health maintenance organizations that have been dropping out of the Medicare market. The energy bill includes $1 billion for a new nuclear reactor in Idaho, $800 million in federal loan guarantees for a coal gasification plant in Minnesota and tens of millions of dollars in subsidies for timber companies to log national forests for energy production. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said "parochial projects" were siphoning money away from higher priorities at many agencies. Timothy M. Westmoreland, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said: "Big bills become larded with whatever bait it takes to get a majority vote. A lot of money in the Medicare bill is spent on things that have nothing to do with a prescription drug benefit." For decades, it has been common practice for lawmakers to designate money for specific military bases, post offices and waterways. In recent years, they have funneled increasing amounts to specific hospitals, medical schools and health care projects. Data collected by The Chronicle of Higher Education shows that spending on pork barrel projects at colleges and universities topped $2 billion this year for the first time. In a recent report, the Democratic staff of the House Appropriations Committee said the number of projects designated for assistance under the health and education spending bill nearly quadrupled, to 1,850, in the last three years.� Just before the Senate gave final approval to the Medicare bill on Tuesday, Dr. Frist displayed a chart listing 358 organizations that supported it. Members of many of those groups stand to benefit from the bill and participated in a lobbying campaign coordinated by Susan B. Hirschmann, a former chief of staff to Tom DeLay of Texas, now the House Republican leader. The push for special interest provisions to ensure passage of the Medicare and energy bills led, in some cases, to new variations on the traditional relationships between lobbyists and lawmakers. Lobbyists have long tried to influence members of Congress. But increasingly members of Congress have put pressure on lobbyists to support their legislative priorities. E-mail messages obtained from recipients provide details of such reverse lobbying. On Sept. 12, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee, sent a "wake-up call" to hospital executives around the country, asking for their help in fighting cuts proposed by the House. "I met with Washington representatives from the American Hospital Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, the Catholic Health Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges and the National Association of Public Hospitals," Mr. Grassley wrote. "I asked them to stand with me in opposing these cuts." Senator Grassley was successful. Hospitals were spared, and rural hospitals received substantial increases in payments.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/27/politics/27LOBB.html?pagewanted=all&position=

Chicago Tribune | Governor to punish big drug companies: "With Congress moving to undermine his push to buy prescription drugs from Canada, Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Tuesday said he would seek to punish big drug companies that fought his initiative by making it more difficult or expensive for state workers to buy their drugs if safe alternatives are available."

Firms' medicines to be off state list

The five pharmaceutical firms impacted by the decision, which have been limiting supplies of their pills to Canada, criticized Blagojevich and said the governor was playing politics with an issue that affects public safety. The pharmaceutical industry's trade association also suggested the governor's insistence on punishing the companies could hamper another effort he is pushing to make prescription drugs more affordable--a consumer-discount club aimed at bringing lower-priced drugs to seniors. The club, which is set to begin operations Jan. 1, is designed to allow senior citizens to join forces with state agencies that now buy $1.8 billion in medicines, creating an entity with massive buying power that could have the clout to command price breaks. The state still must negotiate those savings with drug companies, and critics have questioned whether that effort could be impeded by Blagojevich's Canadian drug purchase campaign, which has antagonized the pharmaceutical industry. "He should give the buying club a chance to work, and it hasn't even been implemented yet," said Jeff Trewhitt, spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a drug-industry lobby. Blagojevich said he doubted drug companies would retaliate. "They're not going to cut their nose to spite their face when they run the risk of losing even more business in Illinois," Blagojevich said. Though the drug buying club could potentially affect hundreds of thousands of seniors, Blagojevich's initiative unveiled Tuesday deals only with drugs for state employees and retirees, inmates in state prisons and patients at state mental facilities. Still, it is the Democratic governor's latest effort in a battle to seize the initiative on a controversial issue with compelling appeal to voters. Because Canada has price controls on medicine, Blagojevich has said the state could save $91 million if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowed Illinois to buy prescriptions north of the border. The FDA, however, has said the governor's savings claims are exaggerated and that the agency cannot certify the safety of medication coming from Canada, which is often ordered over the Internet. Medicare reform legislation passed by Congress Tuesday did not include a provision sought by many Democrats and fought by big drug companies that would have allowed states and cities to import cheap Canadian drugs. "It should have been in the bill," Blagojevich argued. "It's a missed opportunity." As the debate has raged in recent months, the five companies Blagojevich has targeted chose to begin limiting drug supplies to Canada, saying it was done to prevent Canada from becoming a middleman supplying drugs to the U.S. while endangering the drug supply for Canadians. According to Blagojevich's new plan, the state will remove from its preferred drugs list name-brand pharmaceuticals made by the firms when safe equivalents are available. The five companies--AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Wyeth--currently make up between 20 and 25 percent of the market share in Illinois.� http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0311260109nov26,1,4720596.story

Op-Ed Columnist: The Uncivil War: "One of the problems with media coverage of this administration,' wrote Eric Alterman in The Nation, 'is that it requires bad manners.' He's right. There's no nice way to explain how the administration uses cooked numbers to sell its tax cuts, or how its arrogance and gullibility led to the current mess in Iraq." So it was predictable that the administration and its allies, no longer very successful at claiming that questioning the president is unpatriotic, would use appeals to good manners as a way to silence critics. Not, mind you, that Emily Post has taken over the Republican Party: the same people who denounce liberal incivility continue to impugn the motives of their opponents. Smart conservatives admit that their own side was a bit rude during the Clinton years. But now, they say, they've learned better, and it's those angry liberals who have a problem. The reality, however, is that they can only convince themselves that liberals have an anger problem by applying a double standard. When Ann Coulter expresses regret that Timothy McVeigh didn't blow up The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal laughs it off as "tongue-in-cheek agitprop." But when Al Franken writes about lies and lying liars in a funny, but carefully researched book, he's degrading the discourse. More important, the Bush administration � which likes to portray itself as the inheritor of Reagan-like optimism � actually has a Nixonian habit of demonizing its opponents.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/25/opinion/25KRUG.html

