news.notes20090528a

[Biography of the Day] from [Britannica]

Thursday, May 28, 2009
Ian Fleming
British suspense-fiction novelist Ian Fleming, born this day in 1908, created one of the most successful and widely imitated heroes of popular fiction: James Bond, the stylish, high-living British secret service agent 007.

[On This Day] from [Britannica]

Thursday, May 28, 2009
1961: Amnesty International founded
Dedicated to informing public opinion about human rights and to securing the release of political prisoners, Amnesty International was founded in London on this day in 1961 and won the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize.


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

[NATIONAL NEWS]
Thursday, May 28, 2009
N. Korea threatens retaliation if ships inspected

BEIJING (Kyodo) North Korea on Wednesday called South Korea's decision on Tuesday to join the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative "a declaration of war" against it and warned it will respond militarily to any attempt to inspect its ships.

In a statement issued through the official Korean Central News Agency, the Panmunjeom Mission of the Korean People's Army also said it will no longer be bound by the armistice that ended the Korean War in 1953.

North Korea's armed forces will regard South Korea's " 'full participation' in the PSI as a declaration of war against the DPRK," the statement said.

"They will regard any hostile actions against the DPRK, including checkup and inspection of its peaceful vessels, as an unpardonable encroachment on the DPRK's sovereignty and counter them with prompt and strong military strikes," the statement said.

DPRK is the acronym for North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The PSI, launched in 2003 by then U.S. President George W. Bush, is an international effort to interdict the transfer of banned weapons and weapons technology.

South Korea has had observer status in the PSI, but the previous government had refrained from full membership so as not to anger the North. It announced its participation after North Korea carried out its second nuclear test on Monday.

North Korea argued it is no longer bound to the armistice, saying that South Korea's participation in the PSI violates international law and denies the armistice.

Once the armistice loses its binding force, the Korean Peninsula "is bound to immediately return to a state of war from a legal point of view and so our revolutionary armed forces will" resort to corresponding military actions, the statement said.

The statement did not elaborate on what the military actions might be.

Pyongyang said it could no longer guarantee the legal status of five islands under South Korean control or the safe sailing of U.S. and South Korean ships in the area.

"They should bear in mind that the DPRK has tremendous military muscle and its own method of strike" capable of conquering "any targets in its vicinity at one stroke" or hitting the United States, the statement said.


[NATIONAL NEWS]
Thursday, May 28, 2009
U.S. can prevent arms race
Practice of 'extended deterrence' must continue, think tank warns

WASHINGTON (Kyodo) The United States should continue to provide nuclear deterrence for its allies because failing to do so would lead some of them to build their own nuclear arsenals, according to a U.S. think tank.

"U.S. allies, including members of the NATO alliance, Australia, Japan and South Korea, depend on security assurances from the United States," the Council on Foreign Relations said in a report released Tuesday.

"A component of these assurances is protection against nuclear attack," it said. "Without the nuclear aspect of these assurances, some U.S. allies may decide in the future to acquire nuclear weapons."

The 125-page report, titled "U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy," was compiled by an expert panel chaired by former Defense Secretary William Perry and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft.

The report's release coincides with the U.S. Defense Department's comprehensive review of nuclear policy following President Barack Obama's recent call for a nuclear-free world.

The report calls on the Obama administration to "reaffirm U.S. commitment to security assurances, including extended nuclear deterrence, to allies."

"Extended deterrence" refers to the idea that the U.S. would retaliate if its allies are attacked.

The report points to Japan's ambivalence toward nuclear weapons. While a strong advocate of nuclear disarmament, Japan relies on U.S. nuclear arms for protection.

"Japanese leaders believe that the long-term sustainability of the nonproliferation regime depends on the nuclear weapon states following through on their commitments to pursue disarmament," it says.

"Nevertheless, some Japanese officials have expressed concern about whether U.S. nuclear posture provides an effective umbrella for Japan, especially in regard to China.

The report recommends that Washington consult with its allies on their views "about the credibility of the nuclear role in security assurances" to assess whether to make any changes to nuclear and conventional capabilities.

Also, the report says it is necessary for the U.S. to keep its relatively small nuclear stockpile in Europe as long as it supports NATO's political goals in reassuring allies and acts as a disincentive for NATO allies to build their own nuclear forces.

North resolution OK'd
The House of Councilors unanimously approved a resolution at a plenary session Wednesday condemning North Korea's nuclear test.

The move followed the adoption of a similar resolution by the House of Representatives on Tuesday.

The Upper House resolution states that "repeated nuclear tests (by North Korea) are a grave challenge to the international nonproliferation regime (and) buck the increasing momentum toward the eradication of nuclea


[NATIONAL NEWS]
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Hatoyama, Aso mix it up in Diet debate

By MASAMI ITO
Staff writer

Prompting cheers and jeers Wednesday in their first faceoff in the Diet, Prime Minister Taro Aso and newly elected Democratic Party of Japan President Yukio Hatoyama wrangled over who was best suited to lead the nation.

The two grandsons of former prime ministers are the likely candidates to lead Japan following the Lower House election, which must be held by fall.

Hatoyama stressed the need for vision in a leader.

"I have said I want to create a society of fraternity," Hatoyama said. "I used the word love. . . . The society I want to create is where people can find happiness through bonding and embrace a sense of belonging, to feel useful."

Aso brushed off Hatoyama's idea as unrealistic.

"It is a fact that we are facing a once-in-a-century recession," Aso said. "We have an endless list of real (problems) and as the party in power, what is most important for us is how we are going to deal with these problems."

Hatoyama said his party is committed to banning corporate donations and will compile a bill during the current Diet session to revise the law. Currently, companies are prohibited from making contributions to individual lawmakers but can donate to political parties and their branches.

The LDP, which largely relies on corporate donations, has expressed reluctance to adopt the proposal.

"We have come to this conclusion after searching our consciences," Hatoyama said. "Why doesn't the ruling bloc cooperate with us to tackle the problems of politics and money for the sake of the public?"

Aso parried that the DPJ is trying to shift the focus from the alleged failure of its own former president and his secretary to follow financing rules.


[NATIONAL NEWS]
Thursday, May 28, 2009
MOX fuel arrives at Shikoku Electric Power plant in Ehime

MATSUYAMA, Ehime Pref. (Kyodo) Recycled nuclear fuel shipped from France arrived Wednesday at Shikoku Electric Power Co.'s Ikata plant in Ehime Prefecture in line with a plan to make it Japan's second nuclear plant to use such fuel for power generation next year.

Shikoku Electric plans to start fueling the No. 3 reactor at the plant with the plutonium-uranium mixed oxide, or MOX, fuel in January to begin so-called pluthermal, or plutonium-thermal, power generation in February.

