White House offers revised CIA interrogation plan

By Vicki Allen Mon Sep 18, 6:53 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seeking to quell an uprising over its legislation on the treatment of foreign terrorism suspects, the White House on Monday offered a revised plan to three Republican senators who charge that its bill would subject suspects to abusive interrogations and unfair trials.
"Our commitment to finding a resolution is real and that's why we're going to be sharing some language because we are eager to find a resolution," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
Republican Sens. John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham were to get the latest proposal on
President George W. Bush' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> President George W. Bush's bill, and were expected to comment on it on Tuesday, said John Ulyott, Warner's spokesman.
While the senators had several differences with Bush's plan, an administration official said the new proposal dealt only with the main sticking point of Bush's demand that Congress more narrowly define protections for prisoners under the Geneva Conventions.
Bush insists this is necessary to get information from "high-value" detainees, while the senators said it would allow interrogations that violate international standards.
Meanwhile the House of Representatives postponed to next week a vote on Bush's bill as Republicans tried to avoid a showdown that could derail Republicans' efforts to depict themselves as stronger than Democrats on fighting terrorism before November 7 congressional elections.
Bush, who has come under fire for harsh treatment of detainees at the Guantanamo prison and abuses at
Abu Ghraib' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Abu Ghraib prison in
Iraq' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Iraq, needs Congress to approve a system to try suspects mostly picked up in the
Afghanistan' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Afghanistan war after the Supreme Court struck down his original plan.
HOUSE WAITS
The House put off floor action to next week on Bush' bill "only because the Judiciary Committee requested an opportunity to review the criminal code provisions and habeas corpus provisions," said Kevin Madden, spokesman for House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.
But other Republican House aides acknowledged the delay improved chances that the White House could reach a compromise and avoid a potentially ugly fight on the Senate floor in which a group of eight or 10 Republicans joined by Democrats could defeat Bush's bill.
"We continue to look for a way to resolve differences between the two approaches," Ulyott said.
Senate Republican leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said he expected the issue will be on the Senate floor next week as Congress struggles to complete pending business before breaking at the end of the month to campaign in elections that will determine control of Congress.
Warner of Virginia, chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Senate Armed Services Committee, and committee members McCain of Arizona and Graham of South Carolina contend the latest plan would deprive defendants of basic rights and would permit
CIA' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> CIA interrogations using harsh methods that violate the Geneva Conventions' requirement for humane treatment.
The committee last week passed its own bill that, unlike Bush's plan, would give defendants access to classified evidence being used to convict them. It also would set tighter limits on use of testimony obtained by coercion.
The committee's bill also offers CIA interrogators some legal protections from charges of abuse, but rejects the administration's plan to more narrowly define the Geneva Conventions' standards for humane treatment of prisoners.
The three senators along with Maine Republican Susan Collins and all of the committee's Democrats voted for it, against the remaining Republicans who supported Bush.
Since then, Republicans Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine have gone on record backing the committee's bill, and several other Republicans have not committed to backing Bush.
(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria)

Iranian leader urges more papal protests

By LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writer 18 minutes ago
CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida in
Iraq' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Iraq warned
Pope Benedict XVI' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world, and
Iran' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Iran's supreme leader called for more protests over the pontiff's remarks on Islam.

