Congressional Republicans call it their "winning ugly" strategy. Even when controlling both chambers, Republican leaders have discovered that advancing their social and economic agenda is much easier when they punt contentious legislation into House and Senate negotiations, where Republicans are firmly in command. The latest example came this week when Senate Republicans, flummoxed in their push to pass an energy bill before leaving town, resorted to resurrecting and passing last year's Democratic energy proposal just to get into talks with their House brethren. That same path has been followed all year on difficult bills: get a budget, tax cut or Medicare bill off the floor and out of the line of fire � even if it has flaws that make lawmakers cringe � and force it into conference for a thorough massaging. "An obvious advantage to being in the majority, even if it is a tiny majority like ours, is that you control the conference," Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said today as the Senate adjourned until Sept. 2. "It is elementary that if you can get a bill to conference, you have a wide latitude to produce a bill the majority is comfortable with and the president is comfortable with." It may be elementary, but it is not exactly the textbook version of how a bill becomes law. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/02/politics/02CONG.html

Suit Challenges Constitutionality of Powers in Antiterrorism Law The American Civil Liberties Union and six Muslim groups today brought the first constitutional challenge to the sweeping antiterrorism legislation passed after the Sept. 11 attacks, arguing that the law gives federal agents virtually unchecked authority to spy on Americans. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Michigan, seeks to have a major section of the law, the U.S.A. Patriot Act, declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the privacy, due process and free speech rights of Americans. "We think the Constitution is really on our side," Ann Beeson, the civil liberties union's chief lawyer in the suit, said in an interview. "There are basically no limits to the amount of information the F.B.I. can get now � library book records, medical records, hotel records, charitable contributions � the list goes on and on, and it's the secrecy of the whole operation that is really troublesome." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/31/national/31PATR.html

Mideast Peace Process Hits More Bumps In a move that drew fierce Palestinian opposition and ran counter to the language of the ``road map,'' Israel issued a tender on Thursday to expand a Gaza Strip settlement. The tender, by the Israel Lands Authority, offers the rights to build 22 new housing units in the Neve Dekalim settlement, the largest in Gaza. Israel says that a certain amount of building is necessary to accommodate natural growth within the settlements. Palestinians, however, see the settlements as illegal occupation of their land and have long pushed for their dismantlement, and the road map specifically precludes expansion for ``natural growth.'' ``This is a very dangerous step taken by the Israeli government,'' said Nabil Abu Rdeneh, an aide to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Early Thursday, overnight negotiations between Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and Mohammed Dahlan, the Palestinian minister in charge of security, ended with no agreement on a promised Israeli withdrawal from two Palestinian towns. Israeli officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Mofaz offered to turn over Qalqiliya and another West Bank town, Jericho, to Palestinian security control. Israeli forces have already withdrawn from parts of Gaza and the West Bank town of Bethlehem. The Palestinian side, however, insisted at the talks that any withdrawal from the Palestinian cities also be accompanied by steps to allow Palestinians to move around the West Bank more freely. ``We wanted the withdrawal to be a genuine one that would allow the Palestinian cities to connect with each other and would give people free ways to move,'' Dahlan said Thursday. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Palestinians.html

All Bets Are Off The so-called terrorism futures market sounded like a hoax: investors would have been able to make money from attacks and strife. Now that the red-faced Pentagon has closed down the project, it's appropriate to ask, "What were they thinking?" The Department of Defense argued that markets "are extremely efficient, effective and timely aggregators of dispersed and even hidden information . . . often better than expert opinions." That's true. The University of Iowa has a neat system allowing bettors to establish the odds for candidates in races in America and overseas. The Iowa markets have generally done a better job than pollsters at predicting the outcomes of elections. Markets also do a great job at more traditional tasks, like matching buyers and sellers and setting prices for everything from chickens to semiconductor chips. Still, the Pentagon's concept is flawed. Markets are not very good at setting prices for rare events. Those who trade in the Iowa political exchange have the benefit of historical election results and daily polls; property insurance companies know full well when the Florida hurricane season starts. But could markets have given us a price for the odds of a shooting in the balcony of City Hall in New York? Sure, markets learn from experience. It's been a long time, though, since Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton � and that was across the river in New Jersey. Before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, I directed a White House study on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Should we add to the reserve? What were the chances of a war in the gulf or an OPEC boycott like the one in 1973? These events take place intermittently and are hard to predict. But we had to make some estimates. Likewise, in order to allocate our domestic defense resources, we have to estimate the odds of terrorist events on the ground, in the sky or at sea. Here again, markets work better when they are deep and liquid � that is, with many participants and lots of transactions. This raises reliability and reduces the risk of manipulation. How deep and liquid could the market for terrorism futures be? This was the problem faced by the Pentagon. To attract "investors," the Pentagon needed to offer a significant payoff. But with big payoffs, the incentive for market manipulation rises. And in the case of terrorism futures, market manipulation can show up not as a forged buy order but as a bullet. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/31/opinion/31BUCH.html

