How to Apply to Latin American School of Medical Sciences

  This is from The Miami Herald! 
 
  Posted on Wed, Dec. 27, 2006 
 
How to apply 
 
Application to the Latin American School of Medical Sciences is coordinated in the United States by the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization/Pastors for Peace, a humanitarian group in New York. 
 
The group says students must be: 
 
• U.S. citizens. 
 
• Age 18 to 30. 
 
• Physically and mentally fit. 
 
• From the ``humblest and neediest communities.'' 
 
• Committed to practicing medicine in poor and underserved U.S. communities after graduation. 
 
Final decisions about admissions will be made by a committee representing the Cuban Ministry of Public Health and the faculty of the Latin American School of Medical Sciences. 
 
For more information, contact Ellen Bernstein at IFCO at 212-926-5757 or at lasm@igc.org. Website: http://www.ifconews.org/MedicalSchool/main.htm. 
 
To hear interviews with U.S. students in Cuba, go to http://go.philly.com/cubamed 

---

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

The New York Times - Bipartisan Effort to Draft Immigration Bill

 

 The New York Times

 

December 26, 2006
Bipartisan Effort to Draft Immigration Bill

By RACHEL L. SWARNS

WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 — Counting on the support of the new Democratic majority in Congress, Democratic lawmakers and their Republican allies are working on measures that could place millions of illegal immigrants on a more direct path to citizenship than would a bill that the Senate passed in the spring.

 

The lawmakers are considering abandoning a requirement in the Senate bill that would compel several million illegal immigrants to leave the United States before becoming eligible to apply for citizenship.

 

The lawmakers are also considering denying financing for 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico, a law championed by Republicans that passed with significant Democratic support.

 

Details of the bill, which would be introduced early next year, are being drafted. The lawmakers, who hope for bipartisan support, will almost certainly face pressure to compromise on the issues from some Republicans and conservative Democrats.

 

Still, the proposals reflect significant shifts since the November elections, as well as critical support from the Homeland Security Department.

 

Proponents said the prospects for such a measure, which would include tougher border security and a guest worker plan, had markedly improved since Nov. 7.

 

The Senate plans to introduce its immigration bill next month with an eye toward passage in March or April, officials said. The House is expected to consider its version later. President Bush said last week that he hoped to sign an immigration bill next year.

 

The major lawmakers drafting the legislation include Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona, along with Representatives Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, and Luis V. Gutierrez, Democrat of Illinois. The four met this month, and their staffs have begun working on a bill.

 

“I’m very hopeful about this, both in terms of the substance and the politics of it,” said Mr. Kennedy, the incoming chairman of the Senate Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship Subcommittee.

 

Mr. Kennedy acknowledged that there would be hurdles. But he and other lawmakers say Republicans and Democrats are now more likely to work together to repair a system widely considered as broken.

 

House Republicans blocked consideration of the bill that passed the Senate this year, saying it amounted to an amnesty for lawbreakers and voicing confidence that a tough stance would touch off a groundswell of support in the Congressional elections. The strategy largely failed.

Hispanic voters, a swing constituency that Republicans covet, abandoned the party in large numbers. Several Republican hardliners, including Representatives John Hostettler of Indiana and J. D. Hayworth of Arizona, lost their seats. After the dismal showing, House Republicans denied F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, the departing chairman of the Judiciary Committee and an architect of the House immigration approach, a senior position on any major committee in the new Congress.

 

Domestic security officials have voiced support for important elements of the framework under consideration. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has repeatedly raised doubts about the effectiveness of border fencing in remote desert areas. Mr. Bush signed the fence bill this year, but Congress did not appropriate enough money for it. Officials say they would also prefer a less burdensome process than the original Senate bill outlined.

 

That bill divided the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants into three groups, those living here for five years or more, those here for two to five years and those here for less than two years.

 

All but the illegal immigrants living here for five years or more, roughly seven million, would have to leave the country briefly to be eligible for legal status. Those here for fewer than two years would have to leave the country and would not even be guaranteed a slot in a guest worker plan.

 

Domestic security officials said the original plan would have been enormously difficult to administer because many illegal immigrants lacked documentation to prove how long they had been in the United States.

The officials said it would have fueled a market in fraudulent documents as illegal immigrants scrambled to offer proof of residency.

 

The three-tiered approach would also discourage millions of illegal immigrants from registering, driving millions deeper underground.

