Flexible Reality
Monday, November 01, 2004
Summary of Bush/Kerry Ads 2004
The Whoppers of 2004from Factcheck.org
Oct. 31st, 2004
Bush and Kerry repeat discredited claims in their final flurry of ads. Here's our pre-election summary of the misinformation we found during the Bush-Kerry presidential campaign.
Final Request
Dear Friends,As you know, tomorrow will significantly affect the future course of our beloved country. As a product of one of America's previous war's of choice aka: Vietnam, I take an special interest in this election. In 1964 our Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson committed America to War in Vietnam, under a idealistic but flawed plan of bringing democracy and self-government to Vietnam, and preventing the "Domino Theory" of Communist propagation.
Almost forty years later our Republican president, George W. Bush, bypassed the United Nations, and unilaterally invaded Iraq based on a similar idealistic but flawed plan of preventing another 9/11. In both cases, the Secretaries of Defense asserted we were winning the War, in spite of all evidence pointing to the opposite observation.
In both cases America went in essentially alone, lost thousands of our fellow citizens to bullets, mortars, anti-personnel explosives, mines, and wartime accidents; and sapped our strength as a Nation at home. As history has shown, America make a mistake going into Vietnam; and as current news reports demonstrate, we have created several quagmires that will take years to ameliorate.
I refer to the illegal detention of several hundred detainees at Gitmo, the undocumented detention of numerous foreign nationals at our military facilities, the 'snoop and peek' segments of the Patriot Act, the poorly planned and executed operation of the Iraqi occupation, and the failure to progressively assist in the de-radicalization of the Worlds inhabitants, combined with the obscene mismanagement of our national resources, and pushed over the top with a jingoistic social and national "face" to our friends and enemies.
it is for these reasons that I urge you to go to the polls tomorrow and vote to elect the Kerry-Edwards ticket. In my almost sixty years of life, I have developed an awareness of the limitations, and powers of our Government; and that politicians are not Gods, but rather are generally decent people trying to do what they think is right. Unfortunately, our current CEO has failed in his job as the Chief Executive. With the stupendous complexity of our World we must have a Chief Executive who can guide our "company" with wisdom, foresight, compassion, honor, ability, professional grade tactical and strategic planning, and a touch of humility. Mr. Bush does not satisfy this need.
While some partisans have questioned Mr. Kerry's qualifications, his historical record shows he has more characteristics required for the job of CEO than Mr. Bush, if for no other reason than his military service, his service as a county prosecutor, and as a respected member of the Senate. Kerry is smarter, "quicker on his feet", more knowledgeable about facts, has a law degree, and is more open to the give and take of politics than Mr. Bush.
Thus, while Mr. Bush may be a decent fellow, he has shown he is incapable of leading this country. If given another term it is fairly likely he will follow the precedent of other Presidents in pushing his core agenda which runs contrary to the overall well-being of the average American.
It is my well researched, honest, and considered opinion that John Kerry will do a much better job of leading this country in our hour of need than Mr. Bush is capable of doing. I therefore beseech you to do everything in your power to assist in the election of the Kerry-Edwards ticket tomorrow.
Thank You,
=rwp=
For An Additional Last Minute Overview of Why Kerry is a Better Choice, Click Here:
Under which administration would gasoline prices be less in 2005?
Kerry Presidency Could Mean Cheaper Oil--AnalystsMon Nov 1, 2004 03:56 PM ET
By Richard Valdmanis
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil may cost as much as 10 percent less next year if U.S. Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry defeats President Bush in Tuesday's election, some energy analysts said on Monday.
Kerry is seen as more likely to use the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to cool prices and is expected to have a less aggressive policy in the Middle East, lowering the risk of supply disruptions from the energy-rich region.
"Under a Kerry administration we'd likely have a much more interventionist SPR policy," said Jamal Qureshi, market analyst at PFC Energy in Washington. "And when you look out a bit further, Bush is more likely to be aggressive in the Middle East, particularly in Iran," he added.