Privacy pendulum swings back In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the worry in Washington, D.C., was more about national security than about individual privacy. A couple days after the terror attacks, the U.S. Senate voted to grant the Federal Bureau of Investigation sweeping Internet surveillance powers that, in some cases, would not require a judge's approval. Huge portions of that bill, self-importantly titled the Combating Terrorism Act, eventually became part of the even more grandly named law called the USA Patriot Act. Soon after the law's enactment, Attorney General John Ashcroft began likening criticism of such dubious legislation to the treasonous offense of "aiding terrorists." Noted civil libertarians such as Alan Dershowitz began to suggest that entrepreneurial judges could issue "torture warrants" against suspected terrorists, while automated face recognition cameras began popping up in airports and politicians began scheming about how to ban encryption products without backdoors for government snoops. Suffice it to say that privacy was not exactly paramount on everyone's mind. But as the two-year anniversary of Sept. 11 approaches, there are signs that Congress realizes it went too far in allowing electronic surveillance and other invasions of personal privacy. Consider some recent evidence: � By a 309 to 118 vote last Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation that would essentially block part of the USA Patriot Act that permitted police to seek a court order that let them surreptitiously enter a home or business. The amendment to the Commerce, Justice and State spending bill would not repeal the "secret search" law but instead would deny federal agencies any funds that could be used in order to take advantage of it. � During the floor debate, Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter, R-Idaho, the amendment's sponsor, offered this impassioned defense of liberty: "Sneak-and-peek searches give the government the power to repeatedly search a private residence without informing the residents that he or she is the target of an investigation. Not only does this provision allow the seizure of personal property and business records without notification, but it also opens the door to nationwide search warrants and allows the CIA and the NSA to operate domestically." � Also last week, some House members tried to nix the part of the USA Patriot Act that handed the FBI broad powers to search library or bookstore records without the usual need for search warrants or judicial oversight. Offered by Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., the amendment was ruled to be out of order--but it enjoys the support of 129 members of Congress and advocacy groups like the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression. � On July 17, the U.S. Senate yanked funding for the Pentagon's creepy Total Information Awareness plan (TIA), which aims to weave together strands of data from various sources--such as travel, credit card, bank, electronic toll and driver's license databases--with the stated purpose of identifying terrorists before they strike. (Earlier, the Pentagon had responded to public outcry by changing the project's name to Terrorist Information Awareness.) � Last Tuesday, at a meeting of a U.S. Department of Defense advisory committee, top intelligence officers said TIA wasn't really all that spectacular an idea, anyway. "They need to work on the underlying business model before it is implemented," said Maureen Baginski, the FBI's executive assistant director for intelligence, according to Federal Computer Week. Alan Wade, chief information officer at the CIA, warned that "the scope may be too big." Ouch. And this is from the cadre of spooks who supposedly wanted TIA in the first place? Ashcroft and his aides at the U.S. Department of Justice are hardly delighted by this privacy backlash-backlash. Not only are they intent on keeping the USA Patriot Act intact, but they're not happy at finding themselves suddenly on the defensive. Secret searches Last week, while touring Alaska, Ashcroft employed a venerable Washingtonian tactic: Blame the press. It was understandable that Americans are worried about privacy invasions, Ashcroft informed reporters, "but when the so-called invasion is one that's falsely reported and nonexistent, and they don't hear about the fact that it's falsely reported and nonexistent, it's not helpful." On Friday, Ashcroft's deputy, Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, went even further. Moschella sent a letter to the speaker of the House warning that the "secret search" amendment would have a "devastating effect on the United States' ongoing efforts to detect and prevent terrorism, as well as to combat other serious crimes...The terrorist would likely destroy computer equipment containing information about which targets he plans to strike." The letter, which urged the House to reconsider its decision, cited procedural irregularities, complaining that the House's vote was a "hasty" one. But you never saw the Justice Department demanding a careful, reasoned process when the USA Patriot Act was being rushed into law in October 2001. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said after that memorable vote: "What we have today is an outrageous procedure. A bill, drafted by a handful of people in secret, comes to us without a committee review and immune to amendment." What the Justice Department also didn't mention last week is that it had been lobbying for the power to conduct "secret searches" for at least four years, long before the Sept. 11 attacks took place and terrorism became a convenient justification for it. As far back as 1999, the FBI had used a secret search warrant when installing a keystroke logger in the office computer of alleged mobster Nicodemo Scarfo. He had used Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) encryption software to encode confidential business data--but with the keystroke logger, the FBI was able to glean his pass phrase. http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5055885.html

