news/notes2009.04.23a

[Biography of the Day] from [Britannica]

William Shakespeare
William Shakespeare, the poet, dramatist, and actor who is regarded as the national poet of England and is perhaps the most famous dramatist of all time, died this day in 1616 in his native town of Stratford-upon-Avon.

[On This Day] from [Britannica]

1993: Voting for Eritrea's independence
On this day in 1993, after a long history of foreign rule and decades of war, the small East African country of Eritrea began three days of voting on a referendum to make official its independence from Ethiopia.

news/notes2009.04.23b

[TODAY'S TOP STORIES] from [The Japan Times]

[BUSINESS NEWS]

Thursday, April 23, 2009
Focus on fiscal health, IMF tells Japan
6% GDP fall forecast; stimuli leave deficit in lurch
（ＩＭＦ見通し：日本のＧＤＰマイナス６％超；経済対策窮地に）

WASHINGTON (Kyodo) The International Monetary Fund urged Japan Wednesday to focus on its fiscal health, as fiscal stimulus steps expand the nation's deficit to an increasingly precarious level.

In its biannual World Economic Outlook report, the Washington-based lender also said the U.S. economy — the epicenter of the global financial crisis — will probably start recovering by the middle of 2010, if appropriate policy responses remain in place.

"In Japan, the government announced a substantial new stimulus package in early April, which should support activity in 2009 and 2010," it said, noting that this and past stimulus measures have almost exhausted Tokyo's room for additional stimulus steps.

"Attention should shift now to putting in place an ambitious medium-term plan to secure fiscal sustainability," it said, alluding to the need for a hike in the 5 percent consumption tax.

The IMF trimmed Japan's growth projection in terms of real gross domestic product to minus 6.2 percent for 2009, down 0.4 percentage point from its prior forecast released in mid-March, and marking the worst projection among major industrialized nations.

"In Japan, the downturn is exceptionally severe, and is being driven largely by trade, which has been hit hard because of the economy's heavy reliance on manufacturing exports, and by spillovers to domestic investment," it said.

"The yen's strength and tighter credit conditions more generally have added to the problems of the export sector. Mild deflation is expected to persist at least through 2010."

Japan's future monetary policy will be a challenge in light of the current rock-bottom interest rates, the IMF said, questioning if Tokyo can "implement further easing by expanding and broadening the range of instruments that support credit to address tightening financial conditions."

2010 growth is forecast to recover to 0.5 percent, against a previously forecast decline of 0.2 percent, factoring in the effects of the stimulus packages, including one adopted earlier this month with 15.4 trillion in actual spending.

As for the U.S., whose subprime mortgage meltdown triggered the global crisis, the institution projected its growth to contract 2.8 percent in 2009 and to recover to zero percent in 2010, both down 0.2 point.

"The biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression has pushed the United States into a severe recession," it said. "Progress toward normalization of financial conditions has been much slower than envisaged a few months ago."

But the IMF said that contingent on the current fiscal and monetary policy responses continuing, "the economy is projected to start recovering by the middle of 2010."

It also cited the need to restore the health of the core U.S. financial institutions, stimulate private demand, lower the downside risk of asset price overshooting and reduce uncertainty facing households, firms and financial markets.

"Crucially, policies must address the problems at the core of the financial system: the growing burden of problem assets and uncertainty about banks' solvency," the IMF said.

"Balance sheets need to be restored, both by removing bad assets and by injecting new capital in a transparent manner, so as to convince markets of these institutions' return to solvency," it said.

In other parts of the report, the IMF estimated its global economic forecasts at minus 1.3 percent for 2009 and plus 1.9 percent for 2010. They compare with the earlier outlooks of a fall of 0.5 percent to 1.0 percent for 2009 and an expansion of 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent for 2010.


[BUSINESS NEWS]

Thursday, April 23, 2009
¥725 billion trade deficit first red ink in 28 years
（７２５６億円：’０８度の貿易収支２８年ぶり赤字）

(Kyodo News) Japan's trade balance plunged into a deficit of 725.32 billion in the year through March, the first red ink for a fiscal year in 28 years, hurt by earlier rises in commodity prices and slower exports to the United States and other economies, the Finance Ministry said Wednesday.

Exports dropped a record 16.4 percent in fiscal 2008 from the previous year to 71.14 trillion, the first decline in seven years, the ministry said in a preliminary report. Imports fell 4.1 percent to 71.87 trillion, also the first fall in seven years.

It was the first deficit for a business year since fiscal 1980, when Japan suffered from soaring crude oil prices after the second oil crisis. Analysts point to the difficulty the economy faces in attempting to export its way out of a recession.

