Iran: US 'biggest sponsor of terrorism'

Press TV | June 26, 2007

Iran's defense minister has described the US neocons as the main enemies of democracy who resort to inhumane acts to crush independent nations.

Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammad Najjar made the remarks at a meeting with the families of a group of Iranian high-ranking officials who were martyred in a terrorist attack in 1981.

The US-funded terrorist rings have launched tremendous attacks against Iran, including the assassination of Iranian officials on early days after the victory of the Islamic Revolution.

He also cited the attack on an Iranian passenger plane in 1988 which killed 290 passengers and crew aboard as another example of US state-terrorism.

"All the plots hatched by the enemies to rock the very foundations of the Islamic Republic were foiled through the wise leadership of the late Imam Khomeini and the heroic presence of the Iranian nation in the political arena," he added.

He said the hostile policies pursued by the US neo-conservatives against Iran were a continuation of their terrorist and inhumane measures against the Islamic nation.

"Nowadays the US public are the main victims of the warmongering and inhumane policies of this small group and are suffering financially and physically as a result of Bush administration's wrongdoings."

He reiterated that putting pressure on Iran to force the country to halt its peaceful nuclear program does not work, saying that history has proved that the Iranian nation never surrenders to the West's illegitimate demands.

Najjar said the only way out of the current crisis in the Middle East is the withdrawal of US-led forces from the region.

Fairness Doctrine About As Fair as Patriot Act is Patriotic

Cheaters Don't Like The Score, So They Try To Change The Rules

Prison Planet | June 28, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

The Fairness Doctrine is about as fair as the Patriot Act is patriotic. Its supporters are fooled by this veneer of rosy lexicon while overlooking the basic fact that this is about government regulation and suffocation of independent media.

John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein (pictured), Dick Durbin and Nancy Pelosi have all called for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine over the past week.

Liberals clamor for a reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine because they believe it will reign in Fox News and talk radio kingpins like Rush Limbaugh, but the fact is that Rupert Murdoch holds fundraisers for Hillary Clinton - the establishment media are intimately intertwined with the apex of both political parties. Fox News will not be targeted, this will only be used as a tool to shut down bloggers and other independent media that don't drink either the Republican or Democrat kool-aid.

Enforcement by law that broadcasters afford "equal time" to the opposing view spells the end for advocacy journalism and calls time on two of the most popular newsmen in recent years from different sides of the political spectrum, Lou Dobbs and Keith Olbermann.

The very article you are now reading will be a criminal violation of the Fairness Doctrine should it return.

Why are the political elite attempting to revive this Frankenstein despite the fact that it was thrown out after being judged unconstitutional 20 years ago? The establishment is furious that the influence of the dominant media is beginning to wane and is being diluted by grassroots independent media and the Internet.

They are seething at the fact that every new assault on our freedom that they try to wrap in glossy propaganda is being exposed and opposed with viral activism organized as a result of independent media.

This isn't about censoring the right-wing, it's about putting the structure in place to make any criticism of government illegal save jumping through 200 flaming hoops. This is about regulation of the Internet in alliance with new proposals to impose Chinese-style controls on free speech.

They are losing the debate on every issue from the amnesty bill to the centralization of power and the North American Union.

At this late stage in the game, they don't like the score so they are attempting to change the rules by re-defining freedom of speech altogether.

GM crops: 'Point of no return in ten years'

Scotsman.com | June 28, 2007
SYBILLE DE LA HAMAIDE

EUROPE will increase its genetically modified (GMO) crop area by 50,000-100,000 hectares a year over the next decade, US biotech giant Monsanto has said.

"It will be slow but within ten years GMOs will have reached the point of no return," said Jean-Michel Duhamel, Monsanto's director for southern Europe.

"The technology will not impose itself on consumers but consumers will better understand the usefulness of GMO technology as farmers increasingly adopt it," he added.

In France, the world's largest seed maker, GMO maize - the only biotech crop allowed in the country - was expected to be grown on 600,000 hectares in ten years, against 25,000 in 2007, despite fierce opposition to GMOs in the country.

"It is more complicated in France than elsewhere but if we reach a 50 per cent rise (in area) per year it wouldn't be bad, as at world level we expect it to rise 20 per cent," Duhamel said.

French consumers are well known for their scepticism, if not hostility, to GMO crops. "Within the next few years there will likely be some turbulence," Duhamel said. "Consumers receive false information on what GMO crops are so they are afraid. But I'm sure that within ten years they will have accepted them."

This year, French farmers have sown 25,000 hectares of special maize, which has been modified to resist insect pests.

Senate blocks immigration bill

AP | June 28, 2007
CHARLES BABINGTON

The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.

The bill's supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.

Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.

A similar effort collapsed in the Congress last year, and the House has not bothered with an immigration bill this year, awaiting Senate action.

The vote was a stinging setback for Bush, who advocated the bill as an imperfect but necessary fix of current immigration practices in which many illegal immigrants use forged documents or lapsed visas to live and work in the United States.

It was a victory for Republican conservatives who strongly criticized the bill's provisions that would have established pathways to lawful status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. They were aided by talk radio and TV hosts who repeatedly attacked the bill and urged listeners to flood Congress with calls, faxes and e-mails.

The bill would have toughened border security and instituted a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces. It would have created a new guest worker program and allowed millions of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status if they briefly returned home.

Bush, making a last-ditch bid to salvage the bill, called senators early Thursday morning to urge their support. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez approached senators as they entered and left the chamber shortly before the vote.

"We have been in contact with members of Congress over the past couple of days and the president has made it clear that this is important to him," White House spokesman Tony Snow said before the vote.

But GOP conservatives led the opposition. They repeatedly said the government must secure the borders before allowing millions of illegal aliens a path to legal status.

"Americans feel that they are losing their country ... to a government that has seemed to not have the competence or the ability to carry out the things that it says it will do," Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said in the debate's final hour.

Sen. Elizabeth H. Dole, R-N.C., said many Americans "don't have confidence" that borders, especially with Mexico, will be significantly tightened. "It's not just promises but proof that the American people want," Dole said.

But the bill's backers said border security and accommodations to illegal immigrants must go hand in hand.