Oil prices have jumped to record highs of more than $55 a barrel on concerns over tight supplies, unreliable shipments from war-torn Iraq and growing demand from countries like China and India.
The high energy costs have sparked some concerns about their impact on the global economy, with a U.S. Federal Reserve Board governor last week calling the oil price increase a shock to the U.S. economic system.
On Monday, a day ahead of the election, oil prices recoiled more than 3 percent to $50.13 a barrel. PFC predicts an average oil price of $43 a barrel in 2005 if Kerry wins, compared with $48 if Bush is reelected.
EMERGENCY STOCKPILE
Despite surging energy costs this year, the Bush administration has been reluctant to release oil from the nation's stockpile, which was created by Congress in the mid-1970s after the Arab oil embargo.
"This administration doesn't want to be accused of playing politics with the crude reserve," said Aaron Brady, analyst at Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
Kerry has criticized Bush's tight-fisted policy and said Bush should at least stop filling the SPR to allow for more oil on the open market. The reserve currently holds about 670 million barrels, with a target of 700 million.
"A Bush status quo results in somewhat higher oil prices both in the short and the longer term, in my view," said Tim Evans, senior analyst at IFR Energy Services. "In the short run, it means more oil drained from the market."
Oil supplies in the United States, the world's largest energy market, are lagging well-below last year, according to government figures -- a key reason behind record high heating oil prices and gasoline over $2 a gallon.
Some analysts have added that oil prices in the longer term could trend higher if Bush is reelected because of tensions with Iran, an OPEC-member nation that Bush has named part of a global "axis of evil."
"There's an increased likelihood of some material confrontation in Iran with a Bush presidency," said PFC's Qureshi. Kerry is seen as more likely to work through conventional diplomatic channels, he said.
Iran, which sits on the world's second largest reserves of oil and gas, is facing international pressure due to concerns over its nuclear ambitions.
Both Bush and Kerry have said they hope to reduce U.S. dependence on imports from the Middle East, but they differ on how, with Bush focusing on increasing domestic production and Kerry focusing on cutting demand.
Many experts have said neither approach is likely to significantly reduce the need for foreign oil, which costs less to produce than U.S. oil, but they add that curbing domestic oil consumption is key to keeping a lid on prices.
"Conservation, in my opinion, is the only way to get us out of this hole which we put ourselves in," said Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst at Oppenheimer & Co.
The U.S. consumes roughly 20 million barrels of oil per day, accounting for about a quarter of world demand.
Sunday, October 31, 2004
One More Day to Make A Difference
Note: If you don't do anything to affect the outcome, you'd better not bitch and moan if the undesired occurs.National Press Club Luncheon, Oct. 28th, 2004: George Soros
A Final Appeal from George SorosWhy We Must Not Re-elect President Bush
Speech delivered at the National Press Club by George Soros
Thursday, October 28, 2004, Washington, D.C.
"I have been crisscrossing the country for the last three weeks arguing against the reelection of President Bush. I feel strongly that he has led us in the wrong direction. The invasion of Iraq was a colossal blunder and only by rejecting the President at the polls can we hope to escape from the quagmire in which we find ourselves.
I embarked on the tour because I was worried that the dramatic deterioration in Iraq did not produce the decisive lead for John Kerry I had confidently expected. Now that I am at the end of my tour, I am not reassured. Kerry and Bush are neck and neck in the polls, and although I believe that voter turnout is likely to give Kerry the victory, the race is too close for comfort.
The nation is deeply divided and the two camps seem to be talking past each other. John Kerry won all three debates but President Bush invokes his faith and that inspires his followers. In the end, it boils down to a philosophical difference over how to deal with an often confusing and threatening reality.
Let me inflict on you a brief lecture in philosophy.
An open society such as ours is based on the recognition that our understanding of reality is inherently imperfect. Nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth. As the philosopher Karl Popper has shown, the ultimate truth is not attainable even in science. All theories are subject to testing and the process of replacing old theories with better ones never ends.