Medicare Debate Turns to Pricing of Drug Benefits: "With Congress poised for final action on a major Medicare bill this week, some of the fiercest debate is focused on a section of the bill that prohibits the government from negotiating lower drug prices for the 40 million people on Medicare. That provision epitomizes much of the bill, which relies on insurance companies and private health plans to manage the new drug benefit. They could negotiate with drug companies, but the government, with much greater purchasing power, would be forbidden to do so." Supporters of the provision say it is necessary to prevent the government from imposing price controls that could stifle innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Critics say the restriction would force the government and Medicare beneficiaries to spend much more for drugs than they should. The House passed the Medicare bill on Saturday by a vote of 220 to 215, after an all-night session and an extraordinary three-hour roll call. President Bush and House Republican leaders persuaded a few wayward conservatives to vote for the bill, which calls for the biggest expansion of Medicare since its creation in 1965. In the Senate, debate continued on Sunday, with Democrats asserting that the bill would severely undermine the traditional Medicare program. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he would lead a filibuster against the measure. Democrats acknowledged they did not have the votes to sustain a filibuster. But they said they would use points of order to slow the legislation, whose passage is a priority for President Bush.� No provision has been mentioned more often in Congressional debate than the section that prohibits the government from interfering in negotiations with drug companies. Democrats have repeatedly asserted that Medicare could provide more generous drug benefits if, like other big buyers, it took advantage of its market power to secure large discounts. But many Republicans have expressed alarm at the possibility that federal officials might negotiate drug prices. The Medicare program, they say, dwarfs other purchasers, and the government is unlike other customers because it could give itself the power to set prices by statute or regulation, just as it sets the rates paid to doctors and hospitals for treating Medicare patients. Under the bill, the government would subsidize a new type of insurance policy known as a prescription drug plan. "In order to promote competition," the bill says, the secretary of health and human services "may not interfere with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and prescription drug plan sponsors, and may not require a particular formulary or institute a price structure for the reimbursement" of drugs.� Representative Tom Allen, Democrat of Maine, said it struck him as absurd that "the government will not be able to negotiate lower prices" for the drugs on which it plans to spend $400 billion in the next decade. "The bill will allow the pharmaceutical industry to continue charging America's seniors the highest prices in the world," Mr. Allen said. Representative Peter A. DeFazio, Democrat of Oregon, said, "We could provide a much more meaningful benefit if we negotiated lower prices as other nations have done." Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, said: "We could bring down drug prices if we allowed the secretary of health and human services to negotiate on behalf of 40 million seniors. That is what Sam's Club does." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/24/politics/24MEDI.html?pagewanted=all&position=

An 800-Pound Gorilla Changes Partners Over Medicare: "AARP, the organization representing retirees, has long been the 800-pound gorilla in the Medicare prescription drug debate. So when the group endorsed a Republican-backed Medicare bill last week, Democrats reacted with anger and alarm." Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader in the House, complained that AARP was "in the pocket" of Republicans, and suggested that the group, which also sells insurance to its members, had a financial conflict of interest. Eighty-five House Democrats announced they would either resign from AARP, or refuse to join. But behind all the Democratic barbs at the organization itself is a seismic political shift that represents a broader threat to the party's appeal to older Americans. For decades, older Americans were reliable, and crucial, Democratic voters. As recently as last year, Senator Trent Lott, the former Senate Republican leader from Mississippi, derided AARP as a "wholly owned subsidiary" of the Democratic Party. Yet today's older Americans are increasingly voting Republican, a trend that experts say will likely continue as the baby boomers age and the generation of Eisenhower replaces the generation of F.D.R. Before making their endorsement, AARP officials conducted polls and focus groups of Americans 45 and older. The responses, they said, suggested support for a bill that would help the indigent and encourage employers to continue to provide the drug benefits they already offer. Still, surveys of people eligible for Medicare, those 65 and older, have repeatedly found what Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, calls "a big expectation gap" between what retirees believe the prescription drug bill offers and the limited coverage it actually affords. But in the end, with Congress willing to spend $400 billion over 10 years, on the first-ever Medicare drug benefit for retirees, AARP decided an imperfect bill was better than no bill at all. "Well, we represent a constituency that doesn't have that much time to wait," said John Rother, AARP's chief lobbyist. "There was no prospect in the short term that we were going to get a better bill, and there was a real risk that we could end up with a worse bill." The endorsement was a huge victory for Republicans, but it came at a price: the AARP demanded bigger subsidies for low-income people, and incentives for employers to continue offering drug benefits.� But AARP's critics say its executive director, William D. Novelli, a former public relations man who took the helm of the organization two years ago, is playing a dangerous game by aligning himself so closely with Republicans. Mr. Novelli, who wrote a forward to a book by Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker, defended himself last week against Democratic claims that he was a "closet Republican." "We intend to mend fences as soon as this is over," Mr. Novelli said of the Democrats on Friday. The fundamental debate over Medicare is whether the program should be administered privately, as many Republicans prefer, or by the government, the preference of Democrats and the AARP. By promoting a Republican-backed bill, the AARP is assisting a political party whose long-term goals are at odds with its own.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/weekinreview/23STOL.html

