July 30, 2010

Reporting from Phoenix

Eighty demonstrators against Arizona's tough-on-illegal-immigration policies trickled out of jails here Friday, as a local sheriff continued one of his controversial operations that critics contend targets Latinos.

The protesters had been arrested Thursday, the day the state's controversial immigration law took effect and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio launched his 17th sweep against illegal immigrants.

On Friday, Arpaio announced that three illegal immigrants were arrested in the sweep. During such operations, his deputies stop people for sometimes minor violations and check their immigration status.

A federal judge had barred most of the immigration law, SB 1070, from being implemented, but that didn't stop hundreds of protesters from filling the streets and engaging in civil disobedience on Thursday. Twenty-three were arrested at Arpaio's main downtown jail for blocking the entrance. Their demonstration forced the sheriff to delay his sweep for several hours.

Activists on Friday boasted that they had slowed down the tough-talking Arpaio.

"Families were not separated; the community was not terrorized," said Carlos Garcia of civil rights group Puente, who was arrested Thursday.

Friday afternoon, several activists blocked the command center Arpaio set up for his sweep, leading to more arrests for civil disobedience. "They want to go to jail, so that's where they're going," Arpaio said. "They want to keep coming, we'll lock them up."

Also Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer said the Legislature might "tweak" SB 1070 when it convenes in January to address concerns about the law raised by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton.

For example, Bolton singled out a provision requiring that every person arrested in the state be held until their immigration status is determined. Brewer's lawyer conceded that the sentence was "inartfully" written and should apply only to suspected illegal immigrants.

The state appealed Bolton's ruling Thursday, asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to expedite the process because of the "irreparable harm Arizona is suffering as a result of unchecked unlawful immigration."

Arizona officials hoped for a hearing in September. But late Friday the appeals court issued a two-page order rejecting the request and said the hearing would take place the week of Nov. 1.

The law was already significantly narrowed once before in response to pressure from opponents. After Brewer signed the legislation in April, she accepted last-minute revisions from the Legislature. The law had required police to determine the immigration status of people they interact with whom they suspect are in the country illegally. Now it requires them to check only people they stop and believe are illegal immigrants.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration-20100731,0,4128876,print.story

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

House approves oil spill legislation

The bill, passed 209 to 193, would impose new safeguards for offshore drilling, remove a liability cap for spill damages, and hit energy producers with a new tax to fund conservation measures.

By Richard Simon, Reporting from Washington

July 31, 2010

In its most sweeping response to the gulf oil spill, the House on Friday approved legislation that would impose new environmental safeguards for offshore drilling, remove a liability cap for spill damages, and slap industry with a new tax to fund conservation projects nationwide.

The Democratic-drafted legislation passed on a largely party-line 209-193 vote but faces trouble in the deeply divided Senate.

"The Deepwater Horizon explosion and the subsequent damage that has occurred over the past 102 days is indeed a game-changer," said Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

The measure, which follows dozens of Capitol Hill hearings into the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, would remove a $75-million liability cap on oil firms for economic damages caused by spills. It would also hit energy producers with a new $2 per barrel tax to fund land purchases for national parks, forests and wildlife refuges.

The House bill would set new standards for blowout preventers, the safety device that apparently failed on BP's blown-out well in the Gulf of Mexico. And it would repeal an 1851 law that rig owner Transocean has sought to use to limit its liability for the disaster.

The bill, which has become entangled in election-year politics, was backed by Democrats who said it would help prevent another oil spill disaster and hold oil companies more accountable for spills. It was opposed by Republicans who argued it would raise the cost of domestic energy production and increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

"Let's vote to ensure that a spill of this kind never happens again," said Rep. Lois Capps, a Democrat whose Santa Barbara district was the scene of a devastating oil spill in 1969.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R- Texas), who heads the House GOP campaign committee, urged Republican colleagues heading home Friday for summer recess to tell voters that Democrats were "sticking it to the consumer again at the gas pump."

"If you want to apologize for Big Oil, go ahead," responded Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The American people are not on your side on this one."

Gulf Coast lawmakers were among the bill's sharpest critics.

"This isn't the answer to help the gulf," said Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), contending that the bill would increase the cost of domestic energy production. "It only helps OPEC."

The oil industry accused lawmakers of acting in haste without waiting for the results of multiple investigations into the April 20 Deepwater Horizon explosion.

"Congress has not taken the steps to understand not only the causes of the oil spill, but also the full impact of this legislation on the economic and national security of our nation," said Barry Russell, president and chief executive of the Independent Petroleum Assn. of America.

Rahall dismissed industry criticism as "sheer hyperventilation" and urged critics of the legislation to "take a look at the spill in the gulf to see how an overly permissive attitude can turn into a real horror story."

The bill would repeal a provision of the 2005 energy law that exempted projects, including the Deepwater Horizon drilling, from detailed environmental analysis. It would bar companies with poor safety and environmental records from receiving new offshore drilling leases. And it would require offshore drilling rigs to operate under the U.S. flag, requiring tougher safety rules than those in effect for the Deepwater Horizon, which was registered in the Marshall Islands.

The measure would prohibit oil companies from bidding on new offshore leases unless they renegotiate royalty-free offshore oil leases that were approved in the 1990s. It would establish new ethics rules for drilling regulators; increase fines to $10 million, from $100,000, for willful violations of drilling rules; and establish new procedures for use of oil dispersants.

A separate measure to provide whistleblower protections to offshore drilling workers was approved.

The House approved an amendment that would lift the Obama administration's deepwater drilling moratorium for companies that meet new safety rules. Gulf Coast lawmakers have said the moratorium is damaging their region's economy.

What effect the provision would have is uncertain since a final bill is unlikely to go the White House until September at the earliest. The moratorium is due to expire Nov. 30, but Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has said it could end earlier if drilling can proceed safely.

Senators could take up their version of the legislation before they leave town at the end of next week. The Senate Democrats' bill, like the House bill, would remove the liability cap. Republicans object to this provision, however, saying that removing the cap would drive smaller companies out of the gulf.

Even though Democrats hold a majority in the Senate, they lack the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican-led filibuster. Also, energy politics can sometimes divide lawmakers by region, instead of party affiliation. Democrats from energy-producing states like Alaska and Louisiana may be reluctant to support any measure they believe will hurt an industry that is important to their state's economy.

One common feature of the House bill and the Senate Democrats' proposal would provide $900 million a year for land purchases for national parks, forests and wildlife refuges.

That would provide a level of funding reached only once since President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 signed the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. Environmentalists already are drawing wish lists of projects.

A funding increase would provide "the catalyst to complete our land acquisition plan" for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, said Woody Smeck, acting deputy regional director of the National Park Service's Pacific West Region. "We have 22,500 acres still to acquire from willing sellers."

The legislation also would write into law the Obama administration's revamping of the scandal-plagued federal agency that oversees offshore drilling, in order to reduce potential conflicts of interest.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-bill-20100731,0,6271999,print.story

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

EDITORIAL

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010: It's about time

A reduction in the highly unjust sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses is long overdue.

July 31, 2010

With passage of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 by the House this week, Congress at last has reduced the highly unjust sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses that has been on the books for two decades. It has taken years of research, hearings and negotiations to reach this point, and although the compromises made to pass the legislation weakened it, the act is still an important step in the right direction. It shrinks the disparity in sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses from 100 to 1 to 18 to 1. That is still not entirely fair; it would have been appropriate to eliminate the disparity and require equal sentences for both, as was first proposed by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).

Instead, the legislation, which matches a bill passed by the Senate in March, raises the minimum quantity of crack cocaine necessary to trigger a five-year sentence from 5 grams to 28, and raises the amount that triggers a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence from 50 grams to 280 grams. The amount of powder cocaine required to trigger mandatory minimums remains the same: 500 grams.

There was never any scientific basis for the disparity, just panic as the crack epidemic swept the nation's cities. But cocaine in rock form is not 100 times more addictive than cocaine in powder form, as was believed at the time. Research long ago debunked that myth, but until now, members of Congress have refused to adjust the sentencing, loath to appear soft on crime even in a just cause.

In the spring of 1995, the U.S. Sentencing Commission noted that the disparity was having unintended consequences. It created an unfair and artificial racial imbalance in federal prisons and led to more severe sentences for low-level crack dealers than for wholesale suppliers of powder cocaine. The commission proposed a reduction in the ratio, but Congress and President Clinton rejected the recommendation. As a result, thousands of people — mostly African Americans — have received disproportionately harsh prison sentences. According to the Sentencing Commission, implementation of the Fair Sentencing Act could reduce the federal prison population by thousands of offenders and save an estimated $42 million in the first five years.