“We do have concerns over breaking it down into that tiered system,” said a domestic security official who insisted on anonymity. “When you do that, you run the risk of people trying to create false documentation that would get them the highest benefits.”

 

Also expected to have prominent roles in the debate are Representatives Zoe Lofgren, the California Democrat who is likely to head the House Immigration, Border Security and Claims Subcommittee; Howard L. Berman, a California Democrat who has followed immigration issues closely for many years; and Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who is set to lead the House Homeland Security Committee and has said he plans to re-evaluate the 700-mile fence.

 

But Mr. Flake described himself as optimistic, saying the elections had disabused many Republicans of the notion that opposing legalization and guest worker plans would win widespread support.

“That illusion is gone,” he said.

The percentage of Hispanics who voted for Republicans fell to 29 percent, from 44 percent in 2004, and some Republicans say passing immigration bills is a crucial part of the effort to win them back.

 

Mr. Flake warned that some Republicans might balk at proposals like broadening the number of illegal immigrants eligible for a less burdensome path to citizenship, making passage of bipartisan legislation potentially “politically more difficult.”

 

The prospects for a bill that contains such a proposal remain particularly uncertain in the House, where many prominent Democrats want to ensure broad bipartisan backing as part of their efforts to maintain their majority in 2008, Congressional aides said.

 

The House Democrats are concerned about protecting newly elected moderate and conservative Democrats, some of whom had campaigned against legalizing illegal immigrants.

 

It is also unclear whether Mr. Gutierrez and Mr. Flake will produce the only House legislation on immigration and whether their plan will ultimately become the basis for the bill that emerges.

 

In the Senate, Mr. Kennedy’s bill certainly has the backing of the Democratic leadership, Congressional aides said.

Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, argued that expanding citizenship eligibility and abandoning financing for the fence would alienate moderates in both parties. The three-tier legalization system, a hard-fought compromise, was critical for moderate Republican support for the original bill.

 

The plan under consideration would allow 10 million or 11 million illegal immigrants to become eligible to apply for citizenship without returning home, up from 7 million in the original Senate bill. To be granted citizenship, they would have to remain employed, pass background checks, pay fines and back taxes, and enroll in English classes.

 

“I think it’s a nonstarter,” said Mr. Cornyn, who opposes a path to citizenship for illegal workers, but supports a plan for temporary workers that would let foreigners work here temporarily before returning home.

 

Congressional aides and lawyers familiar with the proposed bills emphasize that it will be very difficult for a smaller group of illegal immigrants, those who arrived after a certain date, perhaps 2004, to become citizens. The aides said the bill might include incentives for illegal immigrants to leave the country. While they hope such elements may ease concerns, many challenges remain.

 

Some powerful unions, which expect to exert more leverage in the new Congress, remain deeply opposed to the temporary worker program in the Senate bill. The unions say it threatens American jobs.

 

Officials at the A.F.L.-C.I.O. say they can scuttle such a plan next year, even though Mr. Bush and businesses say it is critical to ensure an adequate labor force.

 

There is also the political clock to consider. Supporters of immigration measures acknowledge that the prospects for a bipartisan bill will dim significantly if a bill is not passed before the presidential primaries of 2008 are in full swing.

 

Some Congressional aides and immigrants’ advocates worry about the commitment of Mr. McCain, a likely presidential candidate in 2008.

Mr. McCain has long supported legalization that would not require illegal immigrants to leave the United States. Some advocates fear that his ambitions may lead to a shifting of that stance to avoid alienating moderate Republicans.

 

A spokeswoman for Mr. McCain said last week that he was not available to comment on the bill being drafted.

Many lawmakers say their hope is growing that Congress will pass an immigration bill next year.

“There are going to be hard choices that are going to be made, because we need to build a bipartisan, broad-based coalition,” said Mr. Gutierrez, who leads the House Democratic immigration group. “But I’m hopeful that in the environment in which we’re working now we can get it done.”

---

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

FOCUS | Bush May Boost Iraq Troops by 20,000

 FOCUS | Bush May Boost Iraq Troops by 20,000
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122406Z.shtml

President Bush began a series of urgent consultations with his key defense and
foreign policy advisers at Camp David yesterday, amid expectations that he was
preparing to agree to a request from US commanders to send an additional 20,000
troops to Iraq to secure Baghdad.

