(Reuters) - Goldman Sachs Group Inc was sued on Monday by a large union pension fund that accused the Wall Street investment bank of overpaying its executives.

The International Brotherhood of Electric Workers fund filed the lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court, seeking to recover money for the company on behalf of other shareholders.

It seeks to stop Goldman from allocating roughly 47 percent of 2009 net revenue as compensation, saying such allocations "vastly overcompensate management and constitute corporate waste."

The lawsuit also wants Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein and others in management, rather than shareholders, to be responsible for charitable contributions that Goldman is making as a an apology for its activities.

Goldman has been at the center of a public debate over how much banks should pay out in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, after taking billions of dollars of federal bailout money.

Last week, Goldman said it would cap 2009 compensation expense at $16.2 billion, for a 36 percent compensation ratio, despite posting a record profit.

The bank also said its board rejected several shareholder demands to investigate recent pay awards and recoup excessive pay, while admitting it could face "negative publicity" from media portrayals.

Goldman spokesman Ed Canaday said: "We believe the lawsuit is completely without merit." A lawyer for the plaintiff did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

The lawsuit is similar to one filed in the same court in January by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, or SEPTA, which oversees public transit in the Philadelphia area.

The case is International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 Pension Fund v. Blankfein et al, Delaware Chancery Court, No. 5315,

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel and Steve Eder; Editing by Steve Orlofsky.)

Utah's Hill Air Force Base has hired a psychologist and others to deal with a rash of suicides, mostly among civilians complaining of harsh working conditions.

Ogden Air Logistics Center commander Maj. Gen. Andrew Busch says two civilians and an airman have committed suicide this year.

A Hill spokesman says that brings to at least 25 confirmed suicides since 2006 that were mostly committed off the base.

Bonnie Carroll, a military widow who founded the advocacy group Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, says suicides also have been a problem at Fort Campbell, an Army base in Kentucky and Tennessee.

She says the Defense Department has added thousands of mental health professionals to the ranks of the military because of a greater awareness of the problem.

Bill Kristol just launched a pre-emptive assault on a statement criticizing his and Liz Cheney's group, Keep America Safe, which bears the signature of a prominent lawyer who's typically a Cheney ally.

I've obtained a copy of the statement drafted by Brookings' Ben Wittes, which labels "shameful" Keep America Safe's focus on the Justice Department for hiring, and temporarily concealing the names of lawyers who did work for detainees. Its signatories, according to Human Rights Watch's Tom Malinowski, who circulated the draft, will be former government officials and legal experts, "mostly conservatives." The signatories are well-known lawyers, if largely people whose criticism of Cheney won't come as a surprise. They include including the Bush Administration Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler, Condoleeza Rice legal adviser John Bellinger, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Matthew Waxman, and the right-leaning legal scholars Philip Bobbitt and Robert Chesney.

The most surprising name, however, is that of David Rivkin, an official in the first Bush administration who has emerged as a leading defender of the interrogation policies advocated by the Cheneys.

"The past several days have seen a shameful series of attacks on attorneys in the Department of Justice who, in previous legal practice," says the statement. "We consider these attacks both unjust to the individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications."

The statement doesn't mention Cheney or Keep America Safe, but says the "attacks undermine the Justice system more broadly. "

Kristol responds that his group's video didn't represent "attacks" on the lawyers -- labeled the "Al Qaeda Seven" in the video -- and says that his group's claim isn't that the lawyers shouldn't be allowed to work in Justice, but that their names should be public, a question on which Justice caved last week. The other question, Kristol writes, is "whether former pro bono lawyers for terrorists should be working on detainee policy for the Justice Department."

The issue has served as a proxy, however, for broader conservative complaints about Obama's tone and policy toward terror prosecutions, and if the call for the lawyers to be drummed out of government isn't stated, it's pretty clearly implied.

The full statement is after the jump.

The past several days have seen a shameful series of attacks on attorneys in the Department of Justice who, in previous legal practice, either represented Guantanamo detainees or advocated for changes to detention policy. As attorneys, former officials, and policy specialists who have worked on detention issues, we consider these attacks both unjust to the individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications.

The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams' representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston massacre. People come to serve in the Justice Department with a diverse array of prior private clients; that is one of the department's strengths. The War on Terror raised any number of novel legal questions, which collectively created a significant role in judicial, executive and legislative forums alike for honorable advocacy on behalf of detainees. In several key cases, detainee advocates prevailed before the Supreme Court. To suggest that the Justice Department should not employ talented lawyers who have advocated on behalf of detainees maligns the patriotism of people who have taken honorable positions on contested questions and demands a uniformity of background and view in government service from which no administration would benefit.

Such attacks also undermine the Justice system more broadly. In terrorism detentions and trials alike, defense lawyers are playing, and will continue to play, a key role. Whether one believes in trial by military commission or in federal court, detainees will have access to counsel. Guantanamo detainees likewise have access to lawyers for purposes of habeas review, and the reach of that habeas corpus could eventually extend beyond this population. Good defense counsel is thus key to ensuring that military commissions, federal juries, and federal judges have access to the best arguments and most rigorous factual presentations before making crucial decisions that affect both national security and paramount liberty interests. To delegitimize the role detainee counsel play is to demand adjudications and policymaking stripped of a full record. Whatever systems America develops to handle difficult detention questions will rely, at least some of the time, on an aggressive defense bar; those who take up that function do a service to the system.

* *

* *

*Benjamin Wittes*

· Senior Fellow and Research Director in Public Law, The Brookings Institution

*Robert Chesney*

· Charles I. Francis Professor in Law, University of Texas School of Law

· Nonresident, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution

*Matthew Waxman*

· Associate Professor, Columbia Law School

· Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs

* *

*David Rivkin*

· Partner, Washington, D.C. Office, Baker Hostetler, L.L.P.

· Former Deputy Director, Office of Policy Development, Department of Justice, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations

· Former Associate General Counsel, Department of Energy

* *

*Philip Bobbitt*

· Herbert Wechsler Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the Center for National Security, Columbia Law School

* *

*Peter Keisler*

· Former Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division

· Former Acting Attorney General, Department of Justice

PORT-AU-PRINCE, March 8 (Reuters) - Haitian President Rene Preval plans to tell U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday that food aid to the earthquake-devastated Caribbean nation should be stopped because of the risk of damaging its economy.

The two men will meet at the White House in the wake of a Jan. 12 quake that killed 230,000 people, according to Haitian government estimates, crippled the economy and devastated much of the capital Port-au-Prince and other cities.

Donations of food and water have proved a lifeline for more than 1.2 million people displaced by the quake, but Preval told a news conference on Monday the aid could in the long term hurt the economy of the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.

"I will tell him (Obama) that this first phase of assistance is finished," said Preval, standing in front of the ruined presidential palace in Port-au-Prince.