The latest result came as sharp hikes in oil and other commodity prices in the first half of fiscal 2008 boosted the value of imports, while the global economic downturn in the second half increasingly hurt exports to such destinations as the United States, the European Union and China.

Exports shrank significantly in cars destined for the United States and Europe as well as in semiconductors and other electronics products exported to other parts of Asia.

Imports of coal and liquefied natural gas from the Asia-Pacific region in particular grew. Crude oil imports were down 0.4 percent during the year as average oil prices rose 18.8 percent to $92.60 per barrel.

"The Japanese people, lawmakers and government must take the results seriously," Finance Minister Kaoru Yosano said, adding it is necessary to "check whether Japan-made products and services are losing their international competitive edge."

Masamichi Adachi, senior economist at JPMorgan Securities Japan Co., said the data added to pressure on the government to address a "challenging" issue.

Adachi suggested the country's export-dependent economy is no longer working. "It will be very important how (the government) works out measures to stimulate domestic demand" amid the recession, he said.

Japan's trade surplus with the United States fell 43 percent, the sharpest fall on record, to 4.71 trillion, down for the second straight year.

Exports to the world's largest economy declined a record 27.2 percent to 12.09 trillion. Imports from the United States fell 11.5 percent to 7.38 trillion.

Japan's trade surplus with the European Union decreased for the first time in seven years, down 39.7 percent — also the steepest decline ever — to 2.96 trillion .

Exports to the 27-nation bloc fell 23 percent to 9.71 trillion and imports from the region tumbled 12.3 percent to 6.74 trillion .

Japan's surplus with the rest of Asia fell 34.7 percent, the first loss in three years, to 6.05 trillion, with exports down 13.4 percent to 35.57 trillion and imports down 7.3 percent to 29.52 trillion.

With China, excluding Hong Kong and Macau, Japan's trade deficit expanded 13 percent, the first increase in three years, to 2.19 trillion. Exports to China declined 9.8 percent to 11.76 trillion and imports were down 6.9 percent to 13.95 trillion.


[NATIONAL NEWS]

Thursday, April 23, 2009
Random sumo drug tests held
（日本相撲協会：抜き打ち薬物検査）
JSA seeks to improve sport's tarnished image

(Kyodo News) The Japan Sumo Association carried out its first random drug tests on wrestlers Wednesday, following a series of marijuana busts that have tarnished the ancient national sport's image.

Urine tests were conducted on wrestlers belonging to several stables, including the Musashigawa stable. Mongolian yokozuna Asashoryu of the Takasago stable was also tested.

The tests were undertaken by Mitsubishi Chemical Medience Corp., Japan's only institution certified by world antidoping agency WADA. The results will be disclosed at a later date.

JSA chief Musashigawa recently visited education minister Ryu Shionoya to apologize for the recent spate of drug scandals and promised to aggressively implement random urine tests to curb drug use.

New antidoping rules were set by the JSA in late February so that all of the association's members could be tested without warning.

At the end of January, second-division wrestler Wakakirin, 25, was arrested on suspicion of possessing marijuana, becoming the first Japanese wrestler to be arrested in a pot case and the latest grappler to be thrown out of the sumo world. His arrest came after three Russians were dismissed over cannabis charges.

Separately on Wednesday, the Kawasaki branch of the Yokohama District Court sentenced Wakakirin, whose real name is Shinichi Suzuki, to 10 months in prison, suspended for three years.

Suzuki was found in possession of marijuana on Jan. 30 at an office of a CD sales company in the Roppongi district of Minato Ward, Tokyo.

When his trial opened, Suzuki pleaded guilty, saying he obtained the marijuana while relaxing after the year's first tournament in January.

news/notes2009.04.23c

[Today's News] from [The Guardian]

Gordon Brown: 50p rate is not taxation for its own sake
PM says new top rate for highest earners is 'tax for a purpose' as Alistair Darling defends 'ludicrously optimistic' budget forecasts

Deborah Summers, politics editor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 April 2009 10.42 BST
Article history

Alistair Darling today defended his controversial budget predictions on economic growth and spending, as Gordon Brown denied the new 50p top rate of tax would sound the death knell for New Labour.

The prime minister insisted the party remained committed to aspiration and opportunity for all, after the chancellor was accused of abandoning a key manifesto pledge when he announced yesterday a new top rate on income tax for those earning more than £150,000 a year.

Critics said it marked a return to the old Labour politics of class war, but at a Prince's Trust event in London the prime minister said in the midst of a global downturn it was right that the better off should contribute more.