---

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

With Bigger Army, a Bigger Task for Recruiters

 

 

GAO probe of military sex assaults to open next month

The Associated Press

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — The investigative arm of Congress will look at how the military and its academies deal with sexual assaults after allegations that such cases were not properly handled, officials said.

The investigation follows the first court-martial in the 130-year history of the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut. Cadet Webster Smith was acquitted of rape in June but served five months in prison for extorting a female classmate for sexual favors.

The nation’s military academies have faced more scrutiny since 2003, when women at the Air Force Academy in Colorado alleged that they had been sexually assaulted by fellow cadets over the previous decade and were either ignored or ostracized by commanders when they came forward.

The review is expected to start in January and take about a year.

“I think it’s a wonderful thing,” said Susan Stopper, whose daughter, former cadet Caitlin Stopper, testified before a congressional panel that academy administrators suggested she was to blame when she accused another student of assaulting her in the barracks. “It’s somebody who should be impartial. That’s the only way you’re able to make changes.”

Rep. Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican, asked for the review after holding a congressional hearing last summer. Shays asked the Government Accountability Office to determine the number of sexual assault cases in the military and at the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard academies over the past five years and to assess the disposition of the cases.

“We still don’t have a handle on it,” Shays said. “It’s not the problem it was, but there is still a lot of room for improvement.”

About 10 sexual assault cases have been referred to the national security subcommittee that held the hearing, Shays said. He asked the GAO to contact them for the investigation.

Shays also asked the GAO to look at how the military decides whether to use administrative hearings or court-martials to resolve abuse claims. He questioned why there had been a delay in appointing members to the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services.

The GAO agreed in October to Shays’ request for the review but said it did not plan to interview the assault victims who contacted the committee, citing privacy rights and legal issues.

Former Air Force Academy Cadet Elizabeth L. Davis, who told the hearing she was “raped and assaulted repeatedly” while at the academy, said women who report crimes are often threatened, degraded and driven out.

Shays said the military needs to own up to past mistakes.

“Their records need to be totally cleared and they need to receive an apology,” Shays said.

A telephone message was left with a Defense Department spokeswoman Monday.

Military academy officials said last summer they have made solid progress in curbing sexual assaults on campuses. Military officials said they have worked hard to improve critical areas such as victim support and confidentiality while providing training for all cadets to prevent sexual harassment and assault.

According to the Defense Department, the military services have set up sexual assault program offices at all major installations and trained more than 1,000 response coordinators and victim advocates.

Reports of sexual assaults in the military increased by nearly 40 percent last year, the Pentagon said in March, attributing the increase at least partly to a new program that encourages victims to come forward.

The military has also come under fire for repeated problems with sexual abuse in units stationed abroad in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Bahrain, and at military installations. Detainee abuse allegations have also included sexual assaults.

A survey by the Veterans Affairs Department showed that six in 10 women who served in the National Guard and Reserve said they were sexually harassed or assaulted.

 

=============================================================================

 

The New York Times 

 

 

With Bigger Army, a Bigger Task for Recruiters

 

Marko Georgiev for The New York Times [photo above, may or may not show]

 

Army officials are confident that recruiters, with new incentives, can increase the number of enlistees, like these at Fort Hamilton, in Brooklyn.

 

By DAMIEN CAVE and THOM SHANKER

Published: December 24, 2006

 

In his six years as an Army recruiter in South Dakota and now in Chicago, Sgt. First Class Roger White has heard his pitch rejected for all kinds of reasons: The job is too dangerous. My parents hate the war. I can make more money working.

 

But when Sergeant White tried to explain why he trusted that the military could continue to sustain and swell its ranks at a time of war, he said, one story came to mind.

 

A 39-year-old woman who once worked as a chemical specialist in the Army found herself down and out and living in a women’s shelter, he said. The Army came calling one more time, and she re-enlisted. Now, the woman is back in uniform at her previous job, serving in South Korea.

 

“It was amazing,” Sergeant White said, “to see how much change we could bring to just this one woman’s life.”

 

More recruits may soon be needed. With President Bush’s declaration last week that he had asked Robert M. Gates, the new defense secretary, to work with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a plan to expand the Army and Marine Corps, military officials have already begun to consider how to grow, by how much and how fast.

