Bipartisan Committee Denounces Illegal Spying Program

WASHINGTON - JULY 25 - Today a bipartisan coalition of political leaders, policy experts, and legal scholars condemned the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program as illegal, and called on Congress to complete its investigation of the program before considering any changes to the law governing electronic surveillance. The condemnation came in a statement issued by the Constitution Project's Liberty and Security Committee. Signers of the statement include: David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union; Walter Cronkite, former Managing Editor of CBS Evening News; Mickey Edwards, former member of Congress (R-OK) and Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee; Harold Koh, Dean of Yale Law School and former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress and former White House Chief of Staff; and William S. Sessions, former federal judge and Director of the FBI under Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton.

"The NSA's warrantless surveillance program has stood for too long as an affront to America's rule of law," said David Keene, a co-chair of the Constitution Project's Liberty and Security Committee. "The American people deserve to know why and to what extent the NSA has been tapping Americans' phones without a warrant."

In its "Statement on the National Security Agency's Domestic Surveillance Program," the Liberty and Security Committee asserted that the spying program "upends separate, balanced powers by thwarting the will of Congress and preventing any opportunity for judicial review." The statement was issued one week after the passage of a deadline for the White House and Department of Justice to comply with subpoenas issued by the Senate Judiciary Committee seeking production of documents about the NSA's domestic surveillance program. One day before the arrival of the deadline the White House sought and received an extension from the Committee. "Congress should be applauded for taking steps to uncover the truth about the spying program," said Sharon Bradford Franklin, senior counsel at the Constitution Project. "That national political and policy leaders from across the political spectrum have come together to denounce this illegal program speaks volumes. Congress must complete its investigation before considering any changes to the law governing electronic surveillance."

Senators challenge Gonzales' truthfulness at hearing

Reuters reported today that:

WASHINGTON - U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales drew fire at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday where lawmakers challenged his truthfulness and ability to lead his battered Justice Department.

"The attorney general's lost the confidence of the Congress and the American people," said Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat. He described the department as "shrouded in scandal," and told Gonzales: "I don't trust you."

"It looks to me ... as if the department is dysfunctional," added Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee's ranking Republican and a leading critic of Gonzales, particularly for his firing of nine federal prosecutors.

"What keeps you in the job, Mr. Attorney General?" asked Senator Herbert Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat.

"I have decided to stay and fix the problems," replied Gonzales, whose department has been wracked by allegations that politics played a role in hiring practices and the administration of justice.

Gonzales, with the support of President George W. Bush, has rejected calls to resign in recent months from Democrats as well as some fellow Republicans in Congress, many of whom again questioned Gonzales' credibility at Tuesday's hearing.

"We have every reason to believe that the Attorney General testified truthfully," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Yet Democrats have stepped up pressure on the attorney general and the administration to answer questions as they head toward a possible court fight over Bush's claim of executive privilege in denying lawmakers access to documents and witnesses.

Gonzales refused to answer when asked if the White House was on solid legal ground in contending Congress cannot force the Justice Department to pursue a possible congressional contempt citation against the administration or its current or former aides.

'I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION'

"Your question relates to an ongoing controversy which I am recused from," Gonzales told Leahy. "I can't -- I'm not going to answer that question."

Since shortly after taking control of Congress in January, Democrats have been investigating Gonzales' firing last year of nine of the 93 U.S. attorneys. Critics charge partisan politics were behind the dismissals. The White House denies it.

Specter urged the administration to consider appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the firings.

Gonzales was asked about testimony in May by a former aide, Monica Goodling. She said that although Gonzales had earlier testified he had not discussed the probe with colleagues, he had raised the topic with her shortly before she left the Justice Department.

"Which one of you is telling the truth?" Leahy asked.

"I did have that conversation with her in the context of trying to console and reassure an emotionally distraught woman," Gonzales said. "I tried to reassure her (that) as far as I knew no one had done anything intentionally wrong."

"My conversation with her was not to shape her testimony," he told dubious lawmakers.

Congress is also examining Gonzales' role in Bush's warrantless domestic spying program, which critics have denounced as illegal.

The complete story may be found here:
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/Senators_challenge_Gonzales_at_hearing.html?siteSect=143&sid=8051347&cKey=1185325651000

Questions linger about L.A. Cardinal Mahony

From the AP 2 hours ago:

Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony approved a record clergy abuse payout, opened the files of the Roman Catholic priests involved and looked into the cameras and apologized last week for the victims' treatment. And it still might not be enough to satisfy some.

To fund the archdiocese's share of the $660 million settlement, the cardinal will have to sell property, liquidate investments and cut spending, dismantling part of what he built in more than two decades as the city's archbishop.

