NATIONAL & WORLD DIGEST December 5, 2007

**IF YOU CAN'T ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE, CONTACT US AT rays.list@comcast.net and we'll be happy to send the full article.


=

Forwarded by Susan Frishkorn
frishkorn@bellsouth.net

Common Dreams

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/04/5598/

Our Troops Must Leave Iraq

by Walter Cronkite and David Krieger
Published on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

The American people no longer support the war in Iraq. The war is beingcarried on by a stubborn president who, like Lyndon Johnson and RichardNixon during the Vietnam War, does not want to lose. But from the beginningthis has been an ill-considered and poorly prosecuted war that, like theVietnam War, has diminished respect for America. We believe Mr. Bush wouldlike to drag the war on long enough to hand it off to another president.

The war in Iraq reminds us of the tragedy of the Vietnam War. Both warsbegan with false assertions by the president to the American people and theCongress. Like Vietnam, the Iraq War has introduced a new vocabulary: "shockand awe," "mission accomplished," "the surge." Like Vietnam, we havedestroyed cities in order to save them. It is not a strategy for success.

The Bush administration has attempted to forestall ending the war by puttingin more troops, but more troops will not solve the problem. We have lost thehearts and minds of most of the Iraqi people, and victory no longer seems tobe even a remote possibility. It is time to end our occupation of Iraq, andbring our troops home.

This war has had only limited body counts. There are reports that more thanone million Iraqis have died in the war. These reports cannot becorroborated because the US military does not make public the number of theIraqi dead and injured. There are also reports that some four million Iraqishave been displaced and are refugees either abroad or within their owncountry. Iraqis with the resources to leave the country have left. They arefrightened. They don't trust the US, its allies or its mercenaries toprotect them and their interests.

more..



=

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

https://www.dccc.org/contribute/rove/?id=120407_bw

Did you see the showdown between DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen and KarlRove on FOX News Sunday?

We told you this weekend about Rove's recent lies, his claims that Congresspushed the President to war in Iraq in a ludicrous attempt to erase the factthat President Bush started this disastrous, failed war.

Republicans know what a mess they have made in Iraq -- we can't let themrewrite history now.

Chairman Van Hollen took him to task and demanded he retract theseoutrageous statements. While Rove did a verbal tap dance, cherry pickinginformation, the Chairman pulled out his trump card. This quote from AriFleischer:

"It was definitely the Bush administration that set it in motion anddetermined the timing, not the Congress. I think Karl in this instance justhas his facts wrong."

Rove looks dumbfounded that someone finally stood up to him and called outhis fabrications face-to-face. Watch the video of Chris Van Hollen andcontribute to help us continue holding Bush's Rubber Stamp Republicansaccountable. Don't let them rewrite history and use their spin to promotetheir concocted story.

Watch highlights of Chairman Van Hollen taking Karl Rove to task.

https://www.dccc.org/contribute/rove/?id=120407_bw



=

NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/washington/05intel.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

With New Data, U.S. Revises Its View of Iran

By MARK MAZZETTI
December 5, 2007

WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 - How could American intelligence agencies haveoverstated Iran's intentions in 2005 so soon after being reprimanded formaking similar errors involving Iraq?

The spy agencies had swallowed hard and pledged to do better after apresidential commission in March 2005 issued a blistering accounting of theintelligence failures leading to the Iraq war.

But a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that was issued two monthslater said Iran's leaders were working tirelessly to acquire a nuclearweapon - a finding that, like the prewar intelligence on Iraq, has now beenacknowledged to have been wrong in one of its chief conclusions.

Current and former intelligence officials insist that much of the 2005 Iranreport still holds up to scrutiny.

At the same time, they acknowledge that in retrospect, some of itsconclusions appear to have been thinly sourced and were based on methodsless rigorous than were ultimately required under an intelligence overhaulthat did not begin in earnest until later.

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/opinion/05wed1.html?ref=opinion

Good and Bad News About Iran

Editorial
December 5, 2007

There is a lot of good news in the latest intelligence assessment aboutIran. Tehran, we are now told, halted its secret nuclear weapons program in2003, which means that President Bush has absolutely no excuse for going towar against Iran. We are also relieved that the intelligence community isnow willing to question its own assumptions and challenge the White House'sfevered rhetoric. The president and his aides are apparently too worriedabout getting caught again shaving intelligence to stop that.