Protests broke out in South Asia and Indonesia, with angry Muslims saying Benedict's statement of regret a day earlier did not go far enough. In southern Iraq, demonstrators carrying black flags burned an effigy of the pope.
Islamic leaders around the world issued more condemnations of the pope's comments, but some moderates in the Middle East appeared to be trying to put a damper on the outrage, fearing it could spiral into attacks on Christians in the region.
On Sunday, Benedict said he was "deeply sorry" over any hurt caused by his comments made in a speech last week, in which he quoted a medieval text characterizing some of the Prophet Muhammad's teachings as "evil and inhuman" and calling Islam a religion spread by the sword.
Benedict said the remarks came from a text that didn't reflect his own opinion, but he did not retract what he said or say he was sorry he uttered what proved to be explosive words.
The
Vatican' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Vatican on Monday sought to defuse the anger, ordering papal representatives around the world to meet with leaders of Muslim countries to explain the pope's point of view and full context of his speech.
Roman Catholic leaders stepped forward to defend the pontiff. At an Italian bishops' conference, Cardinal Camillo Ruini underlined the bishops' "total closeness and solidarity to the pope" and said they deplored interpretations of the pope's comments "which attribute to the Holy Father ... errors that he has not committed and aim at attacking his person and his ministry."
Few in the Islamic world were satisfied by Benedict's statement of regret.
"The pope's words have caused a deep wound in the hearts of Muslims that won't heal for a long time, and then only after a clear apology to Muslims," Egypt's religious affairs minister, Mahmoud Hamdi Zaqzouq, wrote in a column in the government daily Al-Ahram on Monday.
An influential Egyptian cleric, Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi, called for protests after weekly prayers on Friday, but maintained they should be peaceful.
Extremists said the pope's comments proved that the West was in a war against Islam.
Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross," saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq,
Afghanistan' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Afghanistan,
Chechnya' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose the 'jizya' tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (being killed by) the sword."
Islam forbids drinking alcohol and requires non-Muslims to pay the "jizya" tax, though those who convert are exempt. The tax, sometimes called a head tax, has not been imposed in Muslim nations in about 100 years, though Islamic militant groups have tried to force non-Muslims to pay it on a local level in some countries.
"You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," said the statement by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups in Iraq.
Another Iraqi extremist group, Ansar al-Sunna, challenged "sleeping Muslims" to prove their manhood by doing something other than "issuing statements or holding demonstrations."
"If the stupid pig is prancing with his blasphemies in his house," the group said in a Web statement, referring to the pope, "then let him wait for the day coming soon when the armies of the religion of right knock on the walls of Rome."
In Iran, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei used the comments to call for protests against the United States. He argued that while the pope may have been deceived into making his remarks, the words give the West an "excuse for suppressing Muslims" by depicting them as terrorists.
"Those who benefit from the pope's comments and drive their own arrogant policies should be targeted with attacks and protests," he said, referring to the United States.
The anger recalled the outrage earlier this year over cartoons depicting the prophet published by a Danish paper. The caricatures, which Muslims saw as insulting Muhammad, set off large, violent protests across the Islamic world.
So far, protests over the pope's comments have been smaller. However, there has been some violence: Attackers hurled firebombs at seven churches in the
West Bank' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> West Bank and
Gaza Strip' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Gaza Strip over the weekend, and a nun was shot to death in Somalia.
Some 200 Khamenei loyalists in the Syrian capital, Damascus, held a protest Monday at an Islamic shrine, dismissing the pope's apology. "The pope's sorrow was equivocal," read one banner.
Dozens protested outside the Vatican Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, and schools and shops in the Indian-controlled section of
Kashmir' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Kashmir shut their doors in protest.
"His comments really hurt Muslims all over the world," Umar Nawawi of the radical Islamic Defenders' Front said in Jakarta. "We should remind him not to say such things which can only fuel a holy war."
Islamic countries also asked the U.N. Human Rights Council to examine the question of religious tolerance. Malaysia's foreign minister, Syed Hamid Albar, said Benedict's apology was "inadequate to calm the anger."
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood said the anger should not be allowed to hurt ties with the Middle East's Christian minorities. But worries among Christians in the region are high.
Guards have been posted around some churches, and the head of Egypt's Orthodox Coptic Church, Pope Shenouda III, disassociated himself from Benedict's statements.
The Dominican mission in Cairo also criticized Benedict's words, saying he chose a text for his speech that "revived the polemics of the past."
"These comments, seen by many Muslims as hurtful, risk encouraging extremists on all sides," it said in a statement, "and put in danger all the advances in dialogue made in recent decades."

Get real - vote 'political correctness off island'

