November 15, 2009

In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists’

By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.

Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.

In an interview, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, said: “I regret that the language was the same. I did not know it was.” He said he got his statement from his staff and “did not know where they got the information from.”

Members of Congress submit statements for publication in the Congressional Record all the time, often with a decorous request to “revise and extend my remarks.” It is unusual for so many revisions and extensions to match up word for word. It is even more unusual to find clear evidence that the statements originated with lobbyists.

The e-mail messages and their attached documents indicate that the statements were based on information supplied by Genentech employees to one of its lobbyists, Matthew L. Berzok, a lawyer at Ryan, MacKinnon, Vasapoli & Berzok who is identified as the “author” of the documents. The statements were disseminated by lobbyists at a big law firm, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal.

In an e-mail message to fellow lobbyists on Nov. 5, two days before the House vote, Todd M. Weiss, senior managing director of Sonnenschein, said, “We are trying to secure as many House R’s and D’s to offer this/these statements for the record as humanly possible.”

He told the lobbyists to “conduct aggressive outreach to your contacts on the Hill to see if their bosses would offer the attached statements (or an edited version) for the record.”

In recent years, Genentech’s political action committee and lobbyists for Roche and Genentech have made campaign contributions to many House members, including some who filed statements in the Congressional Record. And company employees have been among the hosts at fund-raisers for some of those lawmakers. But Evan L. Morris, head of Genentech’s Washington office, said, “There was no connection between the contributions and the statements.”

Mr. Morris said Republicans and Democrats, concerned about the unemployment rate, were receptive to the company’s arguments about the need to keep research jobs in the United States.

The statements were not intended to change the bill, which was not open for much amendment during the debate. They were meant to show bipartisan support for certain provisions, even though the vote on passage generally followed party lines.

Democrats emphasized the bill’s potential to create jobs in health care, health information technology and clinical research on new drugs.

Republicans opposed the bill, but praised a provision that would give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to approve generic versions of expensive biotechnology drugs, along the lines favored by brand-name companies like Genentech.

Lawmakers from both parties said it was important to conduct research on such “biosimilar” products in the United States. Several took a swipe at aggressive Indian competitors.

Asked about the Congressional statements, a lobbyist close to Genentech said: “This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it.”

In separate statements using language suggested by the lobbyists, Representatives Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri and Joe Wilson of South Carolina, both Republicans, said: “One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country. Unfortunately, many of the largest companies that would seek to enter the biosimilar market have made their money by outsourcing their research to foreign countries like India.”

In remarks on the House floor, Representative Phil Hare, Democrat of Illinois, recalled that his family had faced eviction when his father was sick and could not make payments on their home. He said the House bill would save others from such hardship.

In a written addendum in the Congressional Record, Mr. Hare said the bill would also create high-paying jobs. Timothy Schlittner, a spokesman for Mr. Hare, said: “That part of his statement was drafted for us by Roche pharmaceutical company. It is something he agrees with.”

The boilerplate in the Congressional Record included some conversational touches, as if actually delivered on the House floor.

In the standard Democratic statement, Representative Robert A. Brady of Pennsylvania said: “Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. This bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in health care delivery, technology and research in the United States.”

Mr. Brady’s chief of staff, Stanley V. White, said he had received the draft statement from a lobbyist for Genentech’s parent company, Roche.

“We were approached by the lobbyist, who asked if we would be willing to enter a statement in the Congressional Record,” Mr. White said. “I asked him for a draft. I tweaked a couple of words. There’s not much reason to reinvent the wheel on a Congressional Record entry.”

Some differences were just a matter of style. Representative Yvette D. Clarke, Democrat of New York, said, “I see this bill as an exciting opportunity to create the kind of jobs we so desperately need in this country, while at the same time improving the lives of all Americans.”

Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, used the same words, but said the bill would improve the lives of “ALL Americans.”

Mr. Payne and Mr. Brady said the bill would “create new opportunities and markets for our brightest technology minds.” Mr. Pascrell said the bill would “create new opportunities and markets for our brightest minds in technology.”