Senior Army officials underscore the challenges they face, regardless of the goals that might be set. But like Sergeant White, they also express confidence that the Army’s recruiters — armed with incentives, high-tech marketing and inspiring stories from soldiers — can continue a steady, substantial annual increase in troop numbers.

 

The process is expected to be gradual: Pentagon civilian officials and military officers said that few were envisioning a large, rapid growth that would require the Army to dust off emergency mobilization plans for reopening bases or drawing in National Guard equipment.

 

Instead, civilian and military officials said, they are drawing up tentative proposals that would make permanent the 30,000-troop temporary increase approved by Congress after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and then add 30,000 more troops to the Army over the next five years, resulting in an active-duty Army with 542,400 soldiers by 2012.

 

Expanding the nation’s ground forces is expensive; every 10,000 new soldiers add about $1.2 billion in personnel costs to the Pentagon’s annual budget. On top of that, equipment for 10,000 new troops would cost an additional $2 billion, according to Army statistics.

 

The study of how to expand the ground forces comes at a time of other financial strains. Army officials have told Congress that the service was $56 billion short in its equipment budget before the war in Iraq, and now requires an extra $14 billion annually just to repair and replace equipment worn or destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Nevertheless, among many officers and soldiers in Iraq and at home, the need for additional support has grown urgent. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, previewed the service’s thinking this month when he warned that unless more soldiers were added to the roster, “We will break the active component.”

General Schoomaker said the Army could successfully manage a growth of 6,000 to 7,000 soldiers a year, and a range of Army officials acknowledged that any growth larger or faster than that would require exorbitant amounts of money for financial incentives, new barracks and equipment.

 

Similarly, Gen. James T. Conway, the commandant of the Marine Corps, said recently that his force of 180,000 could grow by 1,000 to 2,000 a year until the current strain on America’s ground forces from the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan was reduced.

 

Col. Kevin A. Shwedo, director of operations for the Army Accessions Command, which is responsible for recruiting and initial training, said the service routinely reassigned drill sergeants and opened classrooms to fill specific Army needs, whether into field medicine, intelligence or infantry. This experience would allow the Army to deal with any order to expand its roster, he said.

 

“We have a plan right now where we have projected training seats from now through the end of next year,” Colonel Shwedo said in a telephone interview. “And we have the ability with minimal disruption to shift those seats if a decision is made by our military and civilian leadership to expand the training base.”

Recruiters still face challenges in filling basic training classrooms with new soldiers. The Army failed to meet its annual recruiting goals in 2005 by the widest margin in two decades.

 

The Army met its recruiting goal in the 2006 year, which ended at midnight on Sept. 30. But to be successful, the Army added 1,000 recruiters, bringing its total to 6,500, and sweetened their educational and financial incentives.

 

The Army also raised recruits’ maximum allowable age to 42 from 35 and accepted a larger percentage of applicants who scored at the lowest acceptable range on a standardized aptitude examination, leading some military analysts to suggest that the Army had undermined its historic emphasis on quality to make its quota.

Sgt. First Class Abid Shah, a senior enlisted official at the military entrance processing station at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, where new recruits are tested and sworn in, said more recruiters might be needed. Even then, he emphasized that the effort would move slowly.

 

“It won’t happen in days,” Sergeant Shah said. “It takes years.”

 

Part of the struggle, recruiters said, is economic. Attracting young people to military service is difficult when jobs are plentiful and wages are on the rise.

 

The pool of eligible candidates is also small, as Army requirements that recruits meet certain physical, mental and moral standards mean that only 3 of 10 18-year-old Americans may apply.

 

Parents are another major obstacle to recruitment, Pentagon studies have shown. For some recruits, signing up means risking alienating parents, or just plain ignoring them.

 

Luis Vega, for example, after being sworn in to the Army Reserve on Friday at Fort Hamilton, said he had not told his parents.

 

“They think it’s just a phase,” he said.

 

His head was already shaved; he planned to ship out in April. And besides his fiancée, who he said supported the move, Mr. Vega, 28, said he was the only one in his hometown of East Rutherford, N.J., who seemed to understand the value of military service.

 

“Everybody thinks I’m crazy,” Mr. Vega said.

 

Elsewhere, especially in the Southwest, where recruiting has been strong in recent years, the mood seemed to be more visibly upbeat.

