Policy Forum

Bush "Cooking the Books" on Terrorism

From the JURIST:

[JURIST] A Washington Post examination of US Department of Justice terror prosecutions to appear in the paper's Sunday edition shows very little progress in identifying and convicting terrorists since September 11, 2001. In contrast to President Bush's recent claims that federal terror investigations under the Patriot Act have resulted in charges against some 400 people and more than 200 convictions [JURIST report], the newspaper says that DOJ records show that only 39 of over 330 terrorism investigations [list] led to a conviction of a crime related to terrorism or national security, and that only 14 of the 39 people convicted had links to al-Qaeda. Approximately 180 suspects had no demonstrated connection to any terrorist group. Most convictions were for making false statements and violating immigration law, and average sentencing has been far from harsh, with an median term of imprisonment of 11 months. The Washington Post has more. NYU's Center for Law and Security has additional statistical analysis [PDF], as well as commentary [PDF].

In addition, the Des Moines Register reported on May 16, 2005 that the Justice Department broadened the definition of terrorism.

Newly released documents show that the U.S. Justice Department has greatly broadened how it defines and counts terrorism-related cases, a move that helped justify the department's call for more funding and greater powers. However, the scant information provided about those cases has watchdog groups and members of Congress crying foul.

The criticism comes in the wake of independent reports suggesting that federal prosecutors have overstated their success in preventing further terrorist activity and attacks. Among the terrorism cases that have been identified in Iowa: the arrests of three contractors, all American, who failed to report drug convictions prior to starting work at airport runway jobs.

U.S. firms said to be named in withheld Bolton documents

From the International Herald Tribune:

Some of the information that the White House has refused to provide to Congress for its review of the nomination of John Bolton includes the names of American companies mentioned in intelligence reports on commerce with China and other countries covered by export restrictions, say government officials who have been briefed on the documents.

It had previously been reported only that the White House was refusing to hand over the names of 19 American persons mentioned in 10 intelligence reports by the National Security Agency.

The fact that the documents also included the names of American companies, and that the subject had to do with possible violations of American export restrictions, provides a new clue as to why the White House might be rebuffing the congressional requests.

The names of the Americans and the companies remain highly classified, but they were provided to Bolton by the National Security Agency in response to special requests he made as under secretary of state for arms control. The Democrats who forced the postponement last week of a vote on Bolton's nomination as ambassador to the United Nations argued that the Senate should insist on access to the same information that was provided to Bolton.

But the White House has said that Congress has "all the information it needs" to decide on Bolton's nomination, and at his news conference on Tuesday, President George W. Bush dismissed the document request as "just another stall tactic by his opponents in Congress."

The administration has allowed the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee to review copies of the 10 intelligence reports, based on conversations intercepted by the National Security Agency, about which Bolton requested the additional information. But the names of American people and companies had been deleted from those reports, and the administration has refused to provide Senate leaders with the names, even though they were obtained by Bolton.

The government officials who described the intelligence reports declined to speak for the record, citing the classified nature of the documents and the extraordinary political sensitivity surrounding them. They would not say what countries other than China might have been the subject of the reports, but noted that Bolton's responsibilities also included monitoring efforts to prevent Iran, Libya and other countries from acquiring dangerous weapons.

The officials included both proponents and critics of Bolton's nomination, who said they wanted to provide the public with a clearer picture of the nature of the dispute between Congress and the White House. The officials did not know or would not say which American companies might have been mentioned in the documents.

As under secretary of state for arms control, Bolton had responsibilities that included efforts to enforce sanctions designed to combat problems posed by weapons proliferation. Illegal trade with China was a principal focus of his attention, but he was also the senior official responsible for the Proliferation Security Initiative, an effort to enlist countries around the world in intercepting suspicious shipments.

The senators who were briefed about the intelligence reports by General Michael Hayden, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, said in separate letters last week that Bolton had obtained access to what they described as "American persons identities." But the government officials who described the documents said that term was a blanket term used by the National Security Agency that encompasses the names of American business entities as well.

The senators, Pat Roberts of Kansas, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, and John Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the panel, both said that they had concluded that Bolton had acted properly in requesting the information from the agency. Both senators said they did not need to know the names obtained by Bolton to reach that conclusion.

But Rockefeller questioned whether Bolton might have improperly shared the names with others. Senator Joseph Biden, the top Democrat of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, cited the administration's refusal to provide the names to Congress in persuading 39 other Democrats and one independent to block until at least next week any vote on Bolton's nomination.

GOP Seeks Power to Restructure Entire Federal Government

From the OMB Watch:

The Bush administration's systematic dismantling of the public's protections could soon accelerate as Republican lawmakers prepare legislation that would permit the unrestrained restructuring of the entire federal government through results commissions and fast-track reorganization authority.

As we reported earlier, House Government Reform chair Tom Davis has vowed that a top priority for this Congress will be giving the White House the power to fast-track through Congress recommendations for restructuring the federal government. Now Inside EPA is reporting that Davis's office is drafting legislation to grant the White House power to develop restructuring plans that would be fast-tracked through Congress without the possibility of amendment. A source has told Inside EPA that Davis is awaiting the White House's imminent proposals for results and sunset commissions, which may include some version of fast-track reorganization authority.