"If they continue to send us aid from abroad -- water and food -- it will be in competition with the national Haitian production and Haitian commerce," he said.

Preval said the priority should instead be to create employment in Haiti, a country where a high percentage of the population lacked work even before the quake.

The Haitian government, working with the international community, is preparing a master plan for reconstruction that would have ambitious goals, Preval said after a meeting with Canadian Governor General Michaelle Jean.

A trust fund with voting and nonvoting board members would manage donor funds, Preval said.

RECONSTRUCTION

Priorities for reconstruction include strengthening buildings to withstand future earthquakes and rehabilitating the environment, much of which is denuded, to protect against flooding from tropical storms and hurricanes, which last battered Haiti in 2008.

Some $38 million was needed for storm protection, Preval said.

Reopening the country's schools was also key, Preval said, though he gave no date for when that would happen. Education is considered critical to development in Haiti, where 38 percent of the population is under age 15 and nearly half of those 15 and older are illiterate.

"I will also tell him (Obama) that our vision is to rebuild Haiti and if we don't take advantage of this historic event to reinvent Haiti, to reinvent Port-au-Prince, we will be making a mistake of historical proportions," Preval said.

"Our generation has the obligation to shoulder this responsibility," he said.

Many Haitians have criticized the government's performance since the earthquake and argued that Preval has not done enough to communicate with the people or to marshal government aid, instead leaving international aid groups to fill the gap.

Jean's two-day visit is significant because she was born and raised in Port-au-Prince, arriving in Canada as a refugee, and has worked to promote Haiti's needs since the quake.

"We are here ... to say to Haitians that they are not alone ... We have suffered with you," she said in an impassioned speech after her meeting with Preval.

As Canada's governor general, Jean represents Britain's Queen Elizabeth, who is Canada's head of state.

FORT DRUM — A Fort Drum soldier was killed Thursday by a roadside bomb while serving in Afghanistan, according to the Buffalo News.

Spc. Alan N. Dikcis, 21, Wheatfield, Niagara County, apparently was riding in a vehicle near the Taliban stronghold of Marjah when it hit an improvised explosive device, the newspaper reported. A member of the 630th Engineer Company in the 10th Mountain Division, he had been slated for a two-week leave in April.

Spc. Dikcis's older brother, Stanley, 23, suffered wounds and head trauma as the result of a roadside bomb in Afghanistan a year and a half ago while serving in the Army, according to the report.

The U.S. Department of Defense on Sunday evening had yet to confirm the death of Spc. Dikcis.

A California-based reservist recently died in Afghanistan, the Defense Department announced Friday.

Lance Cpl. Nigel K. Olsen, 21, of Orem, Utah, was killed March 4 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, a volatile area where Marines continue to battle against Taliban fighters for control of Marjah.

Olsen was assigned to the 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion from Camp Pendleton.

Another reservist with 4th LAR — Lance Cpl. Carlos A. Aragon, 19 — was killed March 1. Aragon was also from Orem, Utah.

No additional information was immediately available.

The Department of Defense says a Maryland soldier has died in Afghanistan. Spc. Anthony A. Paci, 30, of Rockville died Thursday from injuries suffered during a vehicle rollover.

Paci was assigned to Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state. Paci enlisted in October 2004. He deployed to Iraq from December 2005 to November 2006. Afghanistan was his second deployment.

No silkworms died in the making of Suzy Amis Cameron's Oscars dress, designed by a 21-year-old Michigan State University student with sustainability in mind.

The wife of "Avatar" director James Cameron unveiled the silk dress Wednesday night, when she and her husband hosted a pre-Oscars party in Los Angeles.

While the dress was displayed on a mannequin at that party, Amis Cameron had plans to wear the creation to Sunday's Academy Awards. Her husband's movie had been nominated for nine Oscars.

"I'm really excited to see Suzy on the red carpet wearing my dress," says Jillian Granz, a senior from Canton who is majoring in apparel and textile design.

Granz and MSU spokeswoman Kristen Parker flew to California last week to be on hand for the unveiling of Granz's design, which Amis Cameron selected from hundreds of entries as the winner of a national charity fundraising contest.

Amis Cameron created the "Red Carpet Green Dress" competition to support Muse, an educational organization in Topanga Canyon, Calif., founded by her and her sister Rebecca Amis.

The guidelines called for a dress made of only sustainable material.

"Granz recommended the dress be made from peace silk, which allows silk worms to complete their life cycle, rather than be boiled, as is the case with traditional silk," Parker explained in a posting on the school's Web site. The dress was made by Hollywood costume designer Deborah Scott.

Parker said the design also used a "no-waste pattern, in which every part of the pattern is utilized and put into the final garment rather than being discarded."

"Choosing from sketches and designs worldwide, it was a tough decision," Amis Cameron said in a statement. "Jillian's design was stunning and had that something special.

"It's a beautiful combination of sustainability and style. I'm excited to promote the talent of this young designer."

REYKJAVIK, Iceland — Still smarting from the crippling aftermath of the global financial crisis, Iceland's voters on Saturday resoundingly rejected a $5.3 billion plan to pay off Britain and the Netherlands for debts spawned by the collapse of an Icelandic Internet bank, according to initial results.

Results returned from around 83,500 ballots — or more than 40 percent of the total ballots expected — counted so far showed that 93 percent of voters said "no" in the referendum, compared to just 1.5 percent who said "yes." Final results are expected overnight.

The referendum results are indicative of how angry many Icelanders are at bankers and politicians as the tiny island nation struggles to recover from a deep recession. The global financial crisis wreaked political and economic havoc on Iceland, as its banks collapsed within the space of a week in October 2008 during the credit crunch and its currency, the krona, plummeted. The Icelandic government was the first to fall as a result of the meltdown.

Icelanders were deciding whether to back a plan outlining the payment of $3.5 billion to Britain and $1.8 billion to the Netherlands as compensation for funds that those governments paid to around 340,000 of their citizens who had accounts with the collapsed bank Icesave, an Icelandic Internet bank that offered high interest rates before it failed along with its parent, Landsbanki.

Many voters object to the tough terms of the deal imposed by the debtor countries, not the idea of payment itself.

"This result is no surprise," Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir said. "Now we must turn to the task of finishing the negotiations on Icesave."

Icelandic authorities have recently been in talks with Britain and the Netherlands to come up with a better deal to try to avert Saturday's referendum, which was forced by the refusal of Iceland's president to agree to the so-called Icesave bill.

Last minute talks between the three countries broke down this week, despite the debtor countries saying they offered better terms for a new deal — including a significant cut on the 5.5 percent interest rate in the original deal hammered out at the end of last year.

The vote could jeopardize Iceland's credit ratings, making it harder to access much-needed funding to fuel an economic recovery. Unemployment has surged since the crisis began, to about 9 percent in January, and inflation is running at about 7 percent annually, while the island's economy continues to shrink.