Even so, critics question whether the cardinal should have done more to rein in predatory priests in the nation's largest archdiocese. Bishops answer only to the Vatican, which had to sign off on some funding of the settlement, but every church leader needs the trust of the parishioners.

"He acknowledged he made some mistakes, he apologized," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. "Now the people of Los Angeles are going to have to weigh the good that he's done over the last 22 years versus the bad things he did and decide whether they can continue to accept him as their bishop."

Last week's deal was made on the eve of a civil trial in which Mahony would have been grilled about why he left some abusive priests in churches without telling parents or police.

As part of the settlement, the archdiocese agreed to release the personnel files of accused clergymen, which could reveal any direct links between Mahony and the guilty priests he supervised. But each priest tied to the 508 Los Angeles cases can challenge his records' release — another potential obstacle to full disclosure.

Mahony, 71, has acknowledged the suffering of victims. He was among only a handful of bishops who revealed the names of suspected clergy so the public could be protected from them.

At the same time, his lawyers fought disclosure of priests' files to prosecutors all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. They also challenged California's one-year window that allowed abuse claims to be filed no matter how far back they dated. None of the maneuvers succeeded, but they contributed to delays in reaching a settlement, which took four years to negotiate.

Leon Panetta, a member of the original National Review Board, the lay watchdog panel bishops created to monitor their child protection reforms, said Mahony appeared to be "captured by his lawyers." Panetta recalled a board meeting with Mahony a few years ago where the cardinal was accompanied by his lawyers.

"There were more lawyers in the room than I'd ever seen," said Panetta, who served as chief of staff to President Clinton. "They were basically digging in, and as lawyers tend to do, basically saying, `We're not going to cooperate. We're going to fight this out, we're not going to admit to anything and we're going to exhaust the legal process to the fullest.'"

Mahony was sincerely concerned about victims, but went on to let his lawyers "drag it out," Panetta said. "I think that is the mistake the cardinal made. They played for time. In the end they arrived at a settlement, but I think it's done tremendous damage to his reputation and the archdiocese."

However, attorney Pamela Hayes, a New York litigator who served on the board with Panetta, said Mahony had a dual role as pastoral leader of the archdiocese and as its chief executive, with financial obligations that go beyond the victims.

"This should have happened sooner rather than later, but they were doing what most defendants do. They fought back," Hayes said. "It might not sound nice, but do you know any multibillion-dollar organization that is going to fork out millions of dollars to people who say they were molested without any proof?"

After a California judge approved the settlement Monday, Mahony received support from an unlikely source — a lead lawyer for the victims. Attorney Raymond Boucher praised Mahony for meeting with victims and for working to convince religious orders to sign onto the deal.

"We particularly appreciate the sensitivity and personal efforts of Cardinal Mahony in bringing important parts of this settlement together," Boucher said in a news release.

But some Catholic commentators, advocates for victims and editorial writers said the payout protected Mahony at the church's expense.

Phil Lawler, editor of the conservative Catholic World News, said Mahony should resign. Lawler called the cardinal's legal strategy "self-serving" and argued it was meant "to prevent the disclosure of embarrassing information."

The complete story may be found here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070721/ap_on_re_us/church_abuse_cardinal

L. A. Catholic Archdiocese to Pay $600 Million for Clergy Abuse

The AP reported minutes ago that:

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles will settle its clergy abuse cases for at least $600 million, by far the largest payout in the church's sexual abuse scandal, The Associated Press learned Saturday.

Attorneys for the archdiocese and the plaintiffs are expected to announce the deal Monday, the day the first of more than 500 clergy abuse cases was scheduled for jury selection, according to two people with knowledge of the agreement. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the settlement had not been made public.

The archdiocese and its insurers will pay between $600 million and $650 million to about 500 plaintiffs — an average of $1.2 million to $1.3 million per person. The settlement also calls for the release of confidential priest personnel files after review by a judge assigned to oversee the litigation, the sources said.

The settlements would push the total amount paid out by the U.S. church since 1950 to more than $2 billion, with about a quarter of that coming from the Los Angeles archdiocese.

It wasn't immediately clear how the payout would be split among the insurers, the archdiocese and several Roman Catholic religious orders. A judge must sign off on the agreement, and final details were being ironed out.

Lead plaintiffs' attorney Ray Boucher confirmed the sides were working on a deal but would not discuss specifics. He said that negotiations would continue through the weekend and that there were still many unresolved aspects.

Tod Tamberg, archdiocese spokesman, declined to comment on any settlement details.

"The archdiocese will be in court Monday morning," he said.