In nearly identical words, three Republicans — Representatives K. Michael Conaway of Texas, Lynn Jenkins of Kansas and Lee Terry of Nebraska — said they had criticized many provisions of the bill, and “rightfully so.”

But, each said, “I do believe the sections relating to the creation of a market for biosimilar products is one area of the bill that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower cost options.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Mistrial Declared in Murder Trial

Judge declares mistrial in 2007 drive-by murder case
By TONY RIZZOThe Kansas City Star
“I knew him prior.”
Those four words uttered recently by a police detective in front of a jury prompted a Jackson County judge Wednesday to dismiss the murder case against a Kansas City man.
The dismissal “with prejudice” means that prosecutors cannot re-try Markus D. Lee for the 2007 drive-by killing of Eliseo Thomas. Assistant Public Defender Molly Hastings requested, and the judge ordered, that Lee be released Wednesday.
It was the third time this decade that Lee, 25, was charged with committing a murder and the third time he has avoided conviction.
Jackson County Prosecutor Jim Kanatzar could not be reached Wednesday about whether he will seek an appeal.
Kansas City police officials said they wanted to see the judge’s written order before commenting. The judge said he planned to have the written order available Monday.
In Wednesday’s oral ruling, Circuit Judge Robert M. Schieber said he believed that the detective’s comment during Lee’s trial earlier this month was an intentional effort to “goad” Lee’s attorneys into seeking a mistrial because the case wasn’t going well.
Because he considered the mistrial to be the result of governmental misconduct, Schieber ruled that trying Lee a second time would violate his constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
“It is with a great deal of angst that I do this,” Schieber said.
But the judge said that he had to hold law enforcement officers to the same rules and standards that attorneys must follow to ensure a “level playing field” in the courtroom.
“For me to not do that would render those rules meaningless,” he said.
Schieber said that if there was no sanction against such intentional misconduct then anytime a law enforcement officer felt a case “was going south” he could say something inappropriate and prompt a mistrial.
“I can’t allow that to happen,” Schieber said.
He noted that after he declared a mistrial in Lee’s case, the jurors and alternates told him that they would have voted unanimously for acquittal. They also told him that the detective’s statement about knowing Lee implied to them that he had been arrested previously.
That demonstrated that the comment was prejudicial, the judge said.
Lee, who has been in custody since shortly after the March 2007 incident, was charged along with two other men with killing Thomas and wounding three others during a drive-by shooting near 30th Street and Agnes Avenue. The shooting sparked a high-speed chase in which suspects fired shots at pursuing police officers.
The two other defendants are in custody pending their trials.
In 2006, a jury acquitted Lee on charges that he killed a man during a 2002 block party and later gunned down a witness to that crime. At trial, witnesses who had initially identified Lee changed their stories and said they didn’t witness the shootings.
His trial for allegedly killing Thomas began Nov. 9 and was close to wrapping up Nov. 12 when Detective Danny Phillips testified about collecting shell casings and obtaining a DNA sample from Lee after his arrest.
Phillips was being cross-examined by Hastings about when he collected the DNA sample when he added “I knew him prior.” Hastings moved for a mistrial, which Schieber granted.
She later filed the motion that Schieber ruled on Wednesday. Phillips could not be reached for comment after Wednesday’s ruling.
After Wednesday’s hearing, Hastings said she appreciated the judge holding police accountable.
“They are not exempt from following the rules,” she said.