MOX fuel was taken Saturday to Kyushu Electric Power Co.'s Genkai nuclear plant in Saga Prefecture, which is to be the first in Japan to use it in November, and on May 18 to Chubu Electric Power Co.'s Hamaoka plant in Shizuoka Prefecture, slated to follow suit next summer or later.

The fuel was manufactured in France for the three utility firms, which also placed an order for it with Britain.

It is the third time Japan has transported MOX fuel from Europe, following shipments in 1999 and 2001 for Tokyo Electric Power Co. and Kansai Electric Power Co. that were unused due partly to a data falsification scandal.

news.notes20090528b

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

[BUSINESS NEWS]
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Trade conflicts loom amid protectionist steps

(Kyodo News) Japan must be ready for possible trade conflicts over such policies as China's plan to force some foreign-made information technology products to pass the country's certification and the controversial "Buy American" provision by the United States, a government report said Wednesday.

The annual report, released by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, stresses that the world has become inclined to protectionism amid the current economic slump, with some countries taking actions that contradict the principle of trade liberalization under the World Trade Organization.

The report cites a total of 118 policies and measures taken by other countries and regions. The number is up from 113 in last year's report.

China says it plans to introduce a compulsory certification program in May next year for the public procurement of computer software that installs fire walls as well as some other IT security products.

The Chinese government says the policy is for its own national security and designed to prevent cyber terrorism through such means as computer viruses.

However, major economies including Japan, the United States and the European Union fear the program would enable Beijing to obtain otherwise secret information about those technology products.

Japan is likely to press China to drop the plan when economic ministers from the two countries hold a regular high-level meeting next month.

Protests have been also increasing toward the "Buy American" measures with U.S. President Barack Obama facing mounting pressure to retract them.

The measures came as part of the recent U.S. economic stimulus package, requiring any project funded by stimulus money to use only U.S.-made steel, iron and other products.

Facing criticism from its trading partners, the U.S. says the measures do not contravene existing U.S. trade agreements.

METI's report says the government "will seek to address those issues through the WTO's multilateral negotiation framework or in bilateral talks" with the countries concerned.

It identifies 15 priority issues, including Russia's higher tariffs on auto imports and the European Union's tariffs on some IT products that Japan believes should be tax-free. The number grew from nine in the 2008 report.


[BUSINESS NEWS]
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Toyota resumes overtime work as Prius demand climbs

NAGOYA (Kyodo) Toyota Motor Corp. employees at two Aichi Prefecture factories will put in some overtime next month for the first time in six months thanks to strong demand for the Prius hybrid, company officials said Wednesday.

Toyota will boost production of the Prius by about 20 percent from its initial plan of 42,000 to 43,000 per month, to around 50,000 units, they said.

To meet the increase, the company will ask employees at two factories producing the Prius — one in the city of Toyota and another run by Toyota Auto Body Co., a major affiliated parts maker, in the city of Kariya — to work overtime.

Because the subcontractor's capacity to supply parts is limited, each employee is expected to work only 15 minutes extra for now.

In line with the global economic downturn, Toyota has cut production to adjust inventory. As a result, its factory workers have been given more days off while some production lines remain idle.

The new Prius hybrid has changed the situation at the two Aichi factories since it debuted May 18.

Despite its better fuel rating, it carries a price tag of \2.05 million, \280,000 lower than the previous version. The price is aimed directly at Honda Motor Co.'s Insight hybrid, whose basic model is available for \1.89 million.


[BUSINESS NEWS]
Thursday, May 28, 2009
102 parts firms may lose if GM files

(Kyodo News) There are 102 parts suppliers and other Japanese companies who may not be able to recover accounts receivable from General Motors Corp. if the automotive giant files for bankruptcy, a leading credit research agency said Wednesday.

Although many of the firms filed applications requesting that the U.S. government guarantee the receivables with a $5 billion Treasury Department program, not all of them qualified for the federal assistance, Teikoku Databank said.

"The potential risk of a bankruptcy filing triggering turbulence (among corporate creditors) is in place," the research agency warned.

A total of 133 Japanese companies, including Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Aisin Seiki Co. and Bridgestone Corp., have business ties with GM. Of them, 31 sell GM products or provide maintenance services in Japan.


[BUSINESS NEWS]
Thursday, May 28, 2009
J-Power in talks to buy three U.S. plants as domestic demand slows

(Bloomberg) J-Power is in talks to acquire three plants in the United States this year to help more than double its generation capacity in the world's biggest energy market as demand slows at home, according to one of the company's senior executives.

The utility, officially known as Electric Power Development Co., may sign agreements to buy part or all of three natural gas-fired stations on the U.S. East Coast, said Masayoshi Kitamura, J-Power's executive vice president who is due to replace Yoshihiko Nakagaki as president next month.

He declined to name the plants as negotiations are still under way.

Utilities including Tokyo Electric Power Co. are expanding overseas as a shrinking population and energy-saving measures curb power use in Japan.

J-Power, the country's largest electricity wholesaler, will spend as much as \10 billion a year through March 2013 on plant acquisitions in the U.S. and also plans to add assets in China, Thailand and Indonesia, the 62-year-old Kitamura said.

"J-Power and other Japanese utilities may be compelled to take one of two courses — tap overseas markets or drastically diversify their core businesses at home," said Hirofumi Kawachi, a senior analyst at Mizuho Investors Securities Co. "Local electricity demand will probably grow at a slower annual pace of about 1 percent in the next decade, and it may ride a downward trend in the following decade."

The three plants would add as much as 1,500 megawatts to the combined 1,300-megawatt capacity of the seven stations in the U.S. in which J-Power already holds stakes, Kitamura said.

J-Power has formed a 50-50 joint venture with John Hancock Life Insurance Co. to look for suitable acquisitions. The venture, J-Power U.S.A. Generation L.P., signed agreements in December to buy three gas-fired plants in New York and Virginia.


[BUSINESS NEWS]
Thursday, May 28, 2009
DoCoMo to enable money transfers

(Kyodo News) Mobile phone service giant NTT DoCoMo Inc. is planning to tie up with Mizuho Bank to enable mobile phone subscribers to wire money to another subscriber without having to know the payee's bank account number, industry sources said Wednesday.

DoCoMo customers will only be required to put the cell phone number of the payee into their mobile phone and the payee will be required to specify bank accounts to which Mizuho Bank will transfer the money, the sources said.

Money wired in this way will be billed along with phone charges.

DoCoMo may launch the service as early as this summer, if the Financial Services Agency gives approval in time, they said.

KDDI Corp. offers a similar remittance service but requires customers to open accounts with a designated bank.

news.notes20090528c

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

FBI planning a bigger role in terrorism fight
Bureau agents will gather evidence to ensure that criminal prosecutions of alleged terrorists are an option. The move is a reversal of the Bush administration's emphasis on covert CIA actions.