Op-Ed Columnist: Death by Dividend: "In this impoverished corner of southwestern Guatemala, lush with jungle and burbling brooks, you can just about see people dying as an indirect result of America's trade agenda. Even now, some governments in Central America choose to let their people die rather than distribute cheap generic AIDS drugs, which would save more lives but might irritate the U.S. And now America is trying to make it more difficult for these countries to use generic drugs." �the stark choice that we Americans face: Do we want to maximize profits for U.S. pharmaceutical companies, or do we want to save lives? American trade negotiators, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, have pushed U.S. interests in a narrow economic sense by making it difficult for poor nations to use cheap generic medicines. In front of the television cameras, the U.S. has made some concessions to public health needs, but the compassion usually vanishes in trade negotiations. The public drafts of the F.T.A.A. clearly place the priority on patents over public health, and the word is that the (still secret) draft text of a Central American Free Trade Agreement should also embarrass us. "An F.T.A.A. agreement with strong I.P. [intellectual property] provisions threatens to have a catastrophic impact on the lives of millions of people living with H.I.V./ AIDS and other diseases," warns Doctors Without Borders, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning aid group. I know, I know. Mention "intellectual property" and eyes glaze over. But meet the people whose lives are at stake.� Juan Emiliano S�nchez, 51, may be too far gone to be saved. A farmer with a son in San Rafael, Calif., Mr. S�nchez has advanced AIDS and is so frail that he can barely walk. "I really want to fight this as long as I can," he said, his face glistening with a feverish sweat, but it looks as if that won't be long. Mar�a Gloria Ger�nimo is a different story. A 27-year-old hotel maid, she was infected with H.I.V. by her husband, and she in turn passed the virus to their son, Rony, during childbirth. Desperate to save Rony's life, Ms. Ger�nimo trekked around Guatemala until she found an AIDS clinic where Doctors Without Borders uses generic antiretrovirals to treat AIDS. Both she and Rony, who is now 5, are strong again. Should drug company profits be more important than the lives of Mr. S�nchez, Ms. Ger�nimo and Rony? "I don't understand how it's in the interests of Americans to pursue policies that are going to lead to the deaths of tens of thousands, maybe even millions," says Robert Weissman, an intellectual property lawyer in Washington who is co-director of Essential Action, which monitors trade agreements. The U.S. trade officials I spoke with vigorously deny that they are insensitive to third-world health needs. But almost every expert I spoke to outside the U.S. government said that the U.S. continued to place hurdles in front of the use of generics to save lives. Even now, ahead of the F.T.A.A., Guatemala and Honduras avoid using generic antiretrovirals for fear of offending the U.S. Guatemala, for example, has 67,000 people, including 5,000 children, with H.I.V. or AIDS. Most will die. Astonishingly, the country spends most of its scarce AIDS money on brand-name drugs rather than cheaper generics, which could treat three times as many people. Honduras does the same, preferring to let people die than use generics. Why would these countries do this? The doctors and public health officials I interviewed said that Central American nations had a strong desire to curry favor with Washington, which is perceived as hostile to generics. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/opinion/22KRIS.html

Medicare Drug Benefit Calculator: "Beneficiary Out of Pocket Costs This calculator allows users to enter their prescription drug costs to determine what they would pay under the Medicare reform proposal currently being considered in Congress. Enter annual drug costs below and click on the "Calculate" button." http://www.kaisernetwork.org/static/kncalc.cfm

The Silence of the Cams: "Like many others, I stopped clicking on the watch-video button long ago and never looked back. Until late last Friday, when I went online to see whether there was any decent coverage of the leftists who had been in town that day to march on the World Bank and other redoubts of the global capitalist conspiracy. I'm fascinated by these events, mainly because they never live up to their advance billing in the media. The hordes of protesters don't materialize, and those who do show are not fire-breathing Marxist monsters but a bunch of naive kids who really believe that the Gap and Starbucks are the Hitler and Mussolini of our time." Warned again this year of the expected mayhem�shades of Paris in 1789, or Washington in 1968�I stayed well away from the protests myself. Now night had fallen on our embattled capital, and I was curious about what had really gone on. So I went to washingtonpost.com, where I found a color photo of the marchers, a couple of text stories, and a video offering. Normally, of course, I wouldn't have considered the video. But I'd missed the evening news and really wanted to see the heavily hyped protests. Having just started a free trial of America Online's broadband service at home, I figured this was a chance to test its worth. Was Web video still a nightmare? The Web site's protest piece was the video equivalent of what feature writers call a "scene piece," except the scene isn't conveyed with words but with images captured by a handheld camera, edited, and put up on the Web. Washingtonpost.com sent one of its videographers (as they're called), John Poole, out to observe the protesters as they marched, chanted, danced, and got arrested. The results, which you can view at www.washingtonpost.com/cameraworks, are surprising for a few reasons. First, this video has no narrator. The images and sounds Poole caught�protesters and police speaking to the camera, plus lots of captured scenes�speak for themselves. But this is no mere passive journalism of the I-Am-a-Camera school. It's clear the piece was carefully edited. Given that the editing was done on deadline (the piece was up on the Web site before 6 p.m.), the results are downright artful.� washingtonpost.com has been doing these unnarrated videos since it stumbled on the form while covering the 2000 presidential race. "At first we were mostly doing talking-heads stand-ups," recalls Mark Stencel, vice president for multimedia. "It very quickly evolved to this form of self-narrated video storytelling.... There were parts of the conventions where it was more interesting to have the delegates tell what was going on there than for us to tell you what the delegates were doing." The managing editor who oversees the washingtonpost.com multimedia operation, Tom Kennedy, was previously director of photography for National Geographic. "It sort of is a carryover of a style of storytelling that I learned there," he says. "I thought that the methodology was translatable to video. In other words, letting the subject sort of tell their own story, rather than having a lot of mediation by reporters, voice-overs, that sort of thing. I wanted to see if that could work in a Web environment." http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/powers2002- 10-08.htm