Obama vs. Education

Obama speech to students draws conservative ire
By LIBBY QUAID and LINDA STEWART BALL, Associated Press Writers Libby Quaid And Linda Stewart Ball, Associated Press Writers 32 mins ago
DALLAS – President Barack Obama's back-to-school address next week was supposed to be a feel-good story for an administration battered over its health care agenda. Now Republican critics are calling it an effort to foist a political agenda on children, creating yet another confrontation with the White House.
Obama plans to speak directly to students Tuesday about the need to work hard and stay in school. His address will be shown live on the White House Web site and on C-SPAN at noon EDT, a time when classrooms across the country will be able to tune in.
Schools don't have to show it. But districts across the country have been inundated with phone calls from parents and are struggling to address the controversy that broke out after Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent a letter to principals urging schools to watch.
Districts in states including Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin have decided not to show the speech to students. Others are still thinking it over or are letting parents have their kids opt out.
Some conservatives, driven by radio pundits and bloggers, are urging schools and parents to boycott the address. They say Obama is using the opportunity to promote a political agenda and is overstepping the boundaries of federal involvement in schools.
"As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality," said Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell. "This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Arizona state schools superintendent Tom Horne, a Republican, said lesson plans for teachers created by Obama's Education Department "call for a worshipful rather than critical approach."
The White House plans to release the speech online Monday so parents can read it. He will deliver the speech at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Va.
"I think it's really unfortunate that politics has been brought into this," White House deputy policy director Heather Higginbottom said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"It's simply a plea to students to really take their learning seriously. Find out what they're good at. Set goals. And take the school year seriously."
She noted that President George H.W. Bush made a similar address to schools in 1991. Like Obama, Bush drew criticism, with Democrats accusing the Republican president of making the event into a campaign commercial.
Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the administration created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online, originally recommended having students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."
The White House revised the plans Wednesday to say students could "write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals."
"That was inartfully worded, and we corrected it," Higginbottom said.
In the Dallas suburb of Plano, Texas, the 54,000-student school district is not showing the 15- to 20-minute address but will make the video available later.
PTA council president Cara Mendelsohn said Obama is "cutting out the parent" by speaking to kids during school hours.
"Why can't a parent be watching this with their kid in the evening?" Mendelsohn said. "Because that's what makes a powerful statement, when a parent is sitting there saying, 'This is what I dream for you. This is what I want you to achieve.'"
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, said in an interview with the AP that he's "certainly not going to advise anybody not to send their kids to school that day."
"Hearing the president speak is always a memorable moment," he said.
But he also said he understood where the criticism was coming from.
"Nobody seems to know what he's going to be talking about," Perry said. "Why didn't he spend more time talking to the local districts and superintendents, at least give them a heads-up about it?"
Several other Texas districts have decided not to show the speech, although the district in Houston is leaving the decision up to individual school principals. In suburban Houston, the Cypress-Fairbanks district planned to show the address and has had its social studies teachers assemble a curriculum and activities for students.
"If someone objected, we would not force them to listen to the speech," spokeswoman Kelli Durham said.
In Wisconsin, the Green Bay school district decided not to show the speech live and to let teachers decide individually whether to show it later.
In Florida, GOP chairman Jim Greer released a statement that he was "absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology."
Despite his rhetoric, two of the larger Florida districts, Miami-Dade and Hillsborough, plan to have classes watch the speech. Students whose parents object will not have to watch.
"We're extending the same courtesy to the president as we do with any elected official that wants to enter our schools," said Linda Cobbe, a Hillsborough schools spokeswoman. Cobbe said the district, which includes Tampa, has gotten calls from upset parents but said officials don't think the White House is trying to force politics on kids.
The Minnesota Association of School Administrators is recommending against disrupting the first day of school to show the speech, but Minnesota's biggest teachers' union is urging schools to show it.
Quincy, Ill., schools decided Thursday not to show the speech. Superintendent Lonny Lemon said phone calls "hit like a load of bricks" on Wednesday.
One Idaho school superintendent, Murray Dalgleish of Council, urged people not to rush to judgment.
"Is the president dictating to these kids? I don't think so," Dalgleish said. "He's trying to get out the same message we're trying to get out, which is, `You are in charge of your education.'"

Madonna booed in Eastern Europe.

BUCHAREST, Romania - At first, fans politely applauded the Roma performers sharing a stage with Madonna. Then the pop star condemned widespread discrimination against Roma, or Gypsies — and the cheers gave way to jeers.

The sharp mood change that swept the crowd of 60,000, who had packed a park for Wednesday night's concert, underscores how prejudice against Gypsies remains deeply entrenched across Eastern Europe.

Despite long-standing efforts to stamp out rampant bias, human rights advocates say Roma probably suffer more humiliation and endure more discrimination than any other people group on the continent.