But there's also a lot of worrisome news in there that must not beoverlooked.

First, the report says "with high confidence" that Iran did have a secretnuclear weapons program and that it stopped only after it got caught and wasthreatened with international punishment. Even now, Tehran's scientists areworking to master the skills to make nuclear fuel - the hardest part ofbuilding a weapon.

Anyone who wants to give the Iranians the full benefit of the doubt shouldread the last four years of reports from United Nations' nuclear inspectorsabout Iran's 18-year history of hiding and dissembling. Or last month'sreport, which criticized Tehran for providing "diminishing" information andaccess to its current program. In one of those ironies that would bedelicious if it didn't involve nuclear weapons, an official close to theinspection agency told The Times yesterday that the new American assessmentmight be too generous to Iran.

Unfortunately, this report - preceded by months of White House saberrattling - is going to make it harder to keep up the international pressureon Iran to curtail its fuel program and cooperate fully with inspectors, theonly way to ensure that it doesn't get back into the secret weaponsbusiness.

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/opinion/05friedman.html?ref=opinion

Intercepting Iran's Take on America

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Op-Ed Columnist
December 5, 2007

There are two intelligence analyses that are relevant to the balance ofpower between the U.S. and Iran - one is the latest U.S. assessment of Iran,which certainly gave a much more complex view of what is happening there.The other is the Iranian National Intelligence Estimate of America, which -my guess - would read something like this:

To: President Ahmadinejad

From: The Iranian Ministry of Intelligence

Subject: America

As you'll recall, in the wake of 9/11, we were extremely concerned that the
U.S. would develop a covert program to end its addiction to oil, which wouldbe the greatest threat to Iranian national security. In fact, after Bush's2006 State of the Union, in which he decried America's oil addiction, we had"high confidence" that a comprehensive U.S. clean energy policy wouldemerge. We were wrong.

Our fears that the U.S. was engaged in a covert "Manhattan Project" toachieve energy independence have been "assuaged." America's ManhattanProject turns out to be largely confined to the production of corn ethanolin Iowa, which, our analysts have confirmed from cellphone interceptsbetween lobbyists and Congressmen, is nothing more than amultibillion-dollar payoff to big Iowa farmers and agro-businesses.

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/opinion/05wed2.html?ref=opinion

A Key Moment for Justice

Editorial
December 5, 2007

The Supreme Court hears arguments today in a case that offers a chance toredress an enormous wrong done by President Bush and Congress when theydenied justice to a group of prisoners. It is the latest phase of a battleover whether detainees held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to bringa habeas corpus challenge to their confinement. The narrow legal issues havechanged since the court considered the question last year, but the principleremains the same: The detainees have a right to have a court determinewhether the government has a valid basis for imprisoning them.

Habeas corpus is an important bulwark against authoritarianism, so vitalthat the Constitution expressly protects it. Since the Sept. 11 attacks,however, the Bush administration has fought to weaken it both for foreignersheld by the United States and for American citizens.

The fight over Guantánamo has been especially heated. The administration hasmade a variety of arguments for why the detainees have no habeas rights.Notably, it claimed that the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, is outsidethe reach of American law. So far, the Supreme Court has rejected theadministration's arguments. It specifically ruled that the naval base isfunctionally part of the United States.

The issue today is whether, after the Supreme Court's rulings, Congresssucceeded in stripping the detainees of their habeas rights when it passedthe Military Commissions Act. The act authorized military commissions tohear the detainees' cases and set up a hollowed-out appeals process in thefederal courts. At the same time, the act intended to strip the courts ofjurisdiction to hear habeas petitions filed by the detainees.

The Supreme Court should rule that the detainees still have the right tohabeas review. The Constitution's framers put strict limits on Congress'spower to tamper with habeas corpus. The suspension clause says it cannot besuspended "unless, when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safetymay require it." Since there was neither, Congress had no right to suspendhabeas rights, much less take them away permanently.

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/opinion/05woodward.html?ref=opinion

Mitt Romney Is No Jack Kennedy

By KENNETH L. WOODWARD
Op-Ed Contributor
December 5, 2007

INEVITABLY, Mitt Romney's long-awaited speech on faith and religious freedomtomorrow at the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M will becompared to John F. Kennedy's 1960 speech to Protestant ministers inHouston, just 90 miles away. Like Kennedy, Mr. Romney faces questions abouthis religious beliefs and how they might affect his judgments as president.Also like Kennedy, Mr. Romney realizes - and polls demonstrate - that asizable number of voters (again, mostly Southern white Protestants) opposehim because of his religion.