FBI wants to tap Net phones Internet telephone calls are fast becoming a national security threat that must be countered with new police wiretap rules, according to an FBI proposal presented quietly to regulators this month. Representatives of the FBI's Electronic Surveillance Technology Section in Chantilly, Va., have met at least twice in the past three weeks with senior officials of the Federal Communications Commission to lobby for proposed new Internet eavesdropping rules. The FBI-drafted plan seeks to force broadband providers to provide more efficient, standardized surveillance facilities and could substantially change the way that cable modem and DSL (digital subscriber line) companies operate. The new rules are necessary, because terrorists could otherwise frustrate legitimate wiretaps by placing phone calls over the Internet, warns a summary of a July 10 meeting with the FCC that the FBI prepared. "Broadband networks may ultimately replace narrowband networks," the summary says. "This trend offers increasing opportunities for terrorists, spies and criminals to evade lawful electronic surveillance." According to the proposal that the FCC is considering, any company offering cable modem or DSL service to residences or businesses would be required to comply with a thicket of federal regulations that would establish a central hub for police surveillance of their customers. The proposal has alarmed civil libertarians who fear that it might jeopardize privacy and warn that the existence of such hubs could facilitate broad surveillance of other Internet communications such as e-mail, Web browsing and instant messaging. Under existing federal wiretapping laws, the FBI already has the ability to seek a court order to conduct surveillance of any broadband user though its DCS1000 system, previously called Carnivore. But the bureau worries that unless Internet providers offer surveillance hubs based on common standards, lawbreakers can evade or, at the very least, complicate surveillance by using VOIP providers such as Vonage, Time Warner Cable, Net2Phone, 8X8, deltathree and DigitalVoice. Digital wiretapping The origins of this debate date back nine years, to when the FBI persuaded Congress to enact a controversial law called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA. Louis Freeh, FBI director at the time, testified in 1994 that emerging technologies such as call forwarding, call waiting and cellular phones had frustrated surveillance efforts. Congress responded to the FBI's concern by requiring that telecommunications services rewire their networks to provide police with guaranteed access for wiretaps. Legislators also granted the FCC substantial leeway in defining what types of companies must comply. So far, the FCC has interpreted CALEA's wiretap-ready requirements to cover only traditional analog and wireless telephone service. "I think the FCC has a lot of room here," said Stewart Baker, a partner at Steptoe & Johnson who represents Internet service providers. "CALEA was written knowing that there would be new technologies for telecommunications." Baker, the former general counsel of the National Security Agency, said it was not clear whether the FBI had yet been frustrated by problems when wiretapping VOIP calls. Derek Khlopin, regulatory counsel at the Telecommunications Industry Association, whose members include Cisco Systems, Ericsson, Lucent Technologies, Motorola and Nortel Networks, said what the FBI is "worried about is, when you have voice over DSL, if there's a way someone could say they're not subject to CALEA." In a letter to the FCC, the FBI wrote: "CALEA applies to telecommunications carriers providing DSL and other types of wire line broadband access." Some members of Khlopin's trade association, such as Cisco, already manufacture products that follow CALEA guidelines. Khlopin said his group did not have a position on the FBI's request, but suggested that "CALEA is not the only way that law enforcement can get the bad guys." The FBI's proposal has drawn criticism in regard to privacy issues. A representative of DSL provider Speakeasy said the company "does not support the extension of CALEA to ISPs, because the proposal appears to run counter to our commitment to protect our subscribers' privacy first and foremost. We certainly will be closely monitoring the progression of this particular proposal." Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)'s technology and liberty program, said the FCC could not legally extend CALEA to cover the Internet without additional action by Congress. "CALEA does not apply to 'information services,' which was the then term of art for the Internet," Steinhardt said. "Voice over IP is just that, a voice service over the Net. CALEA should not, and so far has not, applied to VOIP." http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5056424.html