The British say their "best and final offer has been turned down," but Iceland's Foreign Ministry said late Saturday it remained confident a solution acceptable to all parties can be achieved.

The debt owed to Britain and the Netherlands is a small sum compared to the massive amounts spent to rescue other victims of the global meltdown — $182.5 billion was paid out to keep U.S. insurance giant American International Group Inc. alive — but many taxpayers in the country of just about 320,000 say they can't afford to pay it.

The deal would require each person to pay around $135 a month for eight years — the equivalent of a quarter of an average four-member family's salary.

Locals see the deal as an unfair result of their own government's failure to curtail the excessive spending of a handful of bank executives that led the country into its current malaise.

"I said no," said Palmar Olason, 71, at a polling station. "We should get a better deal," he said.

Britain and the Netherlands have been pushing hard for repayment and there have been fears that they will take a hard-line stance on Iceland's application to join the EU and refuse to approve the start of accession talks until an Icesave deal is signed into law.

About 1,000 Icelanders gathered to protest in downtown Reykjavik Saturday, demanding a better say in the issue. Many ordinary Icelanders resent forking out the money to compensate for losses incurred by potentially wealthier foreign investors who chased the high interest rates offered by Icesave.

There's also residual anger that Britain invoked anti-terrorist legislation to freeze the assets of Icelandic banks at the height of the crisis, prompting the worst diplomatic spat between the two countries since the Cod Wars of the 1970s over fishing rights in the North Atlantic.

President Olafur R. Grimsson tapped into the public anger and used a rarely invoked power to refuse to sign the so-called Icesave bill after it was passed by parliament in December.

Since then, opinion polls indicated that a strong majority intended to reject the plan. The Social Democrat-Left Green coalition government and the center-right opposition say the country could get better terms in negotiations with Britain and the Netherlands.

"I voted no," said Rognvaldur Hoskuldsson, a 36-year-old machine technologist, after casting his vote Saturday morning. "We have to send a message that these countries are not going to profit from this situation."

Although the International Monetary Fund has never explicitly linked delivery of a $4.6 billion loan to the reaching of an Icesave deal, it is committed to Iceland repaying its international debt — the months taken to reach the original Icesave deal were responsible for holding up the first tranche of IMF funds last year.

During the national furor that erupted last year after American International Group paid more than $165 million in bonuses, the voices of those vilified for receiving the payments remained silent, at least in public.

But behind closed doors, employees at AIG's Financial Products division -- the very unit whose trading had hastened the insurance giant's collapse -- were defiant, saying they were merely getting what they were due, recoiling at public accusations that they were behind their capitalizing on the company's massive taxpayer bailout.

"I will stand behind every action I have taken in this company from Day One," one employee said, according to a newly obtained transcript of a conference call the division's head held last March with some of his staff.

But when another employee asked whether the staff would be getting a second round of bonuses promised for March 2010, his colleagues burst into laughter, apparently considering this a preposterous notion amid the public outrage.

Yet they did see that money, at least most of it. Last month, under a deal in which employees agreed to take a cut in their upcoming retention bonuses in return for an accelerated payment, AIG paid out about $100 million to employees at the firm. AIG is scheduled to pay the last of the bonuses this month.

Even so, neither time nor money has softened the employees' feelings of wrongful persecution and their anger over becoming the subjects of scorn and ridicule. Seldom was that sense of victimhood more clear or more visceral than in the conference call of March 23, 2009.

Gerry Pasciucco, who had been hired to wind down Financial Products after the AIG bailout, was in Wilton, Conn., broadcasting his image and his voice to shaken, frustrated and furious employees in London, Paris and Hong Kong. Pasciucco quickly encountered a buzz saw of complaints over demands that they forgo the bonuses they were due. Emotions were running especially high in the London boardroom, where scores of staffers had gathered around a large table.

"I think it violates everything I believe in, and it's un-American," one employee said that day, according to the transcript of the call.

"This country is supposed to stand on due process," said another. The names of the staff members were redacted from the transcript obtained by The Washington Post.

'Missing the point'

The employees said that the corporate leaders who had driven the firm into the ground were already gone from the company. Those who had remained behind to help clean up the mess and repay the taxpayer bailout were due their compensation, they told Pasciucco.

"You made a commitment to us, and we made a commitment to you. And for anybody to look beyond that, as the politics and the media are at the moment, is missing the point," said an employee. "You can't expect us to just roll over and ignore that commitment because there is a bunch of immoral bigots that intend us to do something different. It's not going to happen."

Another was even more irate, lashing out at the public for scapegoating AIG employees. "To be honest with you, I really hope it blows up. I think the U.S. taxpayer deserves to lose a trillion dollars over this thing for the way they have behaved."

And then he turned on politicians who had joined the anti-AIG posse. "They only care about the next election, just like we only care about the next bonus. Well, none of them cares about the country, none of us cares about the institution," he said, adding: "They really don't care, and I really don't care. And frankly, if a trillion dollars gets lost, fine."

The AIG retention bonuses have rankled many in the public because the company has received a federal rescue package of about $180 billion in loans, stock investments and other commitments from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department. Closing down AIG Financial Products' trading portfolio has been vital to stemming further losses and repaying the public money.

As the employees were confronting Pasciucco last spring, lawmakers in Washington were contemplating a 90 percent tax on the bonus payments. AIG's chief executive, Edward M. Liddy, had been berated on Capitol Hill. Employees had received anonymous threats, some violent.

'Is this blackmail?'

Pasciucco wanted to assuage their angst that day. But he also had another goal: persuading them to return 50 percent of the bonus money in hopes that New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo would not make their names public, as he was threatening. Employees fumed, accusing Cuomo of "blackmail" and "extortion." They complained that they were being forced to pay "protection money."

"Is this blackmail? To a certain extent, it is," Pasciucco told employees that morning. "If the only reason you would give money back is because you are afraid for your family and you are afraid for your safety, then it is."

He agreed that the manner in which some Washington officials had responded to the furor was despicable. "I think it's distasteful. It's unfair. It's unjust. I agree with you, it's not American. It is McCarthy-ite. . . . It will be viewed as a horribly dark period."

Still, he tried to offer a dose of realism. The retention payments might have been guaranteed by contract, he said, but Financial Products had made bad bets that cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Although the decision to return part of their money was voluntary, he said, such a pledge might help employees defuse some of the public anger.

"I am not laying this out that it's the right, moral thing to do, but I am telling you that you are naive if you think that you can ignore the political reality around this as you make your decision," he said, adding: "I am just going to caution you that if you are not lionized and . . . garlands of roses are not put around your shoulders, you shouldn't be surprised."