But the differences are more pronounced than the similarities. In 1960,Kennedy had already won the Democratic nomination and, as a Catholic, faceda phalanx of religious groups working publicly against his election. Amongthem was Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Churchand State, which was opposed in principle to any Catholic as president. AnEpiscopal bishop, James A. Pike of California, was its best-known spokesman.

Five days before Kennedy's speech, moreover, a group of prominent Protestantclergymen headed by Norman Vincent Peale and L. Nelson Bell, the editor ofChristianity Today and father-in-law of Billy Graham (Mr. Graham himselfbacked out at the last minute), mobilized the National Conference ofCitizens for Religious Freedom specifically to block Kennedy's bid. Inaddition, the Baptist state conventions in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona andTexas had already voted to oppose any Catholic candidate for president. Inshort, Kennedy knew his adversaries, some of whom were seated right in frontof him.

Mr. Romney, in contrast, faces no organized religious opposition he canallude to, no anti-Mormon campaign he can shame - as Kennedy adroitly did -for blatant religious bigotry. On the contrary, most Americans still do notknow much about the Mormon Church, and many of them are willing to acceptMr. Romney's assertion that Mormons are Christians, albeit of a highlyunorthodox kind. Unlike Kennedy, he has no ready audience to convince.

In 1960, Protestants who opposed a Catholic in the White House had specificissues Kennedy could address. One was aid to parochial schools, whichKennedy opposed. Another was religious liberty, to which the Catholic Churchdid not give its official support until Vatican Council II in 1965. Indeed,according to John McGreevy, a historian at Notre Dame, Kennedy's office hadto consult with the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray to find outwhether a Catholic could "support, in principle, the religion clauses of theConstitution." Murray assured him that he could.

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/talking-the-walk/index.html?ref=opinion

Talking the Walk

By Chris Suellentrop
December 4, 2007, 6:36 pm

Tags: worth a click

Robert Reich, who served as secretary of labor under President Clinton, isdispirited by "the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa" made by thecampaign of Hillary Clinton, whom he calls "my old friend." Reich writes onhis personal blog:

Yesterday, HRC suggested [Obama] lacks courage. "There's a big differencebetween our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we'rewilling to fight for," she told reporters in Iowa, saying Iowa voters willhave a choice "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walkedthe walk." Then asked whether she intended to raise questions about [Obama]'s character, she said: "It's beginning to look a lot like that."

I just don't get it. If there's anyone in the race whose history showsunique courage and character, it's Barack Obama. HRC's campaign, bycontrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster,Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seekthe political center, which is exactly what she's been doing.

William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, points to Mike Huckabee's rising status in national polls, in addition to polls in the early states,and says that the former Arkansas governor really could win the epublicanpresidential nomination. "Huckabee moved from last to second duringNovember," Kristol writes at Campaign Standard, his magazine's 2008 blog. Headds:

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/us/politics/05franken.html?hp

Comedian Says Minnesota Run Is a Serious One

By MONICA DAVEY
December 5, 2007

ST. PAUL - Even as Al Franken stretches out his big doughy hand to anotherpotential voter inside Nina's Coffee Cafe on a recent morning, it is easy toforget that Mr. Franken, the former "Saturday Night Live" star, the satiristand author, the liberal radio host, is trying to be elected to the UnitedStates Senate.

"They should be allowing more dogs in places," Mr. Franken deadpans to thevoter, "dogs in grocery stores, dogs in hardware stores."

Would-be senators do not usually meander into such lines of conversation.Nor do they make up silly songs incorporating the names on their list during"call time," the endless hours spent calling prospective donors. Nor do theydraw freehand sketches of the United States as a party trick at campaignmeet-and-greets.

Then again, there are many moments these days when Mr. Franken soundsexactly like a candidate. He has taken up the politician's habit ofpeppering tales with the names of people he has talked to on his campaigntrail, like Kathy Kawalek, the nurse in Cambridge, Minn., who he says toldhim of elderly people growing ill because they stopped taking costlymedications.

And he repeats phrases and whole paragraphs just like every other candidateusing and reusing bits from a stump speech. "They were 11 when Bush becamepresident," he often says of young voters. "Some don't remember that apresident can be articulate. They don't remember that the federal governmentworked. And the saddest thing was that they don't remember that our countrywas well respected around the world."

