Secret prison revealed in Baghdad

Forces under the office of Prime Minister Maliki held hundreds of men at the facility. The U.S. fears that the news will stoke instability.

By Ned Parker

April 19, 2010

Reporting from Baghdad

Hundreds of Sunni men disappeared for months into a secret Baghdad prison under the jurisdiction of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's military office, where many were routinely tortured until the country's Human Rights Ministry gained access to the facility, Iraqi officials say.

The men were detained by the Iraqi army in October in sweeps targeting Sunni groups in Nineveh province, a stronghold of the group Al Qaeda in Iraq and other militants in the north. The provincial governor alleged at the time that ordinary citizens had been detained as well, often without a warrant.

Worried that courts would order the detainees' release, security forces obtained a court order and transferred them to Baghdad, where they were held in isolation. Human rights officials learned of the facility in March from family members searching for missing relatives.

Revelation of the secret prison could worsen tensions at a highly sensitive moment in Iraq. As U.S. troops are withdrawing, Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, and other political officials are negotiating the formation of a new government. Including minority Sunni Arabs is considered by many to be key to preventing a return of widespread sectarian violence. Already there has been an increase in attacks by Al Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni extremist group.

The alleged brutal treatment of prisoners at the facility raised concerns that the country could drift back to its authoritarian past.

Commanders initially resisted efforts to inspect the prison but relented and allowed visits by two teams of inspectors, including Human Rights Minister Wijdan Salim. Inspectors said they found that the 431 prisoners had been subjected to appalling conditions and quoted prisoners as saying that one of them, a former colonel in President Saddam Hussein's army, had died in January as a result of torture.

"More than 100 were tortured. There were a lot of marks on their bodies," said an Iraqi official familiar with the inspections. "They beat people, they used electricity. They suffocated them with plastic bags, and different methods."

An internal U.S. Embassy report quotes Salim as saying that prisoners had told her they were handcuffed for three to four hours at a time in stress positions or sodomized.

"One prisoner told her that he had been raped on a daily basis, another showed her his undergarments, which were entirely bloodstained," the memo reads.

Some described guards extorting as much as $1,000 from prisoners who wanted to phone their families, the memo said.

Maliki vowed to shut down the prison and ordered the arrest of the officers working there after Salim presented him with a report this month. Since then, 75 detainees have been freed and an additional 275 transferred to regular jails, Iraqi officials said. Maliki said in an interview that he had been unaware of the abuses. He said the prisoners had been sent to Baghdad because of concerns about corruption in Mosul.

"The prime minister cannot be responsible for all the behavior of his soldiers and staff," said Salim, praising Maliki's willingness to root out abuses. Salim, a Chaldean Christian, ran for parliament in last month's elections on Maliki's Shiite-dominated list.

Maliki defended his use of special prisons and an elite military force that answers only to him; his supporters say he has had no choice because of Iraq's precarious security situation. Maliki told The Times that he was committed to stamping out torture -- which he blamed on his enemies.

"Our reforms continue, and we have the Human Rights Ministry to monitor this," he said. "We will hold accountable anybody who was proven involved in such acts."

But Maliki's critics say the network of special military units with their own investigative judges and interrogators are a threat to Iraq's fragile democracy. They question how Maliki could not have known what was going on at the facility, and say that regardless, he is responsible for what happened there.

"The prison is Maliki's because it's not under the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Justice or Ministry of Interior officially," said one Iraqi security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic.

The revelations echoed those at the beginning of Iraq's sectarian war. In late 2005, the U.S. military found a secret prison in an Interior Ministry bunker where Sunnis rounded up in police sweeps were held.

The latest episode, the U.S. Embassy report warns, could exacerbate tensions between Iraq's Shiite majority and Sunnis even with the facility closed.

U.S. troops already have pulled out of Iraq's cities, and Iraqi officials say U.S. influence is diminishing as the Americans focus on ending their military presence. The number of U.S. troops in Iraq is scheduled to drop by about half, to 50,000, by the end of August.

The embassy report cautions that "disclosure of a secret prison in which Sunni Arabs were systematically tortured would not only become an international embarrassment, but would also likely compromise the prime minister's ability to put together a viable government coalition with him at the helm."

Maliki's main political rival, Iyad Allawi, narrowly defeated him in parliamentary elections last month. Allawi, a secular Shiite, drew on dissatisfaction in Sunni regions around central Iraq. In the interview, Maliki invited Allawi to join him in forming a new government. But news of a secret prison that falls under the jurisdiction of the prime minister's military office could make it difficult for him to gain any Sunni partners.

The controversy over the secret prison, located at the Old Muthanna airport in west Baghdad, has also pushed Maliki to begin relinquishing control of two other detention facilities at Camp Honor, a base in Baghdad's Green Zone. The base belongs to the Baghdad Brigade and the Counter-Terrorism Force, elite units that report to the prime minister and are responsible for holding high-level suspects.

Families and lawyers say they find it nearly impossible to visit the Camp Honor facilities. The Justice Ministry is now assuming supervision of the Green Zone jails, although Maliki's offices will continue to command directly the military units.

The 431 detainees brought down from Nineveh were initially held at Camp Honor. Interrogations began after they were transferred to the prison at the Old Muthanna airport.

According to the U.S. Embassy report and interviews with Iraqi officials, two separate investigative committees questioned the detainees and abused them. During the day, there were interrogators from the Iraqi judiciary. In the late afternoon they came from the Baghdad Brigade.