By Josh Meyer
May 28, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.

Under the "global justice" initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.

Though the initiative is a work in progress, some senior counter-terrorism officials and administration policy-makers envision it as key to the national security strategy President Obama laid out last week -- one that presumes most accused terrorists have the right to contest the charges against them in a "legitimate" setting.

The approach effectively reverses a mainstay of the Bush administration's war on terrorism, in which global counter-terrorism was treated primarily as an intelligence and military problem, not a law enforcement one. That policy led to the establishment of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; harsh interrogations; and detentions without trials.

The "global justice" initiative starts out with the premise that virtually all suspects will end up in a U.S. or foreign court of law.

That will be the case whether a suspected terrorist is captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, in the Philippine jungle or in a mosque in Nigeria, said one senior U.S. counter-terrorism official with knowledge of the initiative.

"Regardless of where any bad guy is caught, we want the bureau to be in a position to put charges on them," the official said, adding that the Bush administration's emphasis on CIA and military operations often marginalized the FBI -- especially when it came to interrogating suspects.

Like others interviewed for this article, the official spoke on the condition of anonymity because no one has been authorized to discuss the initiative publicly. "We have no comment on it at this time," FBI Assistant Director John J. Miller, the bureau's chief spokesman, said when asked about the initiative.

Upon taking office in January, Obama shut down the CIA's secret "black site" prisons and forbade the use of coercive interrogation techniques.

That opened the door for an increased role for the FBI, which for the last year has deployed more agents and analysts overseas to work alongside the CIA, U.S. military and foreign governments.

The initiative would mean even broader incorporation of the FBI and Justice Department into global counter-terrorism operations. Many national security officials said it is a vindication of the FBI, which before Sept. 11 had played a leading role in international terrorism investigations.

FBI agents for years had used non-coercive interrogations to thwart attacks, win convictions of Al Qaeda operatives and gain an encyclopedic knowledge of how the terrorist network operates. But they withdrew from questioning important suspects after the bureau opposed the tactics being used by the CIA and military -- often by inexperienced civilian contractors.

The harsh interrogations provided such bad information that U.S. agents spent years chasing false leads around the world, former FBI agent Ali Soufan testified before Congress two weeks ago. "It was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against Al Qaeda."

Bush administration officials, however, have defended the tactics and rejected claims that the FBI's methods would have worked better.

"With many thousands of lives potentially in the balance, we did not think it made good sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time," former Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech this month.

The FBI itself has been criticized, as has the CIA, for failing to connect the dots before the Sept. 11 attacks. In hindsight, the evidence pointed to a clear and intensive Al Qaeda effort to launch attacks on U.S. soil.

Before Sept. 11, the FBI model of "informed" interrogation -- knowing everything about a suspect to get them talking -- was the preferred method of intelligence and military interrogators.

Even veteran CIA agents said that abandoning that approach after Sept. 11 was counterproductive. "To use a contractor to ask the questions and not let the FBI guy who's collected all the evidence and knows all of the intelligence about these guys, it makes no sense at all," said former CIA counter-terrorism case agent Robert Baer.

One intelligence official said the FBI's expanded role in the global fight against terrorism was a natural outgrowth of the Obama administration's new priorities. "It stands to reason because, by executive order, the CIA is out of the long-term detention business," the official said, referring to Obama's closing of overseas prisons.

Richard Clarke, a senior counter-terrorism official in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, said the turnabout was long overdue.

"We have to return to the practice that we had before of arresting terrorists and putting them on trial," said Clarke, who added that the country's ability to do that "has atrophied."

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said the agency would continue to play a central role in interrogations and counter-terrorism operations -- using techniques approved by the U.S. Army Field Manual-- in conjunction with other U.S. agencies.

Behind the scenes, some intelligence officials are resisting a broader criminal justice role overseas for the FBI, contending that it could inhibit the flow of intelligence if their own agents, or foreign governments, believe top-secret sources and methods might be disclosed during criminal prosecutions.

Two senior U.S. officials said efforts are being made to ensure that intelligence-gathering and law enforcement efforts proceed side by side. They stressed that the CIA and military would continue to play pivotal roles, particularly in gaining strategic intelligence against terrorist groups and thwarting future attacks.

news.notes20090528c

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

Abortion rights groups concerned about Sotomayor's stance
Obama's Supreme Court nominee has little record on issues related to Roe vs. Wade.

By David G. Savage and Peter Nicholas
May 28, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has provoked concern from abortion rights advocates, who say they have seen no evidence that she supports upholding Roe vs. Wade.

Unlike most finalists for the high court opening, Sotomayor has never ruled on the issue. And in her only abortion-related decision, she did not come down the way activists would have liked.

n 2002, Sotomayor rejected a challenge to President George W. Bush's so-called Mexico City policy, which required foreign groups receiving U.S. funds to pledge that they would not support or promote abortion.

Sotomayor spoke for a three-judge panel that upheld the policy as constitutional. The government "is free to favor the antiabortion position over the pro-choice position and can do so with public funds," she said.

"I simply don't know Judge Sotomayor's view on Roe vs. Wade. I will be very concerned if the question is not asked and answered during the Senate hearings," Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Wednesday. "So far, no one has been able to give us an assurance of her views."

While that key segment of Obama's constituency was expressing concern, a leading Senate Republican indicated Wednesday that a filibuster against the nominee was unlikely. "I don't sense a filibuster in the works," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told CNN.

Still, GOP(Grand Old Party) staffers were starting to go through hundreds of Sotomayor's decisions, looking for issues that might score political points or even derail her nomination.

Northup said she would be surprised if Obama, who as a candidate spoke in favor of abortion rights, selected a justice who did not feel the same way. "But other presidents have been surprised before," she said, pointing to Justice David H. Souter.

Souter, whom Sotomayor would replace on the court, was nominated in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush. Although Souter had a limited judicial record, Republicans at the time said they were confident that he was a conservative and an opponent of Roe. In 1992, however, Souter upheld a woman's right to abortion in a 5-4 ruling -- an ideological split over the issue that remains on today's court.

The White House added to the concerns of abortion rights advocates, saying that the president did not discuss the issue with Sotomayor before her nomination.

"The president doesn't have a litmus test, and that question was not one that he posed to her," Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said. Asked whether Obama had not promised to appoint judges who support abortion rights, Gibbs replied: "I'd have to look. I don't remember exactly what he said on that topic."

Last year, Obama's campaign said he would make "preserving a woman's right to choose under Roe vs. Wade a priority as president." This year he has sought to bridge the divide on abortion, saying America should try to find ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies and encourage adoptions. At the University of Notre Dame a week and a half ago, Obama called for "fair-minded" debate on abortion and a search for "common ground." To that end, he has formed a task force, with advocates on both sides of the issue.