Sometimes, it can be deadly: In neighboring Hungary, six Roma have been killed and several wounded in a recent series of apparently racially motivated attacks targeting small countryside villages predominantly settled by Gypsies.

"There is generally widespread resentment against Gypsies in Eastern Europe. They have historically been the underdog," Radu Motoc, an official with the Soros Foundation Romania, said Thursday.

Roma, or Gypsies, are a nomadic ethnic group believed to have their roots in the Indian subcontinent. They live mostly in southern and eastern Europe, but hundreds of thousands have migrated west over the past few decades in search of jobs and better living conditions.

Romania has the largest number of Roma in the region. Some say the population could be as high as 2 million, although official data put it at 500,000.

Until the 19th century, Romanian Gypsies were slaves, and they've gotten a mixed response ever since: While discrimination is widespread, many East Europeans are enthusiastic about Gypsy music and dance, which they embrace as part of the region's cultural heritage.

That explains why the Roma musicians and a dancer who had briefly joined Madonna onstage got enthusiastic applause. And it also may explain why some in the crowd turned on Madonna when she paused during the two-hour show — a stop on her worldwide "Sticky and Sweet" tour — to touch on their plight.

"It has been brought to my attention ... that there is a lot of discrimination against Romanies and Gypsies in general in Eastern Europe," she said. "It made me feel very sad."

Thousands booed and jeered her.

A few cheered when she added: "We don't believe in discrimination ... we believe in freedom and equal rights for everyone." But she got more boos when she mentioned discrimination against homosexuals and others.

"I jeered her because it seemed false what she was telling us. What business does she have telling us these things?" said Ionut Dinu, 23.

Madonna did not react and carried on with her concert, held near the hulking palace of the late communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu.

Her publicist, Liz Rosenberg, said Madonna and other had told her there were cheers as well as jeers.

"Madonna has been touring with a phenomenal troupe of Roma musicians who made her aware of the discrimination toward them in several countries so she felt compelled to make a brief statement," Rosenberg said in an e-mail. "She will not be issuing a further statement."

One Roma musician said the attitude toward Gypsies is contradictory.

"Romanians watch Gypsy soap operas, they like Gypsy music and go to Gypsy concerts," said Damian Draghici, a Grammy Award-winner who has performed with James Brown and Joe Cocker.

"But there has been a wave of aggression against Roma people in Italy, Hungary and Romania, which shows me something is not OK," he told the AP in an interview. "The politicians have to do something about it. People have to be educated not to be prejudiced. All people are equal, and that is the message politicians must give."

Nearly one in two of Europe's estimated 12 million Roma claimed to have suffered an act of discrimination over the past 12 months, according to a recent report by the Vienna-based EU Fundamental Rights Agency. The group says Roma face "overt discrimination" in housing, health care and education.

Many do not have official identification, which means they cannot get social benefits, are undereducated and struggle to find decent jobs.

Roma children are more likely to drop out of school than their peers from other ethnic groups. Many Romanians label Gypsies as thieves, and many are outraged by those who beg or commit petty crimes in Western Europe, believing they spoil Romania's image abroad.

In May 2007, Romanian President Traian Basescu was heard to call a Romanian journalist a "stinky Gypsy" during a conversation with his wife. Romania's anti-discrimination board criticized Basescu, who later apologized.

Human rights activists say the attacks in Hungary, which began in July 2008, may be tied to that country's economic crisis and the rising popularity of far-right vigilantes angered by a rash of petty thefts and other so-called "Gypsy crime." Last week, police arrested four suspects in a nightclub in the eastern city of Debrecen.

Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia also have been criticized for widespread bias against Roma.

Madonna's outrage touched a nerve in Romania, but it seems doubtful it will change anything, said the Soros Foundation's Motoc.

"Madonna is a pop star. She is not an expert on interethnic relations," he said.

___

AP Writers Alison Mutler in Bucharest, William J. Kole in Vienna and Nekesa Mumbi Moody in New York contributed to this report.