Faith plays an important role in an open society. Exactly because our understanding is imperfect, we cannot base our decisions on knowledge alone. We need to rely on beliefs, religious or otherwise, to help us make decisions. But we must remain open to the possibility that we may be wrong so that we can correct our mistakes. Otherwise, we are bound to be wrong.
End of lecture.
President Bush has shown that he is incapable of recognizing his mistakes. He insists on making reality conform to his beliefs even at the cost of deceiving himself and deliberately deceiving the public. There is something appealing in the strength of his faith, especially in our troubled time. But the cost is too high. By putting our faith in a President who cannot admit his mistakes we commit ourselves to the wrong policies. We are the most powerful nation on earth. No external power, no terrorist organization, can defeat us. But we can defeat ourselves by getting caught in a quagmire.
Open Societies suffer from an innate weakness: uncertainty. Leaders who claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth offer an escape from uncertainty. But that is a snare, because those leaders are bound to be wrong.
Under the influence of globalization we have been exposed to more than a normal dose of uncertainty. That is why the kind of faith that guides President Bush is so appealing. The traumatic events of 9/11 have reinforced that appeal. President Bush rose to the occasion and he carried the nation behind him. But he has led us in the wrong direction. He used the war on terror as an excuse for invading Iraq. If we reelect President Bush we are endorsing his policies and we shall have to live with the consequences. We are facing a vicious circle of escalating violence with no end in sight. If we reject him at the polls we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and support of the world and break the vicious circle. Our future depends on it.
That is why I consider this the most important election of my lifetime and that is why I have taken such an active role in it. I have devoted half my fortune and most of my energies in the last 15 years to promoting the values of democracy and open society all over the world, especially in the former Soviet Empire. After 9/11 I came to feel that those principles need to be defended at home.
For 18 months after 9/11 President Bush suppressed all dissent by calling it unpatriotic. That is how he could lead the nation so far in the wrong direction.
The invasion of Afghanistan was justified: that was where Osama bin Laden lived and al Qaeda had its training camps. The invasion of Iraq was not similarly justified.
The war in Iraq was misconceived from start to finish -- if it has a finish. It is a war of choice, not of necessity, as President Bush claims. It goes without saying that Saddam was a tyrant, and it is good to be rid of him. But in invading Iraq as we did, without a second UN resolution, we violated international law. By mistreating and even torturing prisoners, we violated the Geneva conventions. President Bush has boasted that we do not need a permission slip from the international community, but our disregard for international law has endangered our security, particularly the security of our troops.
The arms inspections and sanctions were working. In response to American pressure, the United Nations had finally agreed on a strong stand. As long as the inspectors were on the ground, Saddam Hussein could not possibly pose a threat to our security. We could have persisted with the inspections but President Bush insisted on going to war.
By now we know that we went to war on false pretenses. The weapons of mass destruction could not be found, and the connection with al Qaeda could not be established. What has not yet sunk in is that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Condoleezza Rice knew that Saddam had no nuclear capacity long before we invaded Iraq. The intelligence experts of the Energy Department told them in 2002 that the famous aluminum tubes, which were presented as the most concrete evidence that Saddam had a nuclear program, could not possibly be used for enriching uranium. Yet they used them as evidence. They deliberately deceived the public, the Congress and the United Nations.
The aluminum tubes were not the only instance of deliberate deception. There was the yellowcake contract with Niger mentioned in the President's State of the Union message. That document was forged and a CBS expose of how it came to be forged was recently suppressed or more exactly postponed until after the elections. Then there were the mobile labs that Colin Powell falsely claimed were for biological warfare. President Bush went much further than Colin Powell. He spoke of incontrovertible evidence and said that the smoking gun may take the shape of a mushroom cloud.
More recently, President Bush claimed that we went to war to liberate the people of Iraq. I find that claim preposterous. If we had cared about the people of Iraq we should have had more troops available to protect them. We should not have used methods that alienated and humiliated them.