White House Is Evacuated, but the Scene is Serene:

We Will Not Be Intimidated� We Will Not Be Intimidated�

"Was it a bird, a plane, a computer glitch? No one connected to the nation's air defense system claimed to know, but whatever it was, it briefly turned the White House upside down on Thursday. About 9:20 a.m., staff members in the West Wing and schoolchildren on tours were suddenly ordered by the Secret Service to evacuate. The initial word was that radar had picked up a plane flying within five miles of restricted White House airspace." In fact, it was nothing more than a false alarm. But somewhere, somehow, someone monitoring a computer screen saw something disturbing on a clear blue late fall morning in the nation's capital. Officials at the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or Norad, in Colorado Springs, would provide no other details, but they scrambled two F-16 fighter jets from the nearby Andrews Air Force Base to investigate. The White House staff, meanwhile, clustered across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House near the historic townhouses of Jackson Place, a far more placid scene than the terrifying White House evacuation of Sept. 11, 2001. This time, Tom Ridge, the domestic security secretary whose job was created after the Sept. 11 attacks, was seen leaving, too. Some staff members spotted Secret Service agents stationed near the door of the White House bombproof underground bunker, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, apparently waiting for Vice President Dick Cheney. President Bush was in London.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/21/politics/21EVAC.html

F.B.I.'s Reach Into Records Is Set to Grow: "A little-noticed measure approved by both the House and Senate would significantly expand the F.B.I.'s power to demand financial records, without a judge's approval, from car dealers, travel agents, pawnbrokers and many other businesses, officials said on Tuesday." Traditional financial institutions like banks and credit unions are frequently subject to administrative subpoenas from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to produce financial records in terrorism and espionage investigations. Such subpoenas, which are known as national security letters, do not require the bureau to seek a judge's approval before issuing them. The measure now awaiting final approval in Congress would significantly broaden the law to include securities dealers, currency exchanges, car dealers, travel agencies, post offices, casinos, pawnbrokers and any other institution doing cash transactions with "a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters." Officials said the measure, which is tucked away in the intelligence community's authorization bill for 2004, gives agents greater flexibility and speed in seeking to trace the financial assets of people suspected of terrorism and espionage. It mirrors a proposal that President Bush outlined in a speech two months ago to expand the use of administrative subpoenas in terrorism cases. Critics said the measure would give the federal government greater power to pry into people's private lives. "This dramatically expands the government's authority to get private business records," said Timothy H. Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "You buy a ring for your grandmother from a pawnbroker, and the record on that will now be considered a financial record that the government can get." The provision is in the authorization bills passed by both houses of Congress. Some Democrats have begun to question whether the measure goes too far and have hinted that they may try to have it pulled when the bill comes before a House-Senate conference committee. Other officials predicted that the measure would probably survive any challenges in conference and be signed into law by President Bush, in part because the provisions already approved in the House and the Senate are identical. The intelligence committees considered the proposal at the request of George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, officials said. Officials at the C.I.A. and the Justice Department declined to comment on Tuesday about the measure.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/12/politics/12RECO.html

A Toy Gun Can Shut Down Congress, The Vice President Hides on the Least Hint of a Threat, President Says, "We Won't be Intimidated"

Secret Service Hides Cheney as Plane Enters Restricted Area: "The Secret Service hustled Vice President Dick Cheney into a secure site on Monday morning after a small plane flew into restricted airspace around Washington, government officials said." The plane was intercepted by two Air Force F-16 fighters, whose pilots determined that it was not a threat and escorted it out of the area. President Bush was on his way to a fund-raiser in Little Rock, Ark., at the time, and Laura Bush was in Maine. Mr. Cheney returned to work in the White House after a short time, said a Secret Service spokesman, Tom Mazur. Mr. Mazur said Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, was also taken to the undisclosed secure spot while the Air Force sought to determine whether the small plane presented any danger. Officials said the plane, a single-engine Mooney M20, entered the restricted zone, within 17.5 miles of the Washington Monument, about 11:15 a.m. Mr. Mazur said the pilot of the small plane cooperated with the instructions of the fighter pilots and was allowed to go on his way.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/national/11PLAN.html

Internet Tax Ban Stops Dead in Senate: "A push to permanently ban taxes on Internet access came to an abrupt halt in the Senate on Friday amid concern that state and local governments could lose millions in taxes from phones, music and movies that are migrating to the Internet." State and local governments collect more than $20 billion every year on telecommunications and fear the permanent ban will wipe out a large part of that revenue. A core group of senators pressing for a permanent end to taxes on Internet access said those fears are unfounded. "All the bill says is you cannot discriminate against electronic commerce, and not one state has come forward and given an example of how they have been hurt by their inability to discriminate against electronic commerce," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office said the bill could hit state and local governments in three ways. About 10 states that imposed a tax on Internet access charges before the original ban, and who were permitted to keep collecting those taxes, would lose $80 million to $120 million each year. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1376712,00.asp