The embassy report says that at least four of the investigators from the Baghdad Brigade are believed to have been indicted for torture in 2006. The charges against them at the time included selling Sunni Arab detainees held at a national police facility to Shiite militias to be killed.

In December, the Human Rights Ministry asked the judiciary to investigate Baghdad Brigade interrogators over allegations of torture at Camp Honor, but hasn't received an answer, Iraqi officials said.

With the secret facility at the old airport being shut down, and both Maliki and Salim, the human rights minister, hailing what they regard as progress, some Iraqis with knowledge of the security apparatus say they are worried that nothing will really change.

One former lawmaker with great knowledge of the prime minister's security offices called for radical change in the next government. "This is the beginning. We have to hold people accountable," the former lawmaker said. "It's a coverup of torture."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-prison19-2010apr19,0,135848,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Arizona has rarely invoked its last tough immigration law

Most counties haven't prosecuted anyone under a 2007 act that bans knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Some say that's because businesses are complying.

By Nicole Santa Cruz

April 19, 2010

In Arizona's Santa Cruz County, the cities of Nogales, Ariz., and Nogales, Mexico, share more than a name.

"The two communities kind of melt together," said George Silva, the county attorney, who grew up in Arizona's Nogales.

So it's no surprise to Silva that the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act -- at the time the first state law in the nation to prohibit businesses from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants -- hasn't been a top priority for the county. Silva said he had received only a couple of inquiries about the law and his office had not prosecuted an employer.

As it turns out, Santa Cruz County is not alone.

Officials from 12 of the state's 15 counties said last week that they had not taken legal action against any businesses for failure to comply with the law. Officials in two counties -- Apache and Coconino -- could not be reached for comment.

Proponents of Arizona's tough laws against illegal immigrants say the lack of prosecutions is a sign of the law's success in deterring border crossers. Critics of the measure, which went into effect in 2008, say the law has only pushed illegal immigrants deeper underground in the workforce.

Last week, Arizona advanced its reputation as the toughest state on illegal immigration when it passed a bill that requires police, if they suspect someone is in the country illegally, to determine the person's immigration status.

The bill, SB1070, also allows citizens to sue local agencies that don't enforce the law.

Before the newest anti-illegal-immigrant law was enacted, one county stood out in its effort to enforce the Legal Arizona Workers Act.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Atty. Andrew Thomas have boasted about their strict enforcement. After dozens of raids, complaints have been brought against three businesses. A sandwich shop was ordered to close for two days. A Phoenix water park was found to have violated the law, but it went out of business before the case was settled. A third case involving a furniture manufacturing company is still working its way through the court system.

But south in Nogales, where the economy relies heavily on the produce packing industry, Silva said other issues were more urgent than enforcing the workers act, such as "crimes where people are being hurt."

County attorneys in other border areas, including Cochise County in southeastern Arizona, also say they haven't had a single complaint.

"Cochise County is not a destination for illegal immigrants," said Edward Rheinheimer, the county attorney.

No businesses have been sanctioned in Gila or Yuma counties, or in the second-largest metropolitan area, Pima County.

Arizona has the highest number of employers participating in E-Verify, a federal online system that verifies the status of new hires. The Arizona Legal Workers Act requires businesses to participate in the system. More than 30,000 employers are enrolled, almost double the number taking part in California, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

"Businesses are complying with the law and going about their business," said Glenn Hamer, chief executive of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

He said compliance was why there hadn't been an "explosion" of cases in the last two years, but he also acknowledged that the federal online system had been found to be inaccurate.

A December 2009 report for the Department of Homeland Security found that 54% of unauthorized workers who submitted to E-Verify received erroneous work authorizations.

In Santa Cruz County, Silva said he didn't think businesses were getting away with employing illegal immigrants. He said he would prosecute if a complaint were formally filed, and said a large contingent of Immigration and Customs officials and Border Patrol agents was assigned to the county.

"Here we have the feds doing their thing," he said.

Silva said his staff focused more on drug problems spilling into the U.S. from Mexico.

"Immigration is not an issue because we see it day in and day out," he said. "We have so many ties to the Mexican community that it's just not an issue."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-employer-sanctions19-2010apr19,0,7204488,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDITORIAL

The case of the Christian club

The Supreme Court will decide if the UC Hastings Law School can withhold recognition of a chapter of the Christian Legal Society.

April 19, 2010

Can the UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco force a Christian student organization, as a condition of official recognition, to accept members who reject the group's values? The Supreme Court, which will consider that question on Monday, should answer no.

At Hastings, "recognized" student groups are given access to college facilities and bulletin boards but aren't sponsored by the college. Nor does Hastings endorse their points of view. Even so, a chapter of the Christian Legal Society was denied recognition on the grounds that it violated a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.

Now Hastings argues that the society also ran afoul of a broader policy requiring groups to open leadership positions to students "regardless of their status or beliefs." This so-called all-comers policy doesn't fit the reality of student groups at Hastings, which include antiabortion and abortion rights groups, a gay rights group and associations of Jewish, Asian, black and Latino students. Some of these groups -- understandably -- have restrictive criteria for leadership positions.

The court would do better to confront the original issue in the case: whether the Christian Legal Society engaged in impermissible discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. It will find the evidence lacking.

As its name suggests, the society certainly favors one religion over others. But civil rights laws don't prevent religious groups from discriminating on the basis of religion, nor does a fair reading of Hastings' anti-discrimination policy. A Christian group that allows only believers to lead Bible study isn't comparable to, say, a constitutional law club that excludes non-Christians.

More to the point of this case, the Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that once a state university decides to subsidize student expression, it may not discriminate against religious groups.

