Senate Votes for Expansion of Spy Powers

By Eric Lichtblau
The New York Times
Wednesday 13 February 2008

Washington - After more than a year of wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory on Tuesday by voting to broaden the government's spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush's program of eavesdropping without warrants.
One by one, the Senate rejected amendments that would have imposed greater civil liberties checks on the government's surveillance powers. Finally, the Senate voted 68 to 29 to approve legislation that the White House had been pushing for months. Mr. Bush hailed the vote and urged the House to move quickly in following the Senate's lead.
The outcome in the Senate amounted, in effect, to a broader proxy vote in support of Mr. Bush's wiretapping program. The wide-ranging debate before the final vote presaged discussion that will play out this year in the presidential and Congressional elections on other issues testing the president's wartime authority, including secret detentions, torture and Iraq war financing.
Republicans hailed the reworking of the surveillance law as essential to protecting national security, but some Democrats and many liberal advocacy groups saw the outcome as another example of the Democrats' fears of being branded weak on terrorism.
"Some people around here get cold feet when threatened by the administration," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the Judiciary Committee and who had unsuccessfully pushed a much more restrictive set of surveillance measures.
Among the presidential contenders, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, voted in favor of the final measure, while the two Democrats, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, did not vote. Mr. Obama did oppose immunity on a key earlier motion to end debate. Mrs. Clinton, campaigning in Texas, issued a statement saying she would have voted to oppose the final measure.
The measure extends, for at least six years, many of the broad new surveillance powers that Congress hastily approved last August just before its summer recess. Intelligence officials said court rulings had left dangerous gaps in their ability to intercept terrorist communications.
The bill, which had the strong backing of the White House, allows the government to eavesdrop on large bundles of foreign-based communications on its own authority so long as Americans are not the targets. A secret intelligence court, which traditionally has issued individual warrants before wiretapping began, would review the procedures set up by the executive branch only after the fact to determine whether there were abuses involving Americans.
"This is a dramatic restructuring" of surveillance law, said Michael Sussmann, a former Justice Department intelligence lawyer who represents several telecommunication companies. "And the thing that's so dramatic about this is that you've removed the court review. There may be some checks after the fact, but the administration is picking the targets."
The Senate plan also adds one provision considered critical by the White House: shielding phone companies from any legal liability for their roles in the eavesdropping program approved by Mr. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks. The program allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without warrants on the international communications of Americans suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda.
AT&T and other major phone companies are facing some 40 lawsuits from customers who claim their actions were illegal. The Bush administration maintains that if the suits are allowed to continue in court, they could bankrupt the companies and discourage them from cooperating in future intelligence operations.
The House approved a surveillance bill in November that intentionally left out immunity for the phone companies, and leaders from the two chambers will now have to find a way to work out significant differences between their two bills.
Democratic opponents, led by Senators Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, argued that the plan effectively rewarded phone companies by providing them with legal insulation for actions that violated longstanding law and their own privacy obligations to their customers. But immunity supporters said the phone carriers acted out of patriotism after the Sept. 11 attacks in complying with what they believed in good faith was a legally binding order from the president.
"This, I believe, is the right way to go for the security of the nation," said Senator John D. Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the intelligence committee. His support for the plan, after intense negotiations with the White House and his Republican colleagues, was considered critical to its passage but drew criticism from civil liberties groups because of $42,000 in contributions that Mr. Rockefeller received last year from AT&T and Verizon executives.
Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican on the intelligence panel, said the bill struck the right balance between protecting the rights of Americans and protecting the country "from terrorism and other foreign threats."
Democratic opponents, who six months ago vowed to undo the results of the August surveillance vote, said they were deeply disappointed by the defection of 19 Democrats who backed the bill.
Mr. Dodd, who spoke on the floor for more than 20 hours in recent weeks in an effort to stall the bill, said future generations would view the vote as a test of whether the country heeds "the rule of law or the rule of men."
But with Democrats splintered, Mr. Dodd acknowledged that the national security argument had won the day. "Unfortunately, those who are advocating this notion that you have to give up liberties to be more secure are apparently prevailing," he said. "They're convincing people that we're at risk either politically, or at risk as a nation."
There was a measure of frustration in the voice of Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, as he told reporters during a break in the daylong debate, "Holding all the Democrats together on this, we've learned a long time ago, is not something that's doable."
Senate Republicans predict that they will be able to persuade the House to include immunity in the final bill, especially now that the White House has agreed to give House lawmakers access to internal documents on the wiretapping program. But House Democrats vowed Tuesday to continue opposing immunity.
Congress faces a Saturday deadline for extending the current law, but Democrats want to extend the deadline for two weeks to allow more time for talks. The White House has said it opposes a further extension.
Meanwhile, Senate Democrats hope to put some pressure on Republicans on Wednesday over another security-related issue by bringing up an intelligence measure that would apply Army field manual prohibitions against torture to civilian agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency.
Republicans plan to try to eliminate that provision, a vote that Democrats say will force Republicans to declare whether they condone torture. Democrats also say it could show the gap between Mr. McCain, who has opposed torture, and the administration on the issue.
"We know how we would feel if a member of the armed services captured by the enemy were, for example, waterboarded," Mr. Reid said. "So I think that we're headed in the right direction, and I hope that we'll get Republican support on this."
--------
Carl Hulse contributed reporting from Washington.