Afghanistan: Warlords Implicated in New Abuses Report Details Threats to Women's Rights, Freedom of Expression "Human rights abuses in Afghanistan are being committed by gunmen and warlords who were propelled into power by the United States and its coalition partners after the Taliban fell in 2001," said Brad Adams, executive director of the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch. "These men and others have essentially hijacked the country outside of Kabul. With less than a year to go before national elections, Afghanistan's human rights situation appears to be worsening." The 101-page report, "Killing You Is a Very Easy Thing for Us": Human Rights Abuses in Southeast Afghanistan, documents army and police troops kidnapping Afghans and holding them for ransom in unofficial prisons; breaking into households and robbing families; raping women, girls and boys; and extorting shopkeepers and bus, truck and taxi drivers. The report also describes political organizers, journalists and media editors being threatened with death, arrested and harassed by army, police and intelligence agents. The subject area of the report, the southeast of Afghanistan and Kabul city, is one of the most densely populated areas of Afghanistan. Because soldiers are targeting women and girls, many are staying indoors, especially in rural areas, making it impossible for them to attend school, go to work, or actively participate in the country's reconstruction. In many places, human rights abuses are driving many Afghan families to keep their girls out of school. The atmosphere of violence, along with resurgent religious fundamentalism in parts of the country, is endangering the most important human rights improvement since the end of the Taliban--the ability of girls to go back to school. "The fact is that most girls in Afghanistan are still not in school," said Adams. "In many cases, returning refugee families who sent their girls to school in Pakistan or Iran are afraid to do the same in Afghanistan." The testimony of victims and witnesses implicates soldiers and police under the command of many high-level military and political officials in Afghanistan. These include Mohammad Qasim Fahim, the Minister of Defense; Hazrat Ali, the military leader of the Eastern Region; Younis Qanooni, the Minister of Education; Burhanuddin Rabbani, the former president of Afghanistan; and Abdul Rabb al-Rasul Sayyaf, a powerful former mujahidin leader to whom many of the officials involved in the documented abuses in Kabul city and province remain loyal. The report urges the Afghan government to sideline and pressure abusive leaders and to seek more international assistance in its efforts. Human Rights Watch called on the United States, the United Kingdom, Iran, Russia and other external powers to end their support for local strongmen and commanders involved in human rights abuses. "External support for warlords is destabilizing Afghanistan," said Adams. "The United States and the United Kingdom, in particular, need to decide whether they are with President Karzai and other reformers in Kabul or with the warlords. The longer they wait, the more difficult it will be to loosen the warlords' grip on power." http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/07/afghan072903.htm

In March of two thousand three, John Ashcroft set the Bureau free, from its resposibility to even try for accuracy (in the name, of course, of security) Since now there is no penalty or legal culpability near five percent of our population are terrorists in the Bureau's estimation. To the rest of us it's obvious without accountability we lose our hard won liberty and even set the guilty free by reason of inanity.

Roots of Distrust: Betrayal, Real or Feared For all the hand-wringing over the decision to release photographs of the bloodied corpses of Uday and Qusay Hussein, it had to be done, to hear many Iraqis tell it � not just because of their fear that the old regime could return, but because of their memories of American duplicity in Iraq. When American officials describe the difficulties they face in Iraq, the failure to capture Saddam Hussein continues to be cited as a principal reason that insurgents feel emboldened to strike American soldiers. But in the view of many Iraqis � Sunni as well as Shiite, Baghdadis and rural folk � that is just half the picture. To them, the fear of Mr. Hussein, his henchmen and his loyalists is compounded enormously by the dishonesty and disloyalty they feel Americans showed to Mr. Hussein's antagonists during the gulf war in 1991, when American troops pulled back even as Iraqis were rising up to challenge his rule.� Given the depth of the United States' military commitment to Iraq, and its obvious importance to President Bush, Americans may be tempted to dismiss such sentiments as improbable paranoia. But consider the experience of a population that has had very little reliable information during the past 35 years, and has had far too much of rumor, conspiracy theories and propaganda. And, more to the point, terror. In such an environment, even good information becomes difficult to believe. Who can say for sure that it, too, isn't some form of calculated lie? What's more, distrust of Americans is a lesson many Iraqis learned the hard way. On Feb. 15, 1991, during the Persian Gulf war, President George H. W. Bush publicly encouraged "the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands, to force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside." American land forces soon thrust across southern Iraq to oust Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait, but when that goal had been accomplished, the Americans suspended offensive operations and offered Iraq a cease-fire. Days later, they stood by as Mr. Hussein sent his helicopters to quash uprisings, or intifadas, that were spreading quickly from Basra across southern Iraq. Mr. Hussein's forces also lashed out furiously at rebellious Kurds in the north. At the time, American policy was heavily influenced by fears that such rebellions could splinter Iraq and lead to Iranian influence in the south. During the uprisings, southern Iraqis killed Mr. Hussein's local henchmen and Baath officials in large cities like Kerbala and Najaf. Once the rebellions had been quelled, thousands of young men � and often whole families � who were suspected of disloyalty to Mr. Hussein were driven to mass grave sites, where they were machine-gunned or buried alive. Memories of the slaughter of 1991 are now being reinforced by excavations across the country of mass graves. News of them plays in a particularly corrosive way into news of the failure of the coalition forces to account for Saddam Hussein. Even as Americans try to bring everyday Iraqis into the coalition fold, the excavations remind the Iraqis of what could happen if the Americans don't fully uproot the old regime. Indeed, Baathists in hiding have already begun murdering some Iraqis who go to work for the Americans, even as taped messages of defiance from Saddam Hussein continue to surface. In Mosul, Nasser Hazim, no relation to the shopkeeper, walked with his children on Thursday morning in front of his home, near the site of the shootout, and said few Iraqis were bothered by the outcome. "Maybe one percent of the people liked Uday and Qusay," he said. "People aren't sorry. But they want some proof they have been killed. They don't want words and they don't want media. People aren't ready to help the Americans because they are always promising, always promising." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/weekinreview/27OPPE.html?pagewanted=all&position=