 

At a recruiting station near the University of Texas at Austin, Sgt. First Class Jeremy Cousineau said that there seemed to be no lack of interest among young men and women in his area. He said he believed that the Army would have little trouble finding the soldiers it needed.

 

“It’s all good around here,” he said. “Life is good in recruiting for us.”

 

Two marines helping out with recruiting while at home for the holidays in Tempe, Ariz., said they hoped that their positive experiences in the military would persuade others to sign up.

 

One of them, Sgt. Jesus Delatrinidad, 23, said that despite the long absences from home — unlike many marines, he has not served in Iraq — signing up or re-enlisting brought benefits far beyond the financial.

“I love the Marine Corps and that’s what’s making me think about staying in,” he said, noting that he had six more months on his four-year contract. “It’s made me a better person.”

 

Appeals to the sense of personal growth, and patriotism remain a dominant part of the recruiting pitch for the Army and the Marines. In advertisements and at sporting events, recruiters now emphasize intangibles, like the camaraderie of combat, at least as much as the financial incentives like extra money for college.

According to Sergeant White in Chicago, the approach seems to be working.

 

“The applicants we’ve been interviewing, people join for a reason,” he said. “Whether that’s to serve the country, to pay off college or go to college in the first place, that hasn’t changed. But more and more, we’re seeing the patriotism. People who simply want to serve their country. That’s their reason for coming into the office, and that hasn’t changed.”

 

John Dougherty contributed reporting from Tempe, Ariz., Tim Eaton from Austin, Tex., and Eric Ferkenhoff from Chicago.

 

 

---

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

Unions oppose ‘draft’ of federal workers to Iraq

Federal Times . com

 

December 16th, 2006

 

Unions oppose ‘draft’ of federal workers to Iraq

By DANIEL FRIEDMAN

 

December 08, 2006

 

The Iraq Study Group’s recommendation that the Bush administration consider ordering government civilians to Iraq has drawn outrage from federal employees’ unions.

 

Civilian agencies have been seeking volunteers to assist with efforts in Iraq. But the report states that the potential danger of the assignment means few qualified candidates have taken the offer.

Therefore: “In the short term, if not enough civilians volunteer to fill key positions in Iraq, civilian agencies must fill those positions with directed assignments,” the report says...

 

 

---

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney Introduces Articles of Impeachment, Faces Vicous Attacks by Media

 Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney Introduces Articles of Impeachment, Faces Vicous Attacks by Media

 

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/cynthia

 Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has introduced articles of impeachment against George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice. In doing so, she alone has spoken for the 51 percent of Americans who Newsweek says want Bush impeached. Read McKinney's remarks.

McKinney charges that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld manipulated intelligence and lied to justify war, and that Bush has engaged in illegal domestic spying. The former charge has been extremely well documented, and the latter proudly confessed to. The former charge was central to the concern of those who included impeachment in the U.S. Constitution. The latter charge is one of openly violating a law that was established in response to President Richard Nixon's impeachable offenses.

The media attacks on Congresswoman McKinney have begun. McKinney foresaw the current attacks on her record and forged ahead anyway. Now, we need to support her.

Contact the media in support of McKinney and impeachment.

Urge other members of Congress to support impeachment.

Thank Cynthia McKinney.

Human Rights / Impeachment / Thank McKinney Day

 Sunday, December 10th, is Human Rights Day, the 58th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document that lays out, in 30 short articles, rights that every human should have protected. Eleven out of the 30 have clearly been violated in the United States by President Bush and his administration, rights including:

Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence….

This Human Rights Day, many of us have worked to organize rallies for impeachment all over the country. They will now also be rallies to honor and thank Cynthia McKinney. Find an event near you.