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/world/asia/05turtle.html

China's Turtles, Emblems of a Crisis

By JIM YARDLEY
December 5, 2007

CHANGSHA, China - Unnoticed and unappreciated for five decades, a largefemale turtle with a stained, leathery shell is now a precious commodity inthis city's decaying zoo. She is fed a special diet of raw meat. Her smallpool has been encased with bulletproof glass. A surveillance camera monitorsher movements. A guard is posted at night.

The agenda is simple: The turtle must not die.

Earlier this year, scientists concluded that she was the planet's last knownfemale Yangtze giant soft-shell turtle. She is about 80 years old and weighsalmost 90 pounds.

As it happens, the planet also has only one undisputed, known male. He livesat a zoo in the city of Suzhou. He is 100 years old and weighs about 200pounds. They are the last hope of saving a species believed to be thelargest freshwater turtles in the world.

"It's a very dire situation," said Peter Pritchard, a prominent turtleexpert in the United States who has helped in trying to save the species."This one is so big and it has such an aura of mystery."

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/washington/05energy.html

Crossing a Threshold on Energy Legislation

By JOHN M. BRODER
News Analysis
December 5, 2007

WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 - A moment that has been a generation in the makingarrives here this week, with Congress poised to act on the first bill toincrease vehicle fuel efficiency significantly since 1975 and on the firsteconomywide bill to address global warming since scientists raised the alarmin the late 1980s.

A host of factors have brought Congress and the nation to the verge ofresolving debates that for decades have produced only legislative logjams.

The inexorable rise in oil and gasoline prices has concentrated the publicmind on the cost of foreign oil and the price of the gas-guzzling Americancar fleet. A parade of retired military officers have spoken out on thesecurity threat posed by reliance on unstable regimes for America's economiclifeblood.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued foursobering reports on the ill effects of global warming and the high cost ofdelay in slowing the emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. FormerVice President Al Gore shared a Nobel Peace Prize with the United Nationspanel for alerting the world to these dangers, in part through theOscar-winning film "An Inconvenient Truth." The Democratic takeover ofCongress has thawed legislation that was frozen for years.

Within the next few days, the House is expected to pass a package of energymeasures, including a mandate that the American car and light truck fleetachieve a combined 35 miles per gallon by 2020, up from about 25 m.p.g.today. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled to actas soon as Wednesday on a bipartisan bill intended to slow and then reversethe nation's production of greenhouse gases.

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/education/05scores.html

Other Countries' Students Surpass U.S.'s on Tests

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
December 5, 2007

WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 (AP) - Students in the United States are lagging behindtheir peers in other countries in science and math, test results releasedTuesday show.

The test, the Program for International Student Assessment, was given to15-year-olds in 30 industrialized countries last year. It focused on sciencebut included a math section.

The 30 countries make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment.

The average scores for American students were lower than the average scoresfor the group as a whole.

In science, American students had an average score that was lower than theaverage in 16 other countries. In math, they did even worse, posting anaverage score that was lower than the average in 23 other countries.

more . . . . .



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120401670.html

The Right Nuclear Red Line

By Gareth Evans
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; A29

By deflating so much of the hyperbole around the issue, the NationalIntelligence Estimate offers an opportunity to end the internationalstalemate with Tehran. Having just returned from a series of meetings withhigh-level Iranian officials, including their top nuclear negotiator, Ithink the outlines of a deal are clear.

Led by the United States and the European Union, with Russia and Chinacautiously supportive, the international community has until now beenfixated on preventing Iran from acquiring any capacity to enrich uranium andthus to make nuclear fuel for civilian or military purposes. Iran arguesthat such a red line has no basis in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and isunjustifiably discriminatory. Tehran continues to stare down the U.N.Security Council, shrugs off sanctions and refuses to negotiate anyintrusive inspection regime that would enable it to be trusted when itdenies having intentions to create nuclear weapons.

The international community is entitled to stay nervous, given Iran's longhistory of undeclared activity and the many disturbing and provocativestatements of its president. But all the signs are -- and I heard nothing tothe contrary in Tehran -- that Iran will simply not budge on its "right toenrich." That means an indefinite continuation of the standoff, with minimalIranian cooperation on regional issues of immense concern -- including Iraq,Syria, Lebanon, and the role of Hamas and Hezbollah -- and minimalconfidence internationally in Iran's ultimate nuclear intentions.