Reporting from Washington - Key presidential advisors are pushing to move the trial of the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks to a military commission, abandoning plans to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others in federal courts, according to current and former officials.

The recommendation has deeply distressed human rights groups who believe that, if endorsed by President Obama, the change will mean a nearly wholesale return to the detention policies of the Bush administration.

The administration's plans to hold a trial in New York City met widespread, bipartisan resistance, and other venues have proven difficult to find.

"It is politically untenable," said one official. "No place wants to hold a trial."

Officials emphasized that the formal recommendation has not been made to the president, and Obama has made no decisions.

Conservatives have repeatedly demanded that the Sept. 11 plotters be tried by military commissions. And embracing the commissions could be a key part of a compromise that would win congressional approval for purchasing a state prison in Thomson, Ill., and moving detainees held at the military-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to that facility.

If Congress approves the purchase of Thomson, the administration would likely hold Mohammed's military trial at the prison.

Using the military commissions "is part of a broader package the administration is hoping to work out to once and for all put the whole detention policy on a surer footing," said Charles Stimson, a former Pentagon official. "It remains to be seen whether or not if they will get the broad political support to do it, but I applaud them."

The recommendation was first reported Friday by the Washington Post. Floating the proposed change in the media is likely a trial balloon, aimed at judging the reaction of both liberals and conservatives.

Human rights organizations did their best to try to pop the balloon, arguing that a decision to change the trial strategy would be bad politics and bad policy.

Abandoning civilian trials, said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch, would render irrelevant any potential for the closing of Guantanamo, simply re-creating a new version of the controversial prison in Illinois.

"The world wasn't clamoring to close Guantanamo because it was built on some sacred Indian burial ground," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It was clamoring to close 'Gitmo' because it stood for the militarization of justice in America and indefinite detention without charge. Keeping all of that preserves the essence of what people were objecting to at 'Gitmo.'"

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has been pushing a plan that would move detainees to Thomson, use military commissions to try the Sept. 11 plotters, and pass legislation establishing administrative detention for accused terrorists who cannot be tried.

Malinowski said Graham's proposal has little support among other Republicans and did not represent a compromise so much as capitulation. He argued that abandoning the plan will have all of the political costs of closing Guantanamo, with none of the strategic benefits of eliminating a prison system that has angered both allies in Europe and many in the Islamic world.

It would also, Malinowski said, make the administration look weak in Washington.

"The political cost is catastrophic," he said. "It will invite endless bullying on national security. It is not the way to look strong."

But the administration clearly knows that opposition from human rights groups will be vociferous. What is less clear is how conservatives and moderates will react, and how any concession will be received.

Stimson said that, to be successful, the administration needs to move to make quick changes to the military commissions, replacing military lawyers with federal prosecutors experienced with trying terrorism cases.

"It is often said personnel is policy," Stimson said. "That is more true in commissions than in any other context. Now is the time to not only fully resource commissions but thank and excuse inexperienced military prosecutors and bring in the A team."

WASHINGTON — A senior Senate Democrat said Thursday the Pentagon should consider barring Blackwater, now called Xe Services, from a new $1 billion deal to train Afghan police because of "serious questions" about the contractor's conduct.

The comments by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin suggests thinning patience in Congress for the Pentagon's heavy reliance on contractors on the battlefield.

U.S. efforts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan using independent contractors has been a boon for companies like Blackwater and saved money and time for the Defense Department, whose forces are busy in combat.

But the outsourcing has made it more difficult for military commanders to control what happens on the battlefield.

In one recent incident in Afghanistan, two contractors tied to Blackwater allegedly killed two Afghan civilians and injured a third. U.S. officials say the May 2009 shooting damaged relations with the local population

"The inadequacies in Blackwater's performance appear to have contributed to a shooting incident that has undermined our mission in Afghanistan," Levin, D-Mich., wrote in a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Blackwater, headquartered in Myock, N.C., changed its name to Xe Services after its security guards were accused of killing unarmed Iraqi civilians more than two years ago.

Mark Corallo, a company spokesman, said Xe Services agrees with Levin that the Pentagon should carefully review its past performance when deciding future contracts.

"We are confident that Xe's record of service in training thousands of security personnel in Afghanistan demonstrates the companys strong record of supporting critical U.S. government initiatives in Afghanistan, which are essential to advancing the United States national interest," he said in an e-mailed statement.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Thursday he knew of no effort under way to ban Xe Services from contracting with the military. Until then, the company would be legally allowed to submit a bid, he said.

In a separate letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Levin called for a Justice Department investigation into whether Blackwater officials duped the Army into awarding a separate $25 million contract to train Afghan police by creating a shell subcontractor called Paravant.

Levin alleges that company officials boasted to the Army of its large presence overseas and several years of experience without mention of the Blackwater name or that the State Department had dumped the contractor in 2009 after saying it had lost confidence in its management.

Corallo said the contracting officials were aware that Paravant was a Blackwater subsidiary.

Xe is among five companies eligible to compete for a $1 billion contract to train Afghanistan's national police force. DynCorp International of Falls Church, Va., had held a large contract for such training since 2003.

But a decision to transfer control of the program from the State Department to the military is ending DynCorp's run and opening a major opportunity for Xe.

DynCorp has filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office, alleging that the approach is "procedurally and legally flawed," according to company vice president Donald Ryder.

Xe has been shifting its work to training, aviation and logistics after the September 2007 incident at Nisoor Square in Baghdad. Its security guards were accused of killing 17 unarmed Iraqi civilians.

BERKELEY, Calif. – Students staged raucous rallies on nationwide college campuses Thursday in protests against deep education cuts that turned violent as demonstrators threw punches and ice chunks in Wisconsin and blocked university gates and smashed car windows in California.

At least 15 protesters were arrested by University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee police after as many as 150 students gathered at the student union then moved to an administrative building to deliver petitions to the school chancellor.

A woman who was allowed to go inside encouraged protesters to rush the building after she emerged, university spokesman Tom Luljak said.

No serious injuries were reported in the melee that followed.

"We have no problem with a protest," Luljak said. "We do have a serious problem when individuals decide to become violent."

Kas Schwerdtfeger, a national organizer for Milwaukee Students for a Democratic Society, said demonstrators were peaceful but persistent in approaching the hall.

"What we did was try to assert ourselves peacefully and nonviolently," Schwerdtfeger said. "Police started pushing, shoving, using mace on somewhere around 20 to 25 people."

The school was among dozens of nationwide campuses hit with marches, strikes, teach-ins and walkouts in what was billed as the March 4th National Day of Action for Public Education.

Organizers said hundreds of thousands of students, teachers and parents were expected to participate in the nationwide demonstrations.

The steep economic downturn has forced states to slash funding to K-12 schools, community colleges and universities to cope with plummeting tax revenue.

