Signs Grow of Innocent People Being Executed, Judge Says A federal judge in Boston said yesterday that there was mounting evidence innocent people were being executed. But he declined to rule the death penalty unconstitutional. "In the past decade, substantial evidence has emerged to demonstrate that innocent individuals are sentenced to death, and undoubtedly executed, much more often than previously understood," the judge, Mark L. Wolf of Federal District Court in Boston, wrote in a decision allowing a capital case to proceed to trial. He cited the exonerations of more than 100 people on death row based on DNA and other evidence. "The day may come," the judge said, "when a court properly can and should declare the ultimate sanction to be unconstitutional in all cases. However, that day has not yet come." Judge Wolf wrote that the crucial question for courts was "how large a fraction of the executed must be innocent to offend contemporary standards of decency." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/national/12DEAT.html

The Art of the False Impression In the superamplified media din created by the likes of Arnold and Kobe and Ben and Jen, it's very difficult for the former vice president, a certified square, to break into the national conversation. That says a lot about us and the direction we're headed in as a nation. You can agree with Mr. Gore's politics or not, but some of the points he's raising, especially with regard to President Bush's credibility on such crucial issues as war and terror and the troubled economy, deserve much closer attention. "Millions of Americans now share a feeling that something pretty basic has gone wrong in our country, and that some important American values are being placed at risk," said Mr. Gore. Keeping his language polite, the former vice president asserted that the Bush administration had allowed "false impressions" to somehow make their way into the public's mind. Enormous numbers of Americans thus came to believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks and was actively supporting Al Qaeda; that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were an imminent threat, and Iraq was on the verge of building nuclear weapons; that U.S. troops would be welcomed with open arms, and there was little danger of continued casualties in a prolonged guerrilla war. The essence of Mr. Gore's speech was that these corrosive false impressions were part of a strategic pattern of distortion that the Bush administration used to create support not just for the war, but for an entire ideologically driven agenda that overwhelmingly favors the president's wealthy supporters and is driving the federal government toward a long-term fiscal catastrophe. What if Mr. Gore is right? There's something at least a little crazy about an environment in which people are literally stumbling over one another to hear what Arnold Schwarzenegger has to say about the budget crisis in California (short answer: nothing), while ignoring what a thoughtful former vice president has to say about the budget and the economy of the U.S. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/11/opinion/11HERB.html

Bush Misuses Science Data, Report Says The Bush administration persistently manipulates scientific data to serve its ideology and protect the interests of its political supporters, a report by the minority staff of the House Committee on Government Reform says. The 40-page report, which was prepared for Representative Henry A. Waxman, the committee's ranking Democrat, accused the administration of compromising the scientific integrity of federal institutions that monitor food and medicine, conduct health research, control disease and protect the environment. On many topics, including global warming and sex education, the administration "has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings," the report said. "The administration's political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the president, inaccurate responses to Congress, altered Web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications and the gagging of scientists," the report added. Some of the examples from the report's 21 subject areas have already been reported in the media. They include the Environmental Protection Agency's decision last year to delete a section on global warming in its comprehensive report on the state of the environment and President Bush's overstatement of the number of stem cell lines available for research under controls imposed by the administration. The report's authors say federal agencies have jeopardized scientific integrity in many ways, including stacking scientific advisory committees with unqualified officials or industry representatives, blocking publication of findings that could harm corporate interests and defending controversial decisions with misleading information. With respect to sex education, the report said, the Bush administration has advanced what the report described as an unproven "abstinence only" agenda and abolished an initiative at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that listed scientifically validated safe-sex techniques that included using condoms. On agricultural pollution, the Agriculture Department has issued tight controls on government scientists seeking to publish information that could have an adverse impact on industry, the report said. It cited the case of a microbiologist, James Zahn, who was denied permission to publish findings on the dangers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria near hog farms in the Midwest. On the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the report said that Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, a firm advocate of drilling for oil in the region, misrepresented to Congress her agency's scientific opinion on how drilling would affect the region's caribou population. She told lawmakers most of the caribou calving occurred outside the refuge; her scientists said the opposite was true. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/08/politics/08REPO.html