The compromise isn't perfect, but it's a big improvement, and many lives will be spared when President Obama signs the bill.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-sentencing-20100731,0,4913138,print.story

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

From the New York Times

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

U.N. Removes 5 Taliban From Its Sanctions List

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations Security Council removed five members of the Taliban from its sanctions list on Friday, in a nod toward the kind of reconciliation considered crucial for Afghanistan’s future stability.

The five were hardly viewed as much of a threat: Three of them have already made peace with the Kabul government, and two of them are dead.

But they were among a list of 20 names that the government of President Hamid Karzai submitted several years ago to the Security Council committee responsible for maintaining the blacklist, diplomats said. Five others were removed in January, eight have been rejected for removal and two remain under review, they said.

Though many experts doubt it is possible, reconciliation with the Taliban is being widely discussed as the only way of resolving the Afghan war. President Karzai has spoken recently about removing all the Taliban members from the sanctions list, currently about 135 of them, but he has not formally submitted any further requests, diplomats said.

Among the five taken off the list Friday were Abdul Satar Paktin, a former deputy health minister; Abdul Salam Zaeef, a former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan and a former deputy minister of mines; and Abdul Hakim Mujahed Awrang, a former unofficial representative to the United Nations. The two dead men removed were Mohammed Islam Mohammadi, the former governor of Bamian Province, and Abdul Samad Khaksar, the former deputy interior minister.

Russia has been the most reluctant to accept removing any of the Taliban from the list, worried that their resurgence could help fuel militant Islam in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia and across the Caucasus. They contend even the assets of the dead might be put toward that end, diplomats said.

In Kabul, where he has been a channel to the Taliban for several years, Mr. Zaeef called the blacklist one of the major obstacles blocking peace talks. He joked, though, when asked about being taken off the list, saying, “Are you sure my name was removed?”

Mr. Zaeef, who spent more than four years in prison, including the United States military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, wrote a memoir published earlier this year, “My Life with the Taliban.” He said that taking the names off the list constituted a good first step.

“It will build trust between both sides, but on one condition,” he said in a brief interview. “This process should continue and does not stop right here. They should remove the names of more and more people from this list — one or two or five names are not enough.”

Those listed are subject to a travel ban, asset freeze and arms embargo, although in Afghanistan the list is often interpreted as some kind of hit list for assassination. The conditions for being removed are renouncing violence, renouncing all ties to Al Qaeda and accepting the Afghan Constitution.

The sanctions committee has spent months reviewing the full list of about 500 names or organizations linked to either Al Qaeda or the Taliban, and is scheduled to release the full results on Monday, with fewer than 10 percent of the names likely to come off the combined list, diplomats said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/world/asia/31nations.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print

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

As Some Young Muslims Turn to Radicalism, Concern Grows

By SOUAD MEKHENNET

FRANKFURT — Before Abi left her parents’ house in northern Germany last year, she asked her father, “Daddy, what can I bring you from my journey?” He looked up from his book and answered, “Some perfumed oil.” “Will do,” she said, hugging him goodbye.

He is still waiting, more than a year later, for her to return.

Abi, now 23, and her husband never made the trip they said they had planned to Saudi Arabia to visit Mecca and Medina. Instead they became part of a growing number of young Muslims from Germany and other European countries who travel to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region, eventually ending up in the camps of groups affiliated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

One German man, Eric Breininger, was later reported killed in a battle with Pakistani troops.

A Turkish-language Web site announced that in recent days nine foreign fighters were killed as they traveled to carry out operations with the Taliban. Two of them were identified as Germans, from Bonn and Berlin.

Others have been arrested on a variety of charges. In one case, several people were convicted of planning attacks against American military facilities in Germany.

Intelligence officials are concerned that the young people, most in their 20s, will be used by the militants for propaganda purposes or trained to take up arms. They also worry that some will slip back into Germany to recruit others or to join sleeper cells and ultimately commit acts of terrorism.

“This is a very dangerous situation and German security services are very nervous about it,” said Guido Steinberg, terrorism expert of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin. “Al Qaeda and other organizations have put Germany on their target priority list as one of the top places.”

Security officials believe that the number of young Germans who make the trip is relatively small, perhaps fewer than 200 since the early 1990s. But they also believe the number is growing, inspired in part by German-language videos on the Internet, including some made by a group called German Taliban Mujahedeen, which promise a happy life with others committed to Shariah law.

It is difficult to pin down an exact figure because most of those headed for the border regions first leave Germany by car, to elude airport security checks; many go to Turkey and then illegally into Iran, where they meet smugglers who take them to their destination.

Security officials are also troubled because it appears that whole families are now making the move, after selling all their possessions and taking their savings from the bank.

A man who helps smuggle foreigners into the region offered an explanation for the need for cash. In the past, said the man, Abu Yahia, who is from Waziristan, the militant groups once had enough money to support those who joined them. Now, he said, with all the fighting going on, the newcomers are asked to “bring enough money so they can support the groups and themselves.”

The parents of Abi — her mother is German and her father is from a West African country — are appalled by their daughter’s transformation from a Westernized dental student to a radicalized Muslim. (Fearing harassment, the parents consented to be interviewed only if their names were not disclosed. Abi is a shortened form of their daughter’s real name.)

The changes came slowly, they say, after Abi fell in love with a young Iranian man, who grew up in Germany. After marrying in a mosque in 2008 — a shock to her father, though he is Muslim — the young couple changed their behavior and their dress. He converted from Shiism, started to follow a radical Sunni form of Islam and grew his beard; she started wearing head scarves and cut off contact with friends. “My husband told her that this was not what Islam was teaching, to stop friendships, but she would not listen,” Abi’s mother said.

At the beginning of March last year, Abi, her husband and three others left their homes in Germany and ultimately made their way to the Pakistani border region of Waziristan. At the beginning Abi told her parents through e-mail that she and her husband wanted to live in an Islamic society, though her husband later sent signals to his parents that he wanted to return to Germany. But then he appeared in a propaganda video with a gun in his hand. “I knew then, that it would be very tough for them to return,” Abi’s mother said.

Security officials, as well as the parents of Abi, her husband and other parents of young people who have gone to the Pakistani border region, hope to learn more about their situation from Rami Makanesi, a 25-year-old German national of Syrian descent, who was recently arrested by Pakistani officials while in the tribal district of North Waziristan.

Since his arrest Mr. Makanesi has been in the custody of Pakistan’s main spy service, the ISI. According to a senior ISI official, Mr. Makanesi told Pakistani investigators that he was a member of Al Qaeda and had trained suicide bombers for them in Waziristan. “He did not leave the impression that he was someone who had no idea what he was doing there,” said the ISI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to speak publicly about the case.

Mr. Makanesi also spoke about dozens of Qaeda-recruited Europeans fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan. “He spoke about six other German men who had been in the same region with him,” the official said.

“There are connections between the circles from Hamburg to circles in Berlin, Bonn and Frankfurt,” said a senior German intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the case. “It is very possible that Mr. Makanesi has met some people from Germany who traveled from other cities as well.”

One of the families desperate for some information is that of Thomas, a 24-year-old convert to Islam who has grown more observant over the past two years. The family grew alarmed when Thomas, now using the name Haroun, and his wife began talking about moving to a place where they could practice their faith more completely.

“We went to the police and intelligence service and asked for help, because we noticed how they had changed,” his mother said. “We’ve cried for help.” But the authorities had no legal basis to intervene.

Last September, he and his wife told his parents that they were leaving Berlin for a trip to celebrate their first wedding anniversary. Instead, they made their way to Waziristan.

At the beginning, Thomas sent e-mails to his parents, telling them the living conditions were tough. Last December, he wrote that he didn’t know if he would see the next summer.

“Since then no message, no idea if he is still alive or dead, no certainty, which is making it very complicated,” his mother said.

German security officials say that they believe Thomas went through military training in Waziristan. “We have indications that he has appeared in one propaganda video, but with his face covered,” one official said.

The parents of Abi and Thomas still hope that their children will return to Germany. But security officials say that in nearly all cases those who return continue to associate with more militant Muslims.

Abi’s mother says the signals that she is getting from her daughter about a return are not very hopeful.