Difficulty in justifying detention
from SCOTUSblog by Lyle Denniston

A federal judge’s lengthy but heavily censored opinion released on Friday demonstrated anew the difficulty that the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies are having in trying to justify in court the continued holding of some of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A prisoner with family links to terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden, with personal encounters with Bin Laden, with at least a brief round of training in an Al-Qaeda military camp, with close knowledge of some of bin Laden’s bodyguards, and with other alleged links to Al-Qaeda soldiers — all of that was not enough, singly or together, to justify the detention of a Yemeni national, Mohammed Al-Adahi, Senior U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled.

Last Monday, the judge released a one-page order finding his detention unlawful, and ordering the government to take steps to arrange for his release, and to report back on Sept. 18 on what had been done to bring about release. On Friday, after clearance by a court intelligence-reviewing officer, her 42-page, redacted opinion explaining that ruling was made public. It can be downloaded here.

The Al-Adahi case is both typical and somewhat novel. It is like many other cases in which the government is relying on intelligence reports based on what people said or said they observed, rather than on hard, physical facts, evidence that is sometimes second-hand statements of what others had said or claimed they saw, coincidences that seem to add up to a “mosaic” that suggested involvement with terrorist “jihad” or enemy soldiers, and information from other detainees, as well as interviews with the detainee himself.

The case is somewhat unusual because the evidence offered against Al-Adahi goes considerably beyond the detail that government intelligence has produced in other detainee cases. Judge Kessler, in fact, described the evidence assembled against Al-Adahi as appearing to be “sensational and compelling.” In the end, however, she found it did not add up to enough to meet the legal standard she adopted for U.S. military detention of terrorist suspects.

While her definition of who may be detained is not novel (she borrowed it from another District judge), it does demand more proof of terrorist links than the standard used by some of Kessler’s other colleagues. She requires proof, for example, that a detainee have been a part of a terrorist “organized armed forces,” not just an individual who may have provided some support for Al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. In that sense, the Pentagon’s burden of justifying detention is higher.

Between the lines of the Kessler opinion, it was clear that government officials believed they had a very strong case for keeping Al-Adahi imprisoned. While the kind of evidence was typical, the scope and detail of it, they clearly assumed, would be more convincing.

But that was not how this judge found it. The end result was that information that showed enough linkages to satisfy the standards for an intelligence report, or series of reports, was found to be wanting as legal evidence to support further detention.

Here is the way Judge Kessler summed up: “When all is said and done, this is the evidence we have in this case. Al-Adahi probably had several relatives who served as bodyguards for Usama Bin Laden and were deeply involved with and supportive of al-Qaida and its activities. One of those relatives became his brother-in-law by virtue of marriage to his sister,…Al-Adahi accompanied his sister to Afghanistan so that she could be with her husband….The wedding celebration was held in Bin Laden’s compound and many of his associates attended.

“At that celebration, [Al-Adahi] was introduced to Bin Laden, with whom he had a very brief conversation. Several days later, [he] had a five-to-ten-minute conversation with Bin Laden. Thereafter, [he] stayed at an al-Qaida guesthouse for one nhight and attended the Al Farouq [Al-Qaeda] training camp for seven to ten days. He was expelled from Al Farouq for failure to obey the rules. This training represents the strongest basis that the government has for detaining Al-Adahi.”

But, the judge said at that point, those assertions “simply do not bring him within the ambit of the Executive’s power to detain.”

She then went on: “After his expulsion [from Al Farouq], Al-Adahi returned to the home of his sister and brother-in-law for several weeks and then traveled to other places in Afghanistan because he had no other obligations. Like many thousands of people, he sought to flee Afghanistan when it was bombed shortly after September 11, 2001.”

On the other side of the case, Kessler concluded, “There is no reliable evidence in the record that [he] was a trainer at Al Farouq, that he ever fought for al-Qaida and/or the Taliban, or that he affirmatively provided any actual support to al-Qaida and/or the Taliban. There is no reliable evidence in the record that [he] was a member of al-Qaida and/or the Taliban.”