Experts said schools and colleges could face more severe financial trouble over the next few years as they drain federal stimulus money that temporarily prevented widespread layoffs and classroom cuts.

Some university officials said they supported the protests as long as they remained peaceful.

"My heart and my support are with everybody and anybody who wants to stand up for public education," University of California President Mark Yudof said in a statement. "Public education drives a society's ability to progress and to prosper."

In Wisconsin, more than 25,000 students have been put on a waiting list after the state's premier financial aid program ran out of money because of increased demand.

At the University of Illinois, about 200 professors, instructors and graduate faculty marched through campus carrying signs that read "Furlough Legislators" — a reference to recent furloughs and 4 percent pay cuts imposed on thousands of university employees.

The state is $487 million behind on payments to the University of Illinois. State government has a budget deficit of $13 billion.

In Olympia, Wash., a group of about 75 protesters arrived at the Capitol bearing a faux coffin emblazoned with the slogan "R.I.P. Education."

They were later ejected from the state Senate gallery after interrupting a debate with a protest song that followed the tune of "Amazing Grace."

"I once could eat, but now I find, I can't afford the food," they sang.

Several Democratic senators applauded the performance, as security guards escorted the protesters from the building.

In Northern California, rowdy protesters blocked major gates at two universities and smashed the windows of a car.

Protesters at the University of California, Santa Cruz surrounded the car while its uninjured driver was inside. Earlier, demonstrators blocked campus gates.

University provost David Kliger said there were reports of protesters carrying clubs and knives, but Santa Cruz police Capt. Steve Clark could not confirm those reports. No arrests had been made.

An advisory posted on the school Web site urged people to avoid the campus because of safety concerns.

At the University of California, Berkeley, a small group of protesters formed a human chain blocking a main gate to the campus. Later in the day, hundreds gathered for a peaceful rally.

"We're one of the largest economies in the world, and we can't fund the basics," said Mike Scullin, 29, a graduate student in education who plans to become a high school teacher. "We're throwing away a generation of students by defunding education."

At the University of Texas at Austin, about 100 students and staff rallied on campus to protest a 5.4 percent hike in tuition and fees approved by regents a day earlier. Protesters complained the quality of education was taking a backseat to the university's bottom line.

Officials said the tuition hikes, which include another 3.89 percent jump for the fall of 2011, were necessary to avoid cuts in the face of declining endowment payouts and an anticipated cut in state aid.

In Alabama, Broderick Thomas, a 23-year-old Auburn senior, attended an annual higher education rally in Montgomery and said he feels "it's the moral duty of the state to give back what they promised."

However, the chairman of the state Senate education budget committee, Sen. Hank Sanders, D-Selma, curbed the enthusiasm, saying it would be hard to find additional funds for higher education this year.

"I wish we could give all the money higher education needs," Sanders said, as some in the crowd groaned. "We're having to cut up to $460 million out of the budget the governor recommended."

Students, teachers, parents and school employees from across California gathered in Sacramento for a midday rally at the Capitol to urge lawmakers to restore funding to public schools.

Linda Wall, a state Department of Mental Health employee, said she had two children attending Sacramento State University. Hikes in student fees and mandatory furloughs for state workers have strained her budget.

"Their tuition has taken a big chunk of my paycheck and my paycheck is shrinking, so it's a double whammy," Wall said.

___

Associated Press Writers Marcus Wohlsen in San Francisco, Robin Hindery in Sacramento, Calif., David Mercer in Urbana, Ill., April Castro in Austin, Texas, Bob Johnson in Montgomery, Ala., Curt Woodward in Olympia, Wash., and Dinesh Ramde in Milwaukee contributed to this report.

With his soon-to-be-released book, Karl Rove is trying to mount something of a rear-guard action in the war over George W. Bush's legacy. According to the AP, which has obtained a copy of the book, Rove

blames himself for not pushing back against claims that President George W. Bush had taken the country to war under false pretenses, calling it one of the worst mistakes he made during the Bush presidency. The president, he adds, did not knowingly mislead the American public about the existence of [weapons of mass destruction].

And The New York Times reports that in the book, which will hit stores on Tuesday, Rove writes that his failure to counter the narrative that "Bush lied" was "one of the biggest mistakes of the Bush years." Rove adds, "did Bush lie us into war? Absolutely not."

Here we go again: Did Bush grease the way to war with lies? Having written two books on the subject—The Lies of George W. Bush and (with Michael Isikoff) Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War—I have some skin in this game.

Let's cut to the bottom line: prior to the Iraq war, US intelligence generally produced faulty information overstating Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities, which were actually nonexistent. But Bush and his crew purposefully and callously overstated these overstatements—and made dramatic and untrue assertions unconnected to the flawed intelligence—in order to whip up popular support for the invasion of Iraq. Mother Jones has produced a timeline that lists the false Bush administration assertions. And to remind Rove—and book reviewers—here's a limited sampling of notable whoppers, reported in my books and elsewhere.

• When Bush issued his ultimatum to Saddam Hussein on March 17, 2003, he declared, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." But there was doubt—and plenty of it. Intelligence analysts had registered uncertainty regarding key elements of Bush's case for war—such as whether Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium in Niger, and whether it had purchased aluminum tubes for an enrichment process to make material for nuclear weapons. Moreover, the doubters were correct.

• Seven months earlier, Vice President Dick Cheney similarly said in a speech, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." But there was no intelligence suggesting that Saddam's intention was to beef up his WMD arsenal so he could deploy it against the United States—which would have been a suicidal act. In fact, the existing intelligence indicated Saddam was not interested in a WMD showdown with the United States.

• During an October 7, 2003, speech in Cincinnati, Bush declared that UN inspectors had "concluded" that Iraq in the 1990s had actually produced "two to four times" the 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents than it had acknowledged making. Bush went on: "This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions." But UN inspectors had concluded no such thing. They had reported destroying key facilities Iraq had used to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The inspectors had encountered discrepancies in the accounting of Iraq's weapons and WMD material and had noted that Iraq could have produced more weapons than the inspectors had uncovered. Bush was misstating the facts to turn a possible stockpile of WMDs into an actual arsenal.

• Throughout the fall of 2002 and the winter of 2003, Bush and his aides insisted Iraq was loaded with WMDs. At one point, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld huffed, "There's no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons...We all know that. A trained ape knows that." On January 7, 2003, Rumsfeld declared, "They currently have chemical and biological weapons." Yet a September 2002 report by the Defense Intelligence Agency said, "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has—or will—establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities." A national intelligence estimate produced about that time did assert, "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons." The point is that contradictory information existed, yet Bush and his crew chose to ignore any data that undermined their contention that Saddam was up to his neck in WMDs.

• At a September 7, 2002, joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush said that a 1998 International Atomic Energy Agency report had found that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." But there was no such IAEA report. And in 1998, the IAEA had reported there were "no indications" that Iraq was producing nuclear weapons. Bush had concocted a nonexistent report to bolster the case for war.

