Bloated intelligence apparatus is not too smart

Doyle McManus

July 22, 2010

The U.S. government's intelligence agencies are out of control again.

Not in the old, rogue-elephant sense of covert operatives running private wars.

Not even in the bureaucratic sense of spending money in unauthorized ways or launching programs Congress didn't know about.

This time, the loss of control happened in plain sight, with full approval from on high.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. intelligence spending has more than doubled. The country's 16 major intelligence agencies are poorly coordinated and often duplicate one another's work. And the White House and Congress have failed to exercise firm control over the proliferation of intelligence-gathering efforts.

The Washington Post cataloged the problem in a comprehensive series of articles this week. Reporter Dana Priest and data squirrel William M. Arkin reported that more than 1,200 government agencies or offices and almost 2,000 outside contractors are involved in counter-terrorism activities, spending almost $75 billion producing about 50,000 intelligence reports each year, far more than the government can effectively digest.

The government disputes some of those figures, but not the existence of the problem.

The U.S. is running so many secret programs, James R. Clapper Jr. told the newspaper, that "only one entity in the entire universe" knows what they're all doing, and "that's God." Clapper, in case you don't recognize the name, is not some disgruntled midlevel bureaucrat: He's President Obama's nominee to be director of national intelligence, the man who's now supposed to bring the intelligence leviathan under control.

None of this should come as a surprise. After the 9/11 attacks, which were possible partly because of intelligence failures, Congress and the George W. Bush administration threw money at almost anything that might prevent a recurrence. That was understandable.

But as a result, government agencies ballooned, entrepreneurial contractors found ways to make money, and waste and inefficiency bloomed like algae. That was predictable.

Now, almost a decade later, the Obama administration has inherited a bloated intelligence apparatus that wastes money and, more important, hasn't fixed all the weaknesses that made 9/11 possible.

All those agencies and all that money didn't stop a Nigerian student from trying to blow up a jetliner bound for Detroit last Christmas. The plot was foiled not by a high-tech intelligence agency but by an observant Northwest Airlines passenger.

One reason the Christmas bomber almost succeeded was that intelligence agencies still aren't sharing information seamlessly. "It continues to be a problem," Clapper told the Senate Intelligence Committee this week. "It's better than it was before 9/11, but it needs improvement."

What can be done to fix these problems?

There's a rough bipartisan consensus on at least one solution: Give Clapper, if confirmed as director of national intelligence, more authority.

His job, known in Washington as "DNI," was invented after 9/11 to oversee and coordinate the 16 major intelligence agencies, which include the Department of Defense, the CIA and the FBI, as well as more obscure outfits such as the Energy Department's intelligence office (which guards nuclear weapons secrets). But the agencies under the umbrella have jealously guarded their own powers, especially on budget and personnel. If that continues, Clapper won't be the most powerful person in the intelligence community; he'll be No. 4, behind Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, CIA Director Leon E. Panetta and Obama's chief advisor on terrorism, John O. Brennan.

More authority for the DNI is only half the solution. The other half, which may seem counterintuitive during wartime, is to cut the intelligence budget.

When money is virtually unlimited, there's no real reward for finding efficiencies and no real incentive for agencies to coordinate their efforts.

But cutting the intelligence budget is a hard decision for our political system to make. A liberal Democratic president can't propose spending less money in the war on terrorism without being lambasted as a peacenik. A conservative Republican can't propose cutting intelligence without risking the ire of his own colleagues — if only because they want to retain their ability to lambaste the president as a peacenik.

So who will bell the intelligence-budget cat?

In fact, a few brave souls have taken cautious steps in that direction.

Panetta, a former budget director, has ordered the CIA to draw up a five-year plan that would freeze funding at the current level, but not actually trim it.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, signaled this week that she doesn't find budget cuts unthinkable. "In fact, the budget may actually end up being decreased in coming years," she said in a committee hearing.

And Rep. William M. "Mac" Thornberry of Texas, a GOP member of the House Intelligence Committee, said his party is willing to look at savings too. "It's time to be paring back some of the redundancies and the duplication," he said.

But he noted the political risks any member of Congress would take by going too far in demanding intelligence cuts.

"It's got to be bipartisan, or somebody's going to be left hanging out there when something happens," he said, referring to the fear of another terrorist attack. "And something is going to happen."

Are we smart enough to cut the intelligence budget in time of war? Money spent on duplicative and ineffective programs doesn't help protect us against terrorists; quite the contrary. At some point, even a nation threatened by Al Qaeda has to live within its means.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-20100722,0,7663260,print.column

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

Family of slain Moreno Valley teen seeks community's help in finding killer

Norma Lopez's family thanks area residents for offering support during their ordeal. The body of the 17-year-old, who was reported missing July 15, was found Tuesday.

By Phil Willon, Los Angeles Times

July 22, 2010

The family of Norma Lopez, the 17-year-old Moreno Valley girl who was abducted and later found dead, thanked the community Thursday for its support and urged everyone to help police track down the killer.

Clutching photographs of Norma's first Communion and family trips to Disneyland and Mexico, her father and sister spoke of a bright, spirited teenager determined to graduate from high school and pursue her dreams of becoming a fashion designer and makeup artist.

"My heart is broken," said her older sister, Elizabeth Lopez. "But we're trying to find the person responsible for this to pay for what he has done."

A day after police confirmed Norma's death, family members spoke to reporters gathered on their front lawn, thanking everyone who assisted with the search after Norma disappeared July 15.

They shared details of their final moments with Norma, the daily morning chatter that will remain with them forever. Hours before she disappeared, Norma burst into Elizabeth's room to borrow her shoes. As payment, Norma made her sister a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, decorated with a happy face made from a banana.

"That's the last time I saw my sister," Elizabeth recalled.

Norma Lopez was reported missing when she didn't return from summer school at Valley View High School, triggering a citywide search. Investigators said they found some of the girl's belongings, as well as signs of a struggle, in a vacant field along Cottonwood Avenue, a shortcut she took every day to a friend's house.

Her body was found Tuesday in a grassy field on the eastern edge of town. Authorities declined to provide any further details.

On Thursday, Riverside County sheriff's deputies set up a checkpoint a block from where Norma was abducted, handing out fliers and asking drivers if they had any information. Sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Joe Borja said investigators continue to scour the area for evidence and clues, but no suspects have emerged in the case.

The slaying has put the Riverside County community on edge. Police are telling parents to keep close track of their children.

The Lopez family moved to Moreno Valley nine years ago from La Puente. Her mother was too distraught to appear at the family news conference. .

"My mom was heartbroken since the first day," Elizabeth said. "She just wished she could have done something."

Authorities urge anyone with information about the case to call (877) 242-4345 , or send an e-mail to findnormaskiller@riversidesheriff.org .

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-norma-20100723,0,5204940,print.story

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

Fleeing Phoenix out of fear of immigration law

As families leave the city, and state, some neighborhoods — already suffering from the weak economy — are left with fewer customers to sustain businesses.

By Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times

July 22, 2010

Reporting from Phoenix

Every time a customer buys some of the large fabric tote bags from the Dollar Store at 43rd Avenue and Thomas Road, Najmuddin Katchi sees another piece of his business vanish.

The purchase of the briefcase-sized shoulder bags means that another one of Katchi's customers, mostly Latino immigrants, is packing to leave the state before what is touted as the nation's toughest law against illegal immigrants takes effect July 29.

Katchi's store isn't the only business suffering. The vast shopping center that holds his small shop is almost empty. The Food City supermarket closed this spring. Then the furniture shop. Then the pizzeria.

The giant apartment complex across the street, once brimming with tenants, is two-thirds vacant. Katchi is behind on his rent.

"The business is broken," said Katchi, who has operated his shop at this intersection for 14 years. "After the 29th of July, what happens? Maybe I have to close the store."

For the last 20 years, Arizona has been one of the fastest-growing states in the nation. It depends on an expanding population to power its economy, which relies heavily on the construction of new houses.

At the corner of 43rd and Thomas, it's hard to determine how much of the neighborhood's woes stem from Arizona's immigration laws and how much from the state's economy, battered by a once red-hot housing marked that cooled.

Katchi's revenue was already sagging before April 23, when Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law. Since then, sales have plummeted.

In adopting the legislation the state embarked on a grand experiment — trying to drive out hundreds of thousands of its residents by what the law calls "attrition through enforcement."

The law requires police to check the immigration status of people they lawfully stop and also suspect are in the country illegally. Civil rights groups and the Obama administration have sued to stop the law from taking effect, and a federal judge heard arguments in the case Thursday.

The departure of illegal immigrants, proponents of SB 1070 argue, can only help Arizona's economy.

"As long as there are legal Arizona residents scrambling for jobs, a slow, steady attrition of low-wage, government-educated illegal aliens is a beneficial facet of the law," said Bob Dane, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, in Washington, which argues for stricter immigration standards and estimates that illegal immigrants cost Arizona taxpayers $2.5 billion annually.

But it's hard to get solid data on illegal immigrants and the economy.

A 2007 report from the Congressional Budget Office that reviewed 29 studies — but not ones from advocacy groups like FAIR — found that illegal immigrants place a "modest" burden on state budgets.

Even people whose families use more government services than they pay in taxes still help the economy, said Judith Gans of the University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy. In a 2008 study, she found that Arizona immigrants contributed $29 billion annually to the state economy, representing about 8% of its activity.

When immigrants leave, Gans said, "stores experience dramatic drops in sales. Apartment owners who rent to immigrants have high vacancy rates and risk losing their buildings. Legal workers or renters or consumers don't generally step in quickly enough to prevent these businesses from experiencing real additional hardship."

At 43rd and Thomas, such short-term economic perils are no abstraction.

"If people don't come here, I don't make money and I don't pay taxes," Katchi said.

The junction of two six-lane thoroughfares, 43rd and Thomas lies in the heart of immigrant Phoenix, a blue-collar mass of ranch homes and strip malls known as Maryvale.

No one has measured the effect of SB 1070 on businesses, or the number of immigrants it has prompted to leave Arizona. But merchants say the repercussions are clear — not just in how it's prompted many families to leave the state, but scared others enough to curtail their regular activities.

"The economy's already bad, but on top of it [SB 1070] is like a bullet in the head to us," said Osameh Odeh, 35, whose Eden Wear clothing store was empty one recent afternoon. "People don't come out of their houses anymore."

Odeh has laid off workers and doesn't pay his utility bills until the day they come due. He's not sure he can stay open and notes that the effect spreads well beyond the rough-and-tumble streets of Maryvale. A resident of the middle-class suburb of Gilbert, Odeh has cut back his purchases at home.

"If my son wants a toy, I can't afford it," he said.

Edgar Vela lives in another comfortable suburb, but his ability to spend money at home hinges on the success of his Salvadoran restaurant at 43rd and Thomas, La Pupusa Loca. He just closed his neighboring bakery last week and has laid off six employees. His daughters, both doctors, now come in on weekends to work the floor.

"People used to feel secure here; they'd come in, spend two, three hours," said Vela, sitting in his mostly empty restaurant, lined with mirrors and a full bar. "Now they eat and run."

He recalled one recent evening when two families were eating dinner. Their cellphones rang. Friends were alerting them that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio — strongly disliked in the area for his targeting of illegal immigrants — had sent deputies to raid a nearby car wash. The families quickly asked for their checks, paid and ran from the restaurant.

Last month, a bank foreclosed on a rental house Vela owns nearby; it's one of three vacant homes on a short block. The families there told Vela that the breadwinners had been arrested by Arpaio's deputies, and they could no longer pay the rent.

Some of those leaving are U.S. citizens or legal residents who believe that all Latinos in the state are already being targeted by police. Vela, for example, said he had been stopped by police while driving to his restaurant "more times than I can count."

Faviola Davenport, 42, owns 3Girlz Retail across the street from Vela's restaurant. Davenport, who emigrated legally from Mexico 23 years ago, expects she will close the shop next month. In the small space, crammed with phone cards, mattresses and purses, Davenport said that if the law takes effect she will probably abandon Arizona as well. Her three adult daughters and their families — all U.S. citizens — are thinking of following her.

SB 1070's supporters say legal residents like Davenport have nothing to fear from the law, which bans racial profiling.

But earlier this year, Davenport said, she was stopped by a police officer on her way to work. She said the officer did not believe she was in the country legally and warned that he could refer her to immigration authorities for deportation.

"They don't want Mexicans," she said. "So we'll leave."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immigration-phoenix-20100723,0,1362569,print.story

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

Q&A

Questions and answers about new rules on appealing rejections of health insurance claims

Part of the new healthcare law aims to simplify the process and expand consumer rights

By Noam N. Levey, Tribune Washington Bureau

July 22, 2010

Reporting from Washington

For many Americans, few experiences with the healthcare system are more frustrating than a rejected claim from an insurance plan. Rejection notices are often unclear, as are the procedures for challenging them.

On Thursday, the Obama administration issued new rules designed to simplify the process and expand consumers' rights, as required by the recently enacted healthcare law. Here are some questions and answers about how the new protections will work.

Do Americans already have the right to appeal if a health plan denies coverage for something?

Many do, but rules differ depending on whether you get insurance from an employer or buy it on your own. Consumer protections also vary dramatically from state to state.

Existing federal rules require most employer-provided plans to have an internal process for appealing a rejected claim. But if you lose, there is no guarantee that you can take your appeal to an independent third-party reviewer.

You currently have no right to an external review of your denied claim if you work for a company that self-insures, as many large employers do. And if you buy insurance on your own, you may not get an external review either.

Thirteen states guarantee an external review for only some kinds of health plans. Six states do not require any independent review process.

So what happens now?

The new rules essentially standardize the process for internal and external appeals. Next year, if you qualify for the new protections, you will be guaranteed an internal review if your claim is denied, whether you get insurance from a private employer, a government employer or directly from a commercial carrier.

These internal reviews will have to conform to new standards that require health plans to explain denials more clearly, to speed decisions in urgent cases and to prevent conflicts of interest by arbiters reviewing denied claims.

In addition, people who qualify will be guaranteed an external review by someone not employed by their health plan.

States have until July 1, 2011, to put these external review regulations in place, or the federal government will do it.

Is everyone eligible for these new protections?

No. The rules apply only to health plans in which plan years begin after Sept. 23 and to existing health plans that make substantial changes, such as large increases in co-pays or employee contributions.

Existing health plans that do not make significant changes, which are called "grandfathered" plans, will not be subject to the new regulations.

Administration officials estimate that next year 41 million Americans will be in plans that must offer additional protections.

How do I find out whether I can get the new protections?

Consumers can check with their state insurance commissioner or with the Employee Benefits Security Administration at the Department of Labor. Benefits specialists can be reached by calling 866-444-3272 .

The administration is making $30 million in grants available to states and U.S. territories to establish new consumer assistance offices or to bolster existing ones.

Will these rules make a difference?

It's difficult to say. The Obama administration did not attempt to quantify the benefits of the new rules. But many consumer advocates — including Consumers Union, Families USA, the National Partnership for Women and Families and the AARP — believe they provide important new protections.

"Under these new rules, if your health insurance claim is denied, you've got a fairer shot at appealing the decision," Consumers Union health reform campaign director DeAnn Friedholm said in a statement. "It's another important step in building a healthcare system that truly works for consumers."

http://www.latimes.com/news/health/la-na-health-rules-qa-20100723,0,7626445,print.story

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

From the New York Times

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

House Panel Will Try Rangel in Ethics Cases

WASHINGTON — A House investigative panel has found “substantial reason to believe” that Representative Charles B. Rangel violated a range of ethics rules, dealing a serious blow to Mr. Rangel, a Harlem Democrat, in the twilight of his political career.

The finding means that he must face a public trial before the House ethics committee, the first member of Congress to be forced to do so since 2002, when Representative James A. Traficant Jr. was expelled from Congress after a corruption conviction.

The investigative panel did not disclose any details about the nature of the violations.

But two Democrats with knowledge of the investigation said the committee found evidence to support accusations that Mr. Rangel, 80, wrongly accepted four rent-stabilized apartments in Manhattan and misused his office to preserve a tax loophole worth half a billion dollars for an oil executive who pledged a donation for an educational center being built in Mr. Rangel's honor.

The committee also found evidence to support a charge that Mr. Rangel failed to report or pay taxes on rental income from his beachfront Dominican villa.

They are among the most serious of the assortment of charges against Mr. Rangel that the panel has been examining for nearly two years.

Mr. Rangel, who has dismissed the accusations since they were first made in 2008, continued to contest them on Thursday and said he looked forward to publicly rebutting them. “I am pleased that, at long last, sunshine will pierce the cloud of serious allegations that have been raised against me in the media,” Mr. Rangel's statement said.

Mr. Rangel, who in March gave up his seat as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee in response to a separate ethics issue, has spent nearly $2 million fighting to clear himself in the various investigations as he seeks a 21st term this fall.

His office said Thursday that there was no possibility he would withdraw from the race or resign. But his mounting problems have become a liability for Democrats nationally as they seek to retain their control of the House. Republicans have criticized Speaker Nancy Pelosi , Democrat of California, for not moving more swiftly and decisively to discipline Mr. Rangel.

“Today's announcement is a sad reminder of Speaker Pelosi's most glaring broken promise: to ‘drain the swamp' in Washington,” said Representative John A. Boehner , Republican of Ohio, the House minority leader.

The ethics charges rattled New York's Democratic establishment, which considers Mr. Rangel political royalty, and touched off speculation about his future. The committee's action comes days after the deadline for candidates to enter the Sept. 14 primary. Mr. Rangel faces four poorly financed opponents: Vince Morgan, a banker; Adam Clayton Powell IV , a state assemblyman; Jonathan Tasini, an activist, and Joyce Johnson, a former Obama campaign official.

There were indications on Thursday that New York's Democratic leaders would rally around Mr. Rangel, at least for now. But at least one of his opponents, Mr. Tasini, called for the representative to drop out of the race, saying that his presence in the contest posed a “threat to the future of the Democratic Party .”

“The Republicans will make him the face of Washington corruption,” Mr. Tasini said. “It is not good for the party or for New York.”

The findings on Thursday were made by a four-member bipartisan investigative subcommittee of the full House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. They will be aired at a public trial before an adjudicatory subcommittee, which will report to the full committee about whether it substantiated the findings. If the accusations are substantiated, the full committee then decides on what punishment should occur, from a letter rebuking him to a recommendation that he be expelled from the House.

The investigative panel began its work in September 2008 after The New York Times reported that Mr. Rangel accepted four rent-stabilized apartments from a developer at a price below market value, despite rules forbidding House members from taking gifts worth more than $50.

The units, one of which he used for his campaign, are in Lenox Terrace, a luxury complex in Harlem. Mr. Rangel paid a total of $3,894 monthly for the four units, while the market-rate rent for similar apartments in his building would total $7,465 to $8,125 a month, according to the Web site of the owner, the Olnick Organization.

After years of Mr. Rangel's facing little opposition or scrutiny, the revelations about his arrangement set off a flurry of questions and aggressive examination of his personal finances and fund-raising.

The panel also examined whether Mr. Rangel had improperly used his position as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to preserve a tax loophole worth more than half a billion dollars for the oil company whose executive, Eugene Isenberg, had promised $1 million for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York . It also was exploring whether Mr. Rangel broke ethics rules when he failed to report taxable income received from the Dominican villa.

Mr. Rangel, who was first elected to the House in 1970, has usually coasted to re-election thanks to deep popularity in his district and his ability to deliver money and projects to the city.

His life story has been one of overcoming seemingly insurmountable challenges, dating to his service in the Korean War when he nearly froze to death while under attack by the Chinese, so New York politicians have been skittish about how the ruling would affect the outcome of the September primary.

“It means the investigation is still taking its course,” said Keith L. T. Wright, a State Assembly member. “It is not time for him to resign. I fully expect for him to be re-elected this fall and carrying the concerns of the people of Harlem down to Washington.”

As recently as this month, Mr. Rangel was boasting about how his constituents in Harlem were coming to his defense, despite the long-running investigation. And he showed no signs of considering retiring. “This is not the time to be hanging up the gloves,” he said in an interview last month.

Still, it is not clear whether Mr. Rangel, a proud and combative figure, will want to face the public spectacle of a trial. Democratic leaders, eager to contain the damage from his troubles, may push him to step aside in the coming weeks. If Mr. Rangel resigns from the House, the proceedings against him would almost certainly end.

In March, Mr. Rangel was admonished by the ethics committee for trips he and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus took to the Caribbean in 2007 and 2008 that were indirectly paid for by corporate sponsors like Pfizer, Verizon and AT&T, in violation of House rules.

On Thursday, after the findings were released, reporters pressed Mr. Rangel for a response. The congressman slapped away a question from Luke Russert of MSNBC about whether the inquiry might cost him his job.

“Basically you know it's a dumb question, and I'm not going to respond,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/nyregion/23rangel.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

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

House Passes Jobless Benefit Extension

WASHINGTON — The House approved legislation on Thursday that would restore unemployment pay for millions of Americans who have exhausted their standard benefits. The bill was sent to President Obama for his signature, and administration officials said Mr. Obama would sign it immediately.

The $34 billion measure was the subject of a fierce partisan battle in Congress over whether the cost should be offset with spending cuts or tax increases to avoid enlarging the federal deficit, as Republican opponents demanded. Democrats countered that the economic crisis amounted to a fiscal emergency, permitting the measure to be financed with deficit spending.

The vote in the House was 272 to 152 , with 31 Republicans joining 241 Democrats in supporting the measure. Voting against were 142 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

“Today we put this sad chapter behind us,” said Representative Sander Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

The fact that 31 Republicans sided with the Democratic majority showed the political sensitivity of the issue. Though they have been voting almost unanimously against most Democratic proposals, Republicans were somewhat splintered on the unemployment question.

The extended unemployment benefits, traditionally provided by the federal government in times of high joblessness, were caught in a stalemate from the end of May until a crucial vote in the Senate on Tuesday; over those six weeks, benefits ran out for an estimated 2 million Americans without jobs.

Democrats accused their opponents of employing a double standard, saying that Republicans who insisted on offsetting the cost of extended benefits with spending cuts never did the same to pay for tax cuts for affluent Americans.

Republicans, on the other hand, said the deficit was growing so large that the federal government could not afford to dole out more aid without reducing spending elsewhere.

“Republicans want to help those looking for work,” said Representative Charles Boustany, Republican of Louisiana. “We want to help those who are struggling with the current economic slowdown. But we also agree with the American people that new spending must be paid for.”

Both parties expect the fight over the unemployment benefits, which flared repeatedly all year, to be a defining issue in the November mid-term elections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/us/politics/23jobs.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

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

U.S. Lays Out Case Against Arizona Law

PHOENIX — With just a week remaining before Arizona's stringent new immigration law is set to take effect, a federal judge in Phoenix heard, for the first time, from Obama administration lawyers urging her to strike down the controversial legislation while dozens of demonstrators argued both sides outside the courthouse.

As protesters blocked traffic, chanted, sang, yelled and banged on bass drums, lawyers from the Justice Department and for the State of Arizona sparred over whether the law, known locally as SB1070, violates the United States Constitution's supremacy clause, which says federal law generally trumps state law. The federal judge, Susan R. Bolton, asked pointed questions of both sides, but made no ruling from the bench before adjourning at 3 p.m.

The hearing marked the first opportunity for the Obama administration to explain why it feels Arizona should not be allowed to empower local police to demand some proof of citizenship from people they suspect are illegal immigrants.

Edwin S. Kneedler, the lawyer for the federal government, argued that the federal government has the sole authority to enforce immigration laws under the Constitution and that Arizona was, in essence, establishing its own immigration policy — which in some cases would be stricter than the federal law and does not take into account either humanitarian concerns or the government's foreign policy goals.

“The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power,” he said.

With Gov. Jan Brewer , who signed and has fervently defended the legislation, sitting in the courtroom, the lawyer representing Arizona, John J. Bouma, asserted that the state law actually mirrors the letter of the federal law, even if that federal law is not enforced fully in practice. He argued the state had every right to ask its peace officers to call up federal authorities and check on a person's immigration status during routine traffic stops or other arrests, even if it created a headache for federal authorities.

“You can't catch them if you don't know about them, and they don't want to know about them — that's what they are saying,” Mr. Bouma said, gesturing to the Justice Department lawyers.

“What we get is the plaintiff over here saying we cannot do anything,” he added. “That it's not Arizona's problem, that we should just live with it.”

As Judge Bolton questioned the federal government's counsel, she expressed skepticism that the state was indeed carrying out its own immigration enforcement policy. She asked several times whether the statute would actually take the decision about what to do with an illegal immigrant away from federal authorities.

“How does it become immigration enforcement policy? It's an immigration status check,” she said. “Arizona cannot remove anybody, and they don't purport they can.”

Her comments during the hearing, along with those she made during a hearing in the morning on another suit brought by civil rights groups, suggested she is likely to rule on whether certain parts of the law are pre-empted by federal law, rather than striking down the entire law.

The courtroom was packed with spectators, many from civil rights groups and charities that aid immigrants.

Outside the courthouse, people of all political stripes mounted noisy demonstrations. Charlene Greenwood, 46 and unemployed, described herself as a Tea Party member, wore a semiautomatic pistol on her hip and signs that read, “Illegal immigrants have better health care than I do” and, “Bank robbers, drug dealers and prostitutes are just trying to support their families too.”

She said she regarded all illegal immigrants as criminals and people who support them as traitors. She said the state had to step in because the federal government had failed to stop illegal immigrants from entering the country.

About 30 protesters blocked traffic, many wearing T-shirts that said “Stop the Hate.” Several unfurled a large, white banner that blared “Stop SB1070. We will not comply.” Others in the group held a banner in Spanish saying: “There is no problem with immigration; there is a problem with capitalism. Revolution is the solution.” After two hours, the police cleared the intersection and arrested seven people.

Antoinette Murray, 45, said she feared the law would prompt police officers to stop citizens who look Hispanic and arrest them if they cannot produce the right documents. “If they look at someone and they are of Mexican descent, they are going to be guilty until proven innocent,” she said. “It makes you guilty for being brown.”

Among the protesters were several illegal immigrants who were waiting for judges to decide their cases. Rudy Gomez, 37, said he came to the country illegally from Guatemala in 1997 and has been working as a roofer ever since.

He has four children and fears he may be caught and deported in the crackdown envisioned under the law, he said. “I'm not doing anything wrong,” he said. “This is my home. This is where I live.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/us/23arizona.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

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

There's Only One Way to Stop a Bully

Williamstown, Mass.

HERE in Massachusetts, teachers and administrators are spending their summers becoming familiar with the new state law that requires schools to institute an anti-bullying curriculum, investigate acts of bullying and report the most serious cases to law enforcement officers.

This new law was passed in April after a group of South Hadley, Mass., students were indicted in the bullying of a 15-year-old girl, Phoebe Prince, who committed suicide. To the extent that it underlines the importance of the problem and demands that schools figure out how to address it, it is a move in the right direction. But legislation alone can't create kinder communities or teach children how to get along. That will take a much deeper rethinking of what schools should do for their students.

It's important, first, to recognize that while cellphones and the Internet have made bullying more anonymous and unsupervised, there is little evidence that children are meaner than they used to be. Indeed, there is ample research — not to mention plenty of novels and memoirs — about how children have always victimized one another in large and small ways, how often they are oblivious to the rights and feelings of others and how rarely they defend a victim.

In a 1995 study in Canada, researchers placed video cameras in a school playground and discovered that overt acts of bullying occurred at an astonishing rate of 4.5 incidents per hour. Just as interesting, children typically stood idly by and watched the mistreatment of their classmates — apparently, the inclination and ability to protect one another and to enforce a culture of tolerance does not come naturally. These are values that must be taught.

Yet, in American curriculums, a growing emphasis on standardized test scores as the primary measure of “successful” schools has crowded out what should be an essential criterion for well-educated students: a sense of responsibility for the well-being of others.

What's more, the danger of anti-bullying laws, which have now been passed by all but six states, is that they may subtly encourage schools to address this complicated problem quickly and superficially. Many schools are buying expensive anti-bullying curriculum packages, big glossy binders that look reassuring on the bookshelf and technically place schools closer to compliance with the new laws.

But our research on child development makes it clear that there is only one way to truly combat bullying. As an essential part of the school curriculum, we have to teach children how to be good to one another, how to cooperate, how to defend someone who is being picked on and how to stand up for what is right.

To do this, teachers and administrators must first be trained to recognize just how complex children's social interactions really are. Yes, some conflict is a normal part of growing up, and plenty of friendly, responsible children dabble in mean behavior. For these children, a little guidance can go a long way. That is why the noted teacher and author Vivian Paley once made a rule that her students couldn't exclude anyone from their play. It took a lot of effort to make it work, but it had a powerful impact on everyone.

Other children bully because they have emotional and developmental problems, or because they come from abusive families. They require our help more than our punishment.

The kind of bullying, though, that presents the most difficulty in figuring out how and when to intervene falls between these two extremes: Sometimes children who aren't normally bullies get caught up in a larger culture of aggression — say, a clique of preadolescent girls who form a club with the specific function of being mean to other girls. Teachers must learn the difference between various sorts of aggressive behaviors, as well as the approaches that work best for each.

Most important, educators need to make a profound commitment to turn schools into genuine communities. Children need to know that adults consider kindness and collaboration to be every bit as important as algebra and reading. In groups and one-on-one sessions, students and teachers should be having conversations about relationships every day. And, as obvious as it might sound, teachers can't just preach kindness; they need to actually be nice to one another and to their students.

Teachers also need to structure learning activities in which children are interdependent and can learn to view individual differences as unique sources of strength. It's vital that every student, not just the few who sign up for special projects or afterschool activities, be involved in endeavors that draw them together.

Look at Norway, where the prevention of such incidents became a major emphasis of the school system after three teenage victims of bullying committed suicide in 1983. There, everyone gets involved — teachers, janitors and bus drivers are all trained to identify instances of bullying, and taught how to intervene. Teachers regularly talk to one another about how their students interact. Children in every grade participate in weekly classroom discussions about friendship and conflict. Parents are involved in the process from the beginning.

Norway's efforts have been tremendously effective. The incidence of bullying fell by half during the two-year period in which the programs were introduced. Stealing and cheating also declined. And the rate of bullying remains low today. Clearly, when a school and a community adopt values that are rooted in treating others with dignity and respect, children's behavior can change.

Indeed, our analysis of successful bullying-prevention programs across the United States and abroad reveals that the key common factor is their breadth: both in terms of the people who participate and of the deep connection between specific policies and the larger social ethos of the school community.

Involving the legal system makes a strong statement that a society won't tolerate bullying. But for laws like the one in Massachusetts to succeed, they have to be matched by an educational system that teaches children not only what's wrong, but how to do what's right.

Susan Engel is a senior lecturer in psychology and the director of the teaching program at Williams College, where Marlene Sandstrom is a professor of psychology.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/opinion/23engel.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

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

From Google News

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

North Korea threatens 'physical response' to US military exercises

Regime sees naval and air drills as sign of hostility as US urges Asian nations to enforce UN sanctions against North Korea

The regime did not specify what that response might be, but said it interpreted the launch on Sunday of four days of naval and air drills in the Sea of Japan as another sign of US "hostility".

"It is a threat to the Korean peninsula and the region of Asia as a whole," a North Korea spokesman, Ri Tong-il, told reporters at the Asean regional forum.

Ri said the drills harked back to 19th-century gunboat diplomacy and violated North Korea's sovereignty. "And [our] position is clear: there will be physical response to the threat imposed by the United States militarily," he said.

Operation Invincible Spirit will involve 8,000 US and South Korean troops, 200 aircraft and 20 ships, including the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier the USS George Washington.

The meeting in Hanoi has quickly become the stage for a war of words between the north and the US, although there has been no direct contact between the countries' delegates.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton , said "isolated and belligerent" North Korea would have to end its "campaign of provocative, dangerous behaviour" if it wanted better relations with the US and the rest of Asia.

North Korea has pulled out of six-party talks on its nuclear programme and is blamed for the March sinking of the Cheonan, a South Korean navy vessel, in which 46 sailors died.

The regime denies carrying out the attack and has unleashed a wave of belligerent rhetoric in response to what it calls US aggression.

On Wednesday, Clinton unveiled new sanctions designed to deny luxury goods to North Korean elites and strangle funding for Pyongyang's nuclear programme. The north says it will not return to nuclear negotiations unless the sanctions are lifted.

Today, Clinton urged Asian nations to pressure North Korea into abandoning its nuclear ambitions by enforcing strict UN sanctions imposed after the regime's second nuclear test last year.

"One measure of the strength of a community of nations is how it responds to threats to its members, neighbours and region," Clinton said.

A South Korean newspaper said the new US sanctions would target 200 North Korean-held foreign bank accounts thought to be connected with illegal activities such as nuclear weapons development, drug trafficking and counterfeiting.

"Even before the Cheonan incident, the US was tracking around 200 North Korean bank accounts in banks in China, Russia and even eastern Europe and Africa that are believed to be involved in the development of weapons of mass destruction and the export of drugs, counterfeit money, fake cigarettes and weapons," the Chosun Ilbo newspaper quoted a diplomatic source as saying.

The paper said the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, is believed to hold a US$4bn slush fund in secret accounts in Switzerland, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein.

North Korea also rejected South Korean demands to apologise for the sinking of the Cheonan.

"We cannot accept such a claim because they try to use it to shift (their) responsibility on to us," Ri said. He repeated North Korea's position that the cause of the sinking remains unclear and insisted that it be allowed to conduct a joint investigation with the south.

"South Korean authorities bear the responsibility for causing tension ... South Korea is the one who must apologise," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/23/north-korea-threatens-physical-response

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

COMMENTARY

A word of thanks for the Americans with Disabilities Act

by Haddayr Copley-Woods

As the physically disabled parent of a developmentally disabled child, I am deeply grateful today.

Things used to be different for people like us: such as for Barb, a girl I knew growing up. She was bright, ambitious and she also had a form of autism. Her parents had to fight to keep her in regular education classes -- sometimes unsuccessfully. After the senior class elected her president, the faculty advisor resigned. The advisor said she wouldn't work with a girl she called a "retard." For Barb, the emotional and educational impact was devastating.

And in the '70s and '80s, all of this was perfectly legal.

Today, my autistic son has enthusiastic, educated teachers. He has mandated supports in his regular-ed classroom. He feels valued at school. No one has ever called him a "retard."

All this because of the Americans with Disabilities Act . The ADA outlawed discrimination against disabled people in employment, transportation, and education. It mandated reasonable accommodations.

And in 20 years, it has made a tremendous difference. We now have ramps, elevators, education plans, and wheel-chair-accessible crosswalks. Restaurants can't ban our assistance dogs.

While the impact of the ADA has been profound, there is still a lot to do. Employers are still reluctant to hire disabled people. Studies have found disabled adults are two to three times more likely to live in poverty than adults without disabilities. And we're still fighting for the Community Choice Act , which would help keep disabled people from being institutionalized.

But I have faith we'll win those battles. Here's why: the ADA didn't give disabled people equal rights under the law. Disabled people took those rights. And gimps are hardcore.

I get choked up every time I roll my wheelchair onto a bus lift. I think about the protests in the '80s. People blocking the road: Glorious, bold, furious people with palsy, paralysis, atrophied muscles, missing limbs. I think about them throwing themselves out of their wheelchairs onto hard, filthy city streets to block traffic. Shouting. Chanting. And yes, by golly, drooling, shrieking, and groaning as they were arrested.

It is thanks to those protestors in Denver and Cleveland, to sit-ins in Washington and San Francisco -- thanks to decades of tireless activism in L.A., Chicago, and Boston -- that we now have the ADA.

So, while we still have work to do, today I just want to say thanks to you wonderful, loud, fierce cripples. Thank you for your anger. Thank you for your hard work. Thank you for what you've done for me and for my son. For all of us.

And if anyone sees me blinking hard on the bus lift some morning, don't mistake my tears for pain: I cry because I'm so grateful and proud to be in such brilliant company.

Haddayr Copley-Woods, Minneapolis, Minneapolis, is a copywriter, blogger and mother.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/07/23/woods/

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

From the White House

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

At Long Last, Help for Our Neighbors and a Boost for the Economy with Extended Unemployment Insurance

Yesterday, at long last the Senate passed an extension of unemployment insurance, not only the decent thing to do but one of the most effective ways to boost our economy, as Lawrence Summers, Chair of the National Economic Council, explained .  The President  has pressured the partisan minority holding it up relentlessly on behalf of those who desperately needed the helping hand, and applauded Congress for overcoming that obstruction in the statement below and today sign he signed the legislation in the Oval Office.  This was the President's statement:

Today, I signed the unemployment insurance extension to restore desperately needed assistance to two and a half million Americans who lost their jobs in the recession.  After a partisan minority used procedural tactics to block the authorization of this assistance three separate times over the past weeks, Americans who are fighting to find a good job and support their families will finally get the support they need to get back on their feet during these tough economic times.  Now it's time for Congress to act on more proposals that support our economic recovery, including passing critical aid to our states and support to small businesses.  Small businesses are the engine of job growth, and measures to cut their taxes and make lending available should not be held hostage to partisan tactics like those that unconscionably held up unemployment insurance.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/22/long-last-help-our-neighbors-and-a-boost-economy-with-extended-unemployment-insuranc

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

From the Department of Homeland Security

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

Secretary Napolitano Launches First-Of-Its-Kind Campaign to Combat Human Trafficking

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today launched the “Blue Campaign”—a DHS-wide initiative to combat human trafficking through enhanced public awareness, victim assistance programs, and law enforcement training and initiatives.

“The battle against human trafficking is a shared responsibility involving the Department's federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement partners, non-profit and non-governmental organizations, governments around the world and communities across the nation,” said Secretary Napolitano. “With the Blue Campaign, we seek to shine a light on a crime that thrives in the shadows, bring traffickers to justice, and assist victims in communities across the nation.”

The Blue Campaign was officially launched today by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Deputy Director Ken Keene and Alice Hill, Senior Counselor to Secretary Napolitano—underscoring the unified effort to prevent human trafficking, assist victims and hold traffickers accountable by bringing together the Department's diverse resources and expertise under one initiative.

To help citizens learn to identify and properly report indicators of human trafficking, the Department is launching public outreach tools that include social media, multilingual public awareness campaigns, and a new, comprehensive one-stop website for the Department's efforts to combat human trafficking at www.dhs.gov/humantrafficking .

The Blue Campaign also features new training initiatives for law enforcement and DHS personnel, enhanced victim assistance efforts, and the creation of new partnerships and interagency collaboration—including the deployment of additional victim assistance specialists and specialized training for law enforcement personnel.

The Blue Campaign's name and symbol were chosen by the Department to evoke the “thin blue line” of law enforcement, as well as the global anti-human trafficking symbols the Blue Blindfold, produced by the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Center, and the Blue Heart, developed by the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, to help raise international awareness about this issue.

A fact sheet detailing the numerous aspects of the campaign across the Department is available here . For more information, visit www.dhs.gov/humantrafficking .

http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1279813956862.shtm

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

Readout of Secretary Napolitano's Meeting with Veterans Service Organization Leaders

Washington, D.C. - Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today met with leaders of several veterans service organizations—at a meeting hosted by Disabled American Veterans—to discuss DHS' ongoing collaboration and engagement with America's veteran community.

During the meeting, Secretary Napolitano highlighted the Department's continued engagement with disabled veterans and wounded service members transitioning out of the military through initiatives such as the Wounded Warriors Program—a program expanded Department-wide in 2009 to facilitate the hiring of severely wounded or disabled military veterans on a permanent basis.

She also reiterated the Department's commitment to engaging wounded service members recovering from their injuries through programs like Operation Warfighter—a program that allows servicemen and service women on medical hold to gain valuable federal government work experience.

In each of the past two years the Department has awarded approximately $900 million in prime contracts to veteran-owned small businesses—so far this year, DHS has disbursed $633.7 million to veteran-owned businesses who provide vital homeland security services. DHS is also on track to meet goals set by the Small Business Administration for overall spending with Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses.

In addition, Secretary Napolitano discussed her close work with the DHS Veterans Outreach Steering Committee throughout the year to better engage the unique skills of veterans through employment, contracting opportunities and collaboration on key DHS initiatives such as Citizen Corps and other preparedness programs.

For more information, visit www.dhs.gov/veterans —launched last year to provide a one-stop location for veterans and veterans organizations to learn about DHS' many veteran outreach initiatives and hiring and contracting opportunities.

http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1279832560786.shtm

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

From the Department of Justice

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

WASHINGTON – Two individuals have pleaded guilty to charges related to their participation in an international group of child pornography traffickers who used a social networking site to share thousands of sexually explicit images, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer for the Criminal Division and Acting U.S. Attorney Robert Cessar for the Western District of Pennsylvania. 

Fred Woolum, 58, of Lexington, Va., pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge Arthur A. Schwab to one count of engaging in a child exploitation enterprise. Daniel Cox, 54, of Houston, pleaded guilty Wednesday before Judge Schwab to one count of conspiring to distribute and receive child pornography. Information presented at court established that from January 2007 to September 2009, Woolum, Cox and others distributed images and videos of children being sexually abused to other members of an international group that had restricted membership and was formed on a social networking website. Members of the group distributed to one another thousands of sexually explicit images and videos of children, many of which graphically depicted prepubescent, male children, including some infants, being sexually abused and sometimes sodomized or subjected to bondage.

Sentencing has been set for Feb. 18, 2011, for Woolum and March 4, 2011, for Cox. At sentencing, Woolum faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum sentence of life in prison, with the possibility of lifetime supervised release. Cox faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, with the possibility of lifetime supervised release. Woolum and Cox both face a fine of up to $250,000.

These cases were brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by U.S. Attorneys' Offices and the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims.

For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.projectsafechildhood.gov.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the High Tech Investigative Unit of CEOS conducted the investigation that led to the prosecution of Woolum and Cox.  CEOS Trial Attorney Barak Cohen and Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig W. Haller prosecuted the cases.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-crm-846.html

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

WASHINGTON –The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division and the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Office for Civil Rights today issued new technical assistance guidance for medical providers which will help people with mobility disabilities obtain accessible medical care.  Access to Medical Care for Persons with Mobility Disabilities will assist medical care providers in understanding how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 apply to them.   This 19-page document includes an overview of general ADA requirements, commonly asked questions, and illustrated examples of accessible facilities, examination rooms and medical equipment.

“It is critical that all individuals, including those with disabilities, have access to health care.  But far too often, barriers prevent people with disabilities from visiting a doctor's office or a clinic,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Thomas E. Perez. 

“Due to barriers, people with disabilities are less likely to receive even basic medical treatment that will prevent routine small problems from turning into major and possibly life threatening ones.  This guidance promotes the core values of the health care reform legislation championed by this Administration,” said Georgina C. Verdugo, director of HHS' Office for Civil Rights. 

Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by private hospitals, doctors' offices, clinics and other health care providers. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended prohibits disability based discrimination by all health care providers that receive federal financial assistance.

For more information about the ADA or to obtain copies of Access to Medical Care for Individuals with Mobility Disabilities visit www.ada.gov or call the ADA Information Line at 1-800-514-0301

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-crt-845.html

.