"The point that I think we have got to accept is if we are going to give people opportunities they need for the future, then there has got to be a contribution by those who have the most and who have gained the most over the last few years," he said.

"This is not taxation for its own sake, it is tax for a purpose. This is Britain fighting back against the international recession, this is Britain taking bold action for recovery."

He said that he remained committed to the values which defined New Labour in the 1990s.

"What we are about is aspiration, we are about helping people get on, we are about a giving people new chances, we are about helping people make the most of their potential. New Labour, that's what we're about," he said.

Earlier, Darling was forced to deny his budget predictions were "ludicrously optimistic", insisting it was impossible to be certain about what would happen in four years time.

The chancellor spoke out after opposition parties described his growth forecasts – that the UK economy would return to growth by the end of this year and expand by 1.25% next year and 3.5% by 2011 – as "preposterous".

This morning Darling told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "At a time like this when the economy has had a shock to the system you have got to take action ... you can't carry on as if nothing has happened.

"There is a great deal of uncertainty [but] I think our economy will begin to grow."

Pressed on how a future government would fill a "black hole" in the public finances by 2013, Darling added: "To set out a budget for the next five years would not have been sensible.

"I set out a budget that I think is right for next year but if you look ahead you have to see how quickly the economy recovers.

"At this stage is very difficult to be absolutely certain about what will happen, for example, on tax; if the economy does well that will help us.

"What I tried to do yesterday is set out a sensible path, that is sustainable.

"We need to face up to the fact that we do have a lot of uncertainty out there. To try to write a budget for 2013 would be just plain daft. We have got to live within our means and ensure our finances are sustainable for the long term.

However, the chancellor admitted public spending would need to be reined in.

"I don't make any bones about the fact public spending does need to be rigorously examined," he said. "We do need to be rather more efficient."

He said the planned £5bn of efficiency savings could be found by cutting out "obvious things" which had been identified across departments.

George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, accused the government of putting off the need for public spending restraint.

He said: "A lot of the decisions taken yesterday were not real decisions; they were decisions to push it off until after the election.

"It was a kind of a 'mañana, mañana' approach and I don't think Britain can afford that these days."

And he warned the proposed new 50p income tax band for those earning more than £150,000 would not solve the country's problems.

"He tried to persuade people that he could solve all the problems that have mounted up over this decade of debt with a new 50% tax rate on people earning over £150,000 and I think the country has seen through that.

"They know there are serious problems and they know there are not serious answers from this government."

But Osborne admitted he could not guarantee the Conservatives would drop the new 50p top rate of tax if they won power.

"My priority will be trying to avoid the tax rise that comes in on anyone earning over £20,000. Not £150,000, £20,000.

"That's Labour's national insurance tax rise. A tax on jobs in a recovery," he said.

news/notes2009.04.23d

[Today's Paper] from [Los Angeles Times]

Interrogation tactics got the OK early on
A Senate report says Bush administration officials signed off on CIA methods without the input of key agencies.

By Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes
April 23, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- Senior Bush administration officials signed off on the CIA's use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation measures in July 2002 after a series of secret meetings that apparently excluded the State and Defense departments, according to information released Wednesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The Senate report indicated that then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft and other officials gave the CIA's interrogation plan political backing even before the methods had been approved by the Justice Department.

The document also revealed the existence of a series of Justice Department memos written in 2006 and 2007 that in some cases undermined congressional efforts to rein in the CIA's interrogation authorities -- memos that were excluded from the batch released by the Obama administration last week.

The Senate document represents the most complete chronology to date of the Bush administration's embrace of simulated drowning and other interrogation methods now widely denounced as torture.

In listing the senior Bush administration officials intimately involved in the early deliberations on CIA interrogations, the report underscored how any effort to hold architects of the program accountable was likely to extend beyond Justice Department legal advisors and into the highest reaches of the government.

It also raised questions about whether the Bush administration sought to keep details of the CIA program away from high-level officials -- particularly former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell -- who were perceived as potential opponents of the use of harsh interrogation techniques.

The Senate report is a summary of documents that the committee obtained from the CIA. Its declassification is likely to add momentum to calls for an independent inquiry and put pressure on President Obama to release even more previously classified records.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee who had pushed for the panel's report to be declassified, said the document demonstrated how deeply involved the Bush White House was in designing the interrogation program.

"The records of the CIA demonstrate that the lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel did not operate in a vacuum," Rockefeller said in a statement. That office is the Justice Department entity that issued many of the key opinions endorsing the CIA's techniques. "The then-vice president and the national security advisor are at the center of these discussions."

While the Senate report indicated then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was not involved in the earliest discussions, other records from the Bush administration suggest he was.