All my experience in fostering democracy and open society has taught me that democracy cannot be imposed by military means. And the way we went about it in Iraq will make it more difficult to promote democracy in the future. Through my foundation network devoted to promoting democracy and open society worldwide, I feel this personally. Under President Bush, America has lost its credibility as a champion of open society.
Instead of admitting his mistakes, President Bush now tells us that offense is the best defense and we are safer at home because we are fighting the terrorists abroad. The argument resonates strongly with an electorate fearful of terrorism - but it is a Siren's song.
Let me explain why.
The war on terror is an abstraction. But the terrorists are real people and they are not all alike. Most of the people attacking our soldiers in Iraq originally had nothing to do with al Qaeda. They have been generated by the policies of the Bush administration. We have been spared a terrorist attack at home but it is quite a stretch to attribute that to the invasion of Iraq. The insurrection in Iraq, however, is a somber reality and it doesn't make us safer at home. Our security, far from improving as President Bush claims, is deteriorating.
Bush's war in Iraq has done untold damage to the United States. It has impaired our military power and undermined the morale of our armed forces. Our troops were trained to project overwhelming power. They were not trained for occupation duties. Having to fight an insurgency saps their morale. After Iraq, it has become more difficult to recruit people for the armed forces and we may have to resort to conscription.
Before the invasion of Iraq, we could project overwhelming power in any part of the world. We cannot do so any more because we are bogged down in Iraq. Iran and North Korea are moving ahead with their nuclear programs at full speed and our hand in dealing with them has been greatly weakened.
There are many other policies for which the Bush administration can be criticized but none are as important as Iraq. Iraq is the proof that we cannot put our faith in the President.
It is hard to believe that all the accusations I have leveled against President Bush are actually true. I wish they weren't because then we wouldn't be in the predicament in which we find ourselves. There is only one way out. To change leadership and direction. Fortunately we have a credible - and attractive - alternative. I have known John Kerry personally for many years. He will make an excellent president.
I have been crisscrossing the country for the last three weeks arguing against the reelection of President Bush. On my travels I have heard many doubts about John Kerry. Why can't he project the same certainty as President Bush? Admittedly, he won the debates, but does that qualify him to be our Commander in Chief? Will he be as single- minded in pursuing the war on terror as George W. Bush?
Let me address these concerns. John Kerry has presented a cogent and coherent case but the Bush campaign managed to define him before he could define himself. They made fun of his explanation of the various votes he cast on the $87 billion appropriation for Iraq, although it made perfect sense. He was practically not heard, except in snippets, until the debates.
But the trouble goes deeper. The war on terror as defined by President Bush is a one-dimensional presentation of reality. We cannot fight terrorism by military means alone. We can use military force only when we have a known target; but it is the habit of terrorists to keep their whereabouts hidden. To track them down we need the support of the populations amongst whom they hide. Offense is not necessarily the best defense if it offends those whose allegiance we need.
John Kerry is aware of this other dimension. That is why he cannot be as single-minded as George W. Bush. He is nuanced because reality is complicated. This has been turned into a character flaw by the Bush campaign. Yet, that is exactly the character we need in our commander in chief. John Kerry is prepared to defend the country as he showed in Viet Nam; but he has learned first hand the devastation that war can bring and will use military force only as a last resort.
By contrast George W. Bush revels in being a war president. His campaign is shamelessly exploiting the fears generated by 9/11. Vice President Cheney is conjuring mushroom clouds into our cities. But fear is a bad counselor; we must resist it wherever it comes from. President Roosevelt had the right idea when he said, "We have nothing to fear but Fear itself." If we re-elect President Bush the war on terror will never end. The terrorists are invisible, therefore they can never disappear. It is our civil liberties that may disappear instead.
An open society is always in danger. It must constantly reaffirm its principles in order to survive. We are being sorely tested, first by 9/11 and then by President Bush's response. To pass the test we must face reality instead of finding solace in false certainties. This election transcends party loyalties. Our future as an open society depends on resisting the Siren's song.
Voting Manipulation Reports
Charges of Dirty Tricks, Fraud and Voter Suppression Already Flying in Several StatesBy KATE ZERNIKE and WILLIAM YARDLEY
NY Times
Published: November 1, 2004
With lawyers and poll watchers descending on battleground states and the presidential race tight enough that every vote could count, elections officials say that charges of voter intimidation and voter fraud, on the street or in courtrooms, are flying more furiously than any one can remember in recent elections.
In Lake County, Ohio, officials say at least a handful of voters have reported receiving a notice on phony board of elections letterhead saying that anyone who had registered through a variety of Democratic-leaning groups would not be allowed to vote this year.
In Pennsylvania, an official of the state Republican Party said it sent out 130,000 letters congratulating newly registered voters but that 10,000 were returned, indicating that the people had died or that the address was nonexistent. Mark Pfeifle, the Republican spokesman, said the numbers showed that in their zeal to register new voters, Democratic-aligned groups had committed fraud.
And in Michigan, Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land said she had to put out a statement in mid-October about where to send absentee ballots after voters in the Ann Arbor area received calls telling them to mail the ballots to the wrong address.
<------------------------------------->
NAACP, election officials caution voters of bogus letter
by JENNIFER HOLLAND
Associated Press
Nov 1, 2004
COLUMBIA, S.C. - Charleston County election officials cautioned South Carolinians on Friday to steer clear of a fake letter that threatens the arrest of voters who have outstanding parking tickets or have failed to pay child support.
"I'm outraged," said Jill Miller, director of the Charleston County Board of Election and Voter Registration. "This is so bogus." The one-page letter poses as a message from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
The Rev. Joe Darby, vice president of the state NAACP chapter, said he received the letter at his home in Charleston. It had Columbia postmark with no return address. He said the letter was an attempt to scare minorities from voting Tuesday because the author of the message assumes black people are in trouble with the law.
"This is old South Carolina politics," said Darby. "I don't think anybody will fall for this." Darby said he wants the State Law Enforcement Division to investigate.
The letter says voters must have a credit check, provide two forms of photo identification, a Social Security card, a voter registration card as well as a handwriting sample. "None of that is true," said Miller. "I certainly hope no voter would be taken in by this."
All voters need is one of the following: a voter registration card, a South Carolina driver's license, or a South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles-issued photo identification card.
<------------------------------------->
GOP demands IDs of 37,000 in city
City attorney calls new list of bad addresses 'purely political'
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal
By GREG J. BOROWSKI
gborowski@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Oct. 30, 2004
Citing a new list of more than 37,000 questionable addresses, the state Republican Party demanded Saturday that Milwaukee city officials require identification from all of those voters Tuesday.
If the city doesn't, the party says it is prepared to have volunteers challenge each individual - including thousands who might be missing an apartment number on their registration - at the polls.
The move, which dramatically escalates the party's claims of bad addresses and potential fraud, was condemned by Democrats as a last-minute effort to suppress turnout in the city by creating long delays at the polls.
City officials, who already were trying to establish safeguards in response to the party's claim of 5,619 bad addresses, were surprised by the 37,180 number, nearly seven times larger.
"It's not a leap at all to say the potential for voter fraud is high in the city, and the integrity of the entire election, frankly, is at stake," said Rick Graber, state GOP chairman. "The city's records are in horrible shape."
Any inaccurate address, he said, is an opening for someone to cast a fraudulent vote. However, many of the new addresses now cited might be eligible voters who have voted for years without problems.
City Attorney Grant Langley labeled the GOP request "outrageous."
"We have already uncovered hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of addresses on their (original list) that do exist," said Langley, who holds a non-partisan office. "Why should I take their word for the fact this new list is good? I'm out of the politics on this, but this is purely political."
The initial GOP challenge, which was dismissed 3-0 by the city Election Commission last week, cited thousands of cases where no voter address exists, such as vacant lots and, in one case, a gyros stand.
It was the result of using a computer to compare the city's list of 386,526 registered voters to a U.S. Postal Service list of known addresses.
The same list generated about 13,300 cases where incorrect apartment numbers were listed, and some 18,200 more cases where no apartment number was listed for an existing building. However, the party didn't include any of those in its original challenge, filed three minutes before the 5 p.m. Wednesday deadline.
Legally, neither the city nor the state Elections Board is required to consider any of the newly identified addresses by Tuesday.
In an interview with the Journal Sentinel, Graber acknowledged the party is asking local officials, including the Milwaukee County district attorney's office, to voluntarily take the step as the right thing to do.
Asked why the party was not asking other communities to take the same voluntary precautions and computer check their lists before Tuesday, Graber said the Milwaukee voter list is a "mess" and cause for great alarm.
"You mean why aren't we doing this in Wausau?" he said. "We certainly could." After a pause, he added: "And perhaps should."
Democrats say the effort is designed to give the impression it will be difficult to vote in Milwaukee, in hopes of giving an advantage to President Bush over Democratic Sen. John Kerry.
"There's a real disturbing pattern of them making these charges in Wisconsin and in Ohio," said George Twigg, state spokesman for the Kerry campaign. "It's disappointing that they're continuing to beat this dead horse when they've already been proven wrong."
Democrats intend to have a full force of lawyers at polling places to protect the rights of voters, not just in the city but throughout the state, he said.
The new addresses offered Saturday by Republicans muddied an already complicated matter and could slow down attempts under way to institute safeguards on the initial list.
In conjunction with the Milwaukee County district attorney's office, the city attorney's office began reviewing the 5,619 names Friday. It found many cases where an address does not exist but also hundreds where it believes an address does exist.
The Journal Sentinel reviewed 74 of the addresses on the original list and found 68 of those do not exist. Others, though, were likely to be clerical errors.
Citing its expanded list, the GOP argues any address deficiency, such as no apartment number listed, constitutes an invalid registration.
Langley said he is not prepared to try to review more than 37,000 addresses by Monday, which would be necessary in order to be confident any "watch" lists given to poll workers do not include any valid addresses.
"Here we are Saturday night at 5 p.m., and they're going to drop 37,000 names on me?" Langley said. "There has got to be a deadline for a reason."
Graber said the city or district attorney's office could use the same method and generate its own list in about three hours. However, the same process would yield the same names. Langley is questioning the quality of approach, based on problems already found in the GOP's original list.
Lisa Artison, head of the city Election Commission, said she takes any challenge or claim of fraud seriously.
"We're all very concerned about the timing of this newest development," she said, declining further comment.
Critics said the late maneuver is a transparent effort to generate publicity and cast an unwarranted shadow over city voters, a majority of whom are expected to vote Democratic.
"People certainly can come to their own conclusions," said Martha Love, chair of the Milwaukee County Democratic Party, noting a similar review was not done for Republican areas such as Bayside. "But if it's not voter intimidation or suppression, then what's the point?"
Kevin Kennedy, executive director of the state Elections Board, has been working with the city on the 5,619 addresses to put safeguards in place that would flag questionable addresses.
"The concern the board has is the pall it casts over the process," he said Saturday.
Langley indicated Friday the district attorney's office was reviewing about 500 new voter registrations that appear to be from non-existent addresses.
Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote
"America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment."Gitmo Detainees Still in Limbo
Disagreement Over Detainees' Legal Rights SimmersNY Times
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: November 1, 2004
GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba, Oct. 31 - From the moment the Bush administration decided to use the naval base here as a prison colony for accused terrorists, policy makers were determined to keep everything that went on here beyond the reach of United States courts.
But a decision by the Supreme Court in June seemed to upset those plans as the justices ruled that prisoners at Guantánamo were entitled to some rights, notably the ability to have their claims that they were wrongfully imprisoned heard by a federal judge. But what the justices meant as to how far the government must go to accommodate the Guantánamo prisoners has produced a sharp debate now being played out in lower courts.
Lawyers for many of the detainees, including the ones named in the Supreme Court ruling, say the Bush administration is purposely ignoring the justices' mandate and stalling.
They cite the government's refusal to acknowledge that detainees are entitled to free access to lawyers to make their cases before federal judges. More broadly, they argue that the government is still trying to argue issues it has already lost in the Supreme Court, especially that the detainees have full rights to challenge their detentions in lower federal courts.
The Justice Department responded to demands by the detainees' lawyers with language remarkably similar to that it used almost two years ago in the case it has already lost.
"The notion that the U.S. Constitution affords due process and other rights to enemy aliens captured abroad and confined outside the sovereign territory of the United States is contrary to law and history," a recent government brief asserts, in an echo of the briefs submitted in the original Supreme Court case.
Thomas Wilner, a lawyer for several detainees who were involved in the original lawsuit, said in his brief that the government's motion was "simply outrageous.''
"It is filed in direct violation of the federal rules and it simply rehashes the same arguments that were made before, and rejected by the Supreme Court," Mr. Wilner said.
He compared the government's behavior to the "massive resistance" urged by some Southerners in response to the court's landmark desegregation ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.
A senior Justice Department official said in response, "It's easy for our adversaries to say, 'My gosh, when the Supreme Court said that there is habeas jurisdiction, that must mean there are real rights at stake, that the detainees are protected by the Constitution.' " But the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the litigation was continuing, said the court's ruling that prisoners may challenge their detentions in lawsuits called habeas corpus actions left open that question for lower courts.
The court, by a 6 to 3 margin, ruled in June that the people held at Guantánamo as unlawful enemy combatants "no less than American citizens are entitled to federal courts' authority" to challenge their detentions.
The Justice Department said in its brief that "the court expressly declined to address 'whether and what further proceedings' would be appropriate after remand," as proof the justices left open the issue of whether the government was required to afford the prisoners more rights. But the full sentence at the end of the principal opinion reads, "Whether and what further proceedings may become necessary after respondents make their response to the merits of petitioners' claims are matters that we need not address now."
Prof. Anthony G. Amsterdam of the New York University School of Law said he believed that the government's resistance to recognizing the detainees' rights, including the right to a lawyer, to make their cases bordered on the unethical.
"It's simply amazing that they are proceeding as if those cases had not been heard before the Supreme Court and that those arguments had not been heard and rejected by the court," Professor Amsterdam said. "I would not expect a reputable lawyer to split nonexistent hairs that way and treat what was plainly a decision that these people had a right to be in court as if it were nothing."
He said the government was apparently hoping to delay the day it would have to explain for each detainee the reasons of imprisonment.
Prof. Douglas W. Kmiec of the Pepperdine University School of Law said he believed that the Supreme Court ruling in June was "written in a deliberately incomplete manner so that it found a right to habeas review but left the nature of that review to some district court." Professor Kmiec said he believed the government was acting "well within its bounds and is not obliged to do anything beyond what they have done."
The senior Justice Department official who asked not to be named said the administration understood that while "we don't think there is a constitutional right to counsel, we understand there is a sort of a functional right" under the federal law that covers habeas corpus challenges.
The administration has agreed to let lawyers visit with detainees to help them bring habeas challenges but under strict security conditions that prohibit them from discussing some aspects of the cases with the client. Defense lawyers have challenged those restrictions.
The administration has also argued that a new legal proceeding it put in place here at Guantánamo after the Supreme Court ruling, combatant status review tribunals, should satisfy the justices' demand that the detainees get individualized fair hearings. Under that procedure, detainees are allowed to contest their imprisonment but do not have a lawyer and are not entitled to see the evidence against them. So far, about half of the base's 580 detainees have been through such hearings, and one detainee has been sent home after having been deemed not to be an unlawful enemy combatant.
Another set of legal proceedings involving the Guantánamo detainees, war crimes trials before military commissions, is set to resume here on Monday.
Note: And as already occurred with selected detainees, once these detainees are released, does anyone in their right mind think for a second that they will "go and sin no more"? Even for those who only fought for the Taliban, and not Al Qaeda, once released they will overwhelmingly favor jihad against America with vengence for their unlawful imprisonment. The chickens will come home to roost. You can bet on that!
Wal-Mart Tells Employees to Go Elsewhere for Health Coverage
States Are Battling Against Wal-Mart Over Health CareNY Times
By REED ABELSON
Published: November 1, 2004
In the national debate over what to do about the growing number of working people with little or no health insurance, no other company may be taking more heat than the country's largest employer, Wal-Mart Stores.
The company, despite its popularity with consumers, has grown accustomed to being accused of crushing Main Street merchants with its sprawling stores and low prices and of driving down wages for workers across the retail industry. And more than a million former and current female Wal-Mart employees are part of a sex discrimination lawsuit that the company is fighting.
Now, Wal-Mart finds itself under attack for what critics see as its miserly approach to employee health care, which they say is forcing too many of its workers and their families into state insurance programs or making them rely on charity care by hospitals.
Wal-Mart vigorously defends its health care policies, saying it offers affordable coverage for all employees.
The company says it has no way of knowing how many of its employees, whom it calls associates, or their families are insured under state programs. The larger issue of whether companies can and should absorb the soaring cost of health care is a national issue, said Susan Chambers, the executive vice president who oversees benefits at Wal-Mart. "You can't solve it for the 1.2 million associates if you can't solve it for the country.''
A survey by Georgia officials found that more than 10,000 children of Wal-Mart employees were in the state's health program for children at an annual cost of nearly $10 million to taxpayers. A North Carolina hospital found that 31 percent of 1,900 patients who described themselves as Wal-Mart employees were on Medicaid, while an additional 16 percent had no insurance at all.
And backers of a measure that will be on California's ballot tomorrow, which would force big employers like Wal-Mart to either provide affordable health insurance to their workers or pay into a state insurance pool, say Wal-Mart employees without company insurance are costing California's state health care programs an estimated $32 million a year.
Meanwhile, in Washington State, where the insurance commissioner is pushing the legislature to adopt a law similar to the one on the California ballot, companies that struggle to compete with Wal-Mart while insuring most of their own workers have become openly critical.
"Socially, we're engaged in a race to the bottom," said Craig Cole, the chief executive of Brown & Cole Stores, a supermarket chain that employs about 2,000 workers in Washington and adjoining states and pays for insurance coverage for about 95 percent of its employees. "Do we want to allow competition based on exploitation of the work force?" he asked.
Wal-Mart, which disputes the California figures and says it cannot verify the Georgia and North Carolina data, says its employees are largely insured. It cites internal surveys indicating that 90 percent of its employees have insurance - many through means other than Wal-Mart's coverage because they are senior citizens on Medicare, students covered by their parents' policies or employees with second jobs or working spouses.
"We are doing everything we can to take care of our associates and not shift costs," Ms. Chambers said.
The company has gone on its own offensive, saying last week that it was spending $500,000 to defeat the California measure, Proposition 72. The measure is opposed by many other businesses, particularly restaurants and retailers, and by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who asserts that it would impede the state's economic recovery and lead to a loss of jobs.
Wal-Mart has also been running a television ad nationally that features a Wal-Mart worker whose company health insurance covered his toddler son's treatments for life-threatening liver disease. "Without Wal-Mart,'' the father says, "I don't know that he would have made it."
But critics say the reality for too many Wal-Mart workers and their families is no insurance - either because they are unable to meet the company's eligibility requirements or because they cannot afford monthly premiums as high as $264 a month for family coverage on an $8-an-hour cashier's wage. Wal-Mart says its employees make $10 an hour on average.