The new intelligence assessment gives us the chance to break out of thisimpasse. What the international community really wants is for Iran to neverproduce nuclear weapons. The red line that matters is the one at the heartof the Non-Proliferation Treaty, between civilian and military capability.If Iran's neighbors, including Israel, and the wider world could beconfident that that line would hold, it would not matter whether Iran wascapable of producing its own nuclear fuel.

That line will hold if we can get Iran to accept a highly intrusivemonitoring, verification and inspection regime that goes well beyond basicNon-Proliferation Treaty safeguards, which already apply, and includes boththe optional additional inspection measures available under that treaty aswell as tough further measures. Iran would also need to build confidence byagreeing to stretch out over time the development of its enrichmentcapability and to have any industrial-scale activity conducted not by Iranalone but by an international consortium.

more . . . . .



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120401146.html

Time to Talk to Iran

By Robert Kagan
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; A29

Regardless of what one thinks about the National Intelligence Estimate'sconclusion that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- andthere is much to question in the report -- its practical effects areindisputable. The Bush administration cannot take military action againstIran during its remaining time in office, or credibly threaten to do so,unless it is in response to an extremely provocative Iranian action. Amilitary strike against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities was alwaysfraught with risk. For the Bush administration, that option is gone.

Neither, however, will the administration make further progress in winninginternational support for tighter sanctions on Iran. Fear of Americanmilitary action was always the primary reason Europeans pressured Tehran.Fear of an imminent Iranian bomb was secondary. Bringing Europeans togetherin support of serious sanctions was difficult before the NIE. Now it isimpossible.

With its policy tools broken, the Bush administration can sit aroundisolated for the next year. Or it can seize the initiative, and do the nextadministration a favor, by opening direct talks with Tehran.

Negotiating will appear at first to be a sign of weakness. The Iranianscould use talks to exploit fissures between the United States and itsallies, and within the U.S. political system.

But there is a good case for negotiations. Many around the world and in theUnited States have imagined that the obstacle to improved Iranian behaviorhas been America's unwillingness to talk. This is a myth, but it will hamperAmerican efforts now and for years to come. Eventually, the United Stateswill have to take the plunge, as it has with so many adversaries throughoutits history.

more . . . . .



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120401928.html

The Politics of Chicken Littleism

By Benjamin Friedman
From the Cato Institute
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; 12:00 AM

Right-wing politicians criticize the environmental movement for its relianceon the precautionary principle -- the belief that any possible environmentalrisk to health and safety should be met with decisive preventive action, nomatter how small the risk or how costly the response. But for the pastseveral years, hawkish right-wingers have been operating under their ownversion of the precautionary principle -- in this case, that any threat tonational security should be met with preventive action, regardless of costor the remoteness of the risk.

This was the logic behind our preventive war in Iraq -- there was apossibility that the Hussein regime was working on weapons of massdestruction, that their efforts would yield success, and that Hussein wouldthen either use the weapons himself or give them to terrorist groups.Indeed, the whole of contemporary American defense policy is precautionary.We plan for the worst; believing that on weapons proliferation, terrorismand military rivals, we are better safe than sorry.

It is prudent to prepare for dangers. But it is also prudent to consider thecosts of excessive prudence. This holds true for both the environment andnational security.

University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein notes that theprecautionary principle fails to acknowledge that decisions about one riskcannot be made in a vacuum. Because resources are always limited, efforts toreduce one risk take resources away from activities meant to combat otherrisks, whether through government programs or private investment. Andbecause of unintended consequences, actions that address one danger oftencreate new ones.

Consider asbestos. When people first learned that asbestos could causerespiratory diseases including lung cancer if inhaled or ingested, theprecautionary principle justified a rush to remove the material frombuildings. It later became clear that the removal process creates greaterrisk of exposure and the cost of removal is enormous. Because undisturbedasbestos in building materials poses no health risk (and greatly reducesfire risk), society is better off leaving asbestos be.

more . . . . .