Gang-Rape Victim Says She and Others Silenced by Halliburton

By Maddy Sauer
ABC News
Tuesday 12 February 2008

Jones says they are forced to argue their sexual assault cases in secretive arbitration.
A Houston, Texas woman, who says she was gang-raped by her co-workers at a Halliburton/KBR camp in Baghdad, says 38 women have come forward through her foundation to report their own tragic stories to her, but that many cannot speak publicly due to arbitration agreements in their employment contracts.
Jamie Leigh Jones is testifying on Capitol Hill this afternoon. She says she and other women are being forced to argue their cases of sexual harassment, assault and rape before secretive arbitration panels rather than in open court before a judge and jury.
Jones returned from Iraq following her rape in 2005. She was the subject of an exclusive ABC News report in December which led to congressional hearings.
After months of waiting for criminal charges to be filed, Jones decided to file suit against Halliburton and KBR.
KBR has moved for Jones' claim to be heard in private arbitration, instead of a public courtroom, as provided under the terms of her original employment contract.
Halliburton, which has since divested itself of KBR, says it is improperly named in the suit and referred calls to KBR.
In arbitration, there is no public record or transcript of the proceedings, meaning that Jones' claims would not be heard before a judge and jury. Rather, a private arbitrator hired by the corporation would decide Jones' case.
In fact, Tracy Barker, who says she was sexually harassed and sexually assaulted while working for Halliburton/KBR in Iraq, also recently tried to file suit against the companies. She was forced into arbitration last month.
Jones will tell Congress today that she was not aware that when she signed her employment contract, she was effectively signing away her right to bring a lawsuit.
"When I decided to pursue a civil suit, I was informed that within my 13-page employment contract that had an additional five pages attached, [there was] included an arbitration clause," Jones says in her prepared statement to the committee.
Jones didn't know much about arbitration when she signed the contract and was shocked to learn what she had done.
"I learned that I had signed away my right to a trial by jury," she said.
Congressman Ted Poe, R-Texas, who has been involved in the Jones case since the beginning, will also appear at today's hearing. He disagrees with the arbitration solution.
"Air things out in a public forum of a courtroom," said Rep. Poe in an earlier interview with ABC News. "That's why we have courts in the United States."
More than two years since her attack, no criminal charges have been brought in the matter, and legal experts say that it is highly unlikely that Jones' alleged assailants will ever face a judge and jury.
Jones says that the arbitration clauses are letting her rapists and other criminals off the legal hook.
"The forced arbitration clause in Army contractor's contracts prove to protect the criminals of violent crimes, rather than enforce they be held accountable by a judge and jury," Jones says in her remarks. "My goal is to ensure all American civilians who become victims of violent crimes while abroad have the right to justice before a judge and jury."
KBR said in a statement to ABCNews.com, "Arbitration is the last step of KBR's Dispute Resolution Program. The vast majority of employment disputes at KBR, approximately 96 percent, are resolved through this program without resort to arbitration. KBR remains committed to ensuring the arbitration process is fair to all employees."
Since the attacks, Jones has started a nonprofit foundation called the Jamie Leigh Foundation, which is dedicated to helping victims who were raped or sexually assaulted overseas while working for government contractors or other corporations.
"I want other women to know that it's not their fault," said Jones. "They can go against corporations that have treated them this way." Jones said that any proceeds from the civil suit will go to her foundation.
"There needs to be a voice out there that really pushed for change," she said. "I'd like to be that voice."
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:

No. 08-028 February 12, 2008
NRC PURSUES ENHANCEMENTS OF ITS ALLEGATION AND INSPECTION
ACTIVITIES FOLLOWING SECURITY OFFICER ISSUES
AT PEACH BOTTOM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
Printable Version

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein said today agency management has directed the staff to pursue recommended enhancements to its allegation and inspection programs based on a lessons-learned review that followed an agency investigation into reports of inattentive security officers at the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania.
“The NRC has no tolerance for sleeping or inattentive security officers,” Klein said. “When these allegations arose, we investigated but did not reach the right outcome. Upon learning the full extent of the problem, we looked at our own system for examining these situations, found areas for improvement and are making changes. This is an ongoing process, and there may be more changes in the future.”

He said the agency’s Executive Director for Operations Luis Reyes has directed a group of senior agency officials to evaluate the recommendations of the lessons-learned review group created in the wake of the Peach Bottom case, and propose appropriate follow-up actions. The officials were given a deadline of two weeks to report back on how changes were being implemented. Senior agency officials told by Reyes to find the most appropriate manner to implement recommendations were Deputy EDO Martin Virgilio, Deputy EDO Bruce Mallett, Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office Director Jim Dyer, and Office of Enforcement Director Cynthia Carpenter.
The lessons-learned review was conducted by a team from the NRC’s Region I. The review team developed recommendations for improvements to allegation procedures, practices and policies, and to the inspection program aimed specifically at enhancing the NRC’s ability to identify conditions of inattentiveness. The recommendations are under management review and focus on:
· Enhancing NRC processes for forwarding allegations to a licensee, evaluating licensee responses and documenting NRC evaluation of the licensee's response;
· Reviewing NRC procedures for communications and interactions with concerned individuals; and
· Improving NRC inspection processes for detecting inattentiveness and inspector awareness of allegations.
The NRC had launched a range of inspections and investigations after video recordings of inattentive security officers in a “ready room” at the plant came to light in September. These actions were taken to determine the extent of the problem, and to ensure prompt and effective corrective action was taken by the plant owner, Exelon, and its security contractor, Wackenhut. The inspections confirmed there had been several occasions on which security officers were inattentive. However, the NRC also determined the plant’s security program was not significantly degraded as a result. Earlier in the year there had been an allegation that guards were sleeping in guard towers at Peach Bottom. Based on the information provided at the time, the NRC was unable to substantiate that information.
Immediately after seeing the video, the NRC reminded all operators of nuclear reactors of the importance of maintaining an alert guard force, conducted surprise overnight spot checks and, at Peach Bottom, conducted additional security inspections. The agency noted that nuclear plant security is based on layers of defensive capabilities and security was not compromised at Peach Bottom, or other plants where sleeping or inattentive guards have occasionally been found.
The EDO’s memorandum and the full report is available through the NRC’s ADAMS electronic document database by entering ML080420580 on this Web page: http://adamswebsear ch.nrc.gov/ dologin.htm.

NRC news releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc. gov/public- involve/listserv er.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site.