Meanwhile, other lawmakers are proceeding with their own versions of commissions to reorganize government. As we reported earlier this month, one senator, probably Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), slipped into the budget resolution a "sense of the Senate" provision endorsing the concept of a results commission. Brownback is reportedly coordinating with Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) to develop a new proposal that combines elements of each member's proposals in past Congresses for results and sunset commissions respectively. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) has jumped on the bandwagon by reintroducing the Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies Act, a version of the results commission concept. The CARFA Act would link performance data, such as the simplistic reviews currently carried out in the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessments, with recommendations to consolidate or eliminate federal agencies. (See more about the CARFA Act.)

These proposals are all supported by good government rhetoric and appear initially to be technical proposals about the structure rather than the substance of government. The problem is that structural overhauls can be a technical cover hiding major substantive changes that will adversely affect the public interest. The most recent structural change proposed by the White House -- the controversial proposal to eliminate the Community Development Block Grant as we know it and combine it with other community development programs -- is a case in point. When combined in the proposed new "Strengthening America's Communities Grant Program," the old programs would have lost not only their distinctive character but also much of their funding: a 34 percent reduction, without adjusting for inflation. Subtle clues in the fiscal year 2006 budget submission -- referring to "focuse[d] resources" and a "targeted, results-oriented approach" -- indicated the White House also intended to change the direction and purpose of the original community development programs.

Creating the possibility of wholesale reorganization of the federal government is a particularly troubling idea given this administration's hostility to protections of the public health, environment, safety and public welfare. As we have documented elsewhere, the defining characteristic of the Bush administration to date is a special interest takeover of the federal government that is systematically dismantling public protections. While dismantling existing protections, the administration has also been building a record of allowing unmet needs to fester, in a larger pattern of failure to serve the public. Wide-ranging powers to reorganize and eliminate government programs may prove disastrous for the public health, safety, civil rights, environment and other public interest concerns.

Hastert to Seek Funds For Cut Road Projects

Istook in hot water? From the WP:

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), moving to placate 21 angry House Republicans, has promised to seek funds next year for several dozen highway projects that were left out of a recently passed spending bill on orders of a Republican subcommittee chairman.

Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr. (R-Okla.), who chairs the Appropriations Committee panel that oversees spending on roads, rejected the projects sought by the mainly northeastern and midwestern lawmakers after they defied him by signing a letter calling for a doubling of Amtrak funding in 2005.

Istook's action infuriated the affected lawmakers, many of whom learned that their projects had been left out of the government-wide spending bill passed Nov. 20 only after it was too late to make changes in it. GOP leaders are also unhappy with Istook, sources said, because many of those affected were from congressional swing districts where the ability to bring home federal road projects can tip the balance to the incumbent in a close election.

full article

"Bully Pulpit " by Jamie Malanowski

Link: "Bully Pulpit " by Jamie Malanowski.

Military recruiters target schools strategically

Link: Boston.com / News / Nation / Military recruiters target schools strategically.

Incredible shrinking US family | csmonitor.com

Link: Incredible shrinking US family | csmonitor.com.

Thanksgiving

Here are some excerpts from a speech by Daniel Webster given at Plymouth Rock in the fall of 1820. Thanks to John Nichols.

"We would leave here, also, for the generations which are rising up rapidly to fill our places, some proof that we have endeavored to transmit the great inheritance unimpaired; that in our estimate of public principles and private virtue, in our veneration of religion and piety, in our devotion to civil and religions liberty, in our regard for whatever advances human knowledge or improves human happiness, we are not altogether unworthy of our origin."

"The freest government, if it could exist, would not be long acceptable if the tendency of the laws were to create a rapid accumulation of property in few hands, and to render the great mass of the population dependent and penniless."

Also of interest, The History of Thanksgiving from the History Channel.

Fire Pit Dated to Be Over 50,000 Years Old

Link: News.

In the growing debate about when people first appeared on this continent, a leading archaeologist said Wednesday he has discovered what could be sooty evidence of human occupation in North America tens of thousands of years earlier than is commonly believed.

The Great Black Hope

The Washington Monthly has an interesting article on the rise (and fall) of some prominent African-America politicians.

Looking at Obama, Americans saw a political character that they'd never quite encountered before. He was black, but not quite. He spoke white, with the hand-gestures of a management consultant, but also with the oratorical flourishes of a black preacher. Joining him on stage were his wife, a black lawyer from Chicago's South Side, and what must have been the two most attractive political kids this side of John Edwards. They looked like a Gap ad.

Throughout his speech, Obama made himself as hard to peg politically as he had been racially, casting himself as a politician who didn't proffer typically liberal solutions to cultural problems: “Parents have to teach, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.” Obama argued that his party could see beyond big government. “The people I meet in small towns and big cities and diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solve all of their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead,” he said. “Go to the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon.” The import was hard to miss: Obama was casting himself as an unorthodox intellectual independent.

He closed his address with one of the successful pieces of political oratory in years; its target was the idea of labels altogether. “There's not a liberal America and a conservative America… a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America,” Obama said, booming now. “The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states… But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.” This was thrilling for viewers, an attack that didn't seem mean or cynical, because it was leveled not against any individual but against a glib, divisive intellectual construct that many people were growing sick of. On Larry King's post-game wrap, even crotchety Bob Dole smiled his lopsided smile. “I gave him an A,” Dole said, looking positively giddy. Obama had managed to exceed even the supremely high expectations for his speech with the most deft use of his race that any politician has managed in a long time. Masterfully, Obama had used race to unite.