Sotomayor, who was raised a Catholic in New York, has listed herself as a member of Childbirth Connection, a group that helps young mothers prepare for caring for a baby.

Two years ago -- in a case of concern to women's groups -- she joined an appeals court ruling that upheld a school district's policy requiring teachers to notify a parent if they saw that a girl was pregnant. The court said that the teachers had no legal basis for objecting to the policy.

And since her nomination to the high court Tuesday, several abortion rights advocates have said they remained unsure and uneasy over her views.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said her group would "look forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor's views on the right to privacy and the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision as the Senate's hearing process moves forward."

"What we know about her we like, but I don't know the answer on abortion rights," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation.

For their part, some antiabortion advocates say they are convinced that Sotomayor is an "extreme" supporter of abortion, although several admit they do not have specific evidence of her views.

If Obama was seeking to avoid an abortion battle during the confirmation process, Sotomayor would seem a logical choice because of her lack of record on the issue. Another finalist to replace Souter, Judge Diane P. Wood from Chicago, had a strong public record of supporting abortion rights. Wood dissented a decade ago when the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Wisconsin's and Illinois' bans on what opponents call "partial birth abortion."

Now, however, it is the abortion rights supporters who want Democrats to raise the issue during the confirmation process.

"Ironically, both sides in the abortion debate can agree on this," Northup said. "All Americans deserve to know where the next Supreme Court justice stands on Roe vs. Wade."

news.notes20090528d

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

Sotomayor Pick a Product of Lessons From Past Battles

By PETER BAKER and ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: May 27, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s aides were laying down the law. They had invited liberal activists to the White House two weeks ago to discuss his coming Supreme Court selection, but they were not asking for candidates.

Instead, they told the activists not to lobby for their favorites in the news media or talk down candidates they opposed. The message, as one surprised visitor heard it, was “get on board or get out of the way.”

In the months leading up to Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s selection this week, the White House methodically labored to apply lessons from years of nomination battles to control the process and avoid the pitfalls of the past, like appearing to respond to pressure from the party’s base or allowing candidates to be chewed up by friendly fire.

The selection process for Mr. Obama’s first Supreme Court nomination brought together a group that had been thinking about this moment for a long time, from a president who taught constitutional law to a vice president who voted on the confirmation of every member of the current court. Sitting in the room were advisers like Ronald A. Klain and Cynthia Hogan, who have been involved in nomination fights going back to Clarence Thomas.

Even before Justice David H. Souter publicly announced nearly four weeks ago that he was retiring, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff who lived through two nominations during Bill Clinton’s presidency, commissioned a strategy memorandum from Mr. Klain intended to dictate the process. Secrecy was paramount. As the decision neared, aides disguised meetings on the subject even on the president’s internal schedule by blocking out time under the label “Chief of Staff Strategy.”

From the beginning, Mr. Obama had been focused on Judge Sotomayor, a federal appeals court judge from New York, officials said Wednesday. She had a compelling life story, Ivy League credentials and a track record on the bench. She was a Latina. She was a woman. She checked “each of the grids,” as Mr. Obama’s team later put it. And by the time the opportunity arrived, it became her nomination to lose.

Over the course of the last four weeks, Mr. Obama nursed doubts about Judge Sotomayor and entertained alternatives, aides said. He called around, asking allies about her reputation for brusqueness. At times, he grew increasingly enamored of other candidates, particularly Judge Diane P. Wood, whom he knew from Chicago. But by the time Judge Sotomayor left the White House last Thursday after what Mr. Obama told aides was a “dense discussion” of constitutional law, he was pretty much sold.

“You had to knock her off the pedestal,” Mr. Emanuel said, “and nobody did.”

The selection process got its start in the weeks after Mr. Obama’s election last fall when he gathered advisers in a conference room in downtown Chicago one day. The court was on his mind.

“Just because we don’t have a vacancy right now doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work on it,” he told the group, according to participants. “The day we get a vacancy, we want to have a short list of people ready.”

Mr. Obama already had one in mind and threw out several names, including Judge Sotomayor, aides said. His new White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, got to work assembling more names. In mid-April, the White House privately got word from Justice Souter that he was preparing to retire at the end of the term in June, and preparations accelerated.

By the time Justice Souter’s decision leaked on April 30, officials said, the White House had full dossiers on nearly all of the major candidates and within days Mr. Obama was given 10-page memorandums on each of them to study over the weekend. By the next week, Mr. Craig’s office gave him 60- to 70-page memorandums on each prospect.

Mr. Obama, who was president of the law review at Harvard and married a Harvard Law School graduate, recently said he became so engrossed in the memorandums that he missed a basketball game one night.

“He didn’t need a Constitutional Law 101 primer to prepare for this,” said Charles J. Ogletree, a Harvard law professor who spoke with Mr. Obama about the process in early May.

“There were five things that were on his mind: age, experience, independence, confidence and diversity,” Mr. Ogletree recalled. “And when I say diversity, it’s not just background and race; I mean diversity of experience, of character, of judgment and of points of view.”

With Mr. Craig also dealing with national security issues, Mr. Emanuel recruited Mr. Klain and Ms. Hogan from Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s office to run the day-to-day process. Mr. Klain, the vice president’s chief of staff, had been involved in nomination fights in the Clinton White House and on Mr. Biden’s Senate staff, while Ms. Hogan, the vice president’s counsel, worked for the Judiciary Committee during three confirmations.

“We wanted people who had been through this before,” said David Axelrod, the president’s senior adviser. “This was not an accident.”

Recalling nominations that had foundered on poor research, the White House team assigned two inside lawyers to vet each candidate’s public speeches and rulings and recruited outside law firms to examine each candidate’s personal finances, taxes, medical history and ethics.

In the end, the White House considered nine candidates. In addition to Judges Sotomayor and Wood, officials said they were Solicitor General Elena Kagan; Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano; Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan; Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears of the Georgia Supreme Court; Justice Carlos R. Moreno of the California Supreme Court; Judge Merrick B. Garland of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and Judge Ruben Castillo of Federal District Court in Illinois.

Mr. Obama quickly found himself being lobbied by fellow Democrats. In an interview, Representative Jose E. Serrano of New York described a campaign he and his colleague Representative Nydia M. Velázquez conducted on behalf of Judge Sotomayor that included a personal plea at the Cinco de Mayo celebration at the White House.

Hoping to shut off as much outside pressure as possible, the White House summoned leaders of liberal groups for a series of meetings, at the White House and elsewhere. The deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, issued the edict about not floating names through the news media or engaging in daily battles about the pros and cons of various candidates, warning that it would be “counterproductive,” participants said.

As he narrowed his choices, aides said, Mr. Obama kept asking for more original writings by the candidates, and he called every member of the Judiciary Committee, something few if any presidents have done.

In his conversations with senators, Mr. Obama did not let on whom he was thinking about, but described what kind of nominee he was looking for and asked for names. “I don’t think he saw the process as him saying, ‘Which of these five people would you oppose or support,’ ” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee chairman.

“He asked if I had any suggestions for nominees,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, a member of the committee for 29 years. “This is the first time I’ve ever been called by a president on a Supreme Court nomination, be it a Republican or a Democrat.”

As the president deliberated, Mr. Klain, Ms. Hogan and Dan Pfeiffer, the deputy communications director, began meeting with prospective finalists. To preserve secrecy, they held several sessions around the table of Ms. Hogan’s home in Bethesda, Md. Judge Sotomayor was first interviewed by telephone so she would not be seen coming to Washington.

Four candidates were invited to the White House to interview with Mr. Obama: Judges Sotomayor and Wood, Ms. Kagan and Ms. Napolitano. It was not lost on those under consideration that none who made it to the final stage were men.

“I think they ended up making a bad evidentiary record for themselves by not interviewing one male,” said a judge whose name came up early in the process.

Impressed by Judge Sotomayor, Mr. Obama gathered his team around noon Monday in the dining room off the Oval Office. “I’m almost there,” he said as he ate a salad, one participant recalled. “I think it’s going to be her.”

By 9 p.m., he had called to offer her the job.

“He ended up where we started out,” Mr. Craig said. “After all the work, he was thinking about Sonia Sotomayor at the beginning and he was thinking about her at the end. She withstood four months, five months of intense scrutiny by the White House counsel’s office and third parties.”

news.notes20090528e

[Supreme Court on Today's Paper] fom [The Washington Post]

Battle Lines Are Drawn On Sotomayor Nomination
Ideology, Abortion and Remarks on Ethnicity Come to Fore

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 28, 2009

On the day after Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, both sides in the fight over her confirmation moved quickly to try to define the woman who may become the court's first Hispanic justice.
The White House enlisted lawyers and constitutional experts to say that in Sotomayor's 17 years on the federal bench, she has been a cautious jurist who respects precedent. But conservative legal groups countered that her remarks in speeches and symposiums bolster their claims that she is a liberal activist waiting to flower on the high court. One prominent conservative accused her of "reverse" racism, and another called her a "wild-eyed judicial activist."

Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative legal group Committee for Justice, said her judicial record would probably not be enough to stop Sotomayor's confirmation, given the Democratic dominance in the Senate, but her speeches are another matter. "The best predictor of whether a controversial nominee can be stopped is whether the case against her is based on more than just her legal analysis," he said.

A perennial subject -- abortion -- surfaced again as a question mark and an emblem of other controversial topics, worrying some traditionally liberal groups that the White House may be too intent on portraying Sotomayor as an independent moderate.

Several interest groups called on the Senate to try to discern Sotomayor's views on a woman's right to have an abortion vs. the government's right to restrict the procedure.

"I don't know what her position is on the core constitutional protections of Roe v. Wade," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, adding: "I will be nervous if the Senate doesn't get answers to the question."

Meanwhile, conservatives have seized upon Sotomayor's unscripted moments to make the case that she is outside the mainstream. The two most often quoted are a statement she made about how appellate judges make policy and her observation about how being a Latina affects her role as a judge: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The White House has said the remarks are being taken out of context and reflect only the obvious point that Sotomayor's life experiences affect her outlook. Press secretary Robert Gibbs reacted sharply to a Twitter post from former House speaker Newt Gingrich that said, "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman' new racism is no better than old racism."

Gibbs said Americans will make up their minds about Sotomayor based on "more than just the blog of a former lawmaker" and added: "I think it is probably important for anyone involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they decided to describe certain aspects of this impending confirmation."

But more is at stake for conservative activists than Sotomayor's confirmation. Some say privately that the larger goal is portraying Obama as having abandoned the moderate persona of the campaign for a liberal governing style as president.

Although Levey acknowledged that his description of Sotomayor as a "wild-eyed judicial activist" would be hard to extract from her record on the bench, he said that "her words are the best indication" of how she would see her role as a justice.

Likewise, Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, described Sotomayor as a "radical pick." But Yoest acknowledged that Sotomayor's most notable ruling on abortion was on the conservative side. In the ruling, she said the Bush administration had the right to prohibit abortions by overseas organizations receiving U.S. funding, as well as the right to prohibit the groups from speaking out against the restrictions.

Yoest said Sotomayor was following the court's precedents, something she might not do if she were on the Supreme Court. "There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor's philosophy is that she is not only a practitioner of activism, but a defender of it," she said.

On the other side of the debate, Northup's concern is just the opposite. "That decision certainly doesn't suggest she's a judicial activist," Northup said, adding that her organization knows of no instance in which Sotomayor has talked about Roe or expressed support for abortion rights. "We don't want any Souters, either," she said. The reference was to retiring Justice David H. Souter, whose jurisprudence surprised his advocates once he joined the court.

Northup joked that her organization and the National Right to Life Committee had reached rare agreement -- both think the Senate needs to probe Sotomayor's position on abortion, although previous nominees have found it easy to dodge the question.

Northup takes heart that Obama is a "pro-choice president who said he'd put a pro-choice justice on the court."

But Gibbs said yesterday that Obama did not ask Sotomayor her views on the issue.

Meanwhile, the lawyers recruited by the White House to talk about Sotomayor as a judge offered assessments such as "lawyer's lawyer" and "one who cares a lot about craft."

Kevin Russell, a Washington lawyer who practices before the Supreme Court and has analyzed some of Sotomayor's work, was part of the group.

He said in an interview that Sotomayor "looks an awful lot like Justice Souter" and would be left of center on the court. "The left is probably on solid ground to think she will vote on their side," he said.

At this early stage, little has been discovered that would shed light on Sotomayor's stands on other controversial issues, such as gay rights, the death penalty or presidential power.

Sotomayor stayed out of public view yesterday but began contacting Democratic and Republican members of the Senate leadership and the Judiciary Committee, which will be the first to decide her fate.

While Sotomayor works through her list of introductions, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and ranking Republican Jeff Sessions (Ala.) must negotiate a hearing schedule that aims to give Republicans the ample time they are seeking to review the nominee's extensive legal record while meeting Obama's Aug. 7 target for confirmation.

At the moment, Democratic officials who are participating in the process view the week of July 13 as the earliest date that hearings could start, with the nomination heading to the Senate floor about two weeks later.