• On November 7, 2002, Bush said Saddam "is a threat because he's dealing with Al Qaeda." Yet as the 9/11 Commission later noted, there had been no intelligence confirming contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda that added up to an operational relationship. (On September 26, 2002, Rumsfeld said that he had "bullet-proof" evidence that Saddam was tied to Osama bin Laden. He never produced that evidence. In March 2003, Cheney claimed Saddam had a "long-standing relationship" with Al Qaeda. He didn't.)

• At a December 31, 2003, press conference, Bush asserted, "We don't know whether or not [Saddam] has a nuclear weapon." But there was no intelligence at the time suggesting that the Iraqi dictator might already possess nuclear weapons. The faulty national intelligence estimate produced in October 2002 had errantly declared that Iraq was "reconstituting" its nuclear weapons program but it had also concluded Iraq had no nuclear weapons and would not be able to produce one for years. Bush had no basis for suggesting Saddam could already be nuclear-armed. Yet he did so.

I could go on. Remember Colin Powell's lengthy UN presentation? Practically every relevant fact in it proved to be false. Rove can argue that in the run-up to the war, Bush and the others believed what they were saying about Iraq's WMDs. But Bush and his crowd demonstrated a profound disinterest in sorting out the truth. They made no effort to distinguish between known facts and convenient suppositions. They exaggerated. They trumped up unconfirmed pieces of information. They presented rosy assumptions. They overlooked or discounted data that didn't advance the cause.

It was a PR campaign girded with misrepresentations and false statements. Rove contends that his old boss did not knowingly bamboozle the public. (Bush, though, did in a January 2003 meeting with Tony Blair raise the idea of staging an incident—in which US reconnaissance planes painted in UN colors would fly over Iraq and try to draw fire—to provoke an excuse for war.) But Bush, Cheney, and other administration aides exercised a thoroughly reckless disregard for the truth, as they pushed an utterly phony and over-the-top case for invading Iraq.

The leader of a group of House Democrats pressing for tougher language banning the use of federal funds for abortion says he’s willing to risk the defeat of the health-care bill if the lawmakers don’t get their way.

Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan says Senate-passed language on abortion isn’t acceptable to him and the dozen or so lawmakers in the group. Without a resolution, they will vote against the broader health legislation, said Stupak.

“Yes, we’re prepared to take responsibility” for the defeat of the bill, Stupak said today on ABC Television’s “Good Morning America” program. “I want to see health care, but we’re not going to bypass some principles and belief we feel strongly about.”

His comments underscore the risk the abortion issue poses as congressional Democrats seek to pass comprehensive health legislation with no Republican support. Party leaders have yet to settle on a strategy to resolve the abortion dispute.

“It’s probably the biggest challenge we have,” said Representative Bill Pascrell, a New Jersey Democrat.

In the House, the health-care legislation passed on Nov. 7 with just 220 of 435 votes, and the potential loss of support over abortion may be enough to sink the bill. And some House Democrats who favor abortion rights have said their votes also may hinge on how the matter is addressed.

Echoes of Past

Abortion policy has delayed -- or killed outright -- past legislation ranging from a rewrite of bankruptcy law to foreign aid and military spending measures. To avoid that fate last year, Democratic leaders in both chambers let anti-abortion lawmakers attach tougher restrictions to the health legislation, President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.

Stupak took the lead in the House, while Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska provided Democrats in that chamber with the 60th vote needed to clear the health measure after he negotiated abortion language.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today said the Senate language should satisfy those who oppose federal funding for abortions.

“If you believe that there should be no federal funding of abortions and if you believe there should be no change in the policy and if you believe we need health care for all Americans, then we will pass the bill,” she told reporters.

Two-Step Process

Democratic leaders say they’ll try to approve health legislation by first pushing the Senate bill through the House. Then each chamber would address a host of changes through separate legislation via a parliamentary maneuver called budget reconciliation, which would allow the Senate to pass it with just 51 votes. Without reconciliation, the health measure could be subjected to a filibuster that would take 60 votes to overcome, and Democrats control the chamber with 59 votes.

Democratic leaders said that because reconciliation is designed for use on matters that relate to the federal budget, not social policy, it can’t be utilized to resolve abortion differences.

Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said there are no plans for separate legislation to address the divide over abortion, and it will be up to Pelosi to find the votes in her caucus for the Senate language.

“She’s got to deal with this,” Durbin said.

‘Standing Firm’

The broader legislation is intended to ratchet down health costs and extend coverage by expanding Medicaid and requiring Americans to get insurance -- with new online purchasing exchanges and government aid to help. The White House estimated that Obama’s proposal would bring the cost of the overhaul to $950 billion over a decade.

The top lobbyist for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops agreed with Stupak that a dozen House Democrats will oppose a final measure if the Senate abortion language is in it. They include Representative Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and Representative James Oberstar of Minnesota, he said.

“Those members are standing firm,” said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities at the conference.

Supporters of the abortion language in both chambers say they want to adhere to the Hyde amendment, an appropriations measure first passed in 1976 that bans federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or risk to a mother’s life.

Stronger Wall

The House health bill’s abortion language, however, establishes a stronger wall restricting federal dollars from being used to pay for health plans that include abortion coverage. The Stupak amendment would bar the use of new federal subsidies from being used to pay costs of any plans covering abortion offered through a new, national insurance-purchasing exchange. Women could use their own funds to buy a “rider” to cover the procedure.

In the Senate bill, the federal Office of Personnel Management would oversee at least two multistate insurance programs in the exchange. At least one would provide abortion coverage and one wouldn’t. States could opt out of having any plan with abortion coverage.

Groups such as the National Right to Life Committee say the Senate language is unacceptable because it would let one plan in each market allow abortion coverage, and because some consumers who oppose abortion would be required to help pay for coverage of the procedure.

‘Ban on Abortion’

Pro-choice groups are lobbying against abortion provisions in both the House and Senate bills. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the Stupak language is of particular concern. It would effectively block private plans on the exchange from offering abortion coverage, preventing access to the procedure for many lower-income women.

“It is a ban on abortion in the exchange,” she said.

photo: PoliticalActivityLaw.com via Flickr

Wow, Hans von Spakovsky has taken a page from Lynn Cheney’s “Al Qaeda Seven” slander ad and launched a patchwork quilt of personal attacks against the senior members of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. In an article appearing in the National Review he goes after each of them in a very personal way. Ultimately, I think the article backfires and Hans has jumped the shark.

The article is actually wildly entertaining if you read it as satire. How can pointing out that someone was smart and talented enough to clerk for a federal Court of Appeals judge and a Supreme Court Justice actually count as an insult?