As for the claim that the Christian Legal Society discriminates against gays and lesbians, the organization insists that homosexual students are welcome so long as they affirm -- and practice -- the traditional Christian view that sex must be confined to heterosexual marriage. Though it's true that very few, if any, gay students would fall into that category, the fact remains that the society conditions membership on belief and conduct, not orientation.

Hastings could change the way it treats recognized student groups to emphasize even further that it doesn't endorse their views. For example, all groups could be forbidden from using the college's logo, as they now do, and could be denied reimbursement for travel and other expenses. Still, most law students already recognize not only that student groups speak for themselves but that the intellectual life of a law school campus is enhanced by a conversation between such groups. The Supreme Court shouldn't stifle that conversation.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-christian19-2010apr19,0,2772334,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Daily News

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SF crime lab at center of growing scandal

by PAUL ELIAS and TERRY COLLINS

Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The tape recorder started rolling as two police investigators sat in their car in a hospital parking lot with Deborah Madden on Feb. 26. "You're causing a huge nightmare for the city," said one officer.

Now the 60-year-old technician and the obscure police crime lab where she worked for 29 years stand at the center of a scandal that has led to the dismissal of hundreds of criminal cases and jeopardized thousands more. Police have accused Madden of skimming cocaine evidence from the lab, but she hasn't been criminally charged in the case.

Forensics experts say Madden is not the first crime lab worker suspected of stealing drugs or other illegality, and San Francisco's lab joins several other cities in suffering a loss of credibility.

A Houston man was awarded $5 million last year after spending 17 years in prison on rape charges overturned because of a discredited criminal lab.

Detroit shut down its crime lab in 2008 after outside auditors uncovered serious errors in the way evidence was handled.

"It's real hard to build a good reputation and it's very easy to destroy it," said Ralph Keaton, executive director of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors. "And it takes even longer to rebuild it."

The fallout from San Francisco's lab scandal is still unfolding and experts say it could take years to clean up, especially if authorities fail to establish which criminal cases were compromised.

"I don't think we have a full grasp on the magnitude of this yet," said Jim Norris, former head of the lab. "A lot of this runs on trust that the lab results have been correct, but now people don't think they are. So the whole system has grinded to a halt."

Madden's attorney, Paul DeMeester, said last week that her February talk with police was honest and forthright, and she "talked about all of the wrongdoing she had committed at the lab, which is very minimal."

In the taped interview, investigators pleaded with Madden to confess to skimming significant amounts of cocaine from drugs seized during arrests. A confession, they said, would take pressure off co-workers who also were being questioned and would help begin to repair the damage.

"And it will take years for the people in that lab and the San Francisco Police Department to come back from that, even if it's one person," Inspector Peter Walsh told Madden on the tape. "If it's a mistake, you just need to tell us it's a mistake."

"I didn't do it," she said, admitting only to snorting small amounts of cocaine spilled on her work station.

An internal review turned up significant shortages of drug evidence in several cases she handled. But Madden said she was not surprised by that because weight discrepancies occurred frequently at the lab.

San Francisco's 13,500-square foot crime lab, on a former U.S. Shipyard in the rough Hunter's Point section of the city, is five miles from headquarters.

"A converted warehouse in the middle of nowhere on a toxic dump site," said Fred Tulleners, a former California Department of Justice crime lab manager. "The forensic scientists in San Francisco have been working in abysmal conditions."

The drug unit employed Madden, two other criminalists and a supervisor.

Madden's co-workers said they got along with the San Mateo woman, but that she displayed increasingly bizarre behavior in the last months of 2009 culminating with a stint in an alcohol rehabilitation clinic.

Madden, who lives alone with two dogs and a cat, appeared beset with personal problems.

A jury convicted her in 2008 of domestic violence and vandalism in neighboring San Mateo County for opening a gash on her longtime partner's forehead with a thrown telephone, records show. Madden called the incident during their breakup an "unfortunate accident," enrolled in an alcohol treatment program and was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Police now concede they had a legal requirement to disclose the conviction to defense lawyers handling drug cases Madden analyzed. And the omission is expected to play a role in attempts by some prisoners to have their convictions overturned.

By late last year, Madden's behavior and job performance were attracting attention outside the lab, according to records.

San Francisco Assistant District Attorney Sharon Woo sent a Nov. 19 e-mail to Chief Assistant District Attorney Russ Giuntini complaining of Madden's behavior. Woo said Madden appeared to be purposely sabotaging cases by calling in sick on days she was to testify in court.

The e-mail and the transcript of the tape were among 1,000 pages of documents in the case made public by prosecutors following a judges order.

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who is vying for the Democratic nomination for state attorney general, said she was unaware of any serious problems at the lab until just recently.

The police department was tipped off to problems at the lab on Dec. 16 when Madden's sister notified Madden's direct supervisor that she had found a vial of cocaine on her sister's dresser.

The supervisor, Lois Woodworth, told police Madden had begun to act erratically in September 2009. Woodworth said Madden was arriving late to work and staying alone after hours, but not claiming overtime. Woodworth also confronted Madden with evidence that she had rummaged through a colleague's evidence locker without permission.

Police did not question Madden until Feb. 26. Then Police Chief George Gascon shuttered the lab on March 9, and testing was farmed out.

Assistant Police Chief Jeff Godown, who this month took over the lab's supervision, said the lab has suffered from mismanagement, as recent audits also have found. "It's just going to take some time" to repair the damage, he said.

Madden was arrested March 3 after investigators found one-tenth of a gram of cocaine and a gun at her house. Madden has pleaded not guilty to a felony cocaine possession charge in San Mateo County Superior Court.

"One person went sideways and now that's tarnishing everybody's work," said Tulleners, the forensic science director at the University of California-Davis. "Ideally, the next best step would be for the state take over that lab. But I doubt that will happen, not in this current budget crisis."

http://hosted2.ap.org/CAVAN/a2d5807e3aca4657a8fae2a88f644ead/Article_2010-04-18-US-Drug-Lab-Probe/id-424014c7005946ffa2a64c1551f33029

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Politician takes aim at guns in public

SACRAMENTO - Do gun-toters pose a danger when they carry their weapons in public, even if they're unloaded?

Some California lawmakers think they do and want to rein in a growing trend among Second Amendment advocates who grab their handgun when they reach for the car keys and head to the supermarket.

"What I'm concerned about is people who have no training can carry a gun for no other purpose than to make a public statement," said the bill's author Democratic Assemblywoman Lori Saldana of San Diego.

Starbucks caused a nationwide stir recently when it allowed so-called open-carry advocates to bring their weapons into its coffee houses in the states that allow it. But several retailers have banned weapons in their stores, including Peet's Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen.

If signed into law, California would be the fourth state to ban people from wearing guns openly, according to the Legal Community Against Violence, a public interest law center based in San Francisco.

Florida, Illinois, Texas and the District of Columbia have a similar open-carry ban.

California and 34 other states allow people to carry a gun without a license. However, only California, North Dakota and Utah require that the weapon be unloaded.

Gun owners in the 12 other states must have a license or permit to carry a handgun, said Benjamin Van Houten, an attorney at the law center. Residents of Alaska and Vermont can carry a loaded gun without a license, while Arizona residents will be allowed to do so as early as this summer under a bill signed last week.

In California, only gun owners with a concealed-weapons permit can carry a loaded weapon, which would not change under the Saldana bill.

Emeryville Police Chief Ken James, a member of the California Police Chiefs Association, said open-carry laws have been on the books since the late 1960s, but gun advocates have only recently begun to demonstrate their right to carry a gun.

"Officers are taught from Day 1 in the academy that guns are a threat," said James, whose association is sponsoring the bill. "This open carry places officers in a position between a rock and a hard spot."

The policy also costs taxpayers and diverts law enforcement from investigating crimes whenever police officers are called to respond to a report of someone wearing a gun, Saldana said. Gun owners say unloaded guns pose no threat to the public.

"If you can't carry loaded, then it's really just a waste of time to ban it because you're asking law-abiding people to disarm themselves from an object that does no harm to anyone because it's unloaded," said Rachel Parsons, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association. "In a time when there's limited taxpayer funds, passing these additional laws that mean absolutely nothing is a waste of taxpayer dollars."

Under current California law, gun owners are allowed to carry ammunition as long as it's not in the weapon. Saldana and other critics say that proximity adds to the public-safety threat.

During a recent news conference, Saldana played a video that showed a person can load a gun in seconds.

Previous attempts to prohibit open-carry of guns have stalled in the Assembly. The chamber's Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hear the Saldana bill Tuesday.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, the committee's chairman, supports the ban.

"Whether a gun is loaded or not, it's still an act of intimidation and bullying," Ammiano said.

Saldana said she hopes Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will sign her bill because he has been responsive to law enforcement concerns in the past. Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Rachel Arrezola said the governor has not taken a position.

Here are some other bills lawmakers are scheduled to consider this week:

California would send some child molesters to prison for life for a first offense under a bill named after 17-year-old Chelsea King. A convicted sex offender was charged with murder after her body was found in San Diego County last month. Supporters plan to lobby the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday to advance the bipartisan bill by Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego. It would increase prison time for child molesters, require lifetime parole with GPS tracking and make it illegal for sex offenders to visit parks.

County sheriffs could charge prisoners a daily fee for staying in their jails, under a bill before the Senate Public Safety Committee on Tuesday. Sen. Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach, says his bill would deter crime by letting indigent inmates work off their debt in rehabilitation programs, or by staying out of prison for two years after their release. The bill is modeled after a program in one Massachusetts county.

California would join 47 other states in allowing pharmacists to sell sterile syringes to adults without a prescription, under a bill scheduled to be heard Monday by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The measure would expand an existing pilot program that allows pharmacies in certain parts of the state to sell syringes to individuals 18 and older. Its author, Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, said it would slow the spread of HIV, hepatitis B and other blood-borne diseases by offering injection-drug users an alternative to sharing used syringes.

Customers choosing among the many cell phones on the market would be able to compare not only high-tech features but also the phones' radiation levels, under a bill scheduled to be heard Monday by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. The measure, by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, would require manufacturers to include a cell phone's Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, on its packaging and in the instruction manual. SAR is a measure of the level of radio frequency absorbed by the body when using a mobile phone. Many manufacturers already publish that information on their websites.

Gifts given to members of the Legislature would be posted online under a bill proposed by Republican Assemblyman Anthony Adams of HesperiaZZSB. The bill would require the Fair Political Practices Commission to post information describing the gifts on its website once a year. Gifts to employees of the Legislature also would be disclosed. Currently, lobbyists are required to report gifts to the secretary of state's office. The bill is scheduled Tuesday before the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee.

http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_14911061

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the New York Times

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reaching Out Quietly to Muslims in America

When President Obama took the stage in Cairo last June, promising a new relationship with the Islamic world, Muslims in America wondered only half-jokingly whether the overture included them. After all, Mr. Obama had kept his distance during the campaign, never visiting an American mosque and describing the false claim that he was Muslim as a “smear” on his Web site.

Nearly a year later, Mr. Obama has yet to set foot in an American mosque. And he still has not met with Muslim and Arab-American leaders. But less publicly, his administration has reached out to this politically isolated constituency in a sustained and widening effort that has left even skeptics surprised.

Muslim and Arab-American advocates have participated in policy discussions and received briefings from top White House aides and other officials on health care legislation, foreign policy, the economy, immigration and national security. They have met privately with a senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett , Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to discuss civil liberties concerns and counterterrorism strategy.

The impact of this continuing dialogue is difficult to measure, but White House officials cited several recent government actions that were influenced, in part, by the discussions. The meeting with Ms. Napolitano was among many factors that contributed to the government's decision this month to end a policy subjecting passengers from 14 countries, most of them Muslim, to additional scrutiny at airports, the officials said.

That emergency directive, enacted after a failed Dec. 25 bombing plot, has been replaced with a new set of intelligence-based protocols that law enforcement officials consider more effective.

Also this month, Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Muslim academic, visited the United States for the first time in six years after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reversed a decision by the Bush administration, which had barred Mr. Ramadan from entering the country, initially citing the U.S.A. Patriot Act . Mrs. Clinton also cleared the way for another well-known Muslim professor, Adam Habib, who had been denied entry under similar circumstances.

Arab-American and Muslim leaders said they had yet to see substantive changes on a variety of issues, including what they describe as excessive airport screening, policies that have chilled Muslim charitable giving and invasive F.B.I. surveillance guidelines. But they are encouraged by the extent of their consultation by the White House and governmental agencies.

“For the first time in eight years, we have the opportunity to meet, engage, discuss, disagree, but have an impact on policy,” said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute in Washington. “We're being made to feel a part of that process and that there is somebody listening.”

In the post-9/11 era, Muslims and Arab-Americans have posed something of a conundrum for the government: they are seen as a political liability but also, increasingly, as an important partner in countering the threat of homegrown terrorism. Under President George W. Bush , leaders of these groups met with government representatives from time to time, but said they had limited interaction with senior officials. While Mr. Obama has yet to hold the kind of high-profile meeting that Muslims and Arab-Americans seek, there is a consensus among his policymakers that engagement is no longer optional.

The administration's approach has been understated. Many meetings have been private; others were publicized only after the fact. A visit to New York University in February by John O. Brennan , Mr. Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser, drew little news coverage, but caused a stir among Muslims around the country. Speaking to Muslim students, activists and others, Mr. Brennan acknowledged many of their grievances, including “surveillance that has been excessive,” “overinclusive no-fly lists” and “an unhelpful atmosphere around many Muslim charities.”

“These are challenges we face together as Americans,” said Mr. Brennan, who momentarily showed off his Arabic to hearty applause. He and other officials have made a point of disassociating Islam from terrorism in public comments, using the phrase “violent extremism” in place of words like “jihad” and “Islamic terrorism.”

While the administration's solicitation of Muslims and Arab-Americans has drawn little fanfare, it has not escaped criticism. A small but vocal group of research analysts, bloggers and others complain that the government is reaching out to Muslim leaders and organizations with an Islamist agenda or ties to extremist groups abroad.

They point out that Ms. Jarrett gave the keynote address at the annual convention for the Islamic Society of North America . The group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development , a Texas-based charity whose leaders were convicted in 2008 of funneling money to Hamas . The society denies any links to terrorism.

“I think dialogue is good, but it has to be with genuine moderates,” said Steven Emerson, a terrorism analyst who advises government officials. “These are the wrong groups to legitimize.” Mr. Emerson and others have also objected to the political appointments of several American Muslims, including Rashad Hussain.

In February, the president chose Mr. Hussain, a 31-year-old White House lawyer, to become the United States' special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference . The position, a kind of ambassador at large to Muslim countries, was created by Mr. Bush. In a video address, Mr. Obama highlighted Mr. Hussain's status as a “close and trusted member of my White House staff” and “a hafiz,” a person who has memorized the Koran.

Within days of the announcement, news reports surfaced about comments Mr. Hussain had made on a panel in 2004, while he was a student at Yale Law School, in which he referred to several domestic terrorism prosecutions as “politically motivated.” Among the cases he criticized was that of Sami Al-Arian, a former computer-science professor in Florida who pleaded guilty to aiding members of a Palestinian terrorist group.

At first, the White House said Mr. Hussain did not recall making the comments, which had been removed from the Web version of a 2004 article published by a small Washington magazine. When Politico obtained a recording of the panel, Mr. Hussain acknowledged criticizing the prosecutions but said he believed the magazine quoted him inaccurately, prompting him to ask its editor to remove the comments. On Feb. 22, The Washington Examiner ran an editorial with the headline “Obama Selects a Voice of Radical Islam.”

Muslim leaders watched carefully as the story migrated to Fox News. They had grown accustomed to close scrutiny, many said in interviews, but were nonetheless surprised. In 2008, Mr. Hussain had co-authored a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the government should use the peaceful teachings of Islam to fight terrorism.

“Rashad Hussain is about as squeaky clean as you get,” said Representative Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat who is Muslim. Mr. Ellison and others wondered whether the administration would buckle under the pressure and were relieved when the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs , defended Mr. Hussain.

“The fact that the president and the administration have appointed Muslims to positions and have stood by them when they've been attacked is the best we can hope for,” said Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America.

It was notably different during Mr. Obama's run for office. In June 2008, volunteers of his campaign barred two Muslim women in headscarves from appearing behind Mr. Obama at a rally in Detroit, eliciting widespread criticism. The campaign promptly recruited Mazen Asbahi, a 36-year-old corporate lawyer and popular Muslim activist from Chicago, to become its liaison to Muslims and Arab-Americans.

Bloggers began researching Mr. Asbahi's background. For a brief time in 2000, he had sat on the board of an Islamic investment fund, along with Sheikh Jamal Said, a Chicago imam who was later named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. Mr. Asbahi said in an interview that he had left the board after three weeks because he wanted no association with the imam.

Shortly after his appointment to the Obama campaign, Mr. Asbahi said, a Wall Street Journal reporter began asking questions about his connection to the imam. Campaign officials became concerned that news coverage would give critics ammunition to link the imam to Mr. Obama, Mr. Asbahi recalled. On their recommendation, Mr. Asbahi agreed to resign from the campaign, he said.

He is still unsettled by the power of his detractors. “To be in the midst of this campaign of change and hope and to have it stripped away over nothing,” he said. “It hurts.”

From the moment Mr. Obama took office, he seemed eager to change the tenor of America's relationship with Muslims worldwide. He gave his first interview to Al Arabiya , the Arabic-language television station based in Dubai. Muslims cautiously welcomed his ban on torture and his pledge to close Guantánamo within a year.

In his Cairo address, he laid out his vision for “a new beginning” with Muslims: while America would continue to fight terrorism, he said, terrorism would no longer define America's approach to Muslims.

Back at home, Muslim and Arab-American leaders remained skeptical. But they took note when, a few weeks later, Mohamed Magid, a prominent imam from Sterling, Va., and Rami Nashashibi, a Muslim activist from Chicago, joined the president at a White-House meeting about fatherhood. Also that month, Dr. Faisal Qazi, a board member of American Muslim Health Professionals , began meeting with administration officials to discuss health care reform .

The invitations were aimed at expanding the government's relationship with Muslims and Arab-Americans to areas beyond security, said Mr. Hussain, the White House's special envoy. Mr. Hussain began advising the president on issues related to Islam after joining the White House counsel's office in January 2009. He helped draft Mr. Obama's Cairo speech and accompanied him on the trip. “The president realizes that you cannot engage one-fourth of the world's population based on the erroneous beliefs of a fringe few,” Mr. Hussain said.

Other government offices followed the lead of the White House. In October, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke met with Arab-Americans and Muslims in Dearborn, Mich., to discuss challenges facing small-business owners. Also last fall, Farah Pandith was sworn in as the State Department's first special representative to Muslim communities. While Ms. Pandith works mostly with Muslims abroad, she said she had also consulted with American Muslims because Mrs. Clinton believes “they can add value overseas.”

Despite this, American actions abroad — including civilian deaths from drone strikes in Pakistan and the failure to close Guantánamo — have drawn the anger of Muslims and Arab-Americans.

Even though their involvement with the administration has broadened, they remain most concerned about security-related policies. In January, when the Department of Homeland Security hosted a two-day meeting with Muslim, Arab-American, South Asian and Sikh leaders, the group expressed concern about the emergency directive subjecting passengers from a group of Muslim countries to additional screening.

Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates , pointed out that the policy would never have caught the attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid , who is British. “It almost sends the signal that the government is going to treat nationals of powerless countries differently from countries that are powerful,” Ms. Khera recalled saying as community leaders around the table nodded their heads.

Ms. Napolitano, who sat with the group for more than an hour, committed to meeting with them more frequently. Ms. Khera said she left feeling somewhat hopeful.

“I think our message is finally starting to get through,” she said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/us/politics/19muslim.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Op-Ed Contributor

What We Learned in Oklahoma City

FIFTEEN years ago today, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City claimed the lives of 168 men, women and children. It was, until 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in United States history. But what emerged in its aftermath — the compassion, caring and love that countless Americans from all walks of life extended to the victims and their families — was a powerful testament to the best of America. And its lessons are as important now as they were then.

Most of the people killed that day were employees of the federal government. They were men and women who had devoted their careers to helping the elderly and disabled, supporting our veterans and enforcing our laws. They were good neighbors and good friends. One of them, a Secret Service agent named Al Whicher, a husband and father of three, had been on my presidential security detail. Nineteen children also lost their lives.

Those who survived endured terrible pain and loss. Thankfully, many of them took the advice of a woman who knew how they felt. A mother of three children whose husband had been killed on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 told them, “The loss you feel must not paralyze your own lives. Instead, you must try to pay tribute to your loved ones by continuing to do all the things they left undone, thus ensuring they did not die in vain.”

We are all grateful that so many of the attack's survivors have done exactly that. We must also never forget the courageous and loving response of the people and leaders of Oklahoma City and the state of Oklahoma, as well as the firefighters and others who came from all across America to help them.

In the wake of the bombing, Oklahoma City prompted Congress to approve most of the proposals I submitted to develop a stronger and more systematic approach to defending our nation and its citizens against terrorism, an effort that continues today, as we saw with President Obama's impressive international summit meeting last week to secure all sources of nuclear material that can be made into bombs.

Finally, we should never forget what drove the bombers, and how they justified their actions to themselves. They took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated in the months and years before the bombing by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them. On that April 19, the second anniversary of the assault of the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, deeply alienated and disconnected Americans decided murder was a blow for liberty.

Americans have more freedom and broader rights than citizens of almost any other nation in the world, including the capacity to criticize their government and their elected officials. But we do not have the right to resort to violence — or the threat of violence — when we don't get our way. Our founders constructed a system of government so that reason could prevail over fear. Oklahoma City proved once again that without the law there is no freedom.