Amnesty International Report 2003 Human rights activists continue to face new challenges. The war on Iraq has dominated the international agenda, diverting attention from other vital human rights issues. "Forgotten" conflicts have taken a heavy toll on human rights and human lives � in C�te d'Ivoire, Colombia, Burundi, Chechnya and Nepal. "Iraq and Israel and the Occupied Territories are in the news � Ituri in the Democratic Republic of Congo is not, despite the imminent threat of genocide, said Irene Khan, Amnesty International's Secretary General. "Drawing attention to 'hidden' crises, protecting the rights of the 'forgotten victims' is the biggest challenge we face today." Governments have spent billions to strengthen national security and the "war on terror". Yet for millions of people, the real sources of insecurity are corruption, repression, discrimination, extreme poverty and preventable diseases. Human rights defenders also celebrated some successes during 2002, such as the establishment of the International Criminal Court, which marked a breakthrough in the struggle against impunity for the worst crimes known to humanity. The Amnesty International Report 2003 documents human rights abuses in 151 countries and territories during 2002. It is a contribution to the work of human rights defenders struggling to achieve a safer world, a world where human rights take priority over political, military or economic interests. http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/index-eng

Thousands Move to Jewish Settlements This Year The Jewish settler population grew by more than 5,000 in the first half of 2003, despite U.S.-backed peace moves requiring Israel to halt construction in Jewish settlements, Israel said on Thursday. Palestinians seek an independent state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip that Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war and the peace plan calls on Israel to dismantle unauthorized settler outposts and stop expansion of established settlements there. Advertisement The number of new settlers in the first half of 2003 showed a constant rate of population growth in the settlements that the international community says are illegal; a statement Israel disputes. Some 5,000 newcomers moved to the settlements in the second half of 2001 and in first half of 2002, while some 7,200 moved there in the second half of 2002, the Interior Ministry said. The ministry said 5,415 Israelis had moved to the settlements since January, with the ultra-Orthodox West Bank settlement of Beitar Illit seeing the largest jump of more than 1,000 newcomers. Betzalel Kahn, a Beitar Illit spokesman, said the draw for the ultra-Orthodox community was the cheap housing close to Jerusalem and not a bid to strengthen Israel's hold on the West Bank. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-mideast-settlers.html

Deal Offered on Child Tax Credit Senate Republicans offered a compromise to the House today intended to end the stalemate blocking an expansion of the child tax credit to low-income families, but Democrats said the proposal's benefits for wealthier families were too expensive to pass. The offer came with an increase in political activity just four days before the government will begin mailing $400-per-child checks to 25 million middle-income families eligible to receive the tax credit. On Thursday, President Bush is scheduled to visit a federal office in Philadelphia that is printing the checks, using the opportunity to remind voters that the checks are to stimulate the economy. Democrats plan a series of protests on and off the floors of Congress this week to demonstrate their anger that 6.5 million low-income families were left out of the economic stimulus package and will not be receiving the checks. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, said members of her party would make this "the week from hell" for Republicans. On Wednesday, as part of one protest, 700 children are scheduled to descend on the Capitol to make a similar point. Today's compromise proposal, made by the three Republican senators who are negotiating with the House on the credits, would give the $400-per-child credits to the 6.5 million minimum-wage families, a provision that would cost $3.5 billion. But the plan would also spend $20 billion to give increased credits to 25 million middle- and upper-income families from 2005 to 2007. The increase, to $1,000 from $600, is now scheduled to expire in 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/23/national/23TAX.html