Justice Dept. to Monitor Judges for Sentences Shorter Than Guidelines Suggest The Justice Department told a federal court administrator today that it would begin compiling data on judges who give lighter sentences than federal guidelines prescribe, a move that critics see as an effort to limit judicial independence by creating a "blacklist" of judges. The new policy will require prosecutors to notify Justice Department officials in Washington whenever a federal judge issues a sentence that falls below sentencing guidelines. The notification will set in motion a review of whether an appeal of the judge's sentence should be filed. The policy, first reported on Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, is part of a bill signed into law by President Bush in April that seeks to make it tougher for federal judges to depart from sentencing guidelines. The Justice Department, in a letter today to the head of the administrative office of the United States Courts, said it developed the policy as part of the new law's requirements rather than accept a more "onerous" option allowed by Congress. That option would have required the Justice Department to go to Congress with a detailed report each time a judge broke from the sentencing guidelines. In 2001, federal judges handed out sentences below guidelines in 35 percent of the 54,851 cases examined, the United States Sentencing Commission found. But more than half the departures resulted from plea agreements, and prosecutors appealed the sentences in only a tiny fraction of cases, officials said. Mary Beth Buchanan, the United States attorney for the Pittsburgh area and the leader of a Justice Department advisory committee that helped develop the policy, said in an interview that there would probably be some increase in appeals by the Justice Department over sentences as a result of the new policy. But she added: "I don't think it will be a dramatic increase. Unless we get a tremendous increase in our resources, we wouldn't have the capability to do a lot more." Some lawmakers, judges and legal observers, however, said they were deeply troubled by the shift. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, accused Mr. Ashcroft of requiring prosecutors "to participate in the establishment of a blacklist of judges." He called the policy "the latest salvo in the Ashcroft Justice Department's ongoing attack on judicial independence and fairness" in sentencing. John S. Martin, a federal district judge in Manhattan who announced in June that he would retire in part because he saw the judiciary's independence as threatened, said the Justice Department policy was "based on the erroneous premise that a lot of judges around the county are just going off the reservation." He added: "The problem is that a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington looking at the statistics won't know the facts of these cases. They're taking a very mechanistic approach to the whole process." Nicholas M. Gess, a senior Justice Department official in the Clinton administration, said the policy fit a pattern in the Ashcroft Justice Department of centralizing decision-making in Washington, a trend also seen in death penalty cases. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/08/politics/08JUDG.html

President puts himself in rare company--Hoover's July 29, 2003 BY JESSE JACKSON In upcoming weeks, President Bush and his Cabinet members will fan out across the country to tout the administration's economic plan. Republican legislators will make the economy the centerpiece of their ''message'' in the August recess. They want credit for the tax rebate checks that people will start receiving in the mail, will point to the uptick in the stock market, and predict that a ''robust recovery'' is just around the corner. And in chorus, they'll praise President Bush's tax cuts for turning the economy around. Great song and dance, but where are the jobs? This administration is the first since Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression to lose jobs rather than create them. Since Bush came to office, the economy has shed more than 3 million private-sector jobs. And even with the added employment that came from huge increases in military and homeland security spending, the country has still lost more than 2.5 million jobs since Bush took office.� http://www.suntimes.com/output/jesse/cst-edt-jesse29.html