By Mary Beth Sheridan
Friday, February 15, 2008

A U.S. appeals court ordered a federal merit board yesterday to consider whether former Park Police chief Teresa C. Chambers was unfairly targeted as a whistleblower when she was fired in 2004.
Chambers was ousted after telling The Washington Post that her police force was strained by providing stepped-up protection for national monuments after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, in addition to its work patrolling parks and highways.
A federal civil service merit board upheld her removal in 2006. Chambers then took her case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In its decision yesterday, the court upheld the merit board's findings of several charges of misconduct against Chambers. It also said that removing her from her job was "a reasonable penalty" for such actions as failing to follow the chain of command.
But it also ruled that the merit board had erred in deciding that the Whistleblower Protection Act didn't apply to her case and sent it back for reconsideration. The appeals court said that the merit board must consider a broader standard, reviewing the public safety issues Chambers raised with the media as well as her disagreements with Park Police budget policy. Chambers contends she was protected as a whistle-blower for flagging dangers.
"While Chambers certainly expressed a disagreement with a policy decision, she also potentially disclosed a danger to public safety that may have resulted from that decision," the decision said.
Chambers said she was heartened by the decision, although it wasn't a reversal of the Merit Systems Protection Board's ruling.
"I think it's critical for all of us that our federal employees can have some measure of protection when they speak out about issues that affect our safety," she said.
A National Park Service spokesman, Dave Barna, declined to comment, saying the matter involved a personnel issue in litigation.
Chambers, the first woman to head the Park Police, led the force from February 2002 until she was suspended in December 2003 and subsequently fired. She recently became police chief in Riverdale Park in Prince George's County.
A recent report by the Interior Department's inspector general said the Park Police is still plagued by some of the problems Chambers highlighted.
Staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/14/AR2008021403431_pf.html

February 12, 2008
Army Missile Program Dependent on Flawed Contractor Plan

Requirements Shortfalls Could Result in Weapon "Of Little Value"

For Immediate Release
Contact: Nick Schwellenbach, (202) 347-1122

For several years, the Army ceded its oversight to a contractor resulting in a situation where the Army lacked any means of ensuring that taxpayer money is well-spent and that weapons met requirements. By relying on the contractor's plan instead of developing its own, the Army lacked ways to gauge the performance of the Raytheon Company which led to a missile program that is not cost-effective, according to a recent Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG) December 2007 "For Official Use Only" audit obtained by POGO through the Freedom of Information Act.

The Army's $623 million Surface-Launched Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (SLAMRAAM) is a weapons system meant to protect U.S. ground forces from attacks from the air from unmanned aerial vehicles, cruise missiles, helicopters and planes.

The DoD IG found that the Army needs to "rebaseline"—in other words, change the goals—of the contract due to "contractor technical difficulties" and "increased contract costs," stemming in large part from the Army's mismanagement of the program and its dependence on the contractor's inadequate plan.

Raytheon's systems engineering management plan lacked criteria for the Army to review and manage progress on technical, cost and schedule goals, making it difficult to define success in meeting program requirements—a violation of DoD policy dated February 2004. In July 2007, the Army presented its own new draft plan in response the DoD IG's probe. However, that draft also contains many of the same deficiencies as Raytheon's, according to the audit.

The Army defended its delayed action since a key acquisition decision on SLAMRAAM preceded the February 2004 DoD policy by several months. The DoD IG held that the DoD policy "clearly explained the benefits" of developing an adequate plan early on which would have helped the Army "more effectively manage the systems engineering process."

The audit also states that even if "SLAMRAAM could fully meet all key performance parameters" that are currently spelled out, it could "still be of little value, if it cannot meet system effectiveness requirements." Further details of the point were redacted.

Furthermore, an additional DoD oversight agency, the Defense Contract Management Agency, failed to hew to its own instructions and guidelines.

"As is often the case, the problem is not with the rules, but that so few people follow them. The all-too-predictable result is contractor failure," said Nick Schwellenbach, national security investigator at the Project On Government Oversight.

For example, Boeing-Huntsville's subcontractor work on the SLAMRAAM control system increased by 67% from an original $18.9 million estimate to $31.5 million. Formal reporting from the DCMA office with oversight over Boeing-Huntsville to the DCMA office with responsibility for SLAMRAAM was non-existent and the informal reporting was missing critical information—such as cost and schedule analysis. The DoD IG suggested that this had a role in the cost increase of Boeing's work, stating that it believes that "formalized reporting…would have given the project manager more meaningful information on the subcontractors' progress towards satisfying SLAMRAAM cost, schedule, and performance requirements."

The final problem with the SLAMRAAM detailed by the DoD IG was inadequate guidance for assuring the security of information technology systems. Numerous problems "places the information contained in the SLAMRAAM system at greater risk of loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to or modification of the information contained in the system," the audit states.
###

Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight is an independent nonprofit whichinvestigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct n order to achieve a more accountable federal government.