"Year after year, we've had the broken borders," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "Year after year, we've seen the exploitation of workers. Year after year, we've seen the people who live in fear within our own borders. This is the opportunity to change it. Now is the time."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told colleagues that if the bill faltered, the political climate almost surely would not allow a serious reconsideration until 2009 or later. It would be highly unlikely, she said, "in the next few years to fix the existing system... We are so close."

Report: Pentagon Can't Account For $19 Billion Spent On Iraqi Forces

Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post
Thursday June 28, 2007

The United States has invested $19 billion to train and equip nearly 350,000 Iraqi soldiers and police since toppling Saddam Hussein, but the ability of those forces to provide security remains in doubt, according to the findings of a bipartisan congressional investigation to be released today.

As a result, President Bush's pledge to have U.S. troops "stand down" as Iraqi forces "stand up" remains unfulfilled. Instead, U.S. troop numbers and operations have escalated in recent months, and the overall level of violence has not decreased.

Despite the substantial number of Iraqi security forces and their increasing willingness to fight -- demonstrated by rising numbers of casualties -- their progress toward taking full responsibility for the nation's security remains mixed, according to a report on the investigation by the oversight panel of the House Armed Services Committee. U.S. commanders now predict that it will take years and tens of thousands more Iraqi soldiers and police to achieve that goal.

The Pentagon "cannot report in detail how many of the 346,500 Iraqi military and police personnel that the coalition trained are operational today," according to the 250-page report. Details of the document were provided to The Washington Post by congressional staff members.

"We have no idea what our $19 billion has gotten us," said Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), chairman of the Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations, noting that the United States investment represents $55,000 per Iraqi recruit.

"The DOD can't tell us how well the Iraqis perform their missions or even plan them," he said in an interview. "The police are in particularly bad shape, although they are critical to counterinsurgency."

The lack of transparency is especially worrisome, the report said, because of the possibility that Iraqi forces trained and equipped by the United States have joined the insurgency or sectarian militias.

"This report details the complete lack of understanding of who we have trained and what happens to them after we train them," Meehan said. "Many of the forces we have trained are unaccounted for, and others are on the rolls but haven't been vetted," he said, adding that forces "could actually be fighting against us."

The subcommittee's report found "strong evidence" that some Iraqi forces trained by the U.S.-led military coalition are involved in sectarian violence and other illegal activities. In addition, the Pentagon "cannot account for whether coalition-issued weapons have been stolen or turned against U.S. forces," the report said.

The $19 billion in appropriations -- about $5 billion each fiscal year since 2004 -- has primarily gone toward recruiting, training and equipping Iraqi security forces but also includes funding for building training centers, managing logistics and creating an Iraqi leadership structure in the ministries of defense and the interior.

The report criticized as "premature and ill-advised" the U.S. decision to transfer responsibility for vetting the Iraqi police to the national government early this year, after only a year of focused effort in generating police forces, saying that police remain ineffective and their organization is "riddled with corruption and sectarian influence." Tens of thousands of police have been hired outside of the U.S.-led training program, it said.

Regarding the Iraqi army, the report found that the Pentagon lacks clear measures of the number of soldiers on the job and their ability to conduct operations, particularly away from their home bases.

The Iraqi ministries of defense and the interior are incapable of "accounting for, supporting, or fully controlling their forces in the field," or even executing their own budgets, the investigation found. In addition, the ministries lack critical intelligence and logistics systems that would help in planning independent operations.

U.S. military advisory teams placed with Iraqi security forces were formed on an ad hoc basis and were not fully qualified for their mission in 2004 and 2005, it found. U.S. military police units were not deployed to advise the Iraqi police until 2005, and they did not begin to receive training specific to the mission until March 2007, it said. The report recommends that the Pentagon create incentives to attract the most qualified personnel for the teams.

The report includes 60 findings and 40 recommendations, many of which call for Congress to pass legislation this year mandating that the Pentagon track and provide to lawmakers a wide range of measures intended to better gauge the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces.

Since May, for example, Congress has gained access to the U.S. military's progress reports on Iraqi units, known as "transition readiness assessments." But the investigation found that the assessments still focus on the number of forces trained and equipped rather than on how well they conduct operations.

America's top spy says extensive domestic surveillance continues; Leaves out great deal

Raw Story | June 26, 2007
Michael Roston

An article in July's edition of the journal Foreign Affairs gives Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell an opportunity to outline his plans for 'Overhauling Intelligence.' The article is notable both for what it includes - a discussion of domestic intelligence gathering activities - as well as what it leaves out.

While earlier public statements and writings from McConnell have emphasized the need to modernize the laws governing intelligence gathering, the nation's second National Intelligence Director excluded those issues from this article.

In McConnell's 10-page essay, he puts the threat of terrorist groups to US interests up front, and discusses the activities that are being conducted in the US to counter the danger.

One major challenge the Bush appointee focuses on "is determining how and when it is appropriate to conduct surveillance of a group of Americans who are, say, influenced by al Qaeda's jihadist philosophy. On one level, they are U.S. citizens engaging in free speech and associating freely with one another. On another, they could be plotting terrorist attacks that could kill hundreds of people."

Taking up this challenge, McConnell states that civil liberties watchdogs within his office are working to balance the privacy needs of Americans with the intelligence community's efforts to sift through the data it collects.

"New technology being developed by the Office of the DNI's chief information officer and chief technology officer to access and process vast amounts of digital data to find terrorist-related information is being overseen by the DNI's Privacy and Civil Liberties Office," he writes.

McConnell also discusses what he sees as a need to cooperate more with local law enforcement authorities in the United States.

"The way to do so would be to share threat information with state and local officials as well as members of the private sector. The unique contribution made by men and women on the ground is vital to U.S. national security," he writes, identifying some examples in which local authorities uncovered purported terrorists threats. "State and local partners should no longer be treated as only first responders; they are also the first lines of prevention."

Perhaps more notable than what McConnell says in his article is what he leaves out. He does not expand upon or echo the message he delivered in a May 21 op-ed in the Washington Post on the need to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"If we are to improve our ability to protect the country by gathering foreign intelligence, this law must be updated to reflect changes in technology and the ways our adversaries communicate with one another," the National Intelligence Director wrote at the time.