Thus, she concluded, “while it is tempting to be swayed” by Al-Adahi’s admitted meetings with Bin Laden and his link by marriage to Bin Laden bodyguards who were “enthusiastic followers of Bin Laden,” that evidence does not constitute actual, reliable evidence that would justify the Government’s detention of this man.”

Kessler ordered government officials to use diplomatic measures to find a way to release him to another country. She indicated, as other judges have, that she could not order his outright release, because the D.C. Circuit Court — in a ruling facing an early challenge in the Supreme Court (Kiyemba v. Obama)– has denied that authority to federal judges handling Guantanamo cases.

Supreme Court facing the issue of Torture

Tracking new cases: Torture case returns
from SCOTUSblog by Lyle Denniston

NOTE: From time to time, the blog will examine significant new cases as they are filed at the Supreme Court. This post is one in that series. Some of these cases very likely will appear later in the blog’s Petitions to Watch feature when the Court is ready to consider them.

———————-

UPDATE: The case has been docketed as 09-227.

Lawyers for four Britons who formerly were held at Guantanamo Bay returned to the Supreme Court on Monday, seeking the first ruling by the Justices on claims of torture of terrorism suspects by U.S. agents. The new petition asked the Court to rule that the Constitution protects those held by the U.S. military or intelligence agencies from being tortured or abused, and to declare that a federal law protects them from discrimination based on their Muslim religion. They are challenging an April ruling by the D.C. Ciruit Court, rejecting for a second time their constitutional and legal challenges. The case is Rasul, et al., v. Myers, et al. , not yet assigned a docket number.

The Circuit Court, after once ruling that detainees had no constitutional rights, avoided any new ruling on the Britons’ constitutional claism after the case had been sent back to it by the Supreme Court last December. The Justices told the lower court to reconsider its prior decision in the wake of the Court’s 2008 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, establishing a constitutional right for Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their captivity.

Instead, the Circuit Court panel in April responded by throwing out the case this time based on a finding of qualified immunity for former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and ten senior military officers sued in the case. The panel said it was taking an option created by the Supreme Court in another case last January to bypass a constitutional ruling and instead focus on officials’ immunity claim.

Whatever rights detainees might have as a result of the Boumediene ruling, that ruling came four years after the Britons had been released from Guantanamo, the Circuit Court concluded. It also renewed its earkuer ruling that the Britons could not claim religious bias under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because they were not ”persons” within the Act’s meaning.

The new Circuit Court decision, the Britons claimed on Monday , was a “manifest refusal to abide by this Court’s mandate and give due effect to Boumediene on the constitutional issues raised in this case.” The Justices, they argued, must “affirm the Court’s authority and compel an inferior court to abide by its mandate.”

The petition, though, added that there were “even more compelling issues which demand this Court;s attention.” Those, it said, were “whether detainees imprisoned the United States at Guantanamo have a right to be free from abuse and humiliation in the practice of their religion, whether Guantanamo detainees have a constitutional right to be free from torture, and whether public officials who knowingly violate these rights can escape accountability for their conduct by raising the shield of qualified immunity when they cannot assert this defense in good faith.”

“Torture and religious humilation of Muslim detainees at Guantanmo stands as a uniquely shameful episode in our history,” the Britons said. “This petition enables the Court to remedy that stain on the moral authority of our nation and its laws, to overrule an obdurately insupportable exercise in statutory construction that effectively renders these [detainees], and other other detainees at Gujantnamo, non-persons, and to facilitate accountability for these terrible acts.”

The petition argued that the federal government had chosen the detention site at Guantanamo Bay “in a cynical attempt to avoid acocuntability for conduct that had long been held unconstitutional when it occureed in U.S. prisons. But Guantanamo is not a Hobbesian enclave where [officials] could violate clear prohibitions on their conduct imposed by statute and regulations and then point to a purported constitutional void as a basis for immunity.”

The government officials sued in the case will have an opportunity to respond before the Justices act on the new appeal. Previously, the Obama Administration had opposed the Britons’ lawsuit when the case was being considered anew by the Circuit Court following the case’s return from the Supreme Court.