Steven Sanchez, 47, was one of the plaintiffs set to go to trial Monday. He was expected to testify in the trial involving the late Rev. Clinton Hagenbach.

Sanchez, a financial adviser, said the past few months have been especially difficult because he had to repeat his story of abuse for depositions with his attorneys and archdiocese attorneys in preparation for trial.

"We're 48 hours away from starting the trial, and I've been spending a lot of time getting emotionally prepared to take them on, but I'm glad," he said. "It's been a long five years."

A spokeswoman for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests said at a news conference outside the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels on Saturday that the group had not been apprised of any settlement, and that no such deal would stop anyone's suffering.

"No matter what happens, no resolution, guilty verdict or settlement magically takes away the pain of having been raped or molested by Catholic priests in this archdiocese," said Mary Grant, the group's regional director.

The settlement would be the largest ever by a Roman Catholic archdiocese since the clergy sexual abuse scandal erupted in Boston in 2002. The largest payout so far has been by the Diocese of Orange, Calif., in 2004, for $100 million.

Facing a flood of abuse claims, five dioceses — Tucson, Ariz.; Spokane, Wash.; Portland, Ore.; Davenport, Iowa, and San Diego — sought bankruptcy protection.

The Los Angeles archdiocese, its insurers and various Roman Catholic orders have paid more than $114 million to settle 86 claims so far.

The largest of those came in December, when the archdiocese reached a $60 million settlement with 45 people whose claims dated from before the mid-1950s and after 1987 — periods when it had little or no sexual abuse insurance. Several religious orders in California have also reached multimillion-dollar settlements in recent months, including the Carmelites, the Franciscans and the Jesuits.

However, more than 500 other lawsuits against the archdiocese had remained unresolved despite years of legal wrangling. Most of the outstanding lawsuits were generated by a 2002 state law that revoked for one year the statute of limitations for reporting sexual abuse.

Cardinal Roger Mahony recently told parishioners in an open letter that the archdiocese was selling its high-rise administrative building and considering the sale of about 50 other nonessential church properties to raise funds for a settlement.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge overseeing the cases recently ruled that Mahony could be called to testify in the second trial on schedule, and attorneys for plaintiffs wanted to call him in many more.

The same judge also cleared the way for four people to seek punitive damages — something that could have opened the church to tens of millions of dollars in payouts if the ruling had been expanded to other cases.S. church since 1950 to more than $2 billion, with about a quarter of that coming from the Los Angeles archdiocese.

It wasn't immediately clear how the payout would be split among the insurers, the archdiocese and several Roman Catholic religious orders. A judge must sign off on the agreement, and final details were being ironed out.

Lead plaintiffs' attorney Ray Boucher confirmed the sides were working on a deal but would not discuss specifics. He said that negotiations would continue through the weekend and that there were still many unresolved aspects.

Tod Tamberg, archdiocese spokesman, declined to comment on any settlement details.

"The archdiocese will be in court Monday morning," he said.

Steven Sanchez, 47, was one of the plaintiffs set to go to trial Monday. He was expected to testify in the trial involving the late Rev. Clinton Hagenbach.

Sanchez, a financial adviser, said the past few months have been especially difficult because he had to repeat his story of abuse for depositions with his attorneys and archdiocese attorneys in preparation for trial.

"We're 48 hours away from starting the trial, and I've been spending a lot of time getting emotionally prepared to take them on, but I'm glad," he said. "It's been a long five years."

A spokeswoman for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests said at a news conference outside the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels on Saturday that the group had not been apprised of any settlement, and that no such deal would stop anyone's suffering.

"No matter what happens, no resolution, guilty verdict or settlement magically takes away the pain of having been raped or molested by Catholic priests in this archdiocese," said Mary Grant, the group's regional director.

The settlement would be the largest ever by a Roman Catholic archdiocese since the clergy sexual abuse scandal erupted in Boston in 2002. The largest payout so far has been by the Diocese of Orange, Calif., in 2004, for $100 million.

Facing a flood of abuse claims, five dioceses — Tucson, Ariz.; Spokane, Wash.; Portland, Ore.; Davenport, Iowa, and San Diego — sought bankruptcy protection.

The Los Angeles archdiocese, its insurers and various Roman Catholic orders have paid more than $114 million to settle 86 claims so far.

The largest of those came in December, when the archdiocese reached a $60 million settlement with 45 people whose claims dated from before the mid-1950s and after 1987 — periods when it had little or no sexual abuse insurance. Several religious orders in California have also reached multimillion-dollar settlements in recent months, including the Carmelites, the Franciscans and the Jesuits.