Abi has told her mother that Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan are oppressed and need help. That reaction is typical for her daughter, who always wanted to help people, Abi’s mother said, adding, “I was always proud of her for this.”

Then tears filled her eyes, as she said: “My husband and I became very weak because of what she has done, and I would like to ask her, ‘Doesn’t the Koran say you should never lie to your parents and have to honor them?’ ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/world/europe/31muslim.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print

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

Taking Calls From Veterans on the Brink

By JAMES DAO

CANANDAIGUA, N.Y. — Melanie Poorman swiveled in her chair and punched a button on the phone. The caller, an Iraq war veteran in his 30s, had recently broken up with his girlfriend and was watching a movie, “Body of War,” that was triggering bad memories. He started to cry.

And he had a 12-gauge shotgun nearby. Could someone please come and take it away, he asked.

Ms. Poorman, 54, gently coaxed the man into unloading the weapon. As a co-worker called the police, she stayed on the line, talking to him about his girlfriend, his work, the war. Suddenly, there were sirens. “I unloaded the gun!” she heard him shout. And then he hung up. (He was taken to a hospital, she learned later.)

Ms. Poorman sat back and took a deep breath. “That was an easy one,” she said. The hard ones are “angry, angry, angry — they have intent, they have a plan, and they have no desire for help,” she said. But they call anyway.

“I think contact is important, even at the end of life,” she said.

It was just an average night at the Department of Veterans Affairs suicide prevention hot line in central New York. Over here, Rebecca talked to a drunken man who was seeing people he had killed. Over there, Katie was on the line with a bipolar man having nightmares. Across the room, Virginia tried to calm a man who had refused to take his medication and was threatening to run headlong into traffic.

This is the front line of the government’s expanding efforts to deter suicide among veterans.

Though suicides among active-duty service members are carefully tracked — they hit a one-month record, 32, in June — no reliable data exists for suicides by veterans.

But estimates, while not universally accepted, seem alarming. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, veterans account for about one in five of the more than 30,000 suicides committed in the United States each year.

Under growing pressure from veterans groups and Congress, the Veterans Affairs Department in recent years has hired more than 5,000 therapists and counselors and established a system of suicide prevention coordinators at more than 150 medical centers.

It also opened a research center here in Canandaigua associated with the University of Rochester, which already had one of the nation’s largest programs for the study of suicide.

But the hot line has become the most visible facet of the government’s efforts to prevent suicide among veterans, providing tangible examples of both successes and shortcomings in the campaign.

To critics, including some veterans advocates, the hot line is a necessary but last-ditch approach, a tourniquet for people with dire psychological wounds. Until the department develops more effective long-term programs to treat and prevent suicidal behavior, the numbers will continue to rise, they say.

“A veteran would have to have reached the point of actually considering suicide to actually call the suicide hot line,” a veteran, Melvin Citron, testified before a House Veterans’ Affairs subcommittee in a hearing on suicide this month. “I would submit that by then, for some, it could have been prevented.”

But the department and its supporters say the hot line is much more than a Band-Aid. For many veterans, it has become a gateway into government services. About a third of callers are not in the veterans health system, so workers on the prevention hot line can steer them to programs they may not have known about.

The hot line is also clearly saving some people, if only for a day. In the 2007 fiscal year, when it opened, the center handled about 9,380 calls. Last year the number jumped more than tenfold, to nearly 119,000.

On a typical day, responders handle 250 to 300 calls from across the country and overseas. Not all are veterans, but the responders take all calls.

No one knows what ultimately happens to the callers, a vast majority of whom are men. Some probably overcome their impulse, but many eventually call back making new threats. And a few undoubtedly kill themselves.

One measure of effectiveness is known as a rescue: when emergency service workers are able to rush people threatening or actually trying to commit suicide to a hospital. The hot line has chalked up 10,000 rescues since 2007.

Benjamin Rowe, 24, had one such rescue a few weeks ago. A caller said he had tied a noose around his neck and was going to hang himself from a ceiling fan.

Mr. Rowe called the police, but before they arrived, the man, still holding the phone, stepped off his chair. Mr. Rowe could hear him gasping for air.

But the rope broke and the man fell to the floor, softly crying for help as the police finally knocked down the door.

“I couldn’t disconnect, I had to listen,” Mr. Rowe said. “Everyone who works here has had several calls like that.”

Janet Kemp, the department’s national mental health director for suicide prevention, said she was initially skeptical about the hot line. “I didn’t think soldiers would call,” she said. “But I was wrong. It’s kind of blown me away.”

The hot line is run in conjunction with the nation’s largest network of crisis call centers, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Veterans who call 1-800-273-TALK are prompted to press 1 and are then connected to a bank of about 15 phones in a red-brick building at the Canandaigua veterans medical center.

Recently, the center also began conducting online chats with suicidal veterans, as well as handling calls from homeless veterans seeking emergency housing.

Just about all of the 124 people on staff have degrees or experience in counseling, social work or therapy. Only about a third are veterans themselves, which has prompted criticism from some veterans groups.

Caitlin Thompson, the clinical care coordinator, said a vast majority of veterans simply wanted an empathetic ear. “The very act of picking up the phone is an attempt to reach out one last time,” she said. “It’s that ambivalence that we are trying to jump on.”

Throughout the evening, Kevin Prenatt hovered near the responders, a clipboard in hand. His job was to hunt through databases and phone records for the addresses of callers who refused to give locations. Luck and hunches are sometimes his only tools.

In April, he was able to locate a man who had slit both wrists in a public park simply because the responder could hear a train in the background. As luck would have it, the town had just one park near the tracks.

“I know the residual effects of suicide,” said Mr. Prenatt, a 52-year-old Navy veteran whose older brother killed himself at the age of 26. “It changed my mother forever.”

He was soon hovering near Michelle Edwards as she talked to a despondent National Guard soldier who had just broken up with her boyfriend, was drinking heavily and had a 9-millimeter pistol nearby.

Ms. Edwards firmly tried to persuade the woman’s mother to take her to a hospital. When that failed, she called the police.

“I lived all this stuff,” Ms. Edwards said after hanging up. Her father, she said, was a veteran who returned from Vietnam with serious physical and psychological injuries. But he became a social worker and threw his energy into helping others. She learned from him, she says, to love counseling.

Within minutes, her phone rang again. She had forgotten to press a button that bounces calls to other lines — a system designed to give responders time to decompress before taking another call.

She answered, and a moment later, her voice lowered into an earthy calm.

“Slow down, sir,” she said. “You say you’re seeing people with guns?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/us/31hotline.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print

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

Debate Heating Up on Plans for Mosque Near Ground Zero

By MICHAEL BARBARO

An influential Jewish organization on Friday announced its opposition to a proposed Islamic center and mosque two blocks north of ground zero in Lower Manhattan, intensifying a fierce national debate about the limits of religious freedom and the meaning of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The decision by the group, the Anti-Defamation League, touched off angry reactions from a range of religious groups, which argued that the country would show its tolerance and values by welcoming the center near the site where radical Muslims killed about 2,750 people.

But the unexpected move by the ADL, a mainstream group that has denounced what it saw as bigoted attacks on plans for the Muslim center, could well be a turning point in the battle over the project.

In New York, where ground zero has slowly blended back into the fabric of the city, government officials appear poised to approve plans for the sprawling complex, which would have as many as 15 stories and would house a prayer space, a performing arts center, a pool and a restaurant.

But around the country opposition is mounting, fueled in part by Republican leaders and conservative pundits. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, has urged “peace-seeking Muslims” to reject the center, branding it an “unnecessary provocation.” A Republican political action committee has produced a television commercial assailing the proposal. And former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has decried it in speeches.

The complex’s rapid evolution from a local zoning dispute into a national referendum highlights the intense and unsettled emotions that still surround the World Trade Center site nine years after the attacks.

To many New Yorkers, especially in Manhattan, it is a construction zone, passed during the daily commute or glimpsed through office windows. To some outside of the city, though, it stands as a hallowed battlefield that must be shielded and memorialized.

Those who are fighting the project argue that building a house of Muslim worship so close to ground zero is at best an affront to the families of those who died there and at worst an act of aggression that would, they say, mark the place where radical Islam achieved a blow against the United States.

“The World Trade Center is the largest loss of American life on our soil since the Civil War,” Mr. Gingrich said. “And we have not rebuilt it, which drives people crazy. And in that setting, we are told, why don’t we have a 13-story mosque and community center?”

He added: “The average American just thinks this is a political statement. It’s not about religion, and is clearly an aggressive act that is offensive.”

Several family members of victims at the World Trade Center have weighed in against the plan, saying it would desecrate what amounts to a graveyard. “When I look over there and see a mosque, it’s going to hurt,” C. Lee Hanson, whose son, Peter, was killed in the attacks, said at a recent public hearing. “Build it someplace else.”

Those who support it seem mystified and flustered by the heated opposition. They contend that the project, with an estimated cost of $100 million, is intended to span the divide between Muslim and non-Muslim, not widen it.

Oz Sultan, the programming director for the center, said the complex was based on Jewish community centers and Y.M.C.A.’s in Manhattan. It is to have a board composed of Muslim, Christian and Jewish leaders and is intended to create a national model of moderate Islam.

“We are looking to build bridges between faiths,” Mr. Sultan said in an interview.

City officials, particularly Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, have forcefully defended the project on the grounds of religious freedom, saying that government has no place dictating where a house of worship is located. The local community board has given overwhelming backing to the project, and the city’s landmarks commission is expected to do the same on Tuesday.

“What is great about America, and particularly New York, is we welcome everybody, and if we are so afraid of something like this, what does that say about us?” Mr. Bloomberg asked recently.

“Democracy is stronger than this,” he added. “And for us to just say no is just, I think — not appropriate is a nice way to phrase it.”

Still, the arguments against the Muslim center appear to be resonating. Polling shows that a majority of Americans oppose building it near ground zero.

Resistance is particularly strong among some national Republican leaders. In stump speeches, Twitter messages and op-ed articles, they have turned angry denunciations of the plan into a political rallying cry that they say has surprising potency.

The two major Republican candidates for governor of New York, Rick A. Lazio and Carl Paladino, are making it a central issue in their campaigns, attacking the state’s attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, who is also the presumptive Democratic nominee for governor, for not aggressively investigating the project’s finances..

In North Carolina, Ilario Pantano, a former Marine and a Republican candidate for Congress, has also campaigned on the issue, and says it is stirring voters in his rural district, some 600 miles away from ground zero.

A few days ago, at a roadside pizza shop in the small town of Salemburg, he attacked the proposal before an enthusiastic crowd of hog farmers and military veterans.

“Uniformly, there was disgust and disdain in the room for the idea,” Mr. Pantano said.

The issue was wrenching for the Anti-Defamation League, which in the past has spoken out against anti-Islamic sentiment. But its national director, Abraham H. Foxman, said in an interview on Friday that the organization came to the conclusion that the location was offensive to families of victims of Sept. 11, and he suggested that the center’s backers should look for a site “a mile away.”

“It’s the wrong place,” Mr. Foxman said. “Find another place.”

Asked why the opposition of the families was so pivotal in the decision, Mr. Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, said they were entitled to their emotions.

“Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational,” he said. Referring to the loved ones of Sept. 11 victims, he said, “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”

The Anti-Defamation League’s statement drew criticism almost immediately.

“The ADL should be ashamed of itself,” said Rabbi Irwin Kula, president of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, which promotes interethnic and interfaith dialogue. Speaking of the imam behind the proposed center, Feisal Abdul Rauf, he said, “Here, we ask the moderate leaders of the Muslim community to step forward, and when one of them does, he is treated with suspicion.”

C. Welton Gaddy, the president of the Interfaith Alliance, a Washington group that emphasizes religious freedom, called the decision “disappointing,” and said he read about it “with a great deal of sorrow.”

On Friday, Mr. Sultan, the programming director for the proposed Muslim center, expressed surprise and sadness at the news. Told of Mr. Foxman’s remarks about the families of Sept. 11 victims, he said, “That response is just not well thought out.” He said that Muslims had also died on Sept. 11, either because they worked in the twin towers, or responded to the scene.

“The ADL has always been antibigotry,” he said. “This just does not seem consistent with their message.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/nyregion/31mosque.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

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

Social Security Jitters? Better Prepare Now

By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD

If you are worried about the future of Social Security, join the crowd.

With the nation’s debt swelling, the pressure on Washington to cut spending will only rise. Social Security may not be the first place lawmakers look. But the program, which has provided a significant financial cushion for retirees and others since the first checks were mailed in 1937, will surely be part of the discussion.

The program, which has its own dedicated stream of income, is projected to pay out more this year than it is taking in, but that is a function of the weak economy. Social Security will, according to the last annual report from its trustees, be able to pay full benefits through 2037. Then, if there are no changes in the program in the meantime, the taxes collected will be enough to pay out only about 75 percent of benefits through 2083.

So while Social Security’s finances are stable in the short term, most experts agree that the program needs to be bolstered for the long term. Among the proposals circulating is one from Representative John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, who recently suggested raising the retirement age to 70 for people at least 20 years from retirement.

Other options include increasing Social Security payroll taxes, subjecting more income to the tax, reducing initial benefit payments or cutting cost-of-living increases (which would affect current retirees).

But even if it’s not clear yet what, if anything, will be done to Social Security and when, we thought it would be useful to look at a worst-case possibility — to assume that benefits will not continue to be as generous. This is especially important as pensions continue to fade away.

So what are the financial implications of pushing back the full retirement age? What happens if the government reduces benefits for future retirees? What will that mean to people in the middle of their careers, beyond the rote response that they’re going to have to work longer and save more?

Yes, it means fewer dinners out and driving a more economical car. But it also may mean that people in their 20s, 30s or even older have to put aside a lot more money to partly make up for any cut to benefits. Otherwise, people may risk a sudden drop in their living standard when they retire.

And while lawmakers may, in the end, not decide to make drastic changes in Social Security, many of the financial advisers and other experts we talked to said they were erring on the side of caution and were already recommending that their clients start saving more now.

“People 50 and below should change their planning now to incorporate a benefit cut,” said Laurence J. Kotlikoff, an economics professor at Boston University who ran some numbers for us to see what life would be like if the retirement age were immediately raised to 70. That change would translate into a nearly 20 percent cut in benefits, because you would have to wait an extra three years to get the same amount of money, he added.

Several financial planners told us they were assuming that clients in their 30s and 40s might receive just 50 to 80 percent of their full benefits. Or, the advisers say, they may figure that the cost-of-living adjustments applied to benefits won’t keep pace with inflation, or some other combination of adjustments. (For the record, executives from AARP said their polls had long shown that younger people were skeptical about receiving full benefits.)

“It’s better to be conservative now than risk being underfunded for retirement,” said Jorie Johnson, a financial planner in New Jersey.

Mr. Kotlikoff’s calculations looked at how a couple’s spending and saving patterns might have to change if the government raised the full retirement age to 70 (we assumed it was imposed right away, though such a change would probably be phased in over many years). That would essentially translate to a 19 percent cut in monthly benefits, according to Mr. Kotlikoff. He performed the calculations using his company’s retirement planning software, ESPlanner, which shows what people need to save to ensure a consistent standard of living over the course of their lives.

Our examples illustrate how a cut in benefits might feel if you had longer to plan for it — say, you were 35 years old when the system changed. We also looked at the repercussions for a 45-year-old or a 55-year-old.

In all cases, we based our assumptions on a married couple with two children and a $350,000 mortgage on a house in New York State. They save 10 to 15 percent of their income during their careers (the rate rises as they age) as well as an additional $100,000 for their children’s college education. They earn a conservative 2 percent above inflation on their retirement savings and retire at 65 but take Social Security benefits at 67, three years before full retirement age.

Some people may not have the wherewithal to save a whole lot more. Indeed, about half of all recipients start collecting benefits as soon as they’re eligible, at age 62, because in some cases Social Security is their main income.

But here’s how a family with more flexibility might fare:

AT 35 YEARS OLD At this stage, our couple are earning $120,000 ($60,000 each) and they have $75,000 in total retirement savings. But to make up for the decline in Social Security benefits, they need to save about $84,474 above and beyond what they are already saving before they retire. We assume they save the extra money in a taxable account that allows for easy access, because they are already saving 10 percent or more of their total income in a 401(k). That extra money saved is equivalent to about a 7.8 percent increase in total retirement savings, across all accounts. This also means they’ll have less discretionary income — about 9.4 percent less to be exact — to spend each year, over the course of their lives.

AT 45 YEARS OLD Our couple now earn $140,000 and has amassed about $255,000 in a 401(k) account. But if they learn their Social Security benefits are going to be cut by nearly 20 percent, they will need to save nearly an extra $90,000 — which is about 8.3 percent more in their taxable and tax-deferred accounts — by the time they retire. To do that, they need to cut their discretionary spending by about 9.7 percent a year for the rest of their lives.

“They have a larger permanent reduction in their living standard than the 35-year-olds because they have fewer years to adjust,” Professor Kotlikoff said. “They can’t spread out the loss in spending power over as many years.”

AT 55 YEARS OLD Informing people a mere decade from retirement that their Social Security payments will be cut or that the retirement age will rise, is not likely, experts said. Even so, let’s assume the worst for a moment.

At 55, our couple are earning about $175,000, and has nearly $525,000 in total retirement savings. But to help offset the lost Social Security money, they will need to save $82,900 more — or nearly 7.7 percent across all accounts — over the next decade. To do that, they will have to spend 10.4 percent less each year.

“Increases in Social Security’s retirement age is another way to say Social Security benefit cut,” Professor Kotlikoff said. “And big benefit cuts, like those being contemplated, will mean big hits to the spending power of the affected generations. Younger cohorts would suffer less pain, but for a longer time, while older cohorts experience more pain for a shorter time. Either way you cut it, it hurts.”

One financial planner, who has dual citizenship in the United States and Greece, said he was not taking chances. “Having seen what happened in Greece, I feel even more strongly today that I should not count on any Social Security for me and my younger clients,” said the planner, George Papadopoulos, 43, of Novi, Mich. “I will continue to tell clients not to highly rely on Social Security and think of any money coming their way as gravy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/your-money/31money.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

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

New Trouble for Terrorist Who Helped Prosecutors

By BENJAMIN WEISER

Nine years ago, an Algerian man charged in the failed “millennium plot” to blow up Los Angeles International Airport took an unusual step: he pleaded guilty in Federal District Court in Manhattan and became the rare convicted Islamic terrorist to cooperate with the United States government.

Facing a possible sentence of more than 100 years in prison, the Algerian, Abdel Ghani Meskini, testified as a prosecution witness in two trials and helped to convict two other conspirators in the plot, which was to coincide with the millennium celebrations in the United States.

With the government endorsing leniency, Mr. Meskini received a short sentence, and in 2005 he was released. He moved to Georgia, got a job, paid thousands of dollars in restitution and tried to build a new life.

But Mr. Meskini, 42, was recently rearrested, accused of violating the terms of his release by committing new offenses. The authorities say that in 2007 he possessed a handgun and that last year he asked people to buy him an AK-47 assault rifle. He even sent an e-mail to one person with a photograph of the weapon he wanted, the government says.

Mr. Meskini has not been charged with new crimes; rather, federal probation officers have referred the allegations to the judge, John F. Keenan, who sentenced him in 2004. If he is found to have violated the terms of his release, he could be sentenced to additional years in prison.

The United States attorney’s office in Manhattan would not comment on Mr. Meskini’s case. On Thursday, prosecutors notified the judge that they intended to introduce evidence against him that was obtained in a search authorized by the nation’s secret foreign intelligence court.

Mr. Meskini’s lawyer, Mark S. DeMarco, said of his client: “He has lived a law-abiding life since his release.”

Mr. DeMarco added: “The government is not alleging any attempt by Ghani to get back into terrorism. I can say that without question.”

The lives of cooperating witnesses who are given a second chance can be rocky, especially for those who have not known lives outside of crime.

A notorious example is Salvatore Gravano, the Mafia underboss known as Sammy the Bull, whose testimony helped to convict John J. Gotti, the head of the Gambino crime family. Prosecutors pushed for leniency for Mr. Gravano, who had admitted a role in 19 killings, and he received a five-year sentence. But in 2000, after his release, Mr. Gravano was charged in Arizona with being part of a multimillion-dollar drug ring, and he received 20 more years in prison.

Mr. Gravano’s lawyer, Anthony L. Ricco, said this week that there were no guarantees about life beyond prison for such witnesses. “That is a key to get you out of jail — not a key for you to stay out,” he said.

Before Mr. Meskini’s arrest in the millennium plot, he lived the life of a con man and thief — “a fraudster,” as one prosecutor described him in court. Once an officer in the Algerian Army, he later testified that he used false identification to cash stolen checks. In 1994, he decided to leave Algeria, and he slipped into the United States as a stowaway on a boat to Boston.

He supported himself by using fraudulent passports and Social Security cards and opening bank accounts under false names to obtain credit cards and checks.

Mr. Meskini’s conduct became such an issue when he testified as a prosecution witness that one defense lawyer predicted to the jury that he would commit new crimes when he was released from prison.

“If you are unfortunate enough to find yourself living in the same town as Meskini when he gets out of jail and steps into the warm embrace of the witness protection program,” the lawyer, Daniel J. Ollen, told the jury, “my advice to you is sell your home, watch your wallet and get out of town before it’s too late.”

The airport bombing plot was interrupted in December 1999 when another Algerian, Ahmed Ressam, was arrested as he tried to enter the United States from Canada at Port Angeles, Wash., in a car carrying bomb components. The authorities found Mr. Meskini’s phone number in his pocket.

Mr. Meskini, then living in Brooklyn, was arrested and admitted he was part of the conspiracy.

He said that he was to deliver money and other logistical assistance to Mr. Ressam. In March 2001, Mr. Meskini agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and pleaded guilty to charges including conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and bank fraud.

He testified for the government in the trials of Mr. Ressam, held in Los Angeles, and of another co-conspirator, Mokhtar Haouari, in Manhattan. Both men were convicted. A prosecutor, Robin L. Baker, defended the credibility of Mr. Meskini’s testimony, telling jurors he had no incentive to lie because that would mean losing his cooperation agreement and the chance for a reduced sentence.

Mr. Meskini’s 2004 sentencing has been sealed by the court, but other public records show that he was sentenced to a term of 72 months; and after being given credit for time served and good behavior, he was released in 2005. He was also ordered to pay about $60,000 in restitution.

In Mr. Meskini’s agreement with the government, prosecutors said that they understood his cooperation could lead to retaliation against him and his family, and that if necessary the government would take steps to ensure their safety. Mr. Meskini applied for the witness protection program, but he was denied entry, a former lawyer has said in court.

His current lawyer, Mr. DeMarco, said his client had been working as a manager of several residential buildings in Atlanta, where he maintained regular contact with a probation officer and made his restitution payments. He has paid over $31,000 so far, a probation memorandum says.

Last fall, Mr. Meskini was detained by immigration authorities, who were seeking to have him removed from the country because of the earlier conviction, the memo says. Mr. DeMarco said Mr. Meskini then began the process of seeking asylum, an effort that is pending.

The probation authorities, in claiming Mr. Meskini violated the terms of his release, said that on more than one occasion, he asked “two separate witnesses known to the F.B.I. to obtain an AK-47 for him.” The authorities also said the F.B.I., in a search of Mr. Meskini’s computer in late 2009, found evidence that he had searched the Internet for gun shops in the Atlanta area, the probation memo says.

“There appears little evidence to show that he will cease such behavior in the future,” the memo said.

At a court appearance in Manhattan in April, Judge Keenan said he was not assuming that Mr. Meskini was guilty of the violations. He acknowledged that if Mr. Meskini were deported to Algeria, “physically he might be in jeopardy.”

“That is an obvious concern to me,” Judge Keenan said. “And I think of that in connection with the whole case, and I don’t know that there’s any magic solution or any magic bullet.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/nyregion/31plot.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

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

A Tougher Car Safety Agency

The United States has done a fairly good job so far of policing the safety of cars and trucks. The number of deaths in traffic accidents dropped to an estimated 34,000 last year — the least since the 1950s. But that is still too many deaths.

The recall of millions of Toyota cars and trucks because of persistent problems of uncontrolled acceleration has exposed unacceptable weaknesses in the regulatory system. These weaknesses are allowing potentially fatal flaws to remain undetected. Democrats in Congress are pushing legislation to improve regulation and oversight of auto safety. It should be passed into law without delay.

The Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires all vehicles to have a brake override system to ensure that a vehicle can be stopped even if the throttle is open. Pedals must exceed a minimum clearance from the floor to avoid snagging car mats. Electronic control systems must meet minimum performance standards, to be set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And all vehicles must come fitted with recorders that log operational data and help determine the causes of accidents.

But perhaps more important, the bill would broadly change the system of overseeing and enforcing safety rules. That should help the N.H.T.S.A. identify serious problems faster and provide tools to ensure automakers’ compliance with its standards of safety and disclosure.

Both the House and the Senate versions of the bill demand public disclosure of early warning data about defects, which should encourage drivers to report safety problems. They call for the creation of a safety hot line and extend whistle-blower protections to employees of carmakers, dealers and suppliers. To reduce conflicts of interest, both bills have provisions imposing long interim periods before former N.H.T.S.A. employees can lobby for car companies.

Both versions vastly increase the N.H.T.S.A.’s resources — which today amount to a paltry 1 percent of the Department of Transportation’s budget. The House version goes further, requiring that carmakers pay a fee that would start at $3 for each vehicle they sell. The fee would rise every year, to help pay for the agency’s monitoring efforts.

The bills also give N.H.T.S.A. a bigger stick. Currently, the maximum fine that can be imposed on a company for failing to promptly notify the agency about a safety problem is a paltry $15 million. The bills propose raising the cap to $200 million or $300 million. And they establish that a senior company official would have personal legal responsibility for safety reports submitted to the regulator. The Senate version requires that this person be the company’s top United States-based executive.

Automakers support some of the provisions in the bill — like the call for event data recorders and brake override systems, which are already installed in many vehicles. But they oppose the bigger fines and the new safety fees. They argue that disclosure of defect information could reveal confidential information to competitors.

But legislators should not back down on these provisions. N.H.T.S.A. needs vastly more resources to monitor potentially lethal flaws in the nation’s increasingly high-tech fleet. And it needs more compelling fines if it is to persuade carmakers to comply with its rules. N.H.T.S.A. could fine Toyota only $16.4 million for delays in revealing problems with defective accelerator pedals that left the throttle open after being released. That’s pocket change for a company of its size.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/opinion/31sat1.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

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

Arizona’s Law, Activist Judges and Anchor Babies

By TOBIN HARSHAW

The Thread is an in-depth look at how major news and controversies are being debated across the online spectrum.

While President Obama’s odd characterization on “The View” of African-Americans as a “mongrel people” has set the blogosphere aflutter, it was something else he told the assembled ladies that struck me as more significant. According to Sam Youngman of The Hill, in a discussion on racism, “Obama noted ‘there’s still a reptilian side of our brain’ that leads people to not trust others ‘if somebody sounds different or looks different.’ ”

Given that the president’s academic background is in Constitutional law and not evolutionary biology, we can forgive him if he’s unaware that the neuroscientist Paul McLean’s triune brain theory, which popularized the idea that the basal ganglia was a “reptile brain” constantly driving mankind toward his basest instincts, has long fallen out of scientific favor. But even when it in vogue, the idea was that something deep in our genetic makeup made us fear the unknown, not that we instinctively disliked the clerk at the 7-11 counter because of his accent.

A court ruling banning parts of Arizona’s new rules on aliens has put immigration at the front and center of the mid-term elections.

This is relevant, I think, not in the context of this summer’s many racially-tinged political dramas, but in relation to a judicial decision this week that was so widely expected it didn’t generate the attention it deserved.

“A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law from going into effect, a ruling that at least temporarily squashed a state policy that had inflamed the national debate over immigration,” reported The Times’s Randal C. Archibold. “Judge Susan Bolton of Federal District Court issued a preliminary injunction against sections of the law, scheduled to take effect on Thursday, that called for police officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and required immigrants to prove that they were authorized to be in the country or risk state charges. She issued the injunction in response to a legal challenge brought against the law by the Obama administration.”

The Times’s Julia Preston put the ruling in broader context:

Although Judge Bolton’s ruling is not final, it seems likely to halt, at least temporarily an expanding movement by states to combat illegal immigration by making it a state crime to be an immigrant without legal documents and by imposing new requirements on state and local police officers to enforce immigration law …

The Arizona law stood out from hundreds of statutes adopted by states in recent years to discourage illegal immigrants. The statute makes it a state crime for immigrants to fail to carry documents proving their legal status, and it requires state police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they detain for another reason, if there is a “reasonable suspicion” the person is an illegal immigrant. The mere fact of being present without legal immigration status is a civil violation under federal law, but not a crime.

“This decision was a slam dunk,” was the verdict of Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left. “The basic point is that immigration status is exclusively the province of the federal government once it has occupied the field, as it has for centuries frankly.”

Not all liberals felt that way. Writing before the judge’s decision came down, Salon’s James Doty criticized the Obama administration for pushing the argument that the Arizona law pre-empted federal authority: “The preemption argument was always legally tenuous. Illegal immigration has unquestionably adverse consequences for local governments, and no moderate judge was or is likely to hold that any state effort to address the problem, however reasonable, is an intrusion on federal authority … the preemption argument rests uncomfortably with the Obama administration’s failure forcefully to advocate for any version of comprehensive immigration reform. It’s hard for a court to credit the argument that the field of immigration is reserved for federal action when the federal government so manifestly lacks a coherent immigration policy.”

Doty felt that a more promising line of attack was that taken by civil-rights groups suing the state, which emphasized the alleged hardships the law would place on immigrants:

The challenges filed by civil rights groups, on the other hand, are likely to meet with greater success. Bolton seemed persuaded by arguments that Section 2 impermissibly authorizes police officers to detain people, even where there is no reason to believe that they are in the country illegally. She also might enjoin Section 2 based on the comically vague and seemingly random list of factors that, according to Arizona’s police training board, give rise to “reasonable suspicion” of illegal status (for example, “dress,” “demeanor,” and “traveling in tandem”).

In the eyes of National Review’s Heather Mac Donald, Doty need not have fretted. The judge’s decision, she wrote, wasn’t about the particulars, but rather the Obama administration’s long-term intentions:

In enjoining Arizona’s landmark immigration law, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton maintains the Obama administration’s carefully cultivated fiction: that what concerns the White House regarding S.B. 1070 is its effect on legal, rather than illegal, aliens. Almost nowhere in the government’s briefs or the judge’s ruling is the arrest and detention of illegal aliens addressed. This fiction is transparent, however. The real threat posed by S.B. 1070 was that it would disrupt the de facto amnesty that the executive branch has accorded to the vast majority of illegal aliens. It would start to implement congressional mandates and the public will that the immigration laws be enforced. For that reason, it had to be stopped …

Judge Bolton’s ruling regarding S.B. 1070’s provision on the possession of immigration documents verges on bad faith … As the judge notes, federal registration power is exclusive; Congress’s registration scheme may not be altered by the states. But nothing in S.B. 1070 changes the rules for registration; the Arizona law merely confirms those rules in state law. Judge Bolton alleges that the Arizona provision “alters the penalties” in the federal law, without disclosing that the Arizona law lowers them. She concludes without the slightest trace of argument that the Arizona document provision “stands as an obstacle to the uniform federal registration scheme and is therefore impermissible.”

Garrett Epps, writing at The Atlantic, couldn’t disagree more strongly: “DoJ’s argument was not about the rights of immigrants, legal or illegal, or even of American citizens: it was about the federal government’s prerogative to set the nation’s immigration policy, and about administrative burdens on federal agencies like the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Judge agreed as to most of the law’s key provisions. Her opinion is technical and dry.”

Here’s his broader view:

That’s the central question in United States v. Arizona: whether a state can single out a group of people for harsh restrictions, criminalize those who help or employ them, and require law enforcement personnel to sniff them out and demand papers. One doesn’t have to be a fan of illegal aliens to believe that no one should be treated that way. I am a fan of judicial opinions that vindicate equality and dignity.

But I understand why those concepts are missing from a case that is almost certain to continue through a full trial on the merits, another District Court opinion, at least one appeal to the federal Court of Appeals, and one or more brushes with the Supreme Court. The real human issues will emerge over time, as witnesses come forward with their stories, experts produce statistics, and advocacy groups weigh in with amicus briefs laden with sophisticated discussion of history and political theory. Transcendent values will be discussed in the final order, and what is written in that opinion will be of great moment for the progress of American democracy.

Paul Mirengoff of PowerLine thinks that if the judge was really looking out for the interests of the downtrodden, she might have waited to see if those interests were really imperiled:

Judge Bolton based her ruling regarding harassment of lawfully present aliens in part on her view that the statute requires Arizona to determine the immigration status of every person arrested in the state. That may well be the best reading of the statutory language, but Arizona has repudiated this construction, arguing that immigration status must be determined only when there is a reasonable suspicion that a person arrested is an illegal alien.