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120401775.html

Their Day in Court
Guantanamo lawyers make the case for a tenet of American law.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007; A28

LAKHDAR BOUMEDIENE and five other Algerians have been held without trial foralmost six years at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. The men, all Bosniannationals, were arrested in Bosnia at the behest of the United States inOctober 2001 on suspicion that they were plotting to bomb the U.S. Embassythere. In January 2002, Bosnian courts ordered their release after findingno basis for the allegations, but the United States demanded and got custodyof the men and transported them to Guantanamo, where they have had limitedconsultation with lawyers and limited ability to challenge their detention.Lawyers for the men, and for others in a companion case, will argue beforethe Supreme Court today that the detainees have a constitutional right tohabeas corpus -- to have a judge review their detention.

The Bush administration counters that non-U.S. citizens detained on foreignsoil have no right to the constitutional protections enjoyed by Americans.The administration has strong legal precedent on its side: In 1950, theSupreme Court ruled that alien combatants held in U.S.-occupied Germany hadno habeas rights. Yet the administration nonetheless is likely to lose thiscase -- and deservedly so, after its profoundly myopic and morally vacuoushandling of detainees.

The administration at almost every turn has resisted extending meaningfulrights to those it holds as enemy combatants. In Afghanistan, simplehearings to determine prisoners' status would have kept the United Statesclearly within Geneva Conventions guidelines; the administration balked.After the Supreme Court held that a federal habeas statute gave Guantanamodetainees the right to challenge their detentions in federal court, theadministration, with the help of congressional allies, tried to strip thecourts of jurisdiction. It created military tribunals to judge whetherdetainees were "enemy combatants" subject to indefinite detention, alongwith special commissions for criminal trials. No Guantanamo detainee has yetfaced a full-fledged trial, and the tribunal proceedings have provedwoefully inadequate. Witness Mr. Boumediene and the others in this case, whohave been held for years without any charge or process other than highlyconstricted hearings in which they have not been represented by lawyers oreven fully informed of the evidence against them. This offends the mostfundamental tenets of justice and does incalculable harm to the nation'simage and moral authority abroad.

The administration's stubbornness has raised a risk that the courts mighteventually overreach, infringing on the executive branch's constitutionalprerogatives to wage war. But while the constitution may not bestow on allforeign detainees a right to habeas corpus, it would be reasonable torecognize such rights for those detained at Guantanamo. The United States isthe sole and unchallenged jailer there; the detainees have no othersovereign to which they can appeal their detentions.

more . . . . .



=


The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/candidatequiz/?hpid=topnews

Quiz: Choose Your Candidate

Interactive quiz helps you decide which candidate you agree with most, basedon their statements on issues including health care, Iraq.



=

The Washington Post

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2007/12/god_save_us_from_some_of_those.html

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
President, Chicago Theological Seminary

The Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, is the 11th President of ChicagoTheological Seminary. She has been a Professor of Theology at the seminaryfor 20 years and director of its graduate degree center for five years. Herarea of expertise is contextual theologies of liberation, specializing inissues of violence and violation.

God Save Us from Some "Well-intentioned Religious Believers"It's not enough to be a "well-intentioned religious believer". Theintentions of religious believers unconnected to justice, to mercy and mostof all, to truth, often do a tremendous amount of harm.

We buried a wonderful seminary graduate today, World AIDS Day. Rev. AnthonyHollins was an HIV-positive, African American gay man, a pastor, a dancerand an AIDS activist.

When the doctors told Anthony that he was HIV positive more than a decadeago, he refused to let disease and self-pity rule his life. He decided todedicate his life to the divine calling of telling the truth about AIDS andthe truth about God's love for him and for all people, gay or straight,black, brown, or white, male or female. He helped people, especially in theAfrican American community, tell the truth about their sexual orientationand live openly and truthfully. His intention was justice for those who areHIV positive and mercy for those whom some of the "well-intentioned"religious moralists despise and ignore

Anthony was my student and my close friend. He frequently told me of howdeeply he was hurt by the attitudes of the "well-intentioned religiousbelievers" who refused to recognize the way in which their prejudice againstgay men, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transgendered people helps keep thosefolks in the closet and helps spread the disease. He was profoundly painedby the moralizing attitudes of those "well-intentioned religious believers"who think the AIDS pandemic can be fought without condoms and withouttruthful sex education.

more....



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120402218.html?hpid=sec-world

Gorbachev Applauds Putin's Achievements
Ex-Leader Cites Russian 'Resurgence'

By Doug Struck
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A22

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Dec. 4 -- Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev saidTuesday that President Vladimir Putin "has pulled Russia out of chaos" andis "assured a place in history," despite Western criticisms that he hasthrottled democracy.