The Senate report traced those who participated in a series of high-level meetings beginning in mid-May 2002, the first time the CIA proposed the use of waterboarding to White House principals.

It identified Rice as the official "who advised that the CIA could proceed with its interrogation of Abu Zubaydah" -- the first suspected high-level Al Qaeda operative captured by the agency and the first to be subjected to waterboarding and other harsh methods. That message was sent on July 17, 2002, according to the document, pinpointing for the first time the date that the Bush administration formally backed the CIA's aggressive plan.

The report noted that Rice's endorsement, conveyed to then-CIA Director George J. Tenet, was "subject to a determination of legality by the OLC." That legal sign-off came one week later, when the CIA was verbally informed that Ashcroft and the Office of Legal Counsel had concluded the agency's proposed techniques -- including waterboarding -- were lawful.

One former Bush administration official familiar with the interrogation discussions said in an interview that the CIA program was presented as the only way to prevent further terrorist attacks on the United States. Both the intelligence director and top Justice Department officials recommended the White House approve the program, said the official, who spoke about the secret meetings on condition of anonymity.

"The program was developed by the CIA, and the director of central intelligence -- who was the president's primary foreign intelligence advisor -- recommended the program to the White House as necessary, effective and [one] for which there was no alternative," the official said.

The verbal assurances from members of President Bush's National Security Council were backed up the following month in a lengthy memo from the Office of Legal Counsel, one of the documents that Obama released last week.

It wasn't until September 2003 that the CIA briefed Powell and Rumsfeld on the interrogation program, the Senate report said. Legal experts said the delay might have been because neither the State nor Defense departments was involved in the program, which was among the most secret in CIA history.

But other experts and former U.S. intelligence officials said that those exclusions were unusual and that the Bush administration may have been particularly disinclined to disclose details to Powell -- even though as secretary of State he was in charge of U.S. diplomatic relations with countries including Thailand and Romania, identified in news reports as locations for secret CIA detention facilities.

"DOD and State seem to have been out of the loop until Sept. 16, 2003," said John Radsan, a law professor who worked in the CIA general counsel's office between 2002 and 2004. "That is a testament to the secrecy of the program. Did they not trust Rumsfeld and Powell?"

Other reports have said that at least the Pentagon was aware of the CIA program from the beginning.

In written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rice said that Rumsfeld had participated in a 2002 review of the CIA program. In addition, a report released this week by the Armed Services Committee detailed the help the military provided the CIA in developing the techniques.

The CIA used waterboarding on suspected terrorists in 2002 and 2003. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, the CIA employed the interrogation technique on three presumed Al Qaeda members: Abu Zubaydah, Rahim Nashiri and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Memos released last week showed that Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times and Mohammed, the self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind, 183 times.

Despite high-level backing at the outset, the CIA repeatedly sought new assurances that the its activities were lawful and supported by senior officials in the Bush administration. In July 2003, Tenet took part in a meeting on the matter with then-Vice President Dick Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft and other top officials.

"According to CIA records, at the conclusion of that meeting, the principals reaffirmed that the CIA program was lawful and reflected administration policy," the Senate report said.

But it appears from the Senate report that the CIA may have began to have second thoughts.

In May 2004, the agency's inspector general conducted a review of the interrogation program, including the use of waterboarding.

The Senate report does not reveal the content of the review, but it sent the agency back to ask the Justice Department for an updated legal opinion that specifically addressed whether the interrogation techniques were allowable under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

In May 2005, the Justice Department upheld the use of waterboarding as legal because it did not cause "severe physical pain." Despite that go-ahead, the CIA did not resume use of the technique.

In December 2005, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act. Sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), it was supposed to ban torture, including waterboarding.

But Radsan said that the timeline released by the committee Wednesday made clear that the Justice Department did not believe the new law banned the CIA's harsh interrogation program.

"Even if John McCain thought he was cutting back on the CIA's program, this timeline again makes clear that . . . nothing really changed for the CIA," he said.

The Justice Department may have attempted an end-run around McCain's next move to restrict the CIA's program when Congress placed new limits on interrogations in the Military Commissions Act in 2006.

In a July 2007 opinion, the Justice Department concluded that the CIA's harsh interrogations remained lawful and that Congress, by passing the military commissions law, had endorsed the program, according to the Senate report.

news/notes2009.04.23e

[Today's Paper] from [The New York Times]

Slump Creates Lack of Mobility for Americans

By SAM ROBERTS
Published: April 22, 2009

Stranded by the nationwide slump in housing and jobs, fewer Americans are moving, the Census Bureau said Wednesday.

The bureau found that the number of people who changed residences declined to 35.2 million from March 2007 to March 2008, the lowest number since 1962, when the nation had 120 million fewer people.

Experts said the lack of mobility was of concern on two fronts. It suggests that Americans were unable or unwilling to follow any job opportunities that may have existed around the country, as they have in the past. And the lack of movement itself, they said, could have an impact on the economy, reducing the economic activity generated by moves.

Joseph S. Tracy, research director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said the lack of mobility meant less income for movers and the people they employ and less spending on renovation and on durable goods like appliances. But, Dr. Tracy said, the most troubling prospect is that people were no longer able to relocate for work.

“The thing that would be of deeper concern is if job-related moves are getting suppressed and workers are not getting re-sorted to the jobs that best use their skills,” he said. “As the labor market started to improve, if mobility stays low, you can worry about the allocation of workers.”

How long will the downturn in mobility last? Michael J. Hicks, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University in Indiana, said, “I think it will be well into next year before we see any growth in migration, and that still may be optimistic.”

“If the stock market rebounds before the housing market, we might see a scramble for retirement housing,” Professor Hicks added.

The American Moving and Storage Association said the number of people changing residences had been dropping for four years and fell 17.7 percent from 2007 to 2008. The first quarter of 2009 is likely to be even worse, the trade group said.

“We saw a standstill in new home construction, so there was no domino effect from people moving,” John Bisney, a spokesman, said. “People are a little nervous about getting a mortgage. And the recession is so broad-based it’s not as if you can pull up stakes and move to a part of the country that’s growing.”

Jed Smith, a research director for the National Association of Realtors, said that on average it took a homeowner 10.5 months to sell a house in 2008 compared with 8.9 months in 2007.

“Generally speaking, people move based on the economy,” Dr. Smith said, “and obviously the economy in 2008 was mediocre to bad. That would tend to have a negative impact on people’s desire, ability or need to move.”

In its report Wednesday, the Census Bureau said that Americans’ mobility rate, which has been declining for decades, fell to 11.9 percent in 2008, down from 13.2 percent the year before and setting a post-World War II record low. Moves between states dropped the most, to half the rate recorded at the beginning of this decade.

In addition, immigration from overseas was the lowest in more than a decade, which experts attributed to the lack of jobs. Over all, movers were more likely than nonmovers to be unemployed, renters, poor and black.

For decades, several trends have driven a decline in American wanderlust.

Home ownership rates have risen, and owners are typically less likely to move than renters. Two-earner families have become more common, and finding employment for both spouses in a new location can be challenging. Americans’ median age has been climbing, and it is younger people who usually move most often.

“It does show that the U.S. population, often thought of as the most mobile in the developed world, seems to have been stopped dead in its tracks due a confluence of constraints posed by a tough economic spell,” said William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution.

Dr. Frey predicted that the foreclosure crisis might spur more local mobility, within or between counties, as families shift to rented quarters or move in with relatives.

Robin Camacho, a Las Vegas real estate agent, expressed surprise at the census mobility figures, given the high foreclosure rates in his city. “If people are losing their homes and tenants are being forced to vacate,” Ms. Camacho said, “then this just doesn’t jibe with what I intuitively think. I see people moving constantly because they have no choice.”

Patrick Bonnema, sales manager for Anderson Brothers Moving and Storage in Chicago, said local residential moves were “down drastically over the last six months.”

“I’m not surprised this has happened,” Mr. Bonnema said. “Look at the economy, look at the banking industry, look at the credit industry. People can’t move, what are they going to do? Their homes are now worth less than what they originally paid, and they don’t want to take a loss.”

Those surveyed by the census said they moved for housing, family and job reasons, in that order.

Suburbs gained 2.2 million movers while major cities lost 2 million. Immigrants, though, appeared less likely to settle in the suburbs in 2008, compared with recent years.

“The housing crunch and its impact on employment in construction, plus the demise of sub-prime lending, gave immigrants fewer opportunities for living and working in the suburbs than in the immediately preceding years,” Dr. Frey said.

The influx of 1.1 million overseas foreigners was the lowest since the 780,000 in 1995.

Among movers, the South recorded the largest net gain, but the gain was the smallest in five years.

Steve Freiss contributed reporting from Las Vegas; Rebecca Cathcart from Los Angeles; and Lori Rotenberk from Chicago.

news/notes2009.04.23f

[Today's Newspaper] fom [The Washington Post]

Congress Debates Fresh Investigation Of Interrogations
White House Tries to Quell Controversy

By Dan Balz and Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 23, 2009

The legacy of George W. Bush continued to dog President Obama and his administration yesterday, as Congress divided over creating a panel to investigate the harsh interrogation techniques employed under Bush's authorization and the White House tried to contain the controversy over the president's decision to release Justice Department memos justifying and outlining those procedures.

Obama had hoped to put the whole matter behind him, first by banning those interrogation methods early in his presidency and then by releasing the memos last week with the proviso that no CIA official who carried out interrogations should be prosecuted.

Instead, the latest decision has stirred controversy on the right and the left. Obama has drawn sharp criticism from former vice president Richard B. Cheney, former CIA directors and Republican elected officials for releasing the memos. Those critics see softness in the commander in chief. He faces equally strong reaction from the left, where there is a desire to punish Bush administration officials for their actions and to conduct a more thorough investigation of what happened.

The controversy moved to Capitol Hill yesterday as lawmakers debated the wisdom of beginning a fresh investigation of the Bush-era practices. Several top Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), withheld judgment, noting that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has begun an inquiry.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), however, endorsed the idea and said witnesses should not be immune from prosecution.

Obama apparently thought he could avoid what is now playing out. In the weeks when he was weighing the release of the memos, a vigorous debate took place within his administration. There was, according to a senior official, considerable support among Obama's advisers for the creation of a 9/11 Commission-style investigation as an alternative to releasing the documents. But the president quashed the concept.

"His concern was that would ratchet the whole thing up," the official said. "His whole thing is: 'I banned all this. This chapter is over. What we don't need now is to become a sort of feeding frenzy where we go back and re-litigate all this.' "

Obama knew he could not stop Congress from doing whatever lawmakers decided to do, but he was reluctant to give a presidential imprimatur to a national commission that would keep the controversy alive for months or years. He had his own agenda and wanted to move on. Putting out the memos seemed to be the cleanest way to accomplish his twin goals of making a break with the previous administration and avoiding a lengthy and partisan debate over his policy vs. Bush's.

That was where things stood when the administration released the information last week. In the subsequent four days, officials did damage control. Obama went to CIA headquarters Monday to defend his decision and to try to boost morale at the agency. Meanwhile, there was a backlash against the administration's seeming posture that no one should be prosecuted for what happened under Bush.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel contributed to the perception that this was the administration's position. Speaking on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, he said that neither the CIA officials who carried out the harsh interrogations nor the Justice Department officials who authorized them should be prosecuted. "It's not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back [in] any sense of anger and retribution," he said.

That was contrary to what the administration signaled when the memos were released. At that time, it seemed clear that the authors of the legal justification could face legal jeopardy, depending on a further review by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

When Obama was pressed on this and other questions Tuesday, he said he was not prepared to rule out prosecutions of some of those responsible for setting the policy. What seemed to be off the table Monday was suddenly back on it.

White House officials said the president's words were not a change in policy, but the headlines and the television commentary said otherwise. Now, Obama finds himself in the middle of a storm that may or may not pass quickly.

Bush administration veterans, led by Cheney, are poised to renew a high-volume debate over the efficacy of the interrogation methods and, more broadly, the approach to terrorism that Obama's predecessor took after Sept. 11, 2001. Cheney called this week for the release of more memos that he said would demonstrate how effective the tactics were. And in an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity, he made it clear that he is ready to wage a battle over who is right.

"The threat is there. It's very real, and it's continuing," Cheney said. "And what the Obama people are doing, in effect, is saying, 'Well, we don't need those tough policies that we had.' "

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was pressed in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday to respond to Cheney's contention that the administration is suppressing evidence that the techniques worked and that Bush officials tried to correct problems as they arose. "It won't surprise you that I don't consider him a particularly reliable source of information," Clinton responded.

Obama has triggered a debate over what happens next. The American Civil Liberties Union has called for a special prosecutor. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs appeared to reject that course, saying Justice Department lawyers are looking into the question of legal action against those responsible for authorizing the interrogation methods and are capable of reaching a conclusion.

Gibbs also emphasized that it will be up to the Justice Department, not the White House, to decide how to proceed, and he invoked an analogy.

"If you spray-paint the back of this plane, if you tear up one of the seats, even though it's Air Force One, the president doesn't make a determination as to who broke the law," Gibbs said. "That's a legal official."

The possibility of a commission remained unclear. The Senate's leading advocate for the idea, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), said Tuesday that he welcomed Obama's comments opening the way for an inquiry but was still looking to gather support.

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), one of the chief backers of the commission proposal, sent Obama a letter yesterday pressing him to consider prosecuting not only the lawyers who provided legal justification but also some of the people who carried out the procedures.

In a joint statement, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said prosecuting Bush administration officials for their legal opinions would have a "deeply chilling effect" on any administration receiving legal advice. And they said a commission would "focus on the mistakes of the past" instead of "looking forward to solutions."

White House officials have expressed confidence that a congressionally backed investigation will not come to pass. But they have been drawn into a debate they did not foresee. The president has a full plate, domestically and internationally. He had hoped that, in winning the election and moving quickly to change his predecessor's policies, he could close the books on Bush's presidency.

Instead, he has found in his first months how difficult that is. Hopes for an immediate change in tone have withered. Republican opposition to his economic policies remains nearly unanimous. With this latest controversy, he is learning that neither the opponents nor the defenders of Bush's presidency are ready to move on.

news/notes2009.04.23g

[Today's Papers] from [Slate Magazine]

Was Powell Kept Out of Torture Loop?

By Daniel Politi
Posted Thursday, April 23, 2009, at 6:42 AM ET

The Los Angeles Times leads with a Senate intelligence committee report that was released yesterday and gives the most detailed chronology of events that led to the Central Intelligence Agency's use of harsh interrogation techniques on terror suspects. The techniques were approved by a group of senior Bush administration officials in July 2002 after the issue was discussed in a series of meetings that apparently didn't include the secretaries of State and Defense. The report also states that the Justice Department issued memos in 2006 and 2007 noting the techniques were still lawful despite congressional moves to restrict their use. The Washington Post leads with a look at how the release of the torture memos has once again dragged President Obama into a controversy related to his predecessor. Republicans and CIA officials have criticized the release of the documents, while Democrats are pushing for an investigation, a subject that was a hot topic of debate on Capitol Hill yesterday.

The Wall Street Journal banners word that Bank of America's chief executive was pressured by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to not disclose the increasingly dire conditions at Merrill Lynch before the bank bought the company. In February testimony before New York's attorney general, CEO Kenneth Lewis said he wasn't explicitly told to keep quiet, but he made it clear that he believed it was what the government officials wanted. USA Today leads with word that General Motors will stop production at most of its U.S. plants for nine weeks in mid-May. In what the paper says could very well be "a record voluntary shutdown," GM plans to close up shop in 15 of its 21 North American plants, mostly in the United States. The move would affect suppliers and could reverberate throughout the entire economy. One expert said it could suggest that "bankruptcy is more likely, rather than less likely" for the automaker. The New York Times leads with new Census Bureau figures that report fewer Americans are changing residences. From March 2007 to March 2008, 35 million people moved, the lowest number since 1962. In percentage terms, it was the lowest number since the bureau began to keep track in 1948.

The LAT points out that the clear involvement of the most senior members of the Bush administration in approving the brutal interrogation techniques makes it clear that "any effort to hold architects of the program accountable was likely to extend beyond Justice Department legal advisors and into the highest reaches of the government." The report released yesterday also raised questions about whether administration officials tried to keep information away from some senior officials, particularly Secretary of State Colin Powell. But it's unclear how complete the report is because it also states that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was not involved in the early discussions when other documents from that time suggest he was. According to the report, neither Powell nor Rumsfeld were briefed on the interrogation program until September 2003. "This chronology is misleading and incomplete and does not reflect the [National Security Council] review process or the information presented to the NSC," a former White House official tells the Post.

Many top Democrats have decided to keep quiet about whether there should be a far-reaching investigation into the approval of the harsh interrogation techniques. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was an exception, saying she was in favor of an investigation and emphasized that witnesses shouldn't be immune from prosecution. While the administration seems confident there won't be a congressionally backed investigation, it's still unclear whether a commission similar to the one that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks could become a reality. Whatever ends up happening, it seems clear that White House officials "have been drawn into a debate they did not foresee," says the Post.

The LAT and NYT go inside with looks at how many legal experts are troubled by the prospect of prosecuting the lawyers who approved the interrogation techniques and think it's unlikely that anyone would be indicted. "Those who want heads to roll are likely to be dissatisfied," a criminal-law professor said. In order to have a case against the lawyers, it would be necessary to show that they deliberately misinterpreted the law. Ultimately, being a bad lawyer who gives bad advice isn't a crime. Considering that some of the lawyers, particularly John Yoo, had been talking about their particular views on presidential power before joining the administration, it would be difficult to prove they actually believed that what they were writing was wrong. The NYT points out "that dynamic" could change. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has apparently obtained e-mail messages from that time, and if it turns out the lawyers first thought the program would be illegal but changed their mind when pressured by policymakers, then prosecutors could theoretically have a case.