Criticism is part of the lifeblood of democracy. No one is right all the time. But we should remember that there is a big difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws.

We are again dealing with difficulties in a contentious, partisan time. We are more connected than ever before, more able to spread our ideas and beliefs, our anger and fears. As we exercise the right to advocate our views, and as we animate our supporters, we must all assume responsibility for our words and actions before they enter a vast echo chamber and reach those both serious and delirious, connected and unhinged.

Civic virtue can include harsh criticism, protest, even civil disobedience. But not violence or its advocacy. That is the bright line that protects our freedom. It has held for a long time, since President George Washington called out 13,000 troops in response to the Whiskey Rebellion.

Fifteen years ago, the line was crossed in Oklahoma City. In the current climate, with so many threats against the president, members of Congress and other public servants, we owe it to the victims of Oklahoma City, and those who survived and responded so bravely, not to cross it again.

Bill Clinton, the founder of the William J. Clinton Foundation, was the 42nd president of the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/opinion/19clinton.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pope Meets Victims Abused by Priests in Malta

VALLETTA, Malta — In his first such encounter since a sexual abuse scandal began to envelop the Catholic Church in recent months, Pope Benedict XVI met privately on Sunday with a small group of victims of sexual abuse by priests, expressing his “shame and sorrow” at their plight, the Vatican said.

The pope “was deeply moved by their stories and expressed his shame and sorrow over what victims and their families have suffered,” the Vatican said in a statement after Benedict met with eight Maltese men who said they were molested by priests as youths in a Malta orphanage.

“He prayed with them and assured them that the church is doing, and will continue to do, all in its power to investigate allegations, to bring to justice those responsible for abuse and to implement effective measures designed to safeguard young people in the future,” the statement continued.

The church has faced a wave of accusations in recent months that it covered up sexual abuse of children by priests and failed to take action — criminal or ecclesiastical — to punish pedophile priests and remove them from working with children.

Last week the Vatican published a guide explaining the procedures they advise bishops to follow in abuse cases.

But until Sunday, Benedict had not directly addressed the issue since the recent scandal broke.

Lawrence Grech, 37, one of the men who met with Benedict on Sunday, said he found the meeting redemptive.

“You pray for me and you fill in the emptiness which I have the last 25 years,” Mr. Grech said he told the pope. “I lost faith, everything, because people like you have done damage to me.”

“I'm proud of you,” the pope said, according to Mr. Grech. “I pray for you for your courage to come forward and speak out.”

Mr. Grech is one of 10 men who in 2003 filed a criminal suit against four priests the men said molested them when they were growing up in an orphanage in Malta. He and others have complained that the Malta diocese has been investigating the case for seven years and has not yet determined how to proceed against the priests. Three are still working as priests in Malta and one is now in Italy, Mr. Grech said.

Benedict met the victims for 20 minutes in the chapel of the Apostolic Nunciature in Malta, far from the eyes of the news media. Two local bishops and several members of the papal entourage were also present. The climate was “very intense but very serene,” the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said in a news conference.

It was Benedict's fourth such meeting. He also met with abuse victims in visits to the United States and Australia in 2008, and in Rome last year.

In the news conference on Sunday, Father Lombardi did not elaborate on the measures mentioned in the statement and said the meeting was a “symbolic” event more than a “legal” one. Father Lombardi said he did not think the visit would set a precedent for Benedict to meet with victims in every country he visits.

The Vatican statement said that the pope “prayed that all the victims of abuse would experience healing and reconciliation, enabling them to move forward with renewed hope.”

But some victims' groups said the words were no substitute for action. Peter Isely, a spokesman for SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, called it “astonishing” that Benedict said the Vatican was doing “all in its power” to investigate allegations.

“It hurts and endangers kids when adults confuse inaction with action and recklessness with effectiveness,” Mr. Isely said in a statement. “It's wrong, when thousands are being molested, to just make vague promises.”

Benedict traveled Saturday evening to this predominantly Roman Catholic island midway between Sicily and North Africa to mark the 1,950th anniversary of the shipwreck of St. Paul here and to underscore the Christian roots of Europe and the challenge of illegal immigration . He also praised Malta for keeping divorce and abortion illegal.

Throughout the visit, Benedict recalled the plight of St. Paul, who is said to have taken shelter on Malta after his boat encountered storms en route to Rome. On Sunday, he even took a half-hour boat ride to an event with young people.

One of four young people to address the pope said he spoke for those who feel marginalized because “we are of a different sexual orientation,” or because they came from “broken or dysfunctional families,” were immigrants or had trouble with drugs.

“It seems almost as if we are less readily accepted and treated with dignity by the Christian community than we are by all other members of society,” said the young man, who was not identified and appeared to be of college age. “Your Holiness, what must we do?”

Benedict applauded mildly, before delivering a speech on St. Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus and alighting on a central theme of his papacy: in Europe, the pope said, “Gospel values are once again becoming countercultural, just as they were at the time of St. Paul.”

Despite the cloud of volcanic ash, the pope was able to travel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/world/europe/19pope.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Doctors Hear Many Questions About Health Law

Dr. Roger W. Evans, a cardiologist in Wichita, Kan., is used to answering patients' questions about their hearts. But lately, he said, he has spent half his time answering a succession of different questions — about the health care law.

Donald Moore, 75, one of those patients, expressed his uneasiness about the law recently: “The fact is that I don't understand it, and no one else I talk to understands it. Every day, you read something different in the paper.”