Gorbachev's endorsement of Putin, who won broad support in a parliamentaryelection Sunday that was criticized by U.S. officials, comes despiteGorbachev's acknowledgment that the news media have been suppressed and thatelection rules run counter to the democratic ideals he has promoted.



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120402035.html?hpid=sec-politics

Waxman Asks Mukasey for Libby Papers

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; A27

House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) is asking newAttorney General Michael B. Mukasey to release transcripts of interviews ofPresident Bush, Vice President Cheney and other senior officials from thenow-completed CIA leak investigation.

Waxman, who has been investigating the nature of the revelation of formerCIA analyst Valerie Plame Wilson's identity in the summer of 2003, askedMukasey in a letter released on Monday to intervene in his dispute with theWhite House, saying that Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald has alreadyturned over notes and transcripts of non-grand-jury interviews with CIA andState Department officials.

But, Waxman said, Fitzgerald has been blocked by the White House fromreleasing the documents.

Former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted of fourcharges of perjury and obstruction of justice in the leak investigation, buthis federal prison sentence was later commuted by Bush.

Waxman said that, with the investigation closed, release of these interviewdocuments cannot interfere with an ongoing investigation. During the Clintonadministration, Waxman said, the White House turned over to Congress dozensof FBI interview documents related to the most senior officials, includingPresident Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.

The White House and Justice Department declined to comment yesterday aboutthe Waxman letter, as did Fitzgerald's office.



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400966.html?hpid=sec-religion

Huckabee Bristles at Creationism Query

By LIZ SIDOTI and LIBBY QUAID
The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; 1:47 AM

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, aSouthern Baptist preacher who has surged in Iowa with evangelical Christiansupport, bristled Tuesday when asked if creationism should be taught inpublic schools.

Huckabee _ who raised his hand at a debate last May when asked whichcandidates disbelieved the theory of evolution _ asked this time why thereis such a fascination with his beliefs.

"I believe God created the heavens and the Earth," he said at a newsconference with Iowa pastors who murmured, "Amen."

"I wasn't there when he did it, so how he did it, I don't know," Huckabeesaid.

But he expressed frustration that he is asked about it so often, arguingwith the questioner that it ultimately doesn't matter what his personalviews are.

more . . . . .



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/03/AR2007120301878.html?hpid=sec-education

Montgomery Hits A Testing Milestone For Black Students
1,000 AP Exams Passed, a National First

By Daniel de Vise
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 4, 2007; B05

Black students in Montgomery County high schools passed 1,062 AdvancedPlacement tests this year, making the school system the first, along withthe New York City public schools, to cross the thousand-test threshold.

Superintendent Jerry D. Weast announced the results yesterday at a newsconference. He challenged education leaders to engage in a "friendlycompetition" to increase AP participation among black students, who remainunderrepresented in the college preparatory program.

In the District, the number of AP exams taken by black students rose bynearly 50 percent, though the number of passing scores rose only slightly,the school district reported.

Black students in Prince George's County took 740 more tests than they didlast year, a 34 percent increase, and about 100 more exams received passingmarks. AP performance among black students in Fairfax County was essentiallyunchanged.

Montgomery, Fairfax and most other D.C. area school systems have postedtremendous gains in AP testing in this decade, part of a vast expansionnationwide in college-level course work in high schools. Although mostschool systems remain focused on overall AP results, some districts havepublicly campaigned to raise the performance of black students.

more . . . . .



=

Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2007/12/04/michigan_leaders_suggest_new_system_for_presidential_primaries/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+New+Hampshire+news

Michigan leaders suggest new system for presidential primaries
By Kathy Barks Hoffman, AP Political Writer | December 4, 2007

LANSING, Mich. --Even though Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis andDemocratic activist Debbie Dingell were two of the driving forces behindmoving up the state's presidential primary to Jan. 15, neither wants arepeat in 2012.

Anuzis and Dingell on Tuesday proposed a bipartisan presidential primaryselection plan that would divide the 50 states into six regions. The nationwould hold six separate presidential selection dates, with one or two statesfrom each region chosen to participate on each date. A lottery woulddetermine the order in which the groups voted.

The plan is patterned after a federal bill proposed in September by U.S.Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., and U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. That measurewould create six primary dates, between March and June, featuring statesfrom six separate geographic regions.

Under the Levin-Nelson plan, Michigan would be included in a region made upof Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota. Each state in a groupwould be paired with states from other groups through a drawing.

For example, Michigan might hold its presidential primary or caucus on thesame date as Connecticut, Rhode island, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, SouthCarolina and Oregon, depending on which states get drawn.

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/us/politics/05debate.html?ex=1197522000&en=048b19cbcda6edf8&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVERNEWS

Democrats Confront Immigration in Debate

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEFF ZELENY
December 5, 2007

DES MOINES, Dec. 4 - If there is one issue that has challenged presidentialcandidates of both parties in Iowa this year, it is immigration, and theDemocratic contenders were confronted with it again Tuesday, in aprovocative way. Should American citizens, they were asked, turn in someonethey know to be an illegal immigrant?

In the end, the answer from most of the candidates was no. But the question,posed in various forms during a two-hour debate over National Public Radio,had the candidates struggling anew with a topic looming large both in theIowa caucuses next month and in the general election.

Tracking down illegal immigrants, the candidates said, is the job of thegovernment, not civilians. But the moderators pressed the issue, pointing towhat they suggested were inconsistencies.

After Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said she did not think that civiliansshould be "enforcing the broken laws of our federal immigration system,"Steve Inskeep of NPR asked her, "If a citizen witnessed some other kind ofcrime, wouldn't you want them to report it?"

"It's a very clever question, Steve," Mrs. Clinton replied, "but I think itreally begs the question. What we're looking at here is 12 to 14 millionpeople - they live in our neighborhoods, they take care of our elderly, theyprobably made the beds in the hotels that some of us stayed in last night.

They are embedded in our society. If we want to listen to the demagogues andthe calls for us to begin to try to round up people and turn every Americaninto a suspicious vigilante, I think we will do graver harm to the fabric ofour nation than any kind of person-by-person reporting of someone who mightbe here illegally."

more . . . . .



=

Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/05/more_immigrant_woes_for_romney/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Front+Page

More immigrant woes for Romney
GOP candidate fires landscaper after Globe shows continued use of illegalworkers

December 5, 2007

This story was reported and written by Maria Cramer and Maria Sacchetti ofthe Globe staff and correspondent Connie Paige.

Standing on stage at a Republican debate on the Gulf Coast of Florida lastweek, Mitt Romney repeatedly lashed out at rival Rudy Giuliani for providingsanctuary to illegal immigrants in New York City.

Yet, the next morning, on Thursday, at least two illegal immigrants steppedout of a hulking maroon pickup truck in the driveway of Romney's Belmonthouse, then proceeded to spend several hours raking leaves, clearing debrisfrom Romney's tennis court, and loading the refuse onto the truck.

In fact, their work was part of a regular pattern. Even after a Globe storyin December 2006 highlighted Romney's use of a landscaping company thatemploys illegal immigrants to tend to his grounds, Romney continued toemploy Community Lawn Service With a Heart - until yesterday. The companycontinued to employ illegal immigrants.

The two workers confirmed in separate interviews with Globe reporters lastweek that they were in the country without documents. One said he had paid$7,000 to a smuggler to escort him across the desert into Arizona; the othersaid he had come into the country with a student visa that has expired. Bothwere seen working on the lawn by either Globe reporters or photographersover the last two months.

more . . . . .



=

Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/business/taxes/articles/2007/12/05/senate_stalled_on_alternative_minimum_tax/

Senate stalled on alternative minimum tax
By Associated Press | December 5, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Senate could not agree on a plan yesterday for blocking anunpopular tax that could affect millions of taxpayers and already is causingdisruptions in preparations for the upcoming tax filing season.

Senate Democratic and Republican leaders, while agreeing that Congress mustact immediately to stop the alternative minimum tax from hitting some 25million taxpayers in 2007, up from 4 million in 2006, mutually rejectedplans from the other side on how to proceed.

"We all know this is a pernicious tax, a stealth tax," said Senate FinanceCommittee chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat. "Each day we dally here"costs the government more money and "means a lot more frustration fortaxpayers."

The AMT was created in 1969 to prevent a very small number of wealthy peoplefrom avoiding all tax payments. But it was never indexed for inflation, andevery year more middle-income families are subject to the tax.

Congress in recent years has legislated annual fixes to keep the AMT reachfrom expanding, but this year the Democratic-controlled Congress and theWhite House have locked horns over whether the fix should be paid for withtax increases in other areas.

more . . . . .


=


[Send your comments about articles to rays.list@comcast.net]
#####