Interestingly, the LAT points out the whole issue would be different if another country used the same interrogation tactics on Americans. In that case, there would be a consensus that the foreign official who authorized water-boarding of a U.S. agent should be prosecuted for war crimes. "There would be no controversy, no debate," the Washington director of Human Rights Watch said. "And no one would buy the excuse that one of those dictators was relying on the advice of his legal counsel."

In the NYT 's op-ed page, Ali Soufan, a former FBI supervisory special agent, writes that "[o]ne of the most striking parts of the [torture] memos is the false premises on which they are based." The memos justify the use of harsh measures because Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative and then cite the success with that detainee as a reason to continue with the techniques, but that is inaccurate. Soufan interrogated Abu Zubaydah and writes that he "provided us with important actionable intelligence" before the harsh techniques were used. Soufan insists that there was no information that "wasn't, or couldn't have been, gained from regular tactics." The use of these techniques brought a return to the "so-called Chinese wall" between the CIA and FBI that was much criticized after the Sept. 11 attacks. Since the bureau wouldn't go along with the techniques, agents who were the most knowledgeable about the terror suspects couldn't participate in the investigations.

It's hardly a secret that the government pushed Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch late last year to keep the financial crisis from spreading. The bank's CEO, Ken Lewis, had previously disclosed he had considered backing out of the deal when he began to realize how much trouble Merrill was really in. If Lewis had told shareholders about this, they could have decided that preventing Merril's collapse wasn't in their best interest. But Lewis said that "it wasn't up to me" to disclose the information. The testimony "suggests how aggressively federal regulators have been willing to behave in their fight to fix the U.S. financial system," notes the WSJ, pointing out it was the first time that government officials have been blamed for the failure to disclose troubles at Merrill, which ended up reporting a $15.8 billion loss for the fourth quarter.

The NYT, LAT, and USAT front news that Taliban militants in Pakistan have moved into new territory next to the Swat Valley that is 60 miles from Islamabad (the NYT says 70 miles). The NYT goes even further and declares that the militants "have established effective control" over Buner, which is a "strategically important district." The move doesn't mean that Pakistan's capital is under immediate threat, but it does illustrate how the militants are making progress moving beyond the Swat Valley. "They take over Buner, then they roll into Mardan and that's the end of the game," a law enforcement official said. Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that in signing a deal with militants, "the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and the extremists." Clinton remarked that "the continuing advances" pose an "existential threat" to Pakistan and a "mortal threat" to the world.

The LAT says many Pakistanis "have a romantic view of Sharia," or Islamic law, because they're frustrated by the corrupt government and are worried about their own security. Many of the lower and even some of the middle classes don't necessarily think their country is in chaos. The richest members of the population are the ones who are most worried, but they also have the ability to move abroad if things get truly dire. For its part, USAT sees a growing public backlash against the Paksitani Taliban, even among conservative politicians.

CONTINUED ON 2009.04.23h

news/notes2009.04.23h

[Today's Papers] from [Slate Magazine]

Was Powell Kept Out of Torture Loop?

By Daniel Politi
Posted Thursday, April 23, 2009, at 6:42 AM ET

CONTINUED FROM 2009.04.23g

The WP and NYT front the death of David Kellermann, the acting chief financial officer of Freddie Mac. He apparently hanged himself early yesterday morning in the basement of his home. He didn't leave a note, so it's impossible to know whether his final act was related to work, but it's clear that's what consumed the vast majority of his waking hours over the last few months. Kellerman had worked at the mortgage giant for more than 16 years and felt immense pressure to turn the company around while also dealing with the demands of regulators and lawmakers. "The pressure right now is relentless," a Freddie Mac executive told the NYT. "Everyone in the financial sector, regardless of where you work, is constantly told both that this is our fault, and that we have to work as hard as possible, otherwise the nation will fall apart."

The WP takes a look at the troubles surrounding Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo, as there seems to be no end in sight to women claiming that he is the father of their child. Yesterday, a third woman came forward to claim that the former Roman Catholic bishop is the father of her 16-month-old son. The scandal broke when lawyers for one 26-year-old woman threatened a paternity suit against Lugo and he subsequently admitted that he was the boy's father. Lugo hasn't denied or confirmed the other two claims. The woman who came forward yesterday said she thinks Lugo could have as many as six children.

In the LAT 's op-ed page, the two men who published a book of letters to Obama from children write that they hope "the clarity of kidspeak" will be able to "cut through the perpetual din of presidential advice." One 5-year-old from New Jersey had some "beautifully simple" advice on leadership: "Help us be nice. Get everyone in the circle, and then you can tell them to listen to you."