Sessions was noncommittal about the timing of proceedings in a Fox News interview yesterday morning.

news.notes20090528f

[Environment] from [The Guardian]

[Nuclear Power]
Toxic link: the WHO and the IAEA
A 50-year-old agreement with the IAEA has effectively gagged the WHO from telling the truth about the health risks of radiation

Oliver Tickell
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 May 2009 08.00 BST
Article history

Fifty years ago, on 28 May 1959, the World Health Organisation's assembly voted into force an obscure but important agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency – the United Nations "Atoms for Peace" organisation, founded just two years before in 1957. The effect of this agreement has been to give the IAEA an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power – and so prevent the WHO from playing its proper role in investigating and warning of the dangers of nuclear radiation on human health.

The WHO's objective is to promote "the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health", while the IAEA's mission is to "accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world". Although best known for its work to restrict nuclear proliferation, the IAEA's main role has been to promote the interests of the nuclear power industry worldwide, and it has used the agreement to suppress the growing body of scientific information on the real health risks of nuclear radiation.

Under the agreement, whenever either organisation wants to do anything in which the other may have an interest, it "shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement". The two agencies must "keep each other fully informed concerning all projected activities and all programs of work which may be of interest to both parties". And in the realm of statistics – a key area in the epidemiology of nuclear risk – the two undertake "to consult with each other on the most efficient use of information, resources, and technical personnel in the field of statistics and in regard to all statistical projects dealing with matters of common interest".

The language appears to be evenhanded, but the effect has been one-sided. For example, investigations into the health impacts of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine on 26 April 1986 have been effectively taken over by IAEA and dissenting information has been suppressed. The health effects of the accident were the subject of two major conferences, in Geneva in 1995, and in Kiev in 2001. But the full proceedings of those conferences remain unpublished – despite claims to the contrary by a senior WHO spokesman reported in Le Monde Diplomatique.

Meanwhile, the 2005 report of the IAEA-dominated Chernobyl Forum, which estimates a total death toll from the accident of only several thousand, is widely regarded as a whitewash as it ignores a host of peer-reviewed epidemiological studies indicating far higher mortality and widespread genomic damage. Many of these studies were presented at the Geneva and Kiev conferences but they, and the ensuing learned discussions, have yet to see the light of day thanks to the non-publication of the proceedings.

The British radiation biologist Keith Baverstock is another casualty of the agreement, and of the mindset it has created in the WHO. He served as a radiation scientist and regional adviser at the WHO's European Office from 1991 to 2003, when he was sacked after expressing concern to his senior managers that new epidemiological evidence from nuclear test veterans and from soldiers exposed to depleted uranium indicated that current risk models for nuclear radiation were understating the real hazards.

Now a professor at the University of Kuopio, Finland, Baverstock finally published his paper in the peer-reviewed journal Medicine, Conflict and Survival in April 2005. He concluded by calling for "reform from within the profession" and stressing "the political imperative for freely independent scientific institutions" – a clear reference to the non-independence of his former employer, the WHO, which had so long ignored his concerns.

Since the 21st anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster in April 2007, a daily "Hippocratic vigil" has taken place at the WHO's offices in Geneva, organised by Independent WHO to persuade the WHO to abandon its the WHO-IAEA Agreement. The protest has continued through the WHO's 62nd World Health Assembly, which ended yesterday, and will endure through the executive board meeting that begins today. The group has struggled to win support from WHO's member states. But the scientific case against the agreement is building up, most recently when the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) called for its abandonment at its conference earlier this month in Lesvos, Greece.

At the conference, research was presented indicating that as many as a million children across Europe and Asia may have died in the womb as a result of radiation from Chernobyl, as well as hundreds of thousands of others exposed to radiation fallout, backing up earlier findings published by the ECRR in Chernobyl 20 Years On: Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident. Delegates heard that the standard risk models for radiation risk published by the International Committee on Radiological Protection (ICRP), and accepted by WHO, underestimate the health impacts of low levels of internal radiation by between 100 and 1,000 times – consistent with the ECRR's own 2003 model of radiological risk (The Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates for Radiation Protection Purposes: Regulators' Edition). According to Chris Busby, the ECRR's scientific secretary and visiting professor at the University of Ulster's school of biomedical sciences:

"The subordination of the WHO to IAEA is a key part of the systematic falsification of nuclear risk which has been under way ever since Hiroshima, the agreement creates an unacceptable conflict of interest in which the UN organisation concerned with promoting our health has been made subservient to those whose main interest is the expansion of nuclear power. Dissolving the WHO-IAEA agreement is a necessary first step to restoring the WHO's independence to research the true health impacts of ionising radiation and publish its findings."

Some birthdays deserve celebration – but not this one. After five decades, it is time the WHO regained the freedom to impart independent, objective advice on the health risks of radiation.

news.notes20090528f

[Environment] from [The Guardian]

[Energy]
The mood at Carbon Expo is upbeat as most expect a deal at Copenhagen
Speakers urge market makers to be more involved with influencing policy, while law firms, banks and brokers are confident they will make money whatever the outcome

Bryony Worthington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 May 2009 12.23 BST
Article history

All major carbon-emitting countries should expect to be part of a deal at the Copenhagen climate talks in December or face consequences. That was the message from the UN's special envoy on climate change, Ricardo Lagos, who was speaking at the Carbon Expo conference in Barcelona yesterday.

His keynote lecture gave an insight into the UN's current thinking about the all-important deal. The world, he accepts, has changed significantly since the time that Kyoto was negotiated – a reference to the fact that the old labels of "developed" and "developing" countries, which underpin the existing protocol, are now out of date. And, he warned, a failure to agree to a new plan would likely result in protective trade measures being applied in those countries with domestic policies already in place – currently only the EU but soon to be joined by the US and potentially other countries including South Korea and Australia.

He outlined a mechanism for involvement that could help to encourage new countries in, instead of top-down calculated targets which would apply in the OECD, non-OECD countries could bid on voluntary targets but these would then be entered into a registry and become binding. This sounds a pragmatic solution to the current impasse created by the current scheme. The US will refuse to agree if China remains outside the deal, whereas China refuses to take on targets until the west has shown it is serious about repaying the climate debt it created through rapid and early industrialisation.

Nearly everyone you speak to here expects a deal will be reached. There is still, however, a great deal of nervousness that the policy makers gathering next week in Bonn under the auspices of the UN, may craft a deal that looks superficially attractive, but doesn't provide the clarity of purpose that private sector investors in the carbon market seek. For example, there is talk that the new treaty once agreed will only last for five to eight years, requiring renegotiation almost as soon as it has been agreed. This kind of stop-start policy making is useless for those planning long-term infrastructure investment.