By Star ParkerScripps Howard News Service

"Survivor" has played the race card. The CBS reality show now creates teams selected by race to compete with each other. White, black, Latino and Asian. Horrible and tasteless, you say. Exploitive and reaching for ratings by appealing to our worst instincts. In the name of the Almighty Dollar, CBS, critics say, sets back our lofty goals of racial harmony, divides our nation along racial lines and promotes the very racial stereotypes we've tried so hard to bury. But, really, what's all the fuss about? What's new here? We've been living this reality show for 40 years. Been to visit Congress lately? We've got the Congressional Black Caucus (the black team) to represent allegedly black interests. We've got the Hispanic Caucus (the Latino team) to represent allegedly Hispanic interests. We've got the Voting Rights Act (which you might say serves the equivalent of the "Survivor" production staff) to guarantee election of blacks and Latinos so that we have caucuses, teams, to compete for the political prizes. I read that some corporations have pulled advertising dollars from "Survivor" so that they are not associated with this tasteless outrage. But each one of these corporations, in all likelihood, has diversity officers who oversee programs to ensure that blacks and Latinos get hired by different standards than whites. The goal? No, not equality under the law. Diversity, as an ideal end in itself. Ethnic teams. The NAACP sends surveys to these corporations to find out how many are on their black teams. And we wonder why, after all these years, we still have racial divides and pronounced racial consciousness. When I go to a corporation to seek support for my organization, in all likelihood, because I am black, I wind up shunted to the diversity officer who, in all likelihood, will hate what I do. His or her job is to get the ethnic teams hired. My goal is a society in which all aspire to the ideal of one law of one nation under God. I remember getting my home loan, when the loan officer sheepishly asked if she could write down that I'm black. I understood that they need to compile the data so they can report how many Negroes they've lent to, in order to avoid hearing from the race police. It's pretty sad what has happened and how the Rev. Martin Luther King's message has been turned inside out and on its head. King's point of contention was not with the words of our founders, that "all men are endowed by their Creator ...with unalienable rights." That "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal." His point of contention was that we weren't living up to these standards and that without them, everyone, black and white, was in jeopardy. He exhorted the nation to live up to its own unrealized ideals. But, instead of a nation, under God, with one law, where all are judged by character and not by skin color, we created a nation of teams. A reality show that makes skin color the standard and character incidental. Regarding the new racial wars on "Survivor," one black journalist frets that the stereotypes that the black team might generate will have nothing to do with her own reality. Yes, and what does the left-wing agenda of the Congressional Black Caucus have to do with me and millions of other conservative black Christians? Corporations, allegedly to help blacks, pour millions of dollars into the NAACP to promote an agenda that is anathema to these same millions of black Christians. The sad state of affairs is evident in an article in this month's Harvard Business Review called "Rethinking Political Correctness." The authors, after extolling the achievements of diversity laws over the last 40 years, share with us a groundbreaking conclusion of their research that political correctness cannot solve all problems in the workplace. "Our work suggests that high-quality relationships cannot be mandated." No kidding. Praise the Lord for the Harvard Business School. The article goes on to report behavioral guidelines the authors recommend, from their research, that individuals can use to contend with "tensions" that emerge from "diversity-related dilemmas" in the workplace. Children once learned civility at church and at home. Now it's not a matter of right and wrong, but of "constructive engagement." I think CBS has done us a favor by holding a mirror up to the country. We just need to decide if we want a reality show or a great nation. The former may be good for CBS's ratings. I'd prefer living in the latter.
Star Parker is president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (http://www.urbancure.org/) and author of the new book "White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay."

Realigning would be fair, Huntsman says

By Suzanne StruglinskiDeseret Morning News
WASHINGTON — Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. told a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday that Utah would take a "fair and objective" approach in drawing new congressional districts for the state, if required to do so to gain an extra seat in the House of Representatives.

Jon Huntsman Jr. A pending bill would create an at-large seat for Utah until the 2010 Census is completed and would give the District of Columbia a House vote. But a key lawmaker wants to change the at-large element for the Utah seat and instead create four districts for the state. Huntsman told the House Constitution Subcommittee that he prefers the at-large seat as it stands in the bill now. The measure would create a fourth seat for Utah that would represent the whole state until the 2012 election. "I consider that a significant benefit, because redistricting — which is always a difficult, time-consuming and politically costly process — would be especially undesirable at this point in time, less than four years before the next decennial census," Huntsman said. House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., is likely to offer an amendment taking away the at-large status and calling for four districts in Utah. His spokesman, Jeff Lungren, said the chairman wants Utahns to each have only one representative, like residents of other states, and creating the at-large seat would give each Utahn two representatives. Huntsman told the subcommittee that the bill would give Utah the additional House seat it "should have received" after the 2000 Census. The measure "rights the wrongs that were committed in the 2000 Census, benefits those who suffered most as a result of those wrongs, and does so in a way that makes sense," he said. The governor briefly outlined the state's problem with the 2000 Census, when the federal government failed to count Utah residents living abroad, most on missions from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Utah fell 857 people short to get a new congressional seat.