Fine Print Is Given Full Voice in Campaign Ads: "In one of his television commercials, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts announces his candidacy for president before a throng of adoring, placard-waving supporters. But at the end of the spot, amid the roar of the crowd, Mr. Kerry abruptly steps from the podium, looks into the camera and shouts, 'I'm John Kerry, and I approve this message!'" Such odd juxtapositions occur often in the first commercials of this election season because of a little-noticed provision of the new election law requiring candidates � including President Bush, when his campaign begins running ads � to pledge responsibility for their ads.� "It's really clumsy and awkward to put in an ad," said Steve McMahon, whose firm is handling the advertising for Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont. "Focus groups say `Of course you approve it, you wouldn't have said it.' " Academics, lawmakers and lobbyists who helped write the provision said it was intended to force campaigns to stand by any attack ads they produce. That, some argued, could dissuade the production of such ads to begin with. But the campaigns contend that it is unclear whether the provision will ultimately stanch the flow of negative political advertisements this election season anyway. At the very least, strategists with every presidential campaign now advertising said the rule seemed silly at this early stage, when the vast majority of spots are positive. "It's just one more example of reform gone amok," said David Axelrod, a consultant for Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. "It was meant to police negative ads, and now you have this absurd addendum to positive ads that makes absolutely no sense." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/08/politics/campaigns/08ADS.html

Job Figures Buoy Bush, but Democratic Hopefuls See Room to Attack: "'Good luck in using statistics to convince working Americans that the Bush administration has their economic interests at heart,' Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said in Salem, N.H., in remarks typical of all the potential challengers. 'The deep unfairness of the Bush economy is real to Americans.'" Economic matters have long been the Democrats' strong suit. Now, although the jobs numbers suggest that the economic recovery may be genuine and that the issue may not be the sure winner it seemed a few months ago, the party's strategists said the candidates had no choice but to continue to play this hand. "I still think the race will be run on the economy," said Bruce Reed, president of the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of moderate Democrats. "But it won't be so much on the recent past as on the outlook for the future." Another tactician who is not affiliated with any candidate, Howard Wolfson, said the improving jobs picture made "the argument on the economy tougher to make but still not impossible." Mr. Wolfson added, "What we have to argue is that he bought a short-term uptick in jobs at the expense of structural deficits as far as the eye can see." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/08/politics/campaigns/08CAMP.html

The Fruits of Secrecy: "One of President Bush's first acts was to convene a task force to produce a national energy strategy. Led by Vice President Dick Cheney, the group met secretly with hundreds of witnesses. It heard from few environmentalists, but many lobbyists and executives from industries whose fortunes would be affected by any new policies. Despite lawsuits, the White House has refused to divulge the names of those privileged to get Mr. Cheney's ear. The results, however, have been plain as day: policies that broadly favor industry � including big campaign contributors � at the expense of the environment and public health." That unfortunate bias was demonstrated anew this week when the Environmental Protection Agency decided to drop investigations into more than 140 power plants, refineries and other industrial sites suspected of violating the Clean Air Act. The winner is industry; the loser, the public. The administration had already weakened the cases' legal foundation: a provision in the act that required companies to install up-to-date pollution controls whenever they increased harmful emissions by making major upgrades to their plants. The utilities had complained that the rule kept them from producing more power and discouraged investments in energy efficiency. Though the companies produced no convincing evidence, Mr. Cheney's task force swallowed the argument whole, and in due course it forced Christie Whitman, then head of the E.P.A., to jettison the rule in favor of a more permissive regime allowing companies to increase pollution without paying for new controls. The administration insists lamely that a handful of cases in litigation will be pursued. It seems clear, however, that the many investigations that have not reached litigation will be dropped altogether or at best restarted under the new rules � rules so full of loopholes that it is highly unlikely that anybody will ever be found to have violated them. The administration swore to Congress months ago that this would not happen, that all the old investigations would be aggressively pursued under the old rules.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/08/opinion/08SAT1.html