After the war, American soldiers referred to Iraqi looters as "Ali Babas." Now, the name is more commonly used by Iraqis to describe the soldiers. Iraqis Struggle to Retrieve Goods From G.I.'s After the war, American soldiers referred to Iraqi looters as "Ali Babas." Now, the name is more commonly used by Iraqis to describe the soldiers. This notion is flickering through the capital, propelled by word of mouth and amplified by anti-Western elements ready to exploit any hint of American misbehavior. Many Iraqis are convinced that the soldiers are here to rob them of money, jewelry and cars. American military officials refused to discuss specific charges of theft by soldiers and disciplinary actions, but said that in most instances property believed stolen was more likely to have been confiscated during raids or at checkpoints. That distinction matters little to Iraqis trying to recover their property. Sgt. Thad Farlow, a civil affairs officer whose unit runs a civilian assistance center, said the complaints he heard stemmed from a mixture of negligence and actual misconduct. "It's kind of hard to win the hearts and minds when soldiers are taking $650 Thuraya phones," he said, referring to a type of satellite telephone. Iraqi community leaders warn that the perception is poisoning Iraqi attitudes, buttressing a sense of powerlessness and creating opposition to the American-led occupation, even among Iraqis who welcomed the ouster of Saddam Hussein. But the American forces have done little to refute the rumors of theft. Nor is there a centralized system to help Iraqis recover their property or to answer Iraqi complaints. On any given day, Iraqis can be found pleading at the gates of military bases or in civil affairs offices: an old woman who laments that her savings were taken from her son on the road to Baghdad; a young man who says he gave a Thuraya phone to a soldier for a call and did not get it back; a cigarette merchant who says he returned to a checkpoint to recover his car the day after it was confiscated, only to find that both car and checkpoint had vanished. "I always used to have the radio by my ear just waiting for when the Americans come here," said Ruslia Rumdhan Niima, who was on her fifth trip to Baghdad from the countryside to search for the 7 million dinars she claims Americans took from her son. "Now that they came, this is what happens." Part of the problem is a cultural misunderstanding. In Iraq's cash-based society, it is not unusual for people to carry stacks of dinars and a gun to protect them. But soldiers who discovered piles of cash (a million dinars equals only $700) and an AK-47 often assumed the owner was up to no good. Even now, some soldiers seem not to realize that many Iraqis are carrying on their business � buying houses, selling cars and livestock � often in cash. "Where would an Iraqi get $3,000?" one sergeant asked when the question of confiscation was raised. "I can't even get $3,000." Assad Ibrahim Mehdi, a vegetable seller, is one of the few complainants who can muster a witness. That person, a military translator, has signed an affidavit attesting that during a raid in April, soldiers took the family's savings � about $2,000 in dinars � and an old tin chocolate box containing the deed to his family's house, their citizenship papers and their ration card. The soldiers left no receipt, and Mr. Mehdi considers his property stolen. "What else would you call it?" he said on a recent day, after waiting three hours in the sun to see a soldier about his complaint. "I don't know what they'll do to the people who've been looted who haven't got witnesses," said Elizabeth Hodgkin, a representative of Amnesty International who is helping Mr. Mehdi. "I've heard many people say, `They took $30,000, but I don't think I'll ever see it again.' " http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/03/international/worldspecial/03THEF.html