The Great Catfish War For Tran Vu Long, who lives atop his floating catfish trap on the Mekong River near the border with Cambodia, the recent biannual harvest day was not the joyous payday it usually is. Mr. Long, a 35-year-old Vietnamese catfish farmer, sold his flapping fish � 40 tons' worth, all painstakingly weighed and carried in bamboo buckets onto the trading company's launch � at a loss of some $2,000, a small fortune here. Mr. Long, who stood sullenly to the side as his hired hands scooped out seemingly endless gaggles of fish from underneath the space that doubles as his living room, has Washington politicians to blame. "The United States preaches free trade, but as soon as we start benefiting from it, they change their tune," he said. His misfortunes are just another part of the tale of how wealthy countries that preach the gospel of free trade when it comes to finding markets for their manufactured goods can become wildly protectionist when their farmers face competition. The fate of Vietnam's catfish offers a warning to poorer nations short on leverage in the world trading system: beware of what may happen if you actually succeed at playing by the big boys' rules.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/22/opinion/22TUE1.html

Unjust, unwise, unAmerican America's plan to set up military commissions for the trials of terrorist suspects is a big mistake YOU are taken prisoner in Afghanistan, bound and gagged, flown to the other side of the world and then imprisoned for months in solitary confinement punctuated by interrogations during which you have no legal advice. Finally, you are told what is to be your fate: a trial before a panel of military officers. Your defence lawyer will also be a military officer, and anything you say to him can be recorded. Your trial might be held in secret. You might not be told all the evidence against you. You might be sentenced to death. If you are convicted, you can appeal, but only to yet another panel of military officers. Your ultimate right of appeal is not to a judge but to politicians who have already called everyone in the prison where you are held �killers� and the �worst of the worst�. Even if you are acquitted, or if your appeal against conviction succeeds, you might not go free. Instead you could be returned to your cell and held indefinitely as an �enemy combatant�. Sad to say, that is America's latest innovation in its war against terrorism: justice by �military commission�. Over-reaction to the scourge of terrorism is nothing new, even in established democracies. The British �interned� Catholics in Northern Ireland without trial; Israel still bulldozes the homes of families of suicide bombers. Given the barbarism of September 11th, it is not surprising that America should demand retribution�particularly against people caught fighting for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. American officials insist that the commissions will provide fair trials. The regulations published by the Pentagon stipulate that the accused will be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that he cannot be compelled to testify against himself, and that the trials should be open to the press and public if possible. The problem is that every procedural privilege the defendant is awarded in the regulations is provisional, a gift of the panel which is judging him. The regulations explicitly deny him any enforceable rights of the sort that criminal defendants won as long ago as the Middle Ages. Moreover, the planned commissions lack the one element indispensable to any genuinely fair proceeding�an independent judiciary, both for the trial itself and for any appeal against a conviction. The military officers sitting as judges belong to a single chain of command reporting to the secretary of defence and the president, who will designate any accused for trial before the commissions and will also hear any final appeals. For years, America has rightly condemned the use of similar military courts in other countries for denying due process. Why dispense with such basic rules of justice? Mr Bush's officials say they must balance the demand for fair trials with the need to gather intelligence to fend off further terrorist attacks. Nobody denies that fighting terrorism puts justice systems under extraordinary strain. But this dilemma has frequently been faced by others without resorting to military trials. The established procedure is to pass special anti-terrorism laws, altering trial rules somewhat to handle terrorist cases, but not abandoning established court systems, and trying to retain the basic rights of those accused as far as possible. Britain and Spain have done this. There is no reason why America's own civilian courts, which have successfully tried plenty of domestic and foreign terrorists (including Mr Lindh), could not be adapted to this purpose. http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1908281

Report on USA Patriot Act Alleges Civil Rights Violations �in the six-month period that ended on June 15, the inspector general's office had received 34 complaints of civil rights and civil liberties violations by department employees that it considered credible, including accusations that Muslim and Arab immigrants in federal detention centers had been beaten. The accused workers are employed in several of the agencies that make up the Justice Department, with most of them assigned to the Bureau of Prisons, which oversees federal penitentiaries and detention centers. The report said that credible accusations were also made against employees of the F.B.I., the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Immigration and Naturalization Service; most of the immigration agency was consolidated earlier this year into the Department of Homeland Security. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/21/politics/21JUST.html?pagewanted=all&position=