Diplomacy: Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War: "As American soldiers massed on the Iraqi border in March and diplomats argued about war, an influential adviser to the Pentagon received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman: Saddam Hussein wanted to make a deal." Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search. The businessman said in an interview that the Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. At one point, he said, the Iraqis pledged to hold elections. The messages from Baghdad, first relayed in February to an analyst in the office of Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy and planning, were part of an attempt by Iraqi intelligence officers to open last-ditch negotiations with the Bush administration through a clandestine communications channel, according to people involved. The efforts were portrayed by Iraqi officials as having the approval of President Saddam Hussein, according to interviews and documents. The overtures, after a decade of evasions and deceptions by Iraq, were ultimately rebuffed. But the messages raised enough interest that in early March, Richard N. Perle, an influential adviser to top Pentagon officials, met in London with the Lebanese-American businessman, Imad Hage. According to both men, Mr. Hage laid out the Iraqis' position to Mr. Perle, and he pressed the Iraqi request for a direct meeting with Mr. Perle or another representative of the United States. "I was dubious that this would work," said Mr. Perle, widely recognized as an intellectual architect of the Bush administration's hawkish policy toward Iraq, "but I agreed to talk to people in Washington." Mr. Perle said he sought authorization from C.I.A. officials to meet with the Iraqis, but the officials told him they did not want to pursue this channel, and they indicated they had already engaged in separate contacts with Baghdad. Mr. Perle said, "The message was, `Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad.' " A senior United States intelligence official said this was one of several contacts with Iraqis or with people who said they were trying to broker meetings on their behalf. "These signals came via a broad range of foreign intelligence services, other governments, third parties, charlatans and independent actors," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Every lead that was at all plausible, and some that weren't, were followed up." There were a variety of efforts, both public and discreet, to avert a war in Iraq, but Mr. Hage's back channel appears to have been a final attempt by Mr. Hussein's government to reach American officials. In interviews in Beirut, Mr. Hage said the Iraqis appeared intimidated by the American military threat. "The Iraqis were finally taking it seriously," he said, "and they wanted to talk, and they offered things they never would have offered if the build-up hadn't occurred." Mr. Perle said he found it "puzzling" that the Iraqis would have used such complicated contacts to communicate "a quite astonishing proposal" to the administration. But former American intelligence officers with extensive experience in the Middle East say many Arab leaders have traditionally placed a high value on secret communications, though such informal arrangements are sometimes considered suspect in Washington. The activity in this back channel, detailed in interviews and in documents obtained by The New York Times, appears to show an increasingly frantic Iraqi regime trying to find room to maneuver as the enemy closes in. It also provides a rare glimpse into a subterranean world of international networking. The key link in the network was Imad Hage, who has spent much of his life straddling two worlds. Mr. Hage, a Maronite Christian who was born in Beirut in 1956, fled Lebanon in 1976 after the civil war began there. He ended up in the United States, where he went to college and became a citizen. Living in suburban Washington, Mr. Hage started an insurance company, American Underwriters Group, and became involved in Lebanese-American political circles. In the late 1990's, he moved his family and his company to Lebanon. Serendipity brought him important contacts in the Arab world and in America. An influential Lebanese Muslim he met while handling an insurance claim introduced him to Mohammed Nassif, a senior Syrian intelligence official and a close aide to President Bashar al-Assad. On trips back to Washington last year, Mr. Hage befriended a fellow Lebanese-American, Michael Maloof, who was working in the Pentagon as an analyst in an intelligence unit set up by Mr. Feith to look for ties between terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and countries like Iraq. Mr. Maloof has ties to many leading conservatives in Washington, having worked for Mr. Perle at the Pentagon during the Reagan administration. In January 2003, as American pressure was building for a face-off with Iraq, Mr. Hage's two worlds intersected. On a trip to Damascus, he said, Mr. Nassif told him about Syria's frustrations in communicating with American officials. On a trip to the United States later that month, Mr. Hage said, Mr. Maloof arranged for him to deliver that message personally to Mr. Perle and to Jaymie Durnan, then a top aide to the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz. Pentagon officials confirmed that the meetings occurred. Mr. Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon, is known in foreign capitals as an influential adviser to top administration officials. After Mr. Hage told his contacts in Beirut and Damascus about meeting Mr. Perle, Mr. Hage's influential Lebanese Muslim friend asked Mr. Hage to meet a senior Iraqi official eager to talk to the Americans. Mr. Hage cautiously agreed. In February, as the United States was gearing up its campaign for a Security Council resolution authorizing force against Iraq, Hassan al-Obeidi, chief of foreign operations of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, arrived in Mr. Hage's Beirut office. But within minutes, Mr. Hage said, Mr. Obeidi collapsed, and a doctor was called to treat him. "He came to my office, sat down, and in five minutes fell ill," recalled Mr. Hage. "He looked like a man under enormous stress." After being treated, Mr. Obeidi explained that the Iraqis wanted to cooperate with the Americans and could not understand why the Americans were focused on Iraq rather than on countries, like Iran, that have long supported terrorists, Mr. Hage said. The Iraqi seemed desperate, Mr. Hage said, "like someone who feared for his own safety, although he tried to hide it." Mr. Obeidi told Mr. Hage that Iraq would make deals to avoid war, including helping in the Mideast peace process. "He said, if this is about oil, we will talk about U.S. oil concessions," Mr. Hage recalled. "If it is about the peace process, then we can talk. If this is about weapons of mass destruction, let the Americans send over their people. There are no weapons of mass destruction." Mr. Obeidi said the "Americans could send 2,000 F.B.I. agents to look wherever they wanted," Mr. Hage recalled. He said that when he told Mr. Obeidi that the United States seemed adamant that Saddam Hussein give up power, Mr. Obeidi bristled, saying that would be capitulation. But later, Mr. Hage recounted, Mr. Obeidi said Iraq could agree to hold elections within the next two years.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/politics/06INTE.html?pagewanted=all&position=

Death Be Not Loud: "Who can blame poor President Bush? Look at his terrible dilemma." There are those who say the chief executive should have come out of his Texas ranch house and articulated and assuaged the sorrow and outrage and anxiety the nation was feeling on Sunday after the deadliest day in Iraq in seven months. An attack on a Chinook helicopter had killed 15 American soldiers, 13 men and 2 women, and wounded 21. There are those who say Mr. Bush should have emulated Rudy Giuliani's empathetic leadership after 9/11, or Dad's in the first gulf war, and attended some of the funerals of the 379 Americans killed in Iraq. Or one. Maybe the one for Specialist Darryl Dent, the 21-year-old National Guard officer from Washington who died outside Baghdad in late August when a bomb struck his truck while he was delivering mail to troops. His funeral was held at a Baptist church three miles from the White House. But let's look at it from the president's point of view: if he grieves more publicly or concretely, if he addresses every instance of bad news, like the hideous specter of Iraqis' celebrating the downing of the Chinook, he will simply remind people of what's going on in Iraq. So it's understandable why, going into his re-election campaign, Mr. Bush wouldn't want to underscore that young Americans keep getting whacked over there, and we don't know who is doing it or how to stop it. The White House is cleverly trying to distance Mr. Bush from the messy problem of flesh-and-blood soldiers with real names dying nearly every day, while linking him to the heroic task of fighting global terror. It's better to keep it vague, to talk about the "important cause" and the "brave defenders" of liberty. If he gets more explicit, or allows the flag-draped coffins of fallen heroes to be photographed coming home, it will just remind people that the administration said this would be easy, and it's teeth-grindingly hard. And that the administration vowed to get Osama and Saddam and W.M.D., and hasn't. And that the Bush team that hyped the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq has now created an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. And that there was no decent plan for the occupation or for financing one, no plan for rotating or supporting troops stretched too thin to guard ammunition caches or police a fractious society, and no plan for getting out.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/opinion/06DOWD.html