These issues that McConnell left out from his article on 'Overhauling Intelligence' produced significant criticism from intelligence watchdogs in Congress. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee had before the Post op-ed was published told RAW STORY that he was 'deeply troubled' by McConnell's requests for freeing the government's hand on wiretapping. He expanded on his criticism in a response to the opinion piece.

"In his May 21 op-ed, Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, tried to make the case for the administration's new proposal for rewriting FISA. But his complaints about the current system were inaccurate," wrote Rep. Reyes (D-TX) in the May 30 response. "In fact, I believe it was the administration's cumbersome, uncoordinated process and not the statutory requirements that led the president to authorize an end-run around FISA."

McConnell also touched other subjects in his Foreign Affairs article. For one, he discussed the new technology being used by the Federal Bureau of Intelligence overseas to identify individuals who are 'in custody.'

"[The Rapid Technology Transition Initiative] has already shown its value. Since its deployment late last year, the FBI's Biometric Quick Capture Platform - a portable database funded through RTTI - has facilitated the biometric identification of suspects in custody overseas....the bureau's field personnel were using this tool to identify whether individuals in custody overseas had criminal records or were dangerous threats to U.S. forces," he wrote.

Notably, McConnell did not say in whose custody such detainees were being held at the time the FBI employed this tool.

Additionally, McConnell identified some of the major targets of the US intelligence community other than terrorists affiliated with al Qaida.

"The U.S. intelligence community also needs to know where collection gaps exist, where it needs greater specific intelligence, and on what areas it is overly focused," he writes. "Some gains have been made with the creation of mission managers - a recommendation of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission - who oversee and manage high-interest topics, such as North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, and counterterrorism, counterproliferation, and counterintelligence, for appropriate collection and analysis."

McConnell's full article can be downloaded from the ODNI website.

Amnesty: The Plan To Destroy The USA

The June 26th Frightening Amnesty Senate Vote Recalls Governor Lamm's Warning About How to Destroy the USA

VDare.com | June 27, 2007
Donald A. Collins

This ghastly cloture vote in the Senate on Tuesday, June 26th, should frighten all thinking Americans about the likely course of events if S1639 should wind up the law of the land. What is happening to the United States of American under the leadership of the Sellout Senate, the White House and its likely mirror image of support in the Open Border Democratic House of Representatives should spark immediate anger and action from all Americans.

We speculated before this cloture vote in a June 25th piece that enactment of S1639 would be like putting a Trojan Horse into America, allowing the swift almost silent amalgamation of Mexico, the US and Canada into the North American Union.

All these steps remind us that our Federal Government has consistently for years failed its citizens to address the immigration invasion which now allows largely illegal Latin American workers in America to send billions of dollars home , mainly to Mexico , and the 12 to 20 million illegals in our country to make increasing use of our tax supported services. We are screaming and the elites in Congress are scheming.

Very scary, generating a feeling among those aware of what is happening of desperation, of frustration, of the need to do something revolutionary to catch the attention of those who should have repaired our immigration system making our borders secure and demanding that employers not employ illegal aliens or import H1-B's well beyond any need for them. Has the greed and fecklessness gotten too high to reclaim of heritage? How rich does one have to get before he or she begins to think of the country instead of piling up more money?

Well this is not new business. On October 19, 2003, an immigration-overpopulation conference, which I attended, was held in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. Here is what he said, as written up by Frosty Wooldridge:

A brilliant college professor named Victor Davis Hanson talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration—both legal and illegal—was destroying the entire state of California . He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States.

He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"

"Here is how they do it," Lamm said:

"Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bi-cultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.

"The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malyasia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans."

Lamm went on:

"Invent 'multi-culturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

"We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multi-cultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated, however ethnocentrically, what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'" Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other—that is, when they are not killing each other."

"A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. " E. Pluribus Unum " From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'unum,' we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo ."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century—that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate."

"Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology ,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. The profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia . His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.'

American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America—take note of California and other states—to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book " 1984 ." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."

Governor Lamm, walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast.

Now with events having gone exactly as the Governor predicted, this immigration monster will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

There is of course still time, but we really need to let these mad people in the Senate understand the extent of their idiocy and greed. Let's keep going and maybe we can stop it yet. But immense thanks again to Dick Lamm, whose speech really captured the essence of what the debate is about.

Holding America Hostage

Bush Won't Protect Nation Without Amnesty

American Patrol / MSNBC | June 26, 2007

MSNBC reported today that President Bush's Chief of Staff warned that without amnesty the government would leave the border open. America is being held hostage by a crazed criminal.

MSNBC interviewed DHS Secretary Chertoff. He said the government would have 150 miles of fencing completed by the end of September. If he is talking about the kind of fence specified in the Secure Fence Act of 2006, he is lying. If he isn't, he is misleading the Senate and the American People.

Watch this video now

Press Briefing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform by Joel Kaplan, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy

Whitehouse.gov | June 25, 2007

MR. STANZEL: I appreciate everyone's patience, and thank you for joining us today. I'm joined here by Joel Kaplan, who is Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy at the White House, and has been very involved in the immigration effort. And he'll start off with some opening thoughts, but we really want to provide this opportunity to you to get the perspective of the White House as the Senate brings comprehensive immigration reform back up for consideration this week.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Joel. And I should make clear, this is a pen and pad briefing, not for broadcast, but it is on the record. Thank you.

MR. KAPLAN: Thanks, Scott. And thanks, everybody, for joining us.

Just want to say at the outset that the President is pleased that the leaders from both parties were able to come to a compromise on a process to bring immigration reform back to the Senate floor. After the Majority Leader brought the bill down a couple of weeks ago, the administration redoubled its efforts, and working with bipartisan group of senators to determine an orderly and fair process in which both important Republican and Democratic amendments would have an opportunity to be considered.

As the Senate turns to the bill this week, the administration will continue to work with the bipartisan group of senators on the bill to see this process through, until Congress sends a workable bill to the President that does the following things:

First and foremost, it puts border security first; it gives employers the tools they need to verify the status of the workers that they hire; it provides a legal and orderly way to match willing foreign workers to jobs Americans aren't filling and which our economy demands -- because until you remove the magnet for illegal immigration, you will never truly get control of the borders; it brings the current undocumented workers here out of the shadows and does so without amnesty; and it helps to assimilate both those undocumented workers and, importantly, all newly arrived immigrants into our society in a way that this country has done so successfully over its history.

In bringing the bill back to the floor I think it's important to recognize that the senators understood very well the failures of the 1986 reform bill that have caused, I think, legitimate skepticism among the public, and among members of Congress, as well, about the government's commitment -- the federal government's commitment to keeping its promises on enforcement. That's why the President a week or so ago welcomed a new provision in the bill that would provide $4.4 billion in immediate additional funding for the border security and enforcement triggers in the bill, and other enforcement mechanisms in the bill, which we think of as a direct deposit for border security and work site enforcement.

This funding will bypass the lengthy and often very contentious and political appropriations process and will instead put the money up front, to be paid out of the general fund. That funding will then be reimbursed over time by penalties collected from those who are in the U.S. illegally and come out of the shadows to apply for a Z visa.

There are other very critical provisions in the bill which reflect an understanding of the failures of 1986, and a commitment not to repeat those failures. Those include the presence in the bill of an effective temporary worker program. As I mentioned earlier, one of the big failures of 1986 was that it did not provide for a legal and orderly way for employers to fill jobs in this country that Americans weren't doing. And also, very importantly, it will -- this bill will provide, in a way that 1986 didn't, an employer verification system so that employers can quickly and reliably determine the identity of people who are applying for jobs.

You've got to make it easy for employers to verify and authenticate the identity of the people who they're hiring if you want them to abide by the law. And then, once you've provided, as this bill does, a reliable and effective employer verification system, you need to toughen up the sanctions so that hiring illegal aliens becomes a liability on the balance sheet, not an asset, as it is today. And this bill does that in spades.

Finally, I'll just close by taking the opportunity to note that immigration reform is too important to our national security and to our economic competitiveness and growth in this country to let this opportunity pass. So we're looking forward to helping out as we can, as the debate returns to the Senate floor this week. And with that I will shut up and take some questions.

Q Hi, Mr. Kaplan. Senator John Cornyn, just about 40 minutes ago, was on the Senate floor, and he was blasting a provision in the bill that he said would allow 24 hours for criminal background checks. And he said this could allow criminals and terrorists into our country, because there's no way -- it's an unrealistic goal to do that. And I wanted to get your response to that. His words were pretty strong about it.

MR. KAPLAN: Yes, thanks for the question. What Senator Cornyn is referring to is a provision the bill which, frankly, we think there's been a fair amount of misunderstanding and mythology about. There is a provision -- what he's talking about is a provision that said that when the undocumented workers come in out of the shadows to register for a probationary card, that DHS should give the card to them in 24 hours.

Now, two things to note about that. The first is, the background check that's required has, I think, five layers. Four of the layers of that background check are almost invariably completed within 24 hours. They're either immediate -- they're sort of, you know, they're online and they're immediate hits to an online database in which they'll get the verification right away -- or they happen within 24 hours.

The fifth of the five layers of the background check does sometimes take longer. But here's what's important to recognize. Those background checks continue after the probationary card is granted, and if the background check comes up negative, that person is not eligible for a Z visa and is eligible to be deported.

So it's not as though the person's getting any kind of a free pass. In fact, we're much better off than we are today, where that person exists out in society, we have no idea who they are, we have no idea where they are, we don't have their fingerprints, we don't have anything to identify them. This provision requires them to come in, make themselves known to the government. So I think there's been some mythology about that provision.

That said, because that mythology exists and there are people concerned about it, there's an amendment that will be considered this week that removes the reference to the 24-hour -- and I think -- my understanding is that's expected to pass. So that, I think, unjustified concern will be taken off the table completely.

But it's a good example, I think, of some of the misunderstanding that has kind of continued about this bill, and why debate is important and discussion's important. And I think that when senators have a chance to see the bill in its entirety, particularly after it's been amended, they'll agree it's worthy of their support.

Q Thank you.

Q Hey, Joel.

MR. KAPLAN: Hey, Mark.

Q What can you tell us about tomorrow's immigration event? Who exactly will the President be briefing about immigration and what will he have to say that's new, if anything?

MR. KAPLAN: Thanks, Mark. I think it will be a broad array of individuals and groups who are interested in the issue and have been generally supportive, and have an interest in the bill passing the Senate and moving on to the House. I don't know that he'll -- I think you'll hear another indication of the President's commitment to getting this bill done, and reiteration of its importance to the country. I think he'll talk a little bit, I suspect, about the additional money that's been provided in this bill, the importance to enforcement, and the importance of moving the bill forward. I think it will be similar in some respects -- in a lot of respects to the radio address this weekend.

Q And what can you tell us about getting GOP leaders in the Senate on board? The latest from both Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott say they still need persuading.

MR. KAPLAN: Well, this week I expect you'll see continued efforts at persuasion. That's what this debate is going to be about. The leadership, the Republican leadership has been very helpful in bringing this process forward and ensuring a fair and orderly opportunity for amendments to be considered. We're very grateful to them for that. And Secretaries Chertoff and Gutierrez you'll continue to see have a lease on the Hill; they've basically been tenants up there for the last two or three months, and I think you'll continue to see them in residence up there. And we'll just keep working it.

Q Thanks very much.

Q Hi, Joel, thanks for doing this. It's just a follow-up on what Mark just asked. Some of the conservative opponents of the bill up here in the Senate just said that they think momentum is building against this bill; that votes are eroding for it, and that the 60 votes probably won't be there to get cloture tomorrow, to even get back onto the bill. I just wanted to get your take on that? And if you could flesh out at all what you're doing -- who, in particular, you're talking to, to try to make sure that there is enough Republican support there to try to get back on the bill.

MR. KAPLAN: We're optimistic that the 60 votes will be there tomorrow. We'll see soon enough, but our intelligence suggests that there will be the votes there to move on to the bill and to begin considering amendments. We'll take our guidance from the leadership as to who they think it would be worthwhile for Secretaries Chertoff or Gutierrez, or others in the administration to talk to as we've been doing. And we'll see in the vote tomorrow.