The nature of the targets in the deal are also important – if there is not enough ambition then demand for clean technologies and emissions-reducing projects could dry up. Similarly, what happens if large sources of cheap emissions reductions from avoided deforestation are included? The fear is that without an additional mechanism to incentivise this sort of emissions reduction, there will be a massive influx of permits generated by countries choosing to protect rather than exploit their forest reserves, which would kill the carbon price and delay investment in all other forms of projects.

The solution, it would seem, is more interaction between the policy makers and the market makers. More than one speaker yesterday urged the industry to become more actively involved in lobbying to influence the policy process. One country delegate I spoke to expressed his surprise that more policy people weren't present at this conference, since their decisions would have such a direct effect on the people here.

It seems that even though the carbon market is, as one speaker put it, an entirely "artificial market" exposed to the whims of political will, there is an unwillingness to get too involved in that political process. It may be because private investment is relatively fleet of foot and often focused on achieving a short-term profit – certainly the law firms, banks and brokers here seem relaxed that they can make money whatever the circumstances. A World Bank report, published yesterday, showed that the value of the global carbon market doubled last year – apparently lending support to this view, particularly since over a fifth of the total trade was in the "secondary" market, meaning that it had nothing to do with activities that actually reduce carbon.

But more optimistically it may be that they also, paradoxically, have a longer term strategic view: climate change is not going to go away, so whatever the minutiae of the latest UN protocol says, they are in the right business.

And so the mood in Barcelona is generally upbeat – as you'd expect in a city that has just won the European championship and spent the night celebrating. Whether the reality of a hangover dampens optimism today remains to be seen.

news.notes20090528f

[Environment] from [The Guardian]

[Greenwash]
Greenwash: E-waste trade is the unacceptable face of recycling
Computer manufacturers must take responsibility for dealing with electronic waste to ensure toxic trash doesn't fall into the wrong hands

Fred Pearce
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 May 2009 13.03 BST
Article history

Dell, the world's second largest PC manufacturer, announced earlier this month that it is imposing a ban on the export of used equipment bearing its name to developing countries – unless the equipment is in full working order and intended for legitimate use.

The idea is to undermine the huge trade in e-waste, too much of which ends up in giant trash piles in Africa, India and China, from where it is dismantled, burned, treated with corrosive chemicals and otherwise persuaded to give up tiny amounts of chemicals that can be sold on. The big question is why all the other manufacturers don't have a similar policy.

I've seen these toxic waste operations in action. They call it recycling, but it's extremely damaging. In an industrial wasteland outside New Delhi in India, I watched as children as young as eight dunked bare circuit boards in acid to create a residue of copper for sale to a local works. Child labour? You bet. Health and safety? You have to be joking.

A family of migrant boys from Bihar, India's poorest state, told me they got used to the acrid fumes that had them coughing and giddy within minutes of coming on the job. "At the end of the day we have a strong drink and we are OK," one laughed. It's an evil trade. But how do you stop it?


Dell admits that it cannot wave a magic wand and ban its used products from export. But it has a worldwide policy of accepting back without charge all used Dell equipment. It requires all its contractors to accept the used equipment, to follow the new rules – and to act as whistleblowers on rivals who do not.


"This is a very significant announcement," Barbara Kyle of the Electronics Takeback Coalition in the US told Associated Press earlier this month.


The e-waste trade is the unacceptable face of recycling. Greenpeace reckons that as much as 80% of the electronic waste sent for recycling in the US ends up being "recycled" using dangerous low-tech methods in foreign countries. And, despite Europe's tougher laws, a lot gets through the net there, too.

Just a few months ago, Computer Aid International, a charity that gives old computers a new life in schools and other places in developing countries, criticised Britain's Environment Agency for failing to conduct an investigation after British e-waste turned up in the hands of child dismantlers in west Africa.

"What are the other manufacturers doing to ensure a responsible outcome for the equipment?" asked Tony Roberts, of Computer Aid International. "All manufacturers should be held accountable for the disposal of any product manufacturer by them."

Many other companies offer take-back services. But that is very different from imposing rules on their supply chains. And on closer examination, the take-back services often seem half-hearted at best.

The printer maker Lexmark is currently covering Britain with posters advertising its environmental credentials and encouraging users of its printers to print less. Good for them. But what about the e-waste?

In the US, if you want to safely recycle an old Lexmark printer, you have to pay the bill for shipping your printer back to its offices in Tennessee.

A study by Greenpeace this month of the environmental record of electronics companies did not give Dell a great record because it had been slow to eliminate some toxic ingredients from its products. But at least it is now taking a strong stand about making sure those toxins don't get into the wrong hands and it should rise up the Greenpeace chart.

Its rivals will have to do a lot better to keep up. Greenpeace singled out the largest computer manufacturer Hewlett Packard on its handling of e-waste. HP claims to have been "an industry leader in reducing its impact on the environment ... for 50 years", but Greenpeace didn't agree. It criticised HPs weak scheme for voluntary take-back of its equipment amongst other things.

Also criticised for failing to handle e-waste were Acer and Lenovo, whose "commitment to social responsibility" does not highlight e-waste.

These companies need to quit the greenwash and get real about ending this bogus recycling business.

news.notes20090528g

[Today's Paper] from [Slate Magazine]

A New Counter-Terrorism Role for the FBI

By Daniel Politi
Posted Thursday, May 28, 2009, at 6:35 AM ET

The Los Angeles Times (LAT) leads with word that a "global justice" initiative that has been in the works for months will give the FBI and Justice Department bigger roles in combating terrorism around the world. The move is seen as part of President Obama's broad national security strategy that involves the presumption that pretty much all terrorism suspects, no matter where they're caught, will be able to contest their detention in some way. USA Today (USAT) leads with a look at how the bulk of the first bit of money from the $787 billion stimulus package has mostly failed to reach the states that have the highest unemployment rates. Michigan, for example, has received only 21 cents per person in stimulus cash even though it has the worst unemployment rate while the national average is almost $13. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) leads its world-wide newsbox with news that China and Russia appear to be cooperating with Western leaders to boost sanctions against North Korea with the goal of getting the isolationist nation to abandon its nuclear program.

The New York Times (NYT) and Washington Post (WP) continue to lead with the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The NYT takes a behind-the-scenes look at how President Obama came to pick Sotomayor after a meticulous process in which experienced White House staffers tried to "apply lessons from years of nomination battles to ... avoid the pitfalls of the past." The WP looks at the early stages of the confirmation battle that got into full swing yesterday as both sides in the fight "moved quickly to try to define the woman who may become the court's first Hispanic justice."

The move to get FBI agents more involved in counter-terrorism cases is part of a shift in policy that would take the emphasis away from the CIA, which held much of the authority during the previous administration. Many in the Justice Department see it as a vindication of the FBI, which opposed the interrogation tactics used by the CIA and the military after Sept. 11 and decided to take a step back from questioning key terrorism suspects. Some in the intelligence community are worried this could end up hurting their ability to get information from secret sources, but officials insist the CIA and the military will continue to play an important part in the fight against terrorism.