Mr. Moore's latest concern was a “rumor that the new health care procedures are going to be monitored and managed by the I.R.S.”

“That's a turnoff right there,” he said. “How much is true, how much is fiction, out here no one knows.”

Most of the health care law, which President Obama signed last month, has yet to take effect, but for many doctors it is already having an impact.

“We've had to add an hour or two to the day because patients want to talk about it,” said Dr. Evans, who travels around the state and said questions often left him scratching his head. “I see 30 to 50 patients in a day, and it is the subject of conversation more than half the time.”

After months of public wrangling and brinkmanship in Washington, the nation's doctors now find themselves having to answer questions about a 2,400-page law that many do not understand themselves, and which they may have opposed. “Not only is the public confused, but so are our members,” said Dr. Lori J. Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians , which supported the bill. “There's been a lot of misinformation out in the media. We've been trying to get to them simple answers — what does this mean for my practice, what does it mean for my patients, what does it mean for the future?”

Some doctors said their patients were pushing for surgery now, for fear that it will not be covered in the future or that they will end up on a waiting list. “It's ludicrous to be coerced to perform surgery because of fear of noncoverage in the future,” said Dr. Eustaquio O. Abay II, a neurosurgeon in Wichita. “I refuse.”

Dr. Abay said he had tried to read the law, but gave up because it was all legal jargon to him. “They think we have all the answers, but we don't,” he said of patients.

While many doctors say they are not besieged, the queries have been particularly robust in states where the plan was unpopular, Dr. Heim said.

Joseph R. Baker III, president of the Medicare Rights Center , a nonprofit organization that operates a hot line for patients with questions, characterized the volume of calls about the bill as moderate. But he said the level of confusion was high, comparable to that created when Medicare added prescription drug coverage in 2004.

Often, Mr. Baker said, callers have been getting their information from media commentators or doctors who opposed the legislation. “They're being told by their providers, ‘Now I won't be able to take Medicare patients,' ” he said.

“People call us confused, panicked, anxious,” he said. “And in most instances, we say there are some benefits in the short term, like closing the doughnut hole,” as the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage is known, “and that the things that might have a negative impact, like lower reimbursement to providers, will happen over a number of years. Usually that calms people down.”

The questions do not always reflect the actual provisions of the law. The major changes for this year, including coverage on their parents' policies for adult children under age 26, rarely come up, said Dr. Melissa Gerdes, a family practitioner in Whitehouse, Tex., who said it was not unusual for her patients to discuss politics in the examining room. She said that only one patient had asked about the new law's provisions on the doughnut hole, and that she could not recall any patient who had inquired about coverage for adult children.

“The big one I get is, ‘Are you going to be able to keep seeing me?' ” Dr. Gerdes said. (She tells them she will.)

At Dr. Alieta Eck's free clinic in Somerset, N.J., where all the doctors donate their time, Dr. Eck said many of her patients were excited about the new program. “People say, ‘I can't wait for Obamacare,' ” said Dr. Eck, who has been outspoken in her opposition to the program. “They're already getting free care.”

Dr. Eck said that her office had not been overrun with questions about the bill, but that during visits at her paid practice, “most patients are fearing that everything's going to cost them more.”

For many doctors, the big frustration comes when they do not know what to say to their patients.

“Quite honestly, I don't know how to answer their concerns,” said Dr. Deborah A. Sutcliffe, a solo practitioner in Red Bluff, Calif. “Sometimes they're more informed than I am, sometimes they're not. I haven't read the damn thing.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/health/policy/19doctors.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pediatrician Charged With Rape Was Once Cleared by Hospital

LEWES, Del. (AP) — Officials at a hospital here say that they investigated a 1996 complaint against a pediatrician now charged with sexually abusing more than 100 patients, but that the doctor was cleared of any wrongdoing.

A nurse at the hospital, the Beebe Medical Center, reported in 1996 that the pediatrician, Dr. Earl B. Bradley, might have inappropriately touched young girls in his care.

After Dr. Bradley was arrested last December, hospital officials said they were not aware of any past problems with him. They have since acknowledged that he was investigated by the local police in 2005, though no charges were filed.

The officials said in a statement that they were revealing the 1996 complaint now because they could do so “without jeopardizing the criminal case.”

A message left seeking comment from one of Dr. Bradley's lawyers was not immediately answered on Sunday.

The police and prosecutors learned about the 1996 investigation after they charged Mr. Bradley in December.

Mr. Bradley faces 471 counts of rape , sexual exploitation of a child and other charges. He is being held in $4.7 million bail.

The authorities say he videotaped some of the assaults of his patients, including infants and toddlers. The recordings date to 1998.

The 1996 complaint came from a nurse who worked with Dr. Bradley.

The nurse raised several concerns, chiefly about his practice of using a catheter to obtain urine samples from young girls. She also questioned why the pediatrician needed girls to undress before an exam and the way he positioned girls while he examined their genitals. And she expressed concerns about his kissing and hugging of patients.

The complaint eventually reached Jeffrey M. Fried, who has been the chief executive at Beebe Medical Center since 1995. Mr. Fried said he considered it a “clinical” concern and not a complaint of a sexual nature.

An internal investigation concluded that there was nothing unusual about Dr. Bradley's clinical practices. While Mr. Fried said Dr. Bradley's hugging and kissing of patients was “quirky,” the hospital did not consider it to be a violation of policy. Dr. Bradley was not disciplined.

In a statement, Beebe said there “has never been any attempt to hide Bradley's behavior,” adding, “There was simply no reason to do so.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/us/19abuse.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

.