By coincidence, the new torture case reached the Supreme Court on the same day that Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr., announced that he was ordering a preliminary inquiry “into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations.” He said it was too soon to say whether there would actually be any prosecutions resulting from the probe. His statement can be found here. It is unclear whether that investigation will cover claims of abuse at Guantanamo, as opposed to Central Intelligence Agency “black sites” in other countries.

Gender differences in the workplace. . .

He Said, She Said: Communicating between Genders at Work

By Beth Banks Cohn, Ph.D. and Roz Usheroff, co-authors of "Taking the Leap: Managing Your Career in Turbulent Times ... and Beyond"


If you think it's difficult to discern what your significant other is really trying to say to you, consider how complicated communication between genders gets when you throw office politics, power struggles, and work challenges into the mix.

At work, men and women use strategies in communicating with each other that the opposite sex may view negatively. Often, misunderstandings can be avoided when co-workers look beyond personalities and consider the different ways men and women communicate.

Let's look at a few examples from both sides.

Men's Behavior
Trash talk
Men use negative banter, joking, teasing and playful putdowns as a way to subtly keep themselves at the top of the power hierarchy. Such "trash talking" is a common component of male relating.

What women think: Making others feel small is decidedly not a female trait. Women tend to see putdowns as arrogant or hostile.

The middle ground: In general, trash talk is usually harmless, as long as both parties "play." When both parties engage in it, it can even be a way to bond around a problem, such as a trying work assignment or demanding sales quotas.

Prideful self-sufficiency
You've heard the jokes about men not asking for directions? In work settings, males sometimes ask few questions, fearing that doing so will communicate to others that they don't know something. Males tend to equate knowledge with power and don't want to diminish their image by showing they lack the necessary know-how.

What women think: Women see this behavior as childish and even arrogant. They also look at it as a giant waste of time, figuring it is more time-effective to ask a question, get the answer and move on.

The middle ground: Some workplace cultures discourage questions, and indeed make people feel self-conscious about asking too many. In meetings or other settings where everyone needs to be on the same page in order to develop the best strategy, both genders need to find ways to get and give clarification.

Not gving feedback
Because men don't solicit feedback, good or bad, they also don't give feedback in return. Males don't want to be criticized, feel that compliments make someone less effective, and think women who seek feedback are "needy" and "high maintenance."

What women think: Women think men don't value their contributions and are overly critical. They may even feel that men withhold positive feedback in order to avoid giving women promotions or good projects.

The middle ground: Constructive feedback should be built into the workplace culture. Both genders need to find a way to make it a tool for improving performance and productivity.

Women's behavior
Equality-minded
Women try to maintain an appearance of equality amongst everyone. They are concerned with the effect of the exchange on the other person and want to make sure everyone feels like a worthy contributor.

What men think: Men tend to see this as a sign that women lack confidence and competence as leaders. They feel it makes women look weak.

The middle ground: Females can wield an enormous amount of power by orchestrating collaboration and enlisting cooperation between many parties. Men can learn from this. Nevertheless, women in leadership positions need to maintain a clear boundary between their authority and that of others.

Outside-in negotiating
Females want to see the full picture and make sure everyone's on the same page with the same level of understanding before making a decision.

What men think: Since this is the exact opposite of what men typically do, men think this tactic means women don't have a clear position or aren't decisive enough.

The middle ground: In negotiations, it's imperative to know all the factors involved before making a decision. On the other hand, trying to make everyone happy is not how leaders make good decisions. A balanced blend of female thoroughness and male decisiveness is ideal.

Likely to downplay certainty
Women don't want to appear pushy or uncaring of others' positions or ideas.

What men think: Men think, therefore, that women aren't certain and need someone to take charge.

The middle ground: Moderate self-deprecation and humility are good qualities in leaders. But always deferring to others' opinions and perspectives will be perceived as a sign of weakness. Find a middle way.

When it comes to communicating between genders in the workplace, the cardinal rule is this: Don't judge. Instead, try to look carefully at your co-worker's behavior, consider that some of it may be gender based, and try to gain insight on how this behavior serves or does not serve his or her objectives. If you want to step in and give support, do it from a position of understanding.