Betting on Terror: What Markets Can Reveal Anyone looking for a good bet last week was offered one by an online futures exchange: Would John M. Poindexter, who heads the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a research arm of the Pentagon known as Darpa, be able to keep his job after the furor over the aborted plan to start a market that would trade terrorism futures? Within days, the answer appeared to be that he would not, as Defense Department officials said Mr. Poindexter would resign within a few weeks. Assuming he does leave by the end of August, some lucky traders stand to make more than 10 times their investment. If that bet was not to your taste, there were plenty of others available. Would weapons of mass destruction be found in Iraq by the end of September? Would Saddam Hussein be captured? How about Osama bin Laden? Would the terrorism alert level in the United States be raised or lowered? Will Kobe Bryant be convicted? The existence of such contracts raises perhaps the most overlooked question of the debate on the proposed Defense Department project, the Policy Analysis Market, which would have allowed people to speculate on such issues as whether there would be an increase in terrorism or a collapse of the Jordanian economy. Why was the government needed to get this market going? The answer is that Uncle Sam had been picked to play the role of designated loser in the gambling. The existing place to make such bets, www.tradesports.com, is an Irish market that can be traded by anyone with a credit card and an Internet connection. There are no market makers, just traders online around the world. Tradesports dreams up contracts based on what it thinks might be interesting, and puts them up for trading. But it does not guarantee that you can find someone to take the other side of your bet. The Policy Analyst Market was going to do just that. The market maker was to be a computer, financed by the government, that was willing to offer a price for any wager on a subject within its bailiwick. If bettors wanted to wager a lot of money on something, the computer would steadily raise the price. One possible wager that was mentioned by Charles Polk, the president of NetExchange, a San Diego company that proposed the idea to the government, was on whether Hamas would join the Palestinian Authority government, a move that he took for granted would indicate it had renounced terrorism. The market-making computer was supposed to be willing not only to take bets on that, but on such related topics as whether the Jordanian economy would boom if that happened. One risk to the market maker would be insider trading. Somebody within Hamas could make some money by placing bets before the decision was made public. That would be all to the good, as Mr. Polk saw it. "We welcome insider trading," he said last week, since it would move prices and send a signal to the Defense Department, and anyone else watching the market, that conditions were changing. By being willing to lose money on the market maker, the Defense Department would be able to get information. One reason some people thought the whole idea stupid was that betting on an increase in terrorism might be a losing bet even if it turned out to be a winner. "Isn't that going to guarantee a knock on the door by the Feds?" asked James Chanos of Kynikos Associates, a money manager who specializes in selling stocks short � that is, betting that a stock price will decline. He recalled the search for evidence � ultimately unsuccessful � that terrorists might have shorted stocks before the Sept. 11 attacks. The people who designed that market thought of that possibility, and proposed that the names of traders be kept secret from the Defense Department. Want to bet whether that secrecy would have been maintained if there was a new terrorist attack? And anyway, said Robin Hanson, the assistant professor of economics at George Mason University who dreamed up this idea and persuaded NetExchange to propose it to the Defense Department, there were plenty of bets that would not offend the government. "The F.B.I. would not knock on my door," he said, "if I bet that if we invade Iraq there will be more terrorist deaths in the United States." For now, the idea is dead, with the Defense Department having abandoned it quickly once the public ridicule began. But Professor Hanson has not lost hope. "I think sometime in the next 10 years, this technology will be applied somewhere," he said. It would not, he said, have to be a public market. Perhaps, Professor Hanson mused, it could be open only to employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, who would place their bets and, in the process, let the government know what consensus there was among intelligence professionals. That, he said, could sometimes be different from what the top of the agency was saying. For example, it would be interesting to see how likely the lower-level intelligence analysts think it is that biological, chemical or nuclear weapons will be found in Iraq anytime soon. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/03/weekinreview/03NORR.html

Bush's Tax Cuts Have Been the Best Job Program China and India Have Ever Had Job Losses in July Add to Mixed Economic Signs The economy shed 44,000 jobs in July, the Labor Department reported yesterday, though the overall unemployment rate edged down. The rate fell, to 6.2 percent from 6.4 percent in June, only because the number of people looking for jobs declined faster than the number of people holding them. People have been withdrawing from the labor market in greater numbers because of their poor prospects. The latest data on job losses, which came a day after the Commerce Department's mildly encouraging report on economic growth last quarter, left economists wondering what to believe.� The lack of improvement in the labor market despite some economic progress has added fuel to the battle fires in Washington and has frustrated job seekers across the country. Since the most recent recession ended in November 2001, the nation's payrolls have shrunk by more than a million workers. In a telephone interview yesterday, Elaine L. Chao, the secretary of labor, called the latest figures "confusing" and attributed the dwindling of the labor force to unusual seasonal factors. She said the tax credit checks recently mailed to families with children would help to stimulate demand; she also said she hoped Congress would approve $3,000 grants to help the long-term unemployed with training and relocation. Democrats in Washington charged that the three waves of tax cuts advocated by the White House had done little to ensure that new jobs accompanied the economic recovery. "This is the almost predictable consequence of a policy of tax cuts that have not strengthened the country but weakened it," said Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. "We sent checks out, but we neglected millions who have family and are struggling. If we're serious about getting the economy going, we've got to start targeting tax relief to middle- and low-income families who will go out and create demand." The labor force thinned by 556,000 people last month, with the number of employed workers dipping by 260,000. These declines followed gains of comparable size in June. The unemployment rate dropped for almost every demographic group except whites for the second month in a row. Among whites, the rate remained at 5.5 percent, its highest level since April 1994. Payrolls contracted for the sixth straight month. Along with the July decline, the Labor Department revised its June report to reflect a decrease of 72,000 jobs rather than 30,000. Jobs in the manufacturing of long-lasting goods like motorcycles and microwave ovens slipped by 54,000, according to the survey of payrolls, which provides more reliable estimates of employment month to month. Wholesale and retail trade combined lost about 29,000 positions. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/02/business/02ECON.html

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