The census also used a counting method that the state believes violated the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the state's arguments in a 2002 decision. Huntsman said the court's decision diminished representation among Utah's three congressional districts, cheated the state of additional committee assignments and resulted in a loss of seniority that would have been gained had the seat been created after the 2000 Census. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., asked Huntsman whether Utah would be able to handle redistricting into four districts. Huntsman said he could not speak for the state Legislature, but some maps left over from redistricting after the 2000 Census included a possible fourth district, and could be used. Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, pointed out that the state has changed since the last census, so he would hope those in charge of redistricting could use updated numbers. And if the state had to reassign districts, he added, "there is not much that can be done" to squeeze out Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. "How do you draw a district in Utah that is more Republican than the one that he has?" Cannon said. House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., said the bill could not pass Congress without the Utah component in it. Davis and Norton gained Republican support for the bill by adding the seat for Utah, which would more than likely bring a Republican seat to balance out the District's almost certain Democratic vote. Davis said Huntsman made clear that he "doesn't want to play any games" with redistricting, if it were required. But three other witnesses at Thursday's hearing had problems with the bill. No one objected to the District getting a vote in the House, but they questioned whether creating a House seat for D.C. would violate the Constitution. "The central premise that Congress can by simple legislation create a representative for the District is wrong," said John C. Fortier of the American Enterprise Institute. "The Constitution, not Congress, has determined that the House and Senate will be made up of representatives of states and states alone. Congress can no more change the Constitution on this matter by simple legislation than it could repeal the First Amendment or allow 16-year-olds to serve as president." Fortier said the only way to truly grant voting rights to the District would be to admit it as a state, make the District part of Maryland, or amend the Constitution to allow the District to retain its current status but also grant it representation in Congress. The bill "has its heart in the right place, but it will not pass constitutional muster," Fortier said. Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School, said the at-large element of the additional seat for Utah is also problematic, because it would bring disproportionate representation in Congress for Utahns, compared to residents of other states. "House members are expected to be advocates for this insular constituency," Turley said. "Here, residents of one state could look to two representatives to do their bidding, while other citizens would limited to one. Given racial and cultural demographic differences between Utah and other states, this could be challenged as diluting the power of minority groups in Congress." Despite criticism from the witnesses, Huntsman said he thinks it might be just a matter of weeks until the bill goes through the House and the Senate, before Congress adjourns for the year. "I sense that there seems to be an emerging coalition of the willing," Huntsman said. "By and large people are converging around this getting done."
E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com

Huntsman urges House panel to back 4th seat for Utah

Huntsman urges House panel to back additional seat for Utah
By Suzanne StruglinskiDeseret Morning News
WASHINGTON — Utah has been one voice short in Congress for the past six years, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. told members of a House subcommittee Thursday as he urged them to support a bill that would grant the state an additional seat in the House of Representatives. The pending bill permits a House vote for the District of Columbia and creates an at-large seat for Utah until the 2010 Census is completed. The bill's authors had wanted representation for the District and gained support for the measure from Republican lawmakers by adding the provision for an additional seat for Utah, which would more than likely add a Republican seat to balance out the District's almost certain Democratic vote. While Huntsman expressed his support for the bill, constitutional experts at the hearing had problems with the bill, saying Congress cannot just create a new voting position in the House. The majority of the witnesses' problems revolved about the District's vote. No one maintained that the District's residents should remain without a vote in Congress, but they disagreed with the means of getting the vote to them.

document.writeln(AAMB6);
document.write(''); "The central premise that Congress can, by simple legislation, create a representative for the District is wrong," said John C. Fortier of the American Enterprise Institute. "The Constitution, not Congress, has determined that the House and Senate will be made up of representatives of states and states alone. Congress can no more change the Constitution on this matter by simple legislation than it could repeal the First Amendment or allow 16-year-olds to serve as president." Fortier said the only way to truly grant voting rights to the District would be to admit it as a state, to make the District part of Maryland or to amend the Constitution to allow the District to retain its current status but also grant it representation in Congress. The bill "has its heart in the right place, but it will not pass constitutional muster," Fortier said. "It too easily glosses over the numerous textual references in the Constitution that grant representation only to the people of states." But the at-large element of the additional seat for Utah also would be problematic, according to Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School. Turley said the at-large seat would add an additional representative of each resident of Utah, allowing them more representation than the people of the other states. "House members are expected to be advocates for this insular constituency," Turley said. "Here, residents of one state could look to two representatives to do their bidding, while other citizens would limited to one. Given racial and cultural demographic differences between Utah and other states, this could be challenged as diluting the power of minority groups in Congress." House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., supports Utah getting a seat but is likely to offer an amendment to the bill that would make it a real District seat, not an at-large seat as the bill now specifies. Sensenbrenner's spokesman, Jeff Lungren, said the chairman wants Utah residents to only have one representative, in order to be equal to all the other states. It is not clear when a House committee would vote on the the bill or Sensenbrenner's amendment. Lungren said it largely depends on the House floor schedule. Despite criticism from witnesses, Huntsman said he thinks it might be just a matter of weeks before the bill would go through the House and the Senate before Congress adjourns for the year. He said before he arrived in Washington, it was about even, but after speaking with House members on Thursday it is "better than even money" that the bill will pass. He said there is a real "can-do attitude" among the members involved on the bill that "gives me a great sense of hope" it will get through. "I sense that there seems to be an emerging coalition of the willing," Huntsman said. "By and large people are converging around this getting done."
E-MAIL: suzanne@desnews.com