---

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

Democrats Who Opposed War Move Into Key Positions

 Democrats Who Opposed War Move Into Key Positions
>
>New Committee Chairmen Had Warned of Postwar Disorder
>
>Monday December 04, 2006
>By Walter Pincus
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>
>Monday, December 4, 2006; A04
>
><http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120301108.html>
>
>Although given little public credit at the time, or
>since, many of the 126 House Democrats who spoke out and
>voted against the October 2002 resolution that gave
>President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq have
>turned out to be correct in their warnings about the
>problems a war would create.
>
>With the Democrats taking over control of the House next
>January, the views that some voiced during two days of
>debate four years ago are worth recalling, since many of
>those lawmakers will move into positions of power. They
>include not only members of the new House leadership but
>also the incoming chairmen of the Appropriations, Armed
>Services, Budget and Judiciary committees and the Select
>Committee on Intelligence.
>
>Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), a senior member of the
>Armed Services Committee, was one of several Democrats
>who predicted during the House floor debate that "the
>outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the
>hardest part, and it is far less certain." He credited
>his views in part to what he heard over breakfasts with
>retired generals Anthony C. Zinni and Joseph P. Hoar,
>both of whom had led the U.S. Army's Central Command --
>a part of which is in Spratt's district. "They made the
>point: We do not want to win this war, only to lose the
>peace and swell the ranks of terrorists who hate us,"
>Spratt said.
>
>Spratt recently looked back at his resolution, which
>would have required Bush to come back to Congress before
>launching an attack. It was defeated 270 to 158. He
>recalled that extended hearings were held before the
>Persian Gulf War but that nothing similar preceded the
>vote on the 2002 resolution. "I remember we talked this
>time about how we got to get answers before this train
>leaves the station," Spratt said.
>
>The incoming Armed Services chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton
>(D-Mo.), spoke in support of Spratt's amendment,
>stressing the need for "a plan for rebuilding of the
>Iraqi government and society, if the worst comes to pass
>and armed conflict is necessary." Skelton had written
>Bush a month earlier, after a White House meeting, to
>say that "I have no doubt that our military would
>decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But
>like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road,
>we must consider what we would do after we caught it."
>
>Skelton went on to note the "extreme difficulty of
>occupying Iraq with its history of autocratic rule, its
>balkanized ethnic tensions and its isolated economic
>system." He also warned that Bush's postwar strategy
>must "take seriously" the possibility that a replacement
>regime "might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading
>to civil unrest and even anarchy."
>
>Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), who will chair the
>Appropriations Committee, was among the group that
>organized the Democrats. He spoke then about poor
>preparation for postwar Iraq, a concern he developed
>after listening to State Department officials. He
>recalled recently that an amendment by Rep. Barbara T.
>Lee (D-Calif.) that would have delayed taking action
>until inspectors from the United Nations completed their
>work "made sense, but there was no prayer it would
>pass." It got 72 votes.
>
>Obey said Spratt's amendment was the only approach "that
>could gather critical mass, and that's what most of us
>in the caucus settled on."
>
>The number of House Democrats who supported Spratt "was
>a remarkable achievement," Obey said, "given it meant
>opposing the president in the wake of 9/11." Obey's
>district was 70 percent in favor of going into Iraq, he
>said.
>
>On the House floor more than four years ago, Lee told
>colleagues: "Our own intelligence agencies report that
>there is currently little chance of chemical and
>biological attack from Saddam Hussein on U.S. forces or
>territories. But they emphasize that an attack could
>become much more likely if Iraq believes that it is
>about to be attacked." That information, she said, came
>from material that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet had
>provided to the Senate.
>
>Lee also raised questions in the floor debate that
>remain unanswered. "What is our objective here," she
>asked four years ago, "regime change or elimination of
>weapons of mass destruction?"
>
>Looking forward now to next year and a Democratic
>majority in the House, Lee said, "Those of us who early
>on understood have many ideas of what to do now and how
>to get out of Iraq."
>
>Rep. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), who did not belong to a
>committee with national security jurisdiction, was among
>the lawmakers who talked on the House floor about what
>turned out to be the real issues in Iraq. She spoke of
>the "postwar challenges," saying that "there is no
>history of democratic government in Iraq," that its
>"economy and infrastructure is in ruins after years of
>war and sanctions" and that rebuilding would take "a
>great deal of money."
>
>Baldwin four years ago asked questions that are being
>widely considered today: "Are we prepared to keep
>100,000 or more troops in Iraq to maintain stability
>there? If we don't, will a new regime emerge? If we
>don't, will Iran become the dominant power in the Middle
>East? . . . If we don't, will Islamic fundamentalists
>take over Iraq?"
>
>Baldwin said recently that she put together her
>statement after reading public commentary and talking
>with like-minded colleagues and her staff about what
>would come next. "A vote like this, I didn't undertake
>lightly -- I almost fully expected they would find
>weapons there," she said. "But we hadn't heard about an
>exit strategy; it was such a blank."
>
>The day after the House vote, The Washington Post
>recorded that 126 House Democrats voted against the
>final resolution. None was quoted giving a reason for
>his or her vote except for Rep. Joe Baca (Calif.), who
>said a military briefing had disclosed that U.S.
>soldiers did not have adequate protection against
>biological weapons.
>
>"As a veteran, that's what hit me the hardest," he said.
>
>Lee was described as giving a "fiery denunciation" of
>the administration's "rush to war," with only 14
>colleagues in the House chamber to hear her. None of the
>reasons she gave to justify her concerns, nor those
>voiced by other Democratic opponents, was reported in
>the two Post stories about passage of the resolution
>that day.