Many judges might have accepted this interpretation pursuant to the practice of favoring the construction of a statute that avoids striking down a law as unconstitutional. Other judges might have waited to see how Arizona implemented the law before striking it down based on a construction Arizona has repudiated. Judge Bolton did neither.

Whether we feel Judge Bolton’s decision was ideologically contrived or not, there’s no question that avoiding politics on this one is impossible. So what does it mean for November? Hot Line’s Josh Kraushaar thinks that “for Democrats, it looks like a blessing in California (Boxer), Florida, Illinois (Kirk), Nevada (Reid) putting Republican candidates on the defensive in states with crucial Hispanic voting blocs. (Marco Rubio, in particular, has been straddling the immigration fence, hoping to rally support with both Cuban-American voters and rally the heavily-white conservatives along the Panhandle.)”

Steve M. at No More Mr. Nice Blog, however, is less sanguine about Democrats’ prospects:

I’m not convinced that this is a win for Harry Reid — in fact, I think it may be a life preserver for Sharron Angle’s campaign, which recently has been taking on water. All of a sudden the race isn’t going to be about her and her extremism — it’s going to be about whether “activist judges” can be free to overturn a popular law (very popular among whites) in a neighboring state. Angle wanted the race to be about Reid, and Reid has been succeeding in making it about Angle, but now it’s going to be about neither — it’s going to be about Obama. (Yeah, the judge in the case was a Clinton appointee, but, hey, what’s the difference?)

I’m not convinced that Hispanics in Nevada are going to turn out in droves to vote for Reid because an Obama strategy blocked implementation of this law. On the other hand, the right’s narrative, which is often persuasive to swing voters, is that Democratic presidents and Democratic members of Congress and judges appointed by Democrats are all one big hydra-headed beast, and the only way you tame the beast is to vote Republican.

Arizona’s law will hardly be the only immigration issue in the midterms, according to Politico’s Andy Barr:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced Wednesday night that he is considering introducing a constitutional amendment that would change existing law to no longer grant citizenship to the children of immigrants born in the United States …

“People come here to have babies,” he said. “They come here to drop a child. It’s called “drop and leave.” To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child’s automatically an American citizen. That shouldn’t be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons.”

Think Progress’s Andrea Nill is (kinda) mystified by the senator’s evolution on the subject:

Graham wouldn’t be the first lawmaker to introduce legislation that would dramatically alter the 14th amendment. However, similar efforts have been led by Congress’ right-wing demagogues. Graham is now also following in the footsteps of the rabidly right-wing Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce — the sponsor of SB-1070 who plans to “target the mother” by going after the “anchor baby racket.” A few months ago, Graham introduced a framework for immigration reform with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that included a path to legalization for undocumented workers. In March, Graham walked away from the table, calling immigration reform “dead” after health care reform passed. Since then, Graham has joined his fellow Republicans in defending Arizona, blocking immigration reform, and calling for an enforcement-only approach.

Some on the right are equally critical of making “anchor babies” the issue, including The American Conservative’s Michael Brendan Dougherty:

Overturning birthright citizenship doesn’t bring order or justice to America’s decades long problem of illegal immigration. There may be good reasons to think that overturning it would do little reverse illegal immigration, and much to prevent assimilation.

In any case, Graham’s re-framing of the immigration issue in one of the silliest and most counter-productive possible and his chosen method signals that he is not serious. Constitutional amendments are almost impossible to pass, especially in this age of gridlock and ideological sorting of parties. In other words, this is a stunt …

Whether Graham is serious or not, there’s little doubt that immigration is going to be a potent issue in the fall, in a way it never was when President George W. Bush irked his own party by trying to bring it to the forefront. So why now? “Historically, in times of economic recession, anti-immigrant legislation has incited racial fear,” wrote Jesse Jackson at Huffington Post. So there you have it — it’s the economy, stupid, playing on our reptilian brains.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/arizonas-law-activist-judges-and-anchor-babies/?pagemode=print

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

From the White House

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

Medicare and Mayberry

Posted by Stephanie Cutter on July 30, 2010

The Affordable Care Act will strengthen the health care system for all Americans, but senior citizens in particular stand to benefit from the new law. And the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is getting a little help delivering the good news from a well known TV star: Andy Griffith.

Today, CMS released a new ad featuring Griffith discussing the Affordable Care Act. The ad will begin running immediately on national cable channels, and you can watch the ad now:

The ad comes on the 45th anniversary of the Medicare program, an anniversary the President marked with a special proclamation. Secretary Sebelius has also written an op-ed about Medicare and the support it has provided to seniors for 45 years. And the new ad comes as we continue our work to implement provisions in the Affordable Care Act that will make the Medicare program even stronger. We know seniors will see tremendous benefits from the new law. Under the Affordable Care Act:

As we worked to pass the Affordable Care Act, seniors were the target of a major misinformation campaign that was designed to scare and confuse older Americans about the real impact of reform. False rumors about death panels and cuts in benefits made the rounds. We are committed to correcting the record and ensuring seniors have the information they need and get the high-quality care they have earned and deserve.

Stephanie Cutter is Assistant to the President for Special Projects

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/30/medicare-and-mayberry

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

From ICE

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

Pennsylvania man sentenced for his part in smuggling military equipment

HARRISBURG, Penn. - A Nanticoke man who was involved in the smuggling of military equipment from the United States to Russia was sentenced to federal prison on July 29 as a result of an investigation led by U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Mark Komoroski, 48, was sentenced to 32 months' imprisonment and two years of supervised release, and ordered to pay a $10,000 fine.

Court records indicate Komoroski conspired to smuggle military equipment including magazines for firearms, face shields, and over 1,000 high powered rifle scopes out of the United States and to Russia to be resold to unknown persons. Komoroski was charged and arrested in January 2008.

"This investigation is another example of how technology, in the wrong hands, could reduce the advantages that our nations law enforcement and military personnel currently possess" said John P. Kelleghan, special agent in charge of the ICE Office of Homeland Security Investigations in Philadelphia. "Working with our law enforcement partners, ICE will continue to aggressively pursue those individuals who have no regard for the safety of those who protect our nation."

"The sentencing of Mr. Komoroski demonstrates the Bureau of Industry and Security's commitment to working with our Federal Law Enforcement Partners in preventing the illegal export of dangerous goods." Sidney M. Simon, special agent in charge, U. S. Department of Commerce, Office of Export Enforcement, New York Field Office.

Working with ICE in the investigation were the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigations Unit; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; U.S. Postal Inspection Service; the Department of Commerce; the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the Pennsylvania State Police.

U.S. Attorney Smith praised the outstanding cooperation of the federal and state agencies in connection with this investigation. Prosecution was handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy H. Fawcett.

http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/1007/100729harrisburg.htm

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

4 sentenced for illegally selling Georgia driver's licenses

Driver's license examiners and their co-conspirators sold licenses to unqualified applicants

MACON, Ga. - Two driver's license examiners with the Georgia Department of Driver Services - Kenneth Boyt, 36, and Denise Searcy Trower, 41, both of Kathleen, Ga. - were sentenced to prison Thursday for illegally issuing driver's licenses to individuals they knew were not qualified to receive such licenses, following an investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS).

Javeed Bukhari, 49, of Lawrenceville, Ga., and Ghanshy Am Patel, 41, of Perry, Ga., were also sentenced for their role in the illegal driver's license scheme.

"The facilitation of legitimate documents for criminal purpose, to make a profit, and avoid the use of true identities puts our nation's security at risk," said Acting Special Agent in Charge of the ICE Office of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in Atlanta Brock Nicholson. "Individuals who think that they can commit such acts without repercussions should think twice. ICE HSI along with its federal, state and local law enforcement partners will continue to vigorously pursue these corrupt individuals to ensure integrity in our governmental systems and will remain vigilant in our national security efforts."

Boyt was sentenced to two years in prison followed by three years of supervised release and Trower was sentenced to two and a half years in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release.

Bukhari was sentenced to nine months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release, and fined $10,000. Patel was sentenced to five years probation with the special condition that he serve 30 consecutive days in jail, and fined $40,000.

All had previously pled guilty.