450 Settlers Hold 30,000 Palestinians Hostage Hebron, where about 450 Jewish settlers live in a few small enclaves among some 150,000 Palestinians, illustrates how complicated it will be to move forward with the peace plan when mutual suspicion runs so deep. Under a previous agreement, Israel is permitted to keep troops in the center of Hebron to guard the settlers, even if the soldiers leave other parts of town. This allows the military to maintain strict control over 30,000 Palestinians, including the Karakis, who live in central Hebron. The army pulled back in the outlying parts of Hebron last fall. But since then, 27 Israeli civilians and security force members have been killed in the area, according to David Wilder, a spokesman for the settlers. "Any withdrawal of troops is a recipe for disaster," Mr. Wilder said. "Every time the soldiers pull out, Israelis get killed. There's much more Israeli security here today than three years ago. It's unfortunate, but it's absolutely necessary." Hebron has long stirred Jewish-Arab tensions. Arab rioters killed 67 Jews here in 1929. A Jewish settler, Baruch Goldstein, shot dead 29 Muslim worshipers in 1994 at the town's most important shrine, the Cave of the Patriarchs, which is sacred to Jews, Muslims and Christians. Soldiers now keep the Israeli and Palestinian sides completely separate. Mr. Karaki estimates his neighborhood has been under curfew for close to half of the past 33 months. The men have been able to work only sporadically. Schooling has been disrupted. The market has been closed. Even when the curfew is lifted, as has been the case for the past three weeks, soldiers still block most roads. The holy site is just a block away, but requires a roundabout journey of several miles to reach. The family acknowledges a powerful dependency on a satellite dish delivering 347 television channels. "If we didn't have this, we would explode," said Mr. Karaki, adding that it is usually tuned to Al Jazeera and other Arab news channels. "We have all become expert political analysts, but we are sick of the news." Eight babies have been born to the clan since the fighting began, and three more are expected by the end of the month. Three weddings have brought young brides into the family. "We have no work, no entertainment," said Fahmi Karaki, 52, another of the brothers. "There's nothing to do but make babies." The population boomlet has strained the limits of the compound. "We have reached the point where some people need to live outside," said Abdel Wahab Karaki, a father of 10 and grandfather of 14. "If someone wants to marry, we say, `Look for a house elsewhere.' " The two homes are spacious, well appointed and shockingly neat considering all the youngsters. The children have few toys and dart around in clusters, entertaining themselves on the blacktop between the homes, each with three levels. Small gardening plots just inside the walls have grapes, figs and lemons. School is out now, and a curfew is in effect only on Fridays and Saturdays. Still, the children have nowhere to go because soldiers block most streets. Ayman Karaki, 19, who works part time at a metal factory, rolled his eyes when asked if there was anywhere to go in the evenings. "I spend my life here with my cousins," he said. "I used to have friends in other parts of Hebron, and we played soccer or watched matches. Now I can't do anything like that." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/21/international/middleeast/21HEBR.html?pagewanted=all&position=

In Najaf, a Sudden Anti-U.S. Storm Until now, interactions between the Americans and the Iraqis in Najaf have been calm, free of the random violence rampant in the country's Sunni heartland. But a sudden storm erupted on Saturday after Moktada al-Sadr, the scion of a clan of beloved clerics and the most vocal supporter of Iranian-style theocracy in Iraq, asserted that American forces were encircling his home. They were bent on arresting him, his aides announced, after an incendiary sermon on Friday in which he rejected the American-appointed Governing Council and called for the formation of an Islamic army. It was, said Lt. Col. Christopher C. Conlin, the commanding officer here, a deliberate misunderstanding. There had indeed been Apache helicopters clattering overhead and extra troops on the streets, but that was to provide security for a visit by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, Colonel Conlin said. The temporary ramping up of the United States presence could not be explained in advance for security reasons, and afterward the American officer relied on members of Najaf's City Council to pass the word. He wished the demonstrators would take their complaints to the new City Council. The abrupt storm this weekend underscored a point made by a review of the Iraq reconstruction effort released last week by a panel from the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. The lack of Iraqis involved in the reconstruction at all levels, widespread unemployment and woefully inadequate means of communicating what is happening to the country's 24 million people have combined to fuel an ever-higher level of frustration and anger about the American presence. Men like Mr. Sadr and his followers, determined to harness that frustration to wrest a greater say in Iraq's future, are stepping into the void. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/21/international/worldspecial/21NAJA.html?pagewanted=all&position=