I’m not going to dignify this hysterical screed with a link because The National Review did not earn any click-through props by printing this crap. Normally, I respect them even when I disagree with them, but this tripe is so far below their standards as to make me wonder what sort of shouting must be going on in their editorial meetings this week.

For example, Hans castigates Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez for the sins of having worked for Senator Edward Kennedy, having been elected to the Montgomery County, Maryland legislature and belonging to Casa de Maryland.  Oh, the horror of it all. Worse yet, according to Hans, is Mark Kappelhoff’s sin for daring to have worked for – wait for it – yes, the ACLU. OMG!

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Samuel Bagenstos is the aforementioned victim of Hans’s insult who clerked for 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt. Bagenstos also clerked for my personal SCOTUS fave, Justice Ruth Ginsberg. Evidently, Hans thinks these credentials are something to be ashamed of; he really enjoyed “outing” Bagenstos.

The National Review piece reads like something from The Onion. If it was meant as an April’s Fool’s piece, they are a few weeks early. I know that Hans gets paid by the Heritage Foundation to come up with attacks from the right, but are they getting value for money?  If the best he can turn out sinks to the Liz Cheney level of Epic Fail, might they want to rethink how they are allocating their resources?

Last semi-related point:

I know that Attorney General Eric Holder thinks that the work of the Civil Rights Division is going to be his legacy—that the Civil Rights Division (CRD) is, as Senator Schumer described it,  the  “crown jewel” of DOJ.  I have to put a pin in the AG’s party balloon.

It won’t matter one tiny little bit how much or how great the work of the Civil Rights Division is if we fail to restore the rule of law in this country.

If DOJ does not have the independence to make charging and venue decisions free from political interference; if people can be captured and held indefinitely without trial or due process, then every single civil right in this country is an illusion and the talented lawyers with sterling resumes in the CRD are wasting their time as we speak.

Hans von Spakovsky’s and Liz Cheney’s efforts to delegitimize these lawyers and their work cannot compare to the effects of failing to adhere to the rule of law.

Mr. Attorney General, during your confirmation hearings you promised to restore the rule of law and you told Senator Herb Kohl that there were some things worth resigning over. Don’t let Senator Lindsey Graham destroy everything else you are trying to do.

Whether or not you are able to restore the independence and integrity of DOJ is the only legacy that matters. All of the work of the CRD or the entire DOJ hinges on this effort.

Tags: Eric Holder, Hans von Spakovsky, Lynn Cheney, The National Review

 

Last week, Pew released a survey with the headline ‘Support for Alternative Energy and Offshore Drilling.’ The piece begins, “The public continues to favor a wide range of government policies to address the nation’s energy supply…”

That is accurate, but it doesn’t get at the most striking data. The most important finding in the survey is the fact that clean energy and mass transit investments are vastly more popular than nuclear investments and offshore drilling.

Here is how Pew presents the data (Figure 1):

As a mini-case study on how informational graphics can add significant meaning to this sort of data, I’ve created a few simple charts.

This chart (Figure 2) shows the approval and disapproval numbers for the four policy options:

And this chart (Figure 3) shows the net approval numbers for the four policy options…

Presenting the information in text only format, as Pew chose to do in Figure 1, leaves the reader to their own devices to identify the most compelling data. While the data is technically accurate, it fails to bring the meaning of the data to the forefront. Pew’s accompanying analysis of the polling data also somehow fails to identify the massive gap in net approval for the policies they surveyed.

Creating a simple chart (Figure 2) based on the data itself adds significant value to the presentation of the data, especially for the casual reader. The reader can tell at a glance that clean energy investments are significantly more popular than polluting energy sources, and that unpopularity follows the opposite pattern.

Going one step further and doing simple arithmetic to determine the net approval for each of the policies in the survey, as I’ve done with Figure 3, brings the most striking data to the forefront. The fact that more than 50% of Americans support a variety of policies to produce-more or consume-less energy is not, in itself, especially meaningful. But the fact that the net approval for some of these policies is 40-60%, while it is barely 10% for others, is fairly compelling.

Originally posted at EnviroKnow.

Tags: alternative energy, green jobs, mass transit, nuclear energy, offshore drilling

 

In reconciliation, affordable education for all meets affordable health care for some (photo: Tofu Sue)

As you may know, FDL has launched the Students Not Banks campaign to get the student loan bill passed through reconciliation this year, enabling hundreds of thousands of students to afford college and ending the needless subsidies to the big banks for the privatization of the student loan market.

FDL campaigns get results! Already today, senior Democratic aides have proposed combining the student loan and the health care bills through reconciliation, the only way to pass SAFRA this year:

Senate Democratic leaders have decided to pair an overhaul of federal student lending with healthcare reform, according to a Democratic official familiar with negotiations.

“It’s going in,” said the Democratic source, in reference to the student lending measure.

But leaders may have to reverse themselves if they receive strong pushback from Democratic colleagues who represent states where lenders employ hundreds of constituents.

I’ve been working on this for most of the day, and aides aren’t really talking. But there are risks and rewards to tie in SAFRA with the reconciliation process.

First, some background, although I did go over this yesterday. SAFRA does not currently have 60 votes for passage in the Senate to clear the expected filibuster. Instructions were given last year to move SAFRA through the reconciliation process. However, you can only move one reconciliation bill a year, and the long wait on SAFRA was dictated by Senate leaders waiting to see if they needed reconciliation for health care. Now that reconciliation is the plan, the leadership has a choice: pass SAFRA tied in with health care, or basically wait another year, as higher education costs skyrocket and a major Obama Administration initiative goes by the boards. Adding to this decision is the fact that Democrats would want a tangible success for young voters, those most likely not to vote in the November midterms.

The leadership may see risks in adding student loan reform to the reconciliation bill, however. As The Hill notes, several Democrats who are likely votes for health care, particularly those in states like Delaware and Pennsylvania with a high concentration of the private student loan market, may back away from the reconciliation fixes if SAFRA gets attached. Would that be enough to sink the reconciliation bill entirely? Maybe not in the Senate, where Democrats can afford to lose 9 votes; an industry analyst only sees 7 no votes among the Democratic caucus. But in the House, where the whip count is tight, adding SAFRA could peel off needed votes.

I thought yesterday that, when push came to shove, Democratic leaders would drop SAFRA from their reconciliation plans if it threatened the health care bill. The newfound advocacy and activism around the bill will make that harder to do.

Tags: budget reconciliation, Health care, higher education, House of Representatives, Reconciliation, SAFRA, Senate, student loans, Students Not Banks

 

graphic: Lance Page/Truthout.org; Adapted: takomabibelot, Poe Tatum via Flickr

Yesterday when I raised the question of what techniques DOD wanted to use in spring 2004, I said there was some ambiguity about what DOD was trying to get approved. In this post I’m going to lay out the conflicting sources of information. Given the totality of information, though, it appears that what DOD asked to use in spring 2004 was extended isolation.