---

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

Philadelphia Daily News = Mumia: The total legal update

 

Philadelphia Daily News

Posted on Thu, Dec. 07, 2006

Mumia: The total legal update

By DAVE LINDORFF

A QUARTER-century ago, on a cold December morning, police officer Daniel Faulkner was shot and killed during a routine Center City traffic stop.

 

The brother of the driver he had pulled over, a well-known local radio journalist named Mumia Abu-Jamal, was arrested at the scene. In July 1982, Abu-Jamal was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

 

In January, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is to hear oral arguments from both the Philadelphia D.A. and Abu-Jamal on four issues, one that could send him to his death and three that could lead to a new trial.

 

The D.A.'s appeal seeks to reverse a 2001 decision by Federal District Judge William Yohn overturning Abu-Jamal's death sentence. Yohn ruled that trial judge Albert Sabo, and the jury sentencing form used then, had led jurors to believe that mitigating circumstances, which could weigh against a death sentence, counted only if all jurors agreed.

 

In fact, any juror can find mitigation and veto death.

 

The other three issues all challenge the conviction. Two of the claims, if supported by two of the three appellate judges, could lead to a new trial. The third would likely require a federal court to hold new hearings that would allow Abu-Jamal to introduce newly discovered witnesses, and grill old ones to see if their stories have changed.

 

A hearing before the Third Circuit was assured in 2001 when Yohn allowed Abu-Jamal to appeal his ruling that there was no compelling evidence of racial bias in jury selection. Certification meant the Third Circuit had to consider the appeal. All other avenues of appeal were denied by Yohn. But in a surprise decision earlier this year, the Third Circuit, after a petition by Abu-Jamal's San Francisco-based attorney Robert Bryan, opened the door to two additional challenges to his conviction.

 

One of these was the claim that prosecutor Joseph McGill had improperly led jurors to believe they needn't fear a wrongful conviction because their verdict would not be the last word. Instead, McGill assured them, there would be "appeal after appeal" of their verdict, "so that may not be final." (Federal courts have often found unconstitutional such attempts to remove jurors' sense of responsibility.)

In addition, the appeals court decided to consider whether Sabo was biased against the defendant both at trial and during a 1995 post-conviction hearing. A few years back, a court stenographer, Terri Maurer Carter, claimed that in the opening days of Abu-Jamal's trial, she, in the company of Judge Richard Klein (now a state Superior Court judge), had heard Sabo say he would "help them fry the n-----."

 

IN 2001, COMMON Pleas Judge Pamela Dembe ruled that it wouldn't matter if Sabo had uttered those words "since this was a jury trial," a bizarre ruling since even if jurors render the verdict, judges make critical decisions about evidence, and how trials are run.

 

And the post-conviction hearing, it is the judge alone who determines whether new evidence is significant, and even what questions witnesses may be asked.

Sabo's one-sidedness at that hearing led the Philadelphia Inquirer to editorialize at the time: "The behavior of the judge in the case was disturbing the first time around - and in hearings last week he did not give the impression... of fair-mindedness. Instead, he gave the impression... of undue haste and hostility toward the defense's case."

 

The appeals court hearing promises to be explosive, and ensures that this case, which has made Abu-Jamal a world-famous author and political figure, and which has made Officer Faulkner an icon for those who support the death penalty, will continue to be major Philadelphia news for some time yet.

 

Meanwhile, Abu-Jamal remains where he has been since 1982, in solitary in a small cell on death row, where the D.A. has insisted he stay even in the last five years during which his death sentence has been lifted.

 

---

 

Dave Lindorff is author of "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal" (Common Courage Press). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net. He can be reached at dlindorff@yahoo.com.

---

  © 2006 Philadelphia Daily News and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.philly.com

---

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.