Among the options being discussed to impose sanctions on North Korea are bans on loans as well as the expansion of a ban on weapons exports. There's been talk about stepping up a program to inspect cargo ships going in and out of the country, but North Korea threatened to attack its southern neighbor if Western nations went through with it. In a threat that the WP says was "unusually broad and bellicose, even by North Korean standards," the Communist state also said that the armistice that ended the Korean War in 1953 was no longer valid.

Sotomayor was on the president's shortlist from the very beginning, when White House officials started looking at potential candidates before there was even an inkling that there would be a vacancy in the near future. When David Souter announced his resignation, "it became her nomination to lose," says the NYT. Still, in the last month, Obama did express some doubts, and the White House ended up considering nine candidates. Obama called every member of the judiciary committee, "something few if any presidents have done." The administration, intent on resisting outside pressure on potential nominees, called members of liberal groups to the White House and asked them to "get on board or get out of the way," as one participant put it.

Well, that didn't last long. As the WP points out in its lead story, and the NYT and LAT off-lead, abortion rights groups have begun to express concern that Sotomayor may not support upholding Roe v. Wade and are pressuring lawmakers to get some answers. At first, most simply assumed that because she was nominated by a pro-choice president she must hold the same views. But now some are expressing doubts, particularly considering that some presidents have made the mistake before—most notably with David Souter, who was widely believed to be an opponent of abortion but then voted to uphold a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. Sotomayor has never ruled directly on the issue, but in cases that dealt tangentially with abortion, she has reached decisions that could be seen as favorable by opponents of abortion. "Everyone is just assuming that because Obama appointed her, she must be a die-hard pro-choice activist," the editor-in-chief of BeliefNet.com said, "but it's really quite amazing how little we know about her views on abortion."

A day after Sotomayor moved into the spotlight, the battle lines for her confirmation fight are being drawn up, and it seems clear that, at least for now, her judicial record won't be the main issue. Conservative commentators are zeroing in on two remarks she made at public forums to give credence to their view that "she is a liberal activist waiting to flower on the high court," as the Post puts it. One is a statement she made about how judges make policy, and the other, which appears to be emerging as the topic du jour, involves 32 words: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

In a widely cited Twitter post, former House speaker Newt Gingrich wrote: "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman' new racism is no better than old racism." You can expect to hear variations that line of thinking frequently from conservative commentators over the next few weeks—Karl Rove uses one in his WSJ column today. (Double X founding editor Hanna Rosin wrote Tuesday that the criticism is "unfair" because "Sotomayor was not talking about all cases. She was talking about race and sex discrimination cases," where there does seem to be evidence that a judge's gender can make a difference.)

Some conservatives insist that the fact that they have to go outside Sotomayor's judicial decisions—her opinions on business and financial matters "are unpredictable," notes the NYT—to criticize her is actually a positive thing. "The best predictor of whether a controversial nominee can be stopped is whether the case against her is based on more than just her legal analysis," the head of a conservative legal group tells the Post. If Republican senators do end up deciding to put Sotomayor through the wringer, the Post suggests she will be ready. In a look back at her previous hearings, the paper says Sotomayor "came across as a self-confident jurist who enjoys speaking about her humble roots, discusses legal reasoning in accessible language and is adept at tactfully defending controversial positions."

After all is said and done though, Democrats still control the Senate, so Sotomayor's opponents "are fighting an uphill battle, unless some unknown personal scandal emerges," notes the WSJ. But blocking Sotomayor from ascending to the nation's highest court isn't the only reason why many conservatives think the fight is worthwhile. The WP hears word that some opponents privately state that "the larger goal is portraying Obama as having abandoned the moderate persona of the campaign for a liberal governing style as president."

The WP's E.J. Dionne Jr. writes that Sotomayor "is the most conservative choice that President Obama could have made." Liberals should certainly support her confirmation, but they "would be foolish to embrace Sotomayor as one their own because her record is clearly that of a moderate." The conservative claim that Sotomayor would be biased toward those who have a similar upbringing simply has no basis in fact when you consider the decisions she has made as a judge. Liberals should avoid taking "the bait of right-wingers by allowing the debate over Sotomayor to be premised on the idea that she is a bold ideological choice," writes Dionne. "She's not."

The LAT and WSJ front news out of Pakistan, where attackers sprayed gunfire outside police and intelligence agencies in Lahore before the van they had been traveling in rammed into the gate and detonated. At least 27 people were killed and 250 injured. A group calling itself Tehri-i-Taliban Punjab claimed responsibility, and many believe it should be seen as retaliation for the military offensive against the Taliban in the Swat Valley. The WSJ takes a long look and points out insurgents in Punjab province, where Lahore is located, have carried out four major attacks against police since February. Insurgents have long targeted police in the country's northwest region, but now many believe they're transferring the tactic to the country's most populous province in order to destroy police morale. Attacking security personnel is a tactic that was used by Sunni insurgents in Iraq and is also on the uptick in Afghanistan.

CONTINUED ON news.notes20090528h

news.notes20090528h

[Today's Paper] from [Slate Magazine]

A New Counter-Terrorism Role for the FBI

By Daniel Politi
Posted Thursday, May 28, 2009, at 6:35 AM ET

CONTINUED FROM news.notes20090528g

The WP fronts, and the WSJ goes inside with, word that the White House is getting ready to recommend to Congress that there should be a single regulator to oversee the banking sector, which would replace the numerous agencies that are currently in charge and failed to prevent the financial crisis from getting out of control. The move would be part of the White House efforts to overhaul the regulation of the financial markets that would include creating an agency to watch out for risks in the financial system and another that would protect consumers of financial products. Officials are optimistic that lawmakers could approve a plan before the end of the year.

Nobody fronts news out of Baghdad, where a roadside bomb killed a U.S. soldier and four Iraqi civilians yesterday. At least 20 American soldiers have died in Iraq so far this month, making it the deadliest since September, when 25 died.

The NYT devotes a front-page look at how "the hug has become the favorite social greeting when teenagers meet or part these days." Hugging is nothing new, of course, but apparently teenagers have taken it to such an extreme hat they're hugging one another all the time, not just at the beginning or end of a school day. Some even feel peer pressure to hug more as there's no more differentiation between genders, either. Boys hug other boys without trepidation—something that African-American boys and men have been doing for decades. Parents are often puzzled by the custom, particularly since it's often not accompanied by any other kind of greeting. "No hi, no smile, no wave, no high-five—just the hug," said a parenting columnist for the AP. "Witnessing this interaction always makes me feel like I am a tourist in a country where I do not know the customs and cannot speak the language."