But as I say, our intelligence is that the votes will be there, because enough members of the Senate appreciate that the status quo is unacceptable, and that without immigration reform they're not going to get the tough new border security and work site enforcement measures that we need to get control of the border, and we won't be able to make the changes to our immigration system necessary for our economy to continue to be competitive.

So we think the argument is persuasive. The members have had time to consider it, they'll have more time to debate it; but we're optimistic that the 60 votes that we need will be there.

Q And you've called this a fair and orderly process for amendments. The critics are calling it a rigged process that cuts them off from any chance of changing the bill. How do you respond to that?

MR. KAPLAN: Well, I defer to the Majority Leader and the Republican Leader, who engaged in protracted discussions in figuring out exactly what process was due. Obviously, the Republican members of the Senate, two weeks or so ago when the Majority Leader brought the -- filed cloture last time, did not think they had received sufficient process, and as a result, the votes weren't there.

I think we'll see, with the vote tomorrow, that they now conclude they have had sufficient consideration, and as a result, the 60 votes that weren't there before will be there tomorrow. That's what our intelligence tells us, and we're optimistic that that will be the case. And I think that will tell us that at least 60 members of the Senate believe that the process has been fair.

Q Hey, Joel.

MR. KAPLAN: Hey, Michael.

Q I'm curious, is the President satisfied that the business community and others in favor of comprehensive reform have done all they can to make the case?

MR. KAPLAN: I think -- well, let's put it this way, members -- some members of the business community have been very active in support; other members of the business community have been focused on making improvements to the bill to ensure that it would get their support. I think the test will come this week, as we go to the key votes in the Senate, and we're very hopeful that the business community will appreciate the importance of this bill to ensuring they have a legal work force, that they're able to verify who their employees are, and yet, at the same time that our immigration system is able to provide them with the work force that they need to continue growing and thriving as they have been.

Look, this is a complicated bill. It's taken some time for people to understand what's in there. Obviously, it's a compromise and it's in the nature of compromise that everyone doesn't get everything they want. But we think that the business community, like others who are interested in immigration reform, will conclude that they get enough of what they want to make this a bill that's worth supporting and, in fact, is too important to let pass. And I think that's the conclusion the business community has come to.

Q Is the President going to, himself, make calls to senators this week? Or has he started that already?

MR. KAPLAN: He's been doing that. And I expect that if it proves necessary, he will be happy to do it again.

Q And one last thing, is this being viewed by the White House as kind of a last shot for this bill? If you fail this week, do you think that this issue is done for the rest of the President's tenure?

MR. KAPLAN: We do not expect to fail this week, and so have no interest in engaging in such hypotheticals.

Q I thought you might say that. (Laughter.)

MR. KAPLAN: Good try. (Laughter.)

Q Secretary Chertoff has had a lively exchange of letters with some senators regarding the Grassley-Baucus-Obama amendment on employment verification. If this amendment were to go through, how much of a problem is that for you all, and would you all consider pulling your support from the legislation?

MR. KAPLAN: Again, I don't want to get into hypotheticals, because we think that Secretary Chertoff and also the Senate sponsors of the underlying text will be successful in convincing their colleagues not to support the amendment -- the Grassley-Baucus-Obama amendment that you referred to.

Look, as I mentioned at the outset, a reliable and effective employer verification system is critical to the success of this effort. It's one of the key lessons that we've learned after 1986, and as Secretary Chertoff worked with the senators in coming up with the bipartisan compromise bill, he put a very high premium on workability, and having a system that he could look them in the eye and say, yes, we can implement this, yes it will be effective, and yes, it will allow us to ensure that we don't recreate this problem in the future. And it's critically important to him and the President, and it's critically important to the senators who support the bill that we be able to say that at the end of the day.

As evidenced by the letters that Secretary Chertoff exchanged with the senators -- Grassley, Baucus, and Obama -- he obviously feels very strongly that this provision would undermine the effective employer verification system. And that's a big concern. So we'll be advising senators to vote against it.

Q The talk coming from the business community and other lobbyists close to this is that this actually stands a fairly decent chance of passing. So do you all have a backup plan on this?

MR. KAPLAN: As I answered to Michael Fletcher in the previous question, we're expecting to prevail, so we're not making backup plans. Look, we've got our work cut out for us, as do the senators who support the bill, in making sure that we make the case, and we explain why this provision is so central to the effectiveness of the overall comprehensive effort. We're going to be making that case. Secretary Chertoff, in particular, will be making that case, along with Senator Kyl and other senators who support the underlying text and recognize the importance of the employer verification system. And our hope is that we'll be able to make that case persuasively, so that we don't face the situation you spelled out.

Q Has the White House taken a position on Senator Hutchison's amendment that would require all the -- all adults in the 12 million to go back home within two years to get a permanent Z visa?

MR. KAPLAN: No, we haven't taken a position on that amendment, or most of the other ones, for that matter. Look, the important thing is making sure that the bill deals with the 12 million, as the President has said multiple times, without amnesty and without animosity. As you know, there is a touchback provision, or home application, as it's sometimes referred to, in the underlying text. That requirement kicks in sort of at the back end, as the undocumented workers choose to apply for a green card after eight years or so. I think the amendment you mentioned would sort of accelerate that provision to earlier in the process as a precondition for getting a Z visa.

Our concern is we make sure that the bill ultimately strikes that balance of ensuring that there is a penalty for the violation of law, but that it's not so punitive as to be unduly onerous. And we'll work with the Congress to make sure that what comes out in the final product strikes that balance appropriately, and we'll know that once the bill comes off the floor this week.

Q First, I have a doubt -- are you expecting cloture to be voted on tomorrow? I was told it might be voted on Wednesday, and tomorrow would just be a motion to proceed, and they would start with at least eight amendments. And then the question is, do you have an idea of where you are at this moment on votes? Are you over the 60, are you close to the 60, as you start the debate?

MR. KAPLAN: I have learned over time that it is best for me to remain a policy wonk and not a vote counter in the Congress. So I'm going to take a pass on exactly where the votes are. Like I said to an earlier question, I think -- my intelligence is that we're optimistic that we'll have the 60 votes. But as to exactly how many and where things stand at any given moment, I'm not going to hazard a guess on.

On your process question, my understanding is the same as yours. Tomorrow morning they're going to vote on the motion to proceed, which is a 60-vote threshold, as well, and then they'll move right to the amendments on the bill. They'll also file cloture on the bill, but it won't ripen, I think, for 48 hours, so you won't actually have the final cloture vote until, I guess, probably Thursday, assuming the Majority Leader sticks to that calendar. So I think you had it about right.

Q Thank you.

Q Hi. I wanted to ask you about another one of the amendments, and that is the one that John Ensign plans to offer on -- it's aimed at keeping people who work here illegally from collecting Social Security, or getting credit for -- Social Security credit for time they worked illegally. Is the administration going to take a position on that?

MR. KAPLAN: Again, I'm going to give you the similar answer to the one I gave to the gentleman from Texas, asking about Senator Hutchison's amendment. We want to make sure the bill strikes the right balance between -- strikes the right balance in treating the 12 million undocumented workers with respect and without animosity, but also without amnesty. And one of the issues that arises is, how do you treat the contributions that those undocumented workers have made into the Social Security system during their period of illegality.

The underlying bill takes one approach, which is pretty tough, I think, in generally denying benefits -- excuse me -- denying credit to the illegal workers for their contributions to Social Security. The Ensign amendment, as I understand it, would tighten that up a little bit further, and we'll work with the members of the Senate to see whether they think that that's a -- whether the underlying text or the Ensign amendment strikes the right balance.

Q You're not going to be urging senators to vote one way or the other on that amendment, though?

MR. KAPLAN: Not presently.

Q And what about other amendments, generally? Are there any amendments out there that the administration definitely wants to see added to the bill? And are there any besides the one you mentioned, the Grassley-Baucus-Obama amendment, that you will be actively urging senators not to support?

MR. KAPLAN: Right now, in terms of actively urging senators not to support, I think we've drawn the line at the Grassley amendment -- Grassley-Baucus-Obama amendment, largely because there's been this exchange of letters and because it is considered so critical to the effective implementation of the bill.

As for ones we're encouraging, Senator Graham I think will have an amendment that deals with some enforcement provisions, some additional enhancements to the enforcement provisions in the bill, and I think we're likely to urge support of that one. Other than that, I think we'll probably take our lead from the bipartisan group of senators who have been spearheading the bill through the Congress -- through the Senate.

Q A couple questions. Following up on Fletcher's question earlier about engagement -- the White House engagement in this, can you flesh out a little bit more what the President has been doing on a day-to-day basis, and how you determine -- or how he determines when to personally get involved, versus let things play out on the Hill with the Cabinet Secretaries?

MR. KAPLAN: Sure, Ben. I mean, first of all, the President made a number of calls last week, and then -- and, obviously, he does a lot of public appearances, as he did his radio address, which is the fourth or fifth radio address he's done on it, and is going to do another session tomorrow with some outside groups, as we talked about. So he does a combination of weighing in individually where it's appropriate and urging public support, and laying out the framework for debate and for the consideration of the bill.

Just as a general matter, we take our signals from the Office of Legislative Affairs, Candi Wolff's shop, which keeps the President abreast of developments on the Hill. She, in turn, works very closely with her contacts on the Hill and particularly in leadership, and she hollers when she wants the President's assistance in speaking to a particular member of Congress. And I expect she'll holler a few more times before all is said and done.

Q Okay. And one other, please. When the original agreement was reached last month, Tony Snow and others in the White House essentially framed the matter as one of education, that the more members of Congress understood the bill and had a chance to digest it, the better the White House's chances of getting their support.

Are you still asserting that that's the case, that this is a matter of education that some members still need to learn the details? Or is that no longer an argument in the White House?

MR. KAPLAN: You know, it's a good question, Ben. I think at this point, we're now -- there's been a lot of discussion about the bill. There are, by the way, still some misconceptions about what the bill does, but that's, I think, only natural in a bill this comprehensive and complex.

But by and large, I think, at this point, the point -- what the President and his Cabinet Secretaries and others are doing is explaining why this bill is necessary and reinforcing the message as to why the status quo is unacceptable, and how the pieces of this legislation fit together to provide a solution to the unacceptable circumstance we face today on our border and within the interior of the country.

So I think we're in the phase now, as they head into the final tally on the votes, of making the case and explaining why we think the status quo is unacceptable -- which, by the way, I think you see signs every day that the status quo is unacceptable; you see states and localities acting on their own accord, to step in with various types of regulations on immigration because they don't see the federal government taking charge of this situation.

There are signs across the board that we need to fix the problem we have with our borders and with our immigration system. And our job now is to make the case and convince 60 members of the United States Senate to vote to let the bill go forward. And I think we'll be successful in that.

Q Okay, thanks.

MR. KAPLAN: Sure thing.

Q Listen, I have one clarification question about this 24-hour thing that Senator Cornyn was talking about. Does your statement mean the White House supports taking the 24-hour requirement out of this?

MR. KAPLAN: I believe there will be an amendment -- I mentioned, but I don't know if you were on, I mentioned a Graham amendment.

Q I did, I heard you say that. But I just want to clarify, you support that, taking the 24-hour requirement out?

MR. KAPLAN: Yes, we don't think the 24-hour requirement would have had the negative effects that had been ascribed to it, but we recognize it's been something of concern. And, more importantly, I think Senator Graham recognizes that it's been a cause of concern, and so he's included it, at least as I understand it, he's included it in his sort of omnibus enforcement amendment, and we're supportive of that.

Q Okay, that will do it, thanks.

MR. STANZEL: Thank you all. That's all the time that we have today. I would thank you all for joining, and also call your attention to a fact sheet that we put out about an hour ago that talked about the difference between enforcing current law and then what would be in effect if the bipartisan immigration reform bill is passed, in terms of enforcement. So that's a useful side-by-side comparison that you can use when comparing how current law is different than the present considered legislation.

Again, thank you all for joining us, and appreciate your time.

END 4:39 P.M. EDT

'Iran ready for all-out defense'

Press TV
Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Iran's Majlis speaker says the nation is ready to defend its independence and territorial sovereignty against any military attack.

"The prospect of a war against Iran is very weak but it is possible that the US policy makers take such an unwise decision," Gholam-Ali Hadad-Adel said Wednesday at a press conference.

"The Islamic Republic has never sought any confrontation (with other countries) but we are ready for an all-out defense of our independence and territorial sovereignty," the Iranian lawmaker emphasized.

He reiterated that such threats are aimed at "launching a psychological war against Iran and terrorizing the regional nations. However, the public opinion is well aware of such futile attempts."

"The failure of the occupiers in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years, Iranian nation's determination to defend its rights and the widespread security and unity in the country rule out the possibility of a military attack on Iran," Hadad-Adel said.

The Iranian Parliament speaker also voiced Iran's readiness to continue cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), describing the current trend in Iran's nuclear issue as 'positive.'

"The Islamic Republic of Iran earlier announced that if the IAEA imposes limitations on Tehran's peaceful nuclear program, we will confine cooperation with the agency, but now the way of negotiation has been paved and we welcome the current trend," the legislator added.

Asked about Iran's possible withdrawal from the NPT in the case of imposition of further sanctions, Hadad-Adel said "threatening the Iranian nation by sanctions is not a new issue. What is different from the past is that the doors have opened for negotiations."

US-EU airline data accord reached

The EU has sought assurances over who can access passenger data

EU and US negotiators have struck a deal on sharing information about transatlantic flight passengers.

No details are officially available, but EU sources say data will be kept by US security agencies for 15 years.

Under agreements reached after the 9/11 attacks, European airlines must provide 34 pieces of information about passengers flying into the US.

The latest deal expires at the end of July. A replacement agreement must be approved by the EU's 27 member states.

Wednesday's deal was reached in talks between European Union Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini, German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble and US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

SOME THINGS US CUSTOMS KNOWS Your history of missing flights Your frequent flyer miles Your seat location aboard Your e-mail address

The US and the EU have differed on ways to balance security needs with concern for passengers' privacy.

A previous deal lapsed last October. The two sides failed to agree on terms for a full renewal and only reached an interim agreement.

Earlier, EU officials approved a separate agreement giving US counter-terrorist investigators access to details of international money transfers processed by the Brussels-based Swift network.

Washington says it needs the information to track and block terrorist funding, but EU regulators ruled that the original arrangement broke the union's privacy laws.

Research team receive threats after releasing 9/11 simulation

Mikel Livingston
The Exponent
Wednesday, June 27, 2007

The research team behind a scientifically rendered 3-D animation of the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center is beginning to experience the effects of its 2 1/2 year project – not all of which is positive.

The animation, which depicts the crash of American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower, was placed on Purdue's Department of Computer Science Web site in early April and has since garnered nationwide media attention from CNN.com and NBC news.

"It is not easy to see the tragedy in such vivid detail," said Christoph Hoffmann, a computer science professor and a lead researcher for the project. "But (the animation) has generated a lot of debate, which is positive."

But, as the team has since found, there is a darker side to success.

The animation drew the attention of conspiracy theorists across the Internet who have taken it upon themselves to target not only the animation but the team behind it. By seeking to prove links between the researchers and the United States government, the theorists hope to find a slant of bias in what was promoted as independent research.

Mete Sozen, professor of structural engineering, said this was not the reaction he was expecting.

"Most of the feedback was negative and threatening," Sozen said.

Sozen said this may be due to a misconception on the part of the viewer.

"They think the animation explains the collapse," Sozen said. "Actually it explains how the structure withstood the impact. The fire brought the building down. But that happened after our coverage."

Despite some hostile feedback, the animation's popularity continues to grow.

The video proved so popular that the team had to upload the video onto YouTube to prevent it from hindering the speed of the department's Web site. On YouTube, the video received more than 2,000 views in only the first hour of its June 1 posting.

"We put the video on YouTube because the great number of downloads that slowed down the computer science Internet servers," Hoffmann said. "The YouTube servers have the adequate capacity."

With more than one million views, the video shows that people are still hungry for answers and, for that reason, the team's research will continue.

"The next step is to understand what happens when dense fluids impact solids," Sozen said. "It will help us to understand the response of structures to such elements."

Until then, Hoffmann is unfazed by the media attention.

"I am just happy to help people understand our work," Hoffmann said.

Unease about big powers 'rising'

George W Bush is not the only leader to inspire global distrust

Worldwide opinion is increasingly wary of major powers and their leaders, a new global study suggests.

Anti-Americanism remains extensive, according to the global survey by the Pew Research Center in Washington.

At the same time, the image of China has slipped and confidence in Russian President Vladimir Putin has declined sharply, the 47-nation study indicates.

Though he is popular within Russia, Mr Putin inspires worldwide concern almost on a par with the US leader, it says.

"Global distrust of American leadership is reflected in increasing disapproval of the cornerstones of US foreign policy," the annual Pew Global Attitudes Survey states.

'Abysmal image'

It says there is worldwide support for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, as well as "considerable opposition to US and Nato operations in Afghanistan".

In 25 of the 47 countries surveyed, majorities expressed positive views of the US, the study found.

However, it adds, the image of the US has declined in most parts of the world.

This image "remains abysmal" in most Muslim countries, including some US allies, according to the authors.

They say favourable views of the US have sunk to 9% in Turkey and 15% in Pakistan.

At the same time, the report contends, "China's expanding economic and military power is triggering considerable anxiety".

Favourable views of China have dropped sharply in Spain, Germany and France - to 39%, 34%, and 47% respectively - the survey says.

China's image is said to be generally positive in Asia, but to have grown more negative in India.

OPPOSITION TO US OPERATIONS IN IRAQ US: 56% Mexico: 73% UK: 50% France: 78% Poland: 54% Egypt: 84% Palestinian territories: 94% Pakistan: 76% Indonesia: 84%

In Japan, unfavourable opinions about China outnumber positive ones by more than two-to-one (67-29%), the survey suggests.

It also points to negative opinions about Russia and President Putin in many countries.

"Criticism of that nation and its leader are sharpest in Western Europe where many citizens worry about overdependence on the Russian energy supply," the report states.

"For instance, despite sharp declines in favourable views of the US and Germany since 2002, Russia's image in those countries is no better."

Green worries

Confidence in Mr Putin's leadership, however, is strong in Russia itself (84%).

Just 45% of Americans say the same about President George W Bush.

The survey also finds a general increase in concern about environmental problems.

It says worries have risen sharply in Latin America, Europe, Japan and India.

"Many blame the United States - and to a lesser extent China - for these problems and look to Washington to do something about them," the report states.

The survey was conducted among more than 45,000 people in 46 countries, plus the Palestinian territories.

The margin of sampling error ranged from two percentage points to four percentage points, depending on the sample size.

Report: Cheney backs off on claim that he is 'fourth branch of government'

Michael Roston
Raw Story
Wednesday, June 27, 2007

With a vote looming in Congress on Thursday to defund the Office of the Vice President in the White House's annual appropriation, a report at The Politico claims that the White House will no longer advance the argument that the Vice President's office is not a part of the executive branch.

"The White House has no plans to reassert the argument there is any vice presidential distinction from the executive branch," according to Bush administration officials who spoke with reporter Mike Allen. "Two senior Republican officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the rationale had been the view of the vice president’s lawyers, not Cheney himself."

However, Cheney's change of tack does not mean that Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, will end his drive to defund the Vice President's $4 million-plus appropriation for the next fiscal year.

"Emanuel said the vote is still planned, and said the new position means the vice president needs to comply with National Archives requirements," Allen added.

The veteran reporter suggested that a letter written by the Vice President's chief of staff, David Addington, to Senator John Kerry (D-MA) amounted to a capitulation as it no longer held that Cheney's office was outside of the executive branch. RAW STORY reported Tuesday on the letter.

However, Addington made clear that he still did not believe that the Vice President's office, or the President's for that matter, was bound by the rules for the security of certain classified information laid out in Executive Order 12958. He wrote that the order "makes clear that the Vice President is treated like the President and distinguishes the two of them from 'agencies.'"

In a response at The Gavel, the blog of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, staff member Jesse Lee noted the original complaint to the Attorney General filed by the National Archives and Records Administration rebutted Addington's claim.

"OVP staff, when they are supporting the Vice President in the performance of executive duties, are an entity within the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information and are thus, for the purposes of the Order, an agency," NARA wrote to Alberto Gonzales.

One legal scholar, Marty Lederman, offered a substantive critique of Addington's claim to Kerry.

"Such an interpretation would be belied by the fact that until 2003, the OVP did comply with the ISOO directive, and, even more so, by the fact that entities within the Executive Office of the President, such as the National Security Council, are reported to continue to comply to this very day," he observed in a lengthy post at Balkinization.

White House, Cheney's Office, Subpoenaed

CHRISTOPHER BODEEN
Associated Press
Wednesday, June 27, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's controversial eavesdropping program that operated warrant-free for five years.

Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D- Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council. The four parties have until July 18 to comply, according to a statement by Leahy's office.

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal disputes within the administration over the legality of the program, which Bush put under court review earlier this year.

"Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection," Leahy said in his cover letters for the subpoenas. "There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this committee."

Echoing its response to previous congressional subpoenas to former administration officials Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, the White House gave no indication that it would comply.

"We're aware of the committee's action and will respond appropriately," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation."

In fact, the Judiciary Committee's three most senior Republicans—Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, former chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa—sided with Democrats on the 13-3 vote last week to give Leahy the power to issue the subpoenas.

The showdown between the White House and Congress could land in federal court.

Leahy's committee and its counterpart in the House have issued the subpoenas as part of a sweeping look at how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The probe, in its sixth month, began with an investigation into whether administration officials ordered the firings of eight federal prosecutors, for political reasons. The House and Senate Judiciary committees previously had subpoenaed Miers, one-time legal counsel, and Taylor, a former political director, in that probe.

But with senators of both parties already concerned about the constitutionality of the administration's efforts to root out terrorism suspects in the United States, the committee shifted to the broader question of Gonzales' stewardship of Justice and his willingness to go along with the wiretapping program.

The Bush administration secretly launched the spy program, run by the National Security Agency, in 2001 to monitor international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people the government suspected of having terrorist links. The program, which did not require investigators to seek warrants before conducting surveillance, was revealed in December 2005.

After the program was challenged in court, Bush put it under the supervision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, established in 1978. The president still claims the power to order warantless spying.

Debate continues over whether the program violates people's civil liberties, and the administration has gone to great lengths to keep it running with extensive presidential discretion.

Piquing the committee's interest was vivid testimony last month by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey about the extent of the White House's effort to override the Justice Department's objections to the program in 2004.

Comey told the Judiciary Committee that Gonzales, then-White House counsel, tried to get Attorney General John Ashcroft to reverse course and recertify the program. At the time, Ashcroft lay in intensive care, recovering form gall bladder surgery.

Ashcroft refused, as did Comey, to whom Ashcroft had temporarily shifted the power of his office during his illness.

The White House recertified the program unilaterally. Ashcroft, Comey, FBI Director Robert Mueller and their staffs prepared to resign. Bush ultimately relented and made changes to the classified program that the Justice officials had demanded, and the agency eventually recertified it.

The fight was one of the most bitter disputes of the Bush presidency and questions remain over whether the program tramples people's civil liberties. The administration says the program is crucial to preventing more terrorist attacks.

Fratto defended the surveillance program as "lawful" and "limited."

"It's specifically designed to be effective without infringing Americans' civil liberties," Fratto said. "The program is classified for a reason—its purpose is to track down and stop terrorist planning. We remain steadfast in our commitment to keeping Americans safe from an enemy determined to use any means possible—including the latest in technology—to attack us."

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said the subpoena to Gonzales is under review and that the department recognizes Congress' oversight role.

"We must also give appropriate weight to the confidentiality of internal executive branch deliberations," he said.

Majority Democrats and some Republicans are skeptical and have sought to find out more details about the program and how it has been administered.

Leahy's panel is required to serve the subpoenas to specific people within the offices named. One is addressed to Gonzales, while the others are addressed to: David S. Addington, Cheney's chief of staff; White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, V. Phillip Lago, executive secretary of the National Security Council - or "other custodian of records" in their offices.

The subpoenas themselves seek a wide array of documents on the program from the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to the present. Among them are any documents that include analysis or opinions from Justice, the National Security Agency—which administers the program—the Defense Department, the White House, or "any entity within the Executive Branch" on the legality of the electronic surveillance program.