As you’ll recall, Jack Goldsmith originally told Jim Haynes not to rely on the March 2003 Yoo memo in late December 2003. But the OPR report describes a request to use some technique in early March 2004 that set off the more active withdrawal and replacement for the memo.

Here’s how Goldsmith describes his conversation with Haynes in December 2003 in Terror Presidency:

“Jim, I’ve got bad news,” I began. “We’ve discovered some errors in the March 2003 opinion that John wrote you on interrogation. The opinion is under review and should not be relied upon for any reason. The twenty-four techniques you approved are legal, but please come back for additional legal guidance before approving any other technique, and do not rely on the March 2003 opinion for any reason.”

Of those 24 techniques Goldsmith said he told Haynes were legal, Rummy had listed four (incentive/removal of incentive, pride and ego down, mutt and jeff, and isolation) that required advance notification (though not approval) from the Secretary of Defense.

The OPR Report described that conversation slightly differently.

Accordingly, Goldsmith telephoned Haynes in late December 2003 and told him that the Pentagon could no longer rely on the Yoo Memo, that no new interrogation techniques should be adopted without consulting OLC, and that the military could continue to use the noncontroversial techniques set forth in the Working Group Report, but that they should not use any of the techniques requiring Secretary of Defense approval without first consulting OLC.

The Working Group Report approved 26 techniques generally and another 9 in exceptional circumstances. The 26 included three not among those techniques Rummy approved (hooding, mild physical contact, and threat of transfer), and one of the techniques Rummy did approve–isolation–was among those requiring exceptional circumstances in the Working Group.

The working group recommends that techniques 1-26 on the attached chart be approved for use with unlawful combatants outside the United States, subject to the general limitations set forth in this Legal and Policy Analysis; and that techniques 27-35 be approved for use with unlawful combatants outside the United Stam subject to the general limitations as well as the specific limitations regarding “exceptional” techniques as follows: conducted at strategic interrogation facilities; where there is a good basis to believe that the detainee possesses critical intelligence; the detainee is medically and operationally evaluated as suitable (considering all techniques to be used in combination); interrogators are specifically trained for the technique(s); a specific interrogation plan (including reasonable safeguards, limits on duration, intervals between applications, termination criteria and the presence or availability of qualified medical personnel) is developed; appropriate supervision is provided; and, appropriate specified senior level approval is given for use with any specific detainee (after considering the foregoing and receiving legal advice).

And while the Working Group did place limits on those exceptional techniques, it did not require SecDef approval. Here’s what they say about Secretary of Defense approval.

That a procedure be established for requesting approval of additional interrogation techniques similar to that for requesting “supplementals” for ROEs; the process should require the requestor to describe the technique in detail, justify its utility, describe the potential effects on subjects, known hazards and proposed safeguards, provide a legal analysis, and recommend an appropriate decision level regarding use on specific subjects, This procedure should ensure that SECDEF is the approval authority for the addition of any technique that could be considered equivalent in degree to any of the “exceptional techniques” addressed in this report (in the chart numbers 27-35, labeled with an “E”), and that he establish the specific decision level required for application of such techniques.

The SASC Report has a third version of the Goldsmith-Haynes conversation.

Mr. Goldsmith told the Committee that he called Jim Haynes in December 2003 and told him the March 14,2003 OLC opinion was under review and could not be relied on by the Department. 1140 That opinion had been presented to the Working Group as the controlling authority for all questions of domestic and international law and was the legal foundation for the Secretary’s April 2003 authorization oftechniques for GTMO. Mr. Goldsmith told the Committee that he informed Mr. Haynes in December 2003 that he had determined that only 20 of the 24 techniques authorized by Secretary Rumsfeld were lawful, and that the remaining four techniques were under review. 114 Mr. Goldsmith also advised Mr. Haynes in December that the Department should come back to OLC for additional legal guidance before approving any technique not among those 24 specifically identified in the Secretary’s April 2003 memo.1142 Mr. Goldsmith told the Committee that Mr. Haynes did not inquire about the use of additional techniques during his tenure at OLC, which ended in June 2004.1143

1141 In his interview with Committee staff, Mr. Goldsmith said he eventually determined that all 24 were lawful. That account differs slightly from Goldsmith’s account in his book, in which he said that he told Mr. Haynes in December that all 24 techniques were lawful.

I agree with SASC: Goldsmith’s version in his book conflicts with what he told the committee, which are both somewhat different from what OPR Reports. But a May 11, 2004 memo from Goldsmith may shed some light on this issue. It memorializes Goldsmith’s prior approval, on April 23, 2004, of the four techniques approved by Rummy in April 2003 but which required advance notification before using.

On April 23, 2004, OLC advised the Department of Defense that four techniques for interrogation of a prisoner at Guantanamo would be lawful, if justified by military necessity and if conducted in accordance with the Secretary of Defense’s memorandum of April 15, 2003,

At the very least, this supports Goldsmith’s explanation to the SASC that he went on to approve these four techniques.

Curiously, to justify approving isolation, Goldsmith cites the March 2003 Yoo memo!

The fourth technique was isolation for a limited period. We had earlier advised the Department of Defense that “[a] brief stay in solitary confinement alone is insufficient to state a deprivation” of basic human needs and thus would not constitute “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment under the Convention Against Torture, let alone meet the higher standard for “torture” under that Convention and the United States criminal law implementing it, 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A. See Memorandum for William J. Haynes, General Counsel of the Department of Defense, from John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States at 64 (Mar. 14, 2003).

While Goldsmith is not here relying on the more problematic aspects of the memo, according to the OPR Report, he and Bradbury started drafting replacements for the Yoo memo by this point.

Finally, this memo may reveal what the conflict was about: DOD appears to have been requesting 60-day isolation for this detainee.

The Department of Defense proposed that the solitary confinement might continue as long as 60 days, with an internal review after 30. We stated, however, that our advice was limited to the legality of the 30-day period and that we ought to be consulted again if the Department of Defense wished to extend that time.

The description of isolation in Rummy’s April memo only permitted 30 days of isolation. So it appears the request may not have been for a new technique, but for an extended use of isolation.

Just one caveat to that point: SASC also includes a largely redacted paragraph just below the discussion of Goldsmith’s withdrawal of the memo that suggests DOD insitutionalized its “Frequent Flyer” program, in which detainees were moved every few hours to prevent them from sleeping, on March 26, 2004.

Tags: isolation, Jack Goldsmith, Jim Haynes, OPR report

 

Video here. I walk the line for you Each and everyday And there's a bullet with my name on it Or at least that's what they say You take me for granted And it's such a cryin' shame Because I would gladly give my life for you Each and everyday It's been a long time coming It took a long ...