Op-Ed Columnist: Death by Optimism: "Ultimately, Saddam's rule collapsed in part because he couldn't read Iraq and made decisions based on hubris and bad information. These days, President Bush and his aides are having the same problem. Critics complain that they lied to the American public about how difficult the war would be, but I fear the critics are wrong: they didn't just fool us � they also fooled themselves. Evidence suggests that Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney may have actually believed that our troops would be, as Mr. Cheney predicted, "greeted as liberators." The administration chose to rely not on intelligence but on wishful thinking, and it became intoxicated by the siren calls of Ahmad Chalabi, a silver-tongued charlatan." I wish administration officials were lying, because I would prefer hypocrisy to delusion � at least hypocritical officials make decisions with accurate information. Policy by wishful thinking is crippling our occupation. Initially, U.S. officials didn't restrain looting because they regarded it as celebratory high jinks. Then, confident that security was in hand, they disbanded the Iraqi Army. They didn't push hard to bring in international forces. The foreign forces they suggest introducing are Turks, which adds to my fear that administration officials have been more deluded than duplicitous. It is a crazy scheme: anyone who has spent time in Iraq knows that Iraqis will never accept their former colonial power policing them. Mr. Cheney has cited a Zogby International poll to back his claim that there is "very positive news" in Iraq. But the pollster, John Zogby, told me, "I was floored to see the spin that was put on it; some of the numbers were not my numbers at all." Mr. Cheney claimed that Iraqis chose the U.S. as their model for democracy "hands down," and he and other officials say that a majority want American troops to stay at least another year. In fact, Mr. Zogby said, only 23 percent favor the U.S. democratic model, and 65 percent want the U.S. to leave in a year or less. "I am not willing to say they lied," Mr. Zogby said. "But they used a very tight process of selective screening, and when they didn't get what they wanted they were willing to manufacture some results. . . . There was almost nothing in that poll to give them comfort." Sure, we're making some progress in Iraq. A hand grenade sells for $2.50 now, compared with 10 cents a few months ago. But U.S. troops now face 25 to 30 attacks daily, compared with 15 to 20 in September. Last month 33 Americans were killed, twice as many as in September.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/05/opinion/05KRIS.html

Op-Ed Contributor: So Few Soldiers, So Much to Do: "The Bush administration's reaction to the deaths of 16 American soldiers in the downing of a helicopter on Sunday morning was the same as it was to the suicide bombings at police stations and the Red Cross headquarters in Baghdad a week earlier � and the same as it has been to every other setback the coalition has faced: insistence that there is no need for more American troops beyond the 133,000 now in Iraq." It is part of any president's job to inspire confidence under pressure, but given the true number of troops in Iraq � actual armed soldiers doing a soldier's job � President Bush might just as well have said that there is no need for any American troops in Iraq. Because zero is the exact number of soldiers actually present at many sites that should be secured 24 hours a day. Such is the arithmetic of an ultra-modern army. The support echelon is so large that out of the 133,000 American men and women in Iraq, no more than 56,000 are combat-trained troops available for security duties. As for the rest, there are many command posts where soldiers operate computers not guns, there are many specialized units charged with reconstruction and civil duties, and even in the actual combat formations there is a large noncombat element. The 101st Airborne Division has 270 helicopters, which alone require more than 1,000 technicians. The Fourth Infantry Division has the usual panoply of artillery, aviation and antiaircraft units that are needed in war but have little role in peacekeeping and security duties. And even the finest soldiers must sleep and eat. Thus the number of troops on patrol at any one time is no more than 28,000 � to oversee frontiers terrorists are trying to cross, to patrol rural terrain including vast oil fields, to control inter-city roads, and to protect American and coalition facilities. Even if so few could do so much, it still leaves the question of how to police the squares, streets and alleys of Baghdad, with its six million inhabitants, not to mention Mosul with 1.7 million, Kirkuk with 800,000, and Sunni towns like Falluja, with its quarter-million restive residents. In fact, the 28,000 American troops are now so thinly spread that they cannot reliably protect even themselves; the helicopter shot down on Sunday was taking off from an area that had not been secured, because doing so would have required hundreds of soldiers. For comparison, there are 39,000 police officers in New York City alone � and they at least know the languages of most of the inhabitants, few of whom are likely to be armed Baathist or Islamist fanatics.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/opinion/04LUTT.html

Issue for Bush: How to Speak of Casualties?: "When the Chinook helicopter was shot down on Sunday in Iraq, killing 15 Americans, President Bush let his defense secretary do the talking and stayed out of sight at his ranch. The president has not attended the funeral of any American soldiers killed in action, White House officials say. And with violence in Baghdad dominating the headlines this week, he has used his public appearances to focus on the health of the economy and the wildfires in California." But after some of the deadliest attacks yet on American forces, the White House is struggling with the political consequences for a president who has said little publicly about the mounting casualties of the occupation. The quandary for Mr. Bush, administration officials say, is in finding a balance: expressing sympathy for fallen soldiers without drawing more attention to the casualties by commenting daily on every new death. White House officials say their strategy, for now, is to avoid having the president mention some deaths but not others, and so avoid inequity. (Mr. Bush does send a personal letter to the family of every soldier killed in action and has met privately with relatives at military bases.) http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/05/politics/campaigns/05STRA.html