Tense Meeting of Sharon and Abbas Ends in Stalemate On June 29, Israel withdrew from parts of the Gaza Strip and on July 2 from most of Bethlehem in the West Bank, pulling back in accordance with the peace plan from areas that, under the 1993 Oslo accords, it had previously ceded to Palestinian control. Palestinian forces resumed responsibility for policing in those areas. Israel has refused to withdraw from other areas, which it seized last year in response to a series of suicide bombings, until it determines that Mr. Abbas is dismantling militant groups. Israeli officials acknowledged that a result of that position was that most West Bank Palestinians had seen little tangible change as yet. They said Israel's defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, would consider easing some checkpoints and other restrictions on Palestinian travel through the West Bank. In a statement, Mr. Sharon's office said he had told Mr. Abbas "that Israel cannot ignore that terror and incitement have decreased of late, and it is noticeable that the Palestinians are making an effort regarding this." But he said terrorists had been rearming during the lull since late June, when the three main Palestinian factions announced that they were suspending attacks on Israelis. Mr. Sharon said Mr. Abbas needed to "take immediate and definite action to dismantle the terror organizations." Once that happened, he said, "Israel's ability to answer the needs of the Palestinians will be significantly increased." For now, Israelis are taking advantage of the Palestinian groups' declared cease-fire. Downtown Jerusalem was crowded late Saturday night with young people thronging to bars and restaurants. Mr. Abbas said in the interview that the governing Palestinian Authority was also using the cease-fire to rebuild. He said that it would strictly enforce the cease-fire and collect weapons from people carrying them in the streets, but that it would not provoke a civil conflict with Hamas or Islamic Jihad by, for example, searching homes for guns, as Israel demands. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/21/international/middleeast/21MIDE.html?pagewanted=all&position=

How Powerful Can 16 Words Be? "We did not go to war because of mustard gas or Scuds," said Joseph Cirincione, senior analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "We went to war because President Bush told the nation that Saddam had, or might already have, a nuclear bomb, and we could not afford to wait. Now it's obvious that's not true and there was no solid evidence it was true at the time." "Would we have gone to war if the president hadn't uttered those 16 words?" he asked. "Clearly, the answer is yes." But, he added: "We wouldn't have gone to war without the nuclear threat. The president's case for war was centered on the nuclear threat." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/weekinreview/20MARQ.html?pagewanted=all&position=

Why Liberals Are No Fun by FRANK RICH It wasn't in prime time, and the ratings weren't even on the charts. But in the 24/7 broadcasting arena of political talk, where liberals are on the losing side at least 22/7, they must take whatever scraps they can get. For them, it was a rare red-letter day when Al Franken, appearing on Book TV on C-Span 2, landed a rhetorical uppercut to the jaw of Liberal Nemesis No. 1, Bill O'Reilly, and left him even more senseless than usual. How can Democrats be so ineffectual in the media in which they would seem to have a home-court cultural advantage? The talk-show playing field is littered with liberal casualties: Mario Cuomo, Alan Dershowitz, Phil Donahue. Why waste money on more broadcasting flops? The conventional wisdom has it that liberals will never make it in this arena because they are humorless, their positions are too complicated to explain, and some powerful media companies (whether Mr. Murdoch's News Corporation or the radio giant Clear Channel) want to put up roadblocks. Others argue that liberals are so down and out that they don't even know what they believe any more. "The reason conservative media outlets work is that they have a mass audience united by a discrete ideology," says Tucker Carlson, who affably represents the right on CNN's "Crossfire" and is one of those I've queried about this topic in recent months. "They believe in nine things. They all know the catechism." In Mr. Carlson's view, Democrats are all over the ideological map in the post-Clinton era, and there can be no effective media without a coherent message. But the case against liberal talk success isn't a slam-dunk. After all, conservatives have their talk-show fiascos too, as evidenced by MSNBC, the lame would-be Fox clone that, as the comedian Jon Stewart has said, doesn't "deserve all those letters" in its name. MSNBC's just-canceled right-wing star, Michael Savage, drew smaller audiences on the channel than Mr. Donahue did. What's more, there actually are liberals who retain a sense of humor (witness Mr. Franken, Mr. Stewart and Michael Moore), while conservative stars are not infrequently humor-free (witness Mr. O'Reilly). Norman Lear goes so far as to argue that liberals are intrinsically funnier than conservatives. "Most comedy comes from those who see humor in the human condition," he says. "Most who traffic in the stuff could be called humanists. The far-right talk hosts spew a kind of venom and ridicule that passes for funnybone material with the program executives that hire them." If humor doesn't bring liberals talk-show success, is the problem that they lack rage? Cal Thomas, the conservative columnist and Fox host, speaks for many when he argues that "liberals don't have the anger" that conservatives have stored up from their years in the political and media wilderness. But this, too, is changing: Pinch most Democrats these days, and they'll vomit vituperation about President Bush as crazed as that of some Clinton haters of a decade ago.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/arts/20RICH.html