As examiners for the Georgia DDS, Boyt and Trower's job was to review applications for driver's licenses and, for those applicants who satisfied all the necessary requirements, to issue driver's licenses. According to court records, they violated federal law and DDS rules by issuing driver's licenses to people whom they knew were not qualified to have one - all in exchange for money. Both issued licenses to immigrants who were not legally admitted to the United States, and therefore not eligible to receive a Georgia driver's license.

"These driver's license examiners violated the public's trust and risked endangering our community by selling licenses to the highest bidder," said U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates. "Official ID's such as driver's licenses are required to board flights and enter secure buildings. This puts Department of Driver Services employees on the front lines of homeland security as they work to limit such official identification documents to only those who qualify. The rogue examiners and their accomplices in this case did not take this security responsibility seriously."

Bukhari and Patel facilitated the crimes by introducing members of the community who wanted a driver's license, but could not obtain one legally, to either Boyt or Trower. These applicants would pay money to Bukhari or Patel for an illegal license, and these middlemen would in turn pay Boyt or Trower, who would then provide the applicant with a valid Georgia driver's license. Some applicants admitted to paying as much as $6,000 for these illegal licenses.

DDS Commissioner Gregory C. Dozier praised the initial work of DDS investigators and the cooperative effort of Special Agents from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations Document and Benefit Fraud Task Force for the investigation's success, saying "DDS will continue to protect the integrity and security of one of our state's most important processes. DDS remains committed to seeking full prosecution for any illegalities."

This case was investigated by agents with the ICE HSI Document and Benefit Fraud Task Force and investigators of the Georgia Department of Driver Services.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Bly prosecuted the case.

http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/1007/100730macon.htm

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

From the DEA

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

Joint Investigation Results in the Arrest of 51 Suspected Gang Members Throughout California’s Central Coast

JUL 23 - (LOS ANGELES) – Timothy J. Landrum, Special Agent in Charge, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Los Angeles Field Division, Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown and Santa Maria Police Chief Danny Macagni announce the culmination of a joint investigation that resulted in the arrest of 51 suspected gang members and their associates with ties to drug trafficking throughout the Central Coast of California.

Timothy J. Landrum, DEA Special Agent in Charge stated, “Criminal street gangs are the primary retail distributors of illegal drugs on the streets of our communities. The threat is magnified by the high levels of violence associated with their attempts to control and expand drug distribution operations. DEA will continue to work with our law enforcement counterparts to ensure that these drug gangs will no longer wreak havoc in our communities.”

Since November 2009, the DEA, Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department and Santa Maria Police Department have been conducting a joint investigation targeting the drug trafficking activities of street gangs throughout the Central Coast of California. The investigation identified eight Sureno Gangs involved in various criminal activities, to include the distribution of narcotics. These street gangs are: West Park, North West, Tangas 13, Guadalup 13, Nipomo 13, Oceano 13, 12 th Street Locos and Colonia Chiques.

The investigation also resulted in the seizure of more than 19 pounds of methamphetamine, a methamphetamine conversion laboratory, 1.5 kilograms of cocaine, small amounts of crack cocaine, 25 pounds of marijuana, 35 firearms, to include assault rifles and pipe bombs, $800,000 in U. S. currency and property, which included a Porsche Panamera with an estimated value of $95,000.

Between July 13 and July 21, 2010, the investigation concluded with approximately 40 officers and agents from multiple law enforcement agencies conducting search warrants at 15 locations in Santa Maria, Tanglewood, San Jose and Stanton, California, which resulted in the arrest of 8 individuals and complaints are expected to be sought against 8 more.

In May 2010, more than 140 officers and agents participated in the initial enforcement phase of this investigation conducting more than 40 search warrants and arresting 29 individuals on various charges including conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana, street terrorism and firearms violations.

Lieutenant Sonny LeGault, Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department, Narcotics Bureau stated, “Our narcotics detectives are seeing a rise in meth use here in Santa Barbara County. But make no mistake, this is not a local problem, it's a global problem. That's why it's so important for law enforcement agencies to work together. When we do, drug traffickers find out the hard way what happens when they try to move their deadly products through California, Santa Barbara County and the cities within.”

Sgt. Greg Carroll, Santa Maria Police Department, stated, “This is the third joint investigation between the Santa Maria PD, Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department and the DEA, and it is a great example of the continued success achieved in these joint operations.”

Deputy District Attorney Meghan Ross stated, “This investigation is a prime example of agencies working together to investigate and prosecute the distribution of methamphetamine by Sureno gang affiliates in our community.”

This case is being prosecuted by Santa Barbara Deputy District Attorney Meghan Ross.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/2010/la072310p.html

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

Forty-Three Defendants with Ties to a Drug Cartel in Mexico Charged with (Rico) Conspiracy

Individuals Allegedly Responsible for State and Federal Crimes, including Murder, Kidnapping, Firearms and Drug-trafficking Violations

JUL 26 -- (San Diego, CA) – A criminal complaint was unsealed today charging 43 defendants with participating in a federal racketeering (RICO) conspiracy. The RICO conspiracy alleged in the complaint involves the commission of both state and federal crimes, including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, kidnapping, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, drug trafficking and money laundering offenses. As set forth in the complaint, the defendants are members and associates of the Fernando Sanchez Organization (FSO), an offshoot of the Arellano-Felix drug-trafficking cartel.

The complaint also alleges that Jesus Quiñones Marques, the Director of International Liaison for the Baja California Attorney General’s Office, was aware of the FSO’s illegal activities and used his position to obtain confidential law enforcement information for the use of the FSO. According to the complaint, he was involved in making arrangements to have various rivals of the FSO arrested and detained by Mexican law enforcement officials.

The charges stem from a long-term investigation, entitled “Operation Luz Verde” (green light), conducted by the multi-agency San Diego Cross Border Violence Task Force (CBVTF), which was formulated to target those individuals involved in organized crime-related violent activities affecting both the United States and Mexico. Law enforcement personnel assigned to the CBVTF made extensive use of court-authorized wiretaps and other sophisticated investigative techniques to develop the body of evidence that led to the charges in this case.

“The arrests made at the conclusion of this investigation illustrate the commitment of DEA and our law enforcement partners to dismantling these drug trafficking organizations at every level,” said DEA San Diego Special Agent in Charge Ralph W. Partridge. “The citizens of San Diego can feel safer today knowing that these violent offenders are off of our streets.”

“The presence of foreign-based drug-trafficking organization members and associates in San Diego will not be tolerated. The San Diego law enforcement community leverages every asset to ensure that this fine city never becomes the safe haven from which drug-trafficking organizations stage their operations as drug wars and law enforcement scrutiny disrupt narco- business. These traffickers will simply not be allowed to walk our streets and live among our neighborhoods, and we will certainly not tolerate the seepage of drug-related violence in our communities. We are committed to disrupting their operations and will concentrate our efforts to stop them from committing their day-to-day criminal activities here,” said United States Attorney Laura E. Duffy.

FBI Special Agent in Charge Keith Slotter commented, “Today's arrests are the result of a long term multi-agency investigation. Dedicated personnel from agencies at all levels of government worked in unison to combat this dangerous and violent criminal enterprise. Today we are rewarded with dozens of arrests that truly have an impact on safety and well-being within our local communities.”

“ The San Diego Police Department is proud to have participated in such a successful operation. The message that San Diego law enforcement is sending to organized crime is clear: cross border violence and cartel activities will NOT be tolerated in the City of San Diego,” said San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne. “Any portion of a criminal enterprise that is planned, coordinated or conducted in San Diego will be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, maintaining San Diego as one of America’s Safest cities for our citizens and visitors. Cartels should make no mistake: our business is to end their business.”

“ATF has participated in disrupting a violent criminal organization that was supplying the tools for Mexican cartels to kill law enforcement and innocent citizens,” said Special Agent in Charge John A. Torres of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). “ATF’s mission is to prevent violent crime in this country and prevent illegal firearms from crossing into Mexico."

The complaint (Case Number: 10MJ2489) charges the following defendants with Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(d) and, if convicted, they face 20 years in prison:

Agents and officers from the Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, San Diego Police Department, San Diego County Sheriff’s Office, Chula Vista Police Department, U.S. Marshals Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, California Department of Justice and the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office participated in this OCDETF investigation. The OCDETF program was created to consolidate and utilize all law enforcement resources in this country’s battle against organized crime and major drug trafficking organizations.

A complaint is not evidence that the defendants committed the crimes charged. The defendants are presumed innocent until the Government meets its burden in court of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/2010/sd072610.html

.