Bush Says Iraq Attacks Don't Rise to Level of Major Combat: "President Bush said today that despite the deadly attack on an American helicopter on Sunday, the United States was no longer involved in major combat in Iraq. And he insisted that Saddam Hussein is no longer a danger." Asked whether United States forces were again engaged in "major combat operations," � which he declared over on May 1 � Mr. Bush said that they were not. "We're back to finding these terrorists and bringing them to justice," the president said in Harbison Canyon, Calif., where he toured areas swept by wildfires. "And we will stay the course," he added. "We will do our job." The president was asked for his reaction to the death of 15 soldiers (the Pentagon revised the toll down from 16 today) in a helicopter that was shot down on Sunday near Falluja, Iraq. "I am saddened any time that there's a loss of life," he said. The White House has been visibly struggling with how to address the loss of American life in Iraq and has apparently decided, at least for now, to refer only in general terms to the dead, who now number more than 135 since Mr. Bush's May 1 declaration. Asked whether his administration was trying to speed up the transfer of power to Iraqis, Mr. Bush said there were now more than 70,000 Iraqis engaged in police and border-security work and in creating a new army. "That has been our mission all along, to develop the conditions such that a free Iraq will emerge, run by the Iraqi citizens," Mr. Bush said. The president said that despite reports that the fugitive Saddam Hussein might be behind some of the recent attacks on American troops, he was no longer a menace.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/politics/04CND-BUSH.html

Justices Face Decision on Accepting 9/11 Cases: "With cases generated by the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, now reaching the Supreme Court in substantial numbers, the court faces a basic decision apart from the merits of any individual case: whether to become a player in the debate over where to set the balance between individual liberty and national security." As early as this week, there may be an indication of whether the court intends to remain on the sidelines, leaving the last word to lower courts that have so far deferred to the White House, or to weigh in with the same assertiveness it has displayed so often in recent years on some of the most bitterly disputed issues in American life. The first cases in the queue on the court's docket are appeals filed on behalf of two groups of detainees at the United States naval base at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba. These appeals frame an issue that at some level all the cases, despite their considerable differences, have in common: the degree of deference owed by the judicial branch to the executive for actions taken in the name of national security in a crisis. In these cases, two British citizens, two Australians and 12 Kuwaitis, all seized in Pakistan or Afghanistan during operations led by the United States against the Taliban, are challenging a ruling by the federal appeals court here in March. That court ruled that no federal court has jurisdiction to consider the legality of an open-ended detention that has now lasted more than 18 months without charges and without review by any impartial military or civilian tribunal. A wide array of groups, including former senior military officers, retired American diplomats and prisoners of war from World War II, are urging the justices to hear the appeals, which the administration opposes. Later this year, probably before its winter recess, the court will decide whether to hear a United States citizen's challenge to his open-ended detention as an "enemy combatant." The man, Yasser Esam Hamdi, an American-born Saudi who was apparently captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, has been held without access to a lawyer in military brigs, first in Virginia and now in South Carolina, since April 2002. The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled in January that he was not entitled to a lawyer and had no right to challenge the basis for his continued detention. The justices have also been asked to hear a Freedom of Information Act case challenging the Bush administration's refusal to release information, including their names, about the hundreds of people, nearly all of them Muslim immigrants, who were arrested in the weeks following the terrorist attacks. Overturning a ruling by a federal district judge, the appeals court here ruled in June that the information, even concerning those found to have no connection to terrorism, was exempt from disclosure. Unlike the small category of cases the Supreme Court is jurisdictionally obliged to consider � the campaign finance case now awaiting decision, which Congress instructed the court to hear, is one example � these appeals all fall within the completely discretionary part of the court's docket. If the court decides not to hear them, no explanation is likely to be forthcoming, only the word "denied" on the weekly list of orders that dispose of new appeals. The votes of four justices are required for the court to agree to hear a case. The court applies several unofficial criteria for selecting roughly 75 cases to decide each term out of the 8,000 that are filed. These appeals meet none of those criteria. The issues raised have not produced conflicting rulings in the lower courts � the main test the court uses to choose cases worthy of its attention � and the appeals were not filed by the solicitor general's office, which enjoys a very high success rate in getting its cases accepted, if not always decided favorably. Indeed, Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson is urging the court not to hear the Guant�namo detainees' appeals, Rasul v. Bush, No. 03-334, and Al Odah v. United States, No. 03-343. His brief argues that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit properly interpreted a 53-year-old Supreme Court precedent to hold that "aliens detained by the military abroad" have only those rights that are "determined by the executive and the military, and not the courts," and that these cases consequently do not merit Supreme Court review. The government's formal responses to the other pending appeals � Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, No. 03-6696, and Center for National Security Studies v. United States Department of Justice, No. 03-472 � are due at the court in early December. The question, then, is whether the justices will nonetheless see these cases as simply important enough to command the Supreme Court's attention despite the absence of the traditional factors that govern discretionary review. The appeal filed by Shearman & Sterling, an international law firm with offices here, on behalf of Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad al Odah and 11 other Kuwaitis held at Guant�namo invokes the court's robust sense of institutional pride and concern for the separation of powers, a particular interest of the conservative majority. "It is not for the executive branch to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts," the brief says. The decision of what steps are required to protect the country "is not a judgment the executive alone should make," it continues, adding: "Someone impartial must have authority to examine the executive's actions. That is the traditional role of the judiciary." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/03/national/03SCOT.html?pagewanted=all&position=