However, more than 500 other lawsuits against the archdiocese had remained unresolved despite years of legal wrangling. Most of the outstanding lawsuits were generated by a 2002 state law that revoked for one year the statute of limitations for reporting sexual abuse.

Cardinal Roger Mahony recently told parishioners in an open letter that the archdiocese was selling its high-rise administrative building and considering the sale of about 50 other nonessential church properties to raise funds for a settlement.

The complete story may be found here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070715/ap_on_re_us/church_abuse

Pope Asserts Other Christian Denominations are Not True Churches

Unexpected Comment and Document are Sure to Cause Furor

The AP reported today that:

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.

On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.

Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.

In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II's ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been "erroneous or ambiguous" and had prompted confusion and doubt.

It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."

In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy's Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position.

"Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," the document said. The other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles.

The Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the document.

"I don't know what motivated it at this time," she said. "But it's important always to point out that there's the official position and there's the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics."

The document said Orthodox churches were indeed "churches" because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed "many elements of sanctification and of truth." But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope — a defect, or a "wound" that harmed them, it said.

"This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an 'internal constitutive principle' of the very existence of a particular church," the commentary said.

Despite the harsh tone of the document, it stresses that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue.

"However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive, it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith," the commentary said.

The document, signed by the congregation prefect, U.S. Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul — a major ecumenical feast day.

The complete story may be found here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_re_eu/pope_other_christians

Bush commutes Libby prison sentence

The AP reported today that:

WASHINGTON - President Bush spared former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak investigation Monday, delivering a political thunderbolt in the highly charged criminal case. Bush said the sentence was just too harsh.

Bush's move came just five hours after a federal appeals panel ruled that Libby could not delay his prison term. That meant Libby was likely to have to report soon, and it put new pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.

"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald disputed the president's assertion that the prison term was excessive. Libby was sentenced under the same laws as other criminals, Fitzgerald said. "It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals," the prosecutor said.

Libby's attorney, Theodore Wells, said in a statement that the Libby family was grateful for Bush's action and continued to believe in his innocence.

Bush's decision enraged Democrats and cheered conservatives — though some of the latter wished Bush had granted a full pardon.

"Libby's conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq war," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush's decision showed the president "condones criminal conduct."

Unlike a pardon, which would have wiped away Libby's criminal record, Bush's commutation voided only the prison term.

The president left intact a $250,000 fine and two years' probation for his conviction of lying and obstructing justice in a probe into the leak of a CIA operative's identity. The former operative, Valerie Plame, contends the White House was trying to discredit her husband, a critic of Bush's Iraq policy.

Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby."

Libby was convicted in March, the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair roiled the Reagan administration in the 1980s. Arms were secretly sold to Iran to gain freedom for American hostages, with the money funneled to anti-communist guerrillas in Nicaragua in spite of a congressional ban. Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, issued pardons for six former officials shortly before leaving office in 1992.

Testimony in the Libby case revealed the extraordinary steps that Bush and Cheney were willing to take to discredit a critic of the Iraq war.

Libby's supporters celebrated the president's decision.

"President Bush did the right thing today in commuting the prison term for Scooter Libby," said House Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri.

"That's fantastic. It's a great relief," said former Ambassador Richard Carlson, who helped raise millions for Libby's defense fund. "Scooter Libby did not deserve to go to prison and I'm glad the president had the courage to do this."

Already at record lows in the polls, Bush risked a political backlash with his decision. President Ford tumbled in the polls after his 1974 pardon of Richard M. Nixon, and the decision was a factor in Ford's loss in the 1976 presidential election.

White House officials said Bush knew he could take political heat and simply did what he thought was right. They would not say what advice Cheney might have given the president.

On the other hand, Bush's action could help Republican presidential candidates by letting them off the hook on the question of whether they would pardon Libby.

Bush said Cheney's former aide was not getting off free.

"The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged," Bush said. "His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting."

A spokeswoman for Cheney said simply, "The vice president supports the president's decision."

The White House said Bush came to his decision in the past week or two and made it final Monday because of the ruling of the appeals panel, which meant Libby would be going to prison soon.

The president's announcement came just as prison seemed likely for Libby. He recently lost an appeals court fight that was his best chance to put the sentence on hold, and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons had already designated him inmate No. 28301-016.

Bush's statement made no mention of the term "pardon," and he made clear that he was not willing to wipe away all penalties for Libby.

The president noted Libby supporters' argument that the punishment did not fit the crime for a "first-time offender with years of exceptional public service."

Yet, he added: "Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable."

Bush then stripped away the prison time.

The complete story may be found here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070703/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial