New York Killers, and Those Killed, by Numbers
By JO CRAVEN McGINTY (NY TIMES 4/28/06)
The oldest killer was 88; he murdered his wife. The youngest was 9; she stabbed her friend. The women were more than twice as likely as men to murder a current spouse or lover. But once the romance was over, only the men killed their exes. The deadliest day was on July 10, 2004, when eight people died in separate homicides.
Five people eliminated a boss; 10 others murdered co-workers. Males who killed favored firearms, while women and girls chose knives as often as guns. More homicides occurred in Brooklyn than in any other borough. More happened on Saturday. And roughly a third are unsolved.
At the end of each year, the New York Police Department reports the number of killings — there were 540 in 2005. Typically, much is made of how the number has fallen in recent years — to totals not seen since the early 1960's. But beyond summarizing the overarching trends, the police spend little time compiling the individual details.
The New York Times obtained the basic records for every murder in the city over the last three years, and while the events make for disturbing reading, the numbers can hint at trends, occasionally solve a mystery and in at least some straightforward way answer for the city the questions of who kills and who is killed in the five boroughs.
From 2003 through 2005, 1,662 murders were committed in New York. No information, beyond an occasional physical description, is available on the killers in the unsolved cases.
Of the rest, men and boys were responsible for 93 percent of the murders; they killed with guns about two-thirds of the time; their victims tended to be other men and boys; and in more than half the cases, the killer and the victim knew each other.
The police said they were more interested in disrupting crime patterns. "We're looking for things with operational implications — time of day, day of the week — to see that we deploy officers at the right times and in sufficient numbers," said Michael J. Farrell, deputy commissioner for strategic initiatives.
The offender and victim were of the same race in more than three-quarters of the killings. And according to Mr. Farrell, they often had something else in common: More than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records; and of those who wound up killed, more than half had them.
"If the average New Yorker is concerned about being murdered in a random crime, the odds of that happening are really remote," Mr. Farrell said. "If you are living apart from a life of crime, your risk is negligible."
Criminologists confirm that assessment. "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City," said Andrew Karmen, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and an expert on victimology. "Victims and offenders are pretty much pulled from the same background. Very often, young victims have young killers. Very often, the victim and killer knew each other."
But plenty of times, events diverge from the norm.
At least a quarter of the city's murders in these three years, were committed by strangers, and in those instances, most were the result of a dispute. Stranger homicides now happen at almost twice the rate of 50 years ago, when, according to a classic study by Marvin Wolfgang, a criminologist, about 14 percent of murders were committed by strangers.
"Homicide used to be regarded as an acquaintance phenomenon with relatively rare incidents involving strangers," said Steven F. Messner, a homicide expert and a professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Albany. "It's still characteristically an acquaintance event. But the stranger homicides are now nontrivial."
After four years as commander of the Brooklyn North homicide squad, Lt. John Cornicello said the murders in his section of the borough had begun to run together. Yet from memory, he rolled off the details of several: The good Samaritan shot for his Lincoln Navigator after offering a ride to a group of stranded people. The ".40-caliber killer," a serial murderer who shot and killed but did not rob four shopkeepers because he believed they were Middle Eastern.
"More and more, they seem to be the result of stupidity," Lieutenant Cornicello said. "Take the Potato Wedge Killer."
In that recent case, a customer at a KFC restaurant became incensed when he did not receive enough starch with his fried chicken order. After demanding both a refund and an order of potato wedges, he later confronted the cashier with whom he had argued and stabbed him to death.
Among all the city's victims, the oldest was 91; she died during a robbery. Whites and Asians, who seldom murdered, were also infrequently killed: Together, they represented 75 or fewer victims each year. Most homicides occurred outdoors. The deadliest hour was 1 to 2 a.m.
And a small but unsettling number of children were among the victims, including 21 infants and 32 children ages 1 to 10, most of whom died at the hands of a parent.
According to Professor Karmen, 10 is the safest age. "You're too old to be abused or neglected as a child," he said, "and you're not old enough to be out on the streets."
An interesting, though uncommon, group of murders that made it into the police accounting in these years involved a handful of victims who died of injuries they had first suffered in crimes committed one or more years before.
Stabbed, shot, beaten or burned, they survived long enough to be counted as murder victims in another calendar year.
Sixty-nine victims fit this description.
In some instances, they were injured decades ago. The medical examiner alerts the police when such deaths occur, according to Sgt. Edward Yee of the Police Department's crime analysis unit, and the police add the victims to that year's murder tally.
For example, 21 deaths that were counted as murders in 2005 resulted from injuries that occurred in earlier years.
The oldest involved a shooting in 1975, when a man attacked his brother in a domestic dispute. That raised the murder toll to 540, the lowest figure recorded by the city in four decades, but only 519 murders were committed last year.
Subtracting these belated deaths makes the recent decline in the number of homicides — which has grabbed headlines — seem even more stunning. But for the purpose of generating the annual murder tally, the police do not distinguish between fresh and delayed murders.
"No one does," Mr. Farrell said, referring to other police departments.
Within the city, 40 percent of the murders occurred in Brooklyn. The 75th Precinct, with 90, had the most of any precinct, but there were hot spots scattered throughout the city, in Brooklyn's 73rd, 79th and 83rd Precincts, for example, and in the 44th and 46th Precincts in the Bronx. In and around the 32nd Precinct in Harlem could be dangerous, too.
No one is certain what explains the recent decreases in the overall number of homicides, but many criminologists believe social factors may help explain why, and where, most murders continue to occur.
"The problem of crime and violence is rooted in neighborhood conditions — high rates of poverty, family disruption, failing schools, lack of recreational opportunities, active recruitment by street gangs, drug markets," Professor Karmen said. "People forced to reside under those conditions are at a greater risk of getting caught up in violence, as victims or as perpetrators."
The police are generally unimpressed by such theories, as well as the minutiae surrounding the deaths.
"Crime is concentrated," Mr. Farrell said. "Who knows why? We're looking at what we can affect."
The roughly one-third of the homicides that remain unsolved create one of the larger categories of murder. Typically, 50 to 55 percent of murders are solved in the same calendar year in which the crime is committed, according to Paul J. Browne, a deputy police commissioner in New York.
The police clear an additional number of murders from previous years, for an overall annual clearance rate of about 70 percent. That beats the national average, which is closer to 62 percent, according to F.B.I. statistics.
In New York, several things may contribute to the number of open cases, according to the police and criminologists. A significant number may have been stranger murders, which are particularly hard to solve. It can take months to collect witness statements.
And sometimes, detectives just cannot get the right person to talk.
"The big secret of detective work," Lieutenant Cornicello said, "is that you've got to get somebody else to tell you what happened."

NY Times

A Plan to Rebuild by 2012, and Doubts on the Big Rush
By CHARLES V. BAGLI
The new plan for ground zero calls for the accelerated construction of a sprawling commercial complex: 8.8 million square feet of office space in four towers 58 to 70 stories high. All would open within a year of each other, by 2012.
Gov. George E. Pataki and others say the conceptual plan, officially approved yesterday by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey after months of gridlock, will rejuvenate Lower Manhattan and ensure that it remains the financial capital of the world.
But some construction and real estate industry executives, and some urban planners, hear echoes of the hoopla surrounding the original World Trade Center project more than 30 years ago. They are questioning whether the rapid building of so much speculative office space would have the same destabilizing consequences for the downtown market as the twin towers had in the 1970's.
Some experts are even wondering whether there will be enough steel, concrete and curtain wall to build the four towers by 2012 at the same time that two baseball stadiums, the $2 billion Goldman Sachs headquarters, the $1.7 billion expansion of the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, Moynihan Station, 10,000 apartments and various subway projects are under construction.
Yesterday, the influential Regional Plan Association and the Fiscal Policy Institute welcomed the plan, but they, like many developers, continued to question the wisdom of building the tallest of the skyscrapers, the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower, intended to be a symbol of the city's resilience.
They said the tower would stand too far from public transportation and was unlikely to attract corporate tenants, who view it as a potential terrorist target. Some government officials suggested that the site be brought up to street level and then put into mothballs next year.
"The Freedom Tower is a disastrous idea that should be scratched," said Susan S. Fainstein, a professor of urban planning at Columbia University.
Kathryn S. Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, was far more upbeat. "This agreement will provide a significant boost to the economy of Lower Manhattan by eliminating much of the uncertainty regarding the area's economic future," she said, adding that businesses would be lured by the neighborhood's comparatively low business costs.
But one thing is certain: the cost of the buildings, now estimated at $6.3 billion, is going to jump. Jones Lang LaSalle, the real estate company advising the Port Authority, has built inflation into the numbers. Construction costs are continuing to escalate, at the rate of 1 percent a month.
"I don't know how long it'll continue," said Frank J. Sciame, the former chairman of the New York Building Congress, "but that's the case for the next year or two."
The World Trade Center, a 10 million-square-foot office complex built by the Port Authority, opened in late 1970 during one of the worst real estate markets since the Depression. To provide anchor tenants for the 110-story towers, state agencies moved into two million square feet of space in one tower, and the Port Authority took 900,000 square feet in the second.
The trade center also offered subsidized rents to lure tenants out of surrounding buildings, angering local landlords.
It was not until the mid-1980's that the state began relocating to other buildings. And a breakthrough came in 1985, when Dean Witter Financial Services leased 24 floors in Tower 2, opening the way for other financial firms. Still, occupancy fluctuated wildly until 1998, when companies fleeing high rents in Midtown pushed the occupancy rate to 98 percent.
In late 2002, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg outlined his vision for downtown and drew on some of the lessons of the trade center. He said that it made no sense to rush ahead to rebuild the 10 million square feet of lost office space.
"If we are honest with ourselves," he said, "we will recognize that the impact on our city was not all positive. The twin towers' voracious appetite for tenants weakened the entire downtown market."
But last fall, Mr. Bloomberg started calling for the ground zero project to accelerate. And the plan approved yesterday moves the completion date for the four office towers to 2012, from 2015.
Government agencies — city, state, federal and the Port Authority — are expected to account for 25 percent of the 8.8 million square feet, only slightly less space than they took up in the twin towers in 1972.
"The need to relocate government offices to the World Trade Center in the 1970's was a sign of the economic failure of that project," said David Dyssegaard Kallick, a senior fellow at the Fiscal Policy Institute. "It would make more sense to ensure that we fully fund the public spaces, like the memorial and the performing arts center. Then, allow for the gradual development of the office space with market demand."
One downtown landlord, who expects to lose his government tenant to the new trade center complex, said, "They're about to make the same mistake they did in the 1970's."
The executive, who was granted anonymity because he did not want to damage his relationship with his largest tenant, a government agency, predicted: "They'll pull all the city, state and federal agencies out of other buildings and put them in there. It'll take a long time for other owners to relet their buildings."
Barry M. Gosin, chief executive of Newmark Knight Frank, a real estate firm, also said the timetable was too short. "They'll be competing with themselves," he said. "They should leave a few sites zoned and ready to go when demand dictates."
But Bill Rudin, a third-generation developer and a major downtown landlord, said that his family was one of the few in real estate who supported the trade center in 1970, and that he supported the new ground zero plan. He said that while a few downtown companies would move to the new towers, most would come from outside the area.
"There is a need for this type of space," he said. "In the last year or so, we've seen Midtown tighten and companies being priced out. Where are they going to but downtown?"
Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday that he was still concerned about building all four towers simultaneously, which "may very well lead to too much office space coming on the market at one time." But, he added, the empty holes at the trade center site have become a "great disincentive to rent downtown."
"On balance," the mayor said, "I'd just as soon get everything going."
Still, it may be physically impossible to build all four towers by 2012, as well as the memorial, the museum, the $2 billion PATH terminal and other nearby projects. Even before the accelerated schedule, Charles J. Maikish, executive director of the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center, estimated that there would be 10,000 to 15,000 construction workers a day on ground zero projects over the next three to five years.
The trade center site will be competing for materials and labor with a dozen other major projects, including the extension of the No. 7 subway line on the West Side and the construction of the Second Avenue Subway on the East Side.
Home
World
U.S.
N.Y. / Region
Business

In Legal Deal, Limbaugh Surrenders in Drug Case
By JEFF LEEDS
Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talk-radio host, was charged yesterday with prescription drug fraud and turned himself in to Florida authorities as part of a deal to resolve a lengthy inquiry into whether he improperly obtained painkillers.
Mr. Limbaugh, who is one of the nation's most popular radio personalities and is heard on nearly 600 stations, turned himself in yesterday afternoon to the Palm Beach County sheriff on a warrant for fraud to conceal information to obtain a prescription. He was released about an hour later on $3,000 bail, the authorities said.
Mr. Limbaugh's lawyer, Roy Black, said his client and prosecutors in Palm Beach County had reached a settlement in which Mr. Limbaugh would be charged with a single count in connection with allegations that he illegally obtained multiple prescriptions for a drug from more than one doctor.
As part of the agreement, which Mr. Black said would be filed with the court on Monday, the charge would be dropped in 18 months if Mr. Limbaugh continued to undergo treatment for drug addiction.
Mr. Limbaugh is also required to refrain from breaking the law during the 18-month period, pay $30,000 to Florida officials to offset the cost of the investigation and pay $30 a month for the cost of supervision, Mr. Black said.
Mr. Limbaugh filed a plea of not guilty in court. Mr. Black said in a statement that "Mr. Limbaugh and I have maintained from the start that there was no doctor-shopping, and we continue to hold this position."
Mr. Limbaugh has been the leading voice of conservative talk radio since the mid-80's and has been regarded as playing an important role in the rallying of voters in the Republican Party's sweep of Congress in 1994 and mobilizing support for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998.
Before his own problems with painkillers surfaced, Mr. Limbaugh had regularly told listeners that drug users should be jailed.
Florida officials began investigating Mr. Limbaugh in 2003, when a tabloid report quoted his maid as saying she had assisted him in obtaining OxyContin, a time-release narcotic. In October of that year, Mr. Limbaugh said on the air that he was addicted to painkillers and would enter a rehabilitation center.
He made the announcement several days after resigning as an ESPN sports analyst because of race-related remarks he made about Donovan McNabb, the Philadelphia Eagles' quarterback.
Mr. Limbaugh said that he began taking painkillers after he had spinal surgery in the 1990's and that he had tried to end his addiction to pain medication before, twice checking into "medical facilities."
Prosecutors seized Mr. Limbaugh's medical records after learning that he had obtained a large volume of painkillers from a pharmacy near his home in Palm Beach. But the inquiry slowed as state officials and Mr. Black fought over whether the records had been seized properly.
Kraig T. Kitchin, the president of Premiere Radio Networks, which syndicates Mr. Limbaugh's program, said yesterday that he was "pleased that a settlement has been reached between Rush Limbaugh and the State of Florida that finally brings this matter to an end."
Mr. Kitchin added: "Rush's not-guilty plea is consistent with the position he has taken all along. Throughout it all, he has continued to demonstrate an unwavering commitment to his listeners, affiliates and advertisers. We have always stood by Rush — for good reason — and will continue to do so."

The Left Awakens, maybe...
The Euston Manifesto
Wednesday, 29 March 2006
A. Preamble
We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.
The present initiative has its roots in and has found a constituency through the Internet, especially the "blogosphere". It is our perception, however, that this constituency is under-represented elsewhere — in much of the media and the other forums of contemporary political life.
The broad statement of principles that follows is a declaration of intent. It inaugurates a new Website, which will serve as a resource for the current of opinion it hopes to represent and the several foundation blogs and other sites that are behind this call for a progressive realignment.
Download
B. Statement of principles
1) For democracy.We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures — freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion. We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold.
2) No apology for tyranny.We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently "understand", reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy — regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.
3) Human rights for all.We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal, and binding on all states and political movements, indeed on everyone. Violations of these rights are equally to be condemned whoever is responsible for them and regardless of cultural context. We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse. We reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples.
4) Equality.We espouse a generally egalitarian politics. We look towards progress in relations between the sexes (until full gender equality is achieved), between different ethnic communities, between those of various religious affiliations and those of none, and between people of diverse sexual orientations — as well as towards broader social and economic equality all round. We leave open, as something on which there are differences of viewpoint amongst us, the question of the best economic forms of this broader equality, but we support the interests of working people everywhere and their right to organize in defence of those interests. Democratic trade unions are the bedrock organizations for the defence of workers' interests and are one of the most important forces for human rights, democracy-promotion and egalitarian internationalism. Labour rights are human rights. The universal adoption of the International Labour Organization Conventions — now routinely ignored by governments across the globe — is a priority for us. We are committed to the defence of the rights of children, and to protecting people from sexual slavery and all forms of institutionalized abuse.
5) Development for freedom.We stand for global economic development-as-freedom and against structural economic oppression and environmental degradation. The current expansion of global markets and free trade must not be allowed to serve the narrow interests of a small corporate elite in the developed world and their associates in developing countries. The benefits of large-scale development through the expansion of global trade ought to be distributed as widely as possible in order to serve the social and economic interests of workers, farmers and consumers in all countries. Globalization must mean global social integration and a commitment to social justice. We support radical reform of the major institutions of global economic governance (World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank) to achieve these goals, and we support fair trade, more aid, debt cancellation and the campaign to Make Poverty History. Development can bring growth in life-expectancy and in the enjoyment of life, easing burdensome labour and shortening the working day. It can bring freedom to youth, possibilities of exploration to those of middle years, and security to old age. It enlarges horizons and the opportunities for travel, and helps make strangers into friends. Global development must be pursued in a manner consistent with environmentally sustainable growth.
6) Opposing anti-Americanism.We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world. The United States of America is a great country and nation. It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name. Its peoples have produced a vibrant culture that is the pleasure, the source-book and the envy of millions. That US foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people.
7) For a two-state solution.We recognize the right of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution. There can be no reasonable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that subordinates or eliminates the legitimate rights and interests of one of the sides to the dispute.
8) Against racism.For liberals and the Left, anti-racism is axiomatic. We oppose every form of racist prejudice and behaviour: the anti-immigrant racism of the far Right; tribal and inter-ethnic racism; racism against people from Muslim countries and those descended from them, particularly under cover of the War on Terror. The recent resurgence of another, very old form of racism, anti-Semitism, is not yet properly acknowledged in left and liberal circles. Some exploit the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people under occupation by Israel, and conceal prejudice against the Jewish people behind the formula of "anti-Zionism". We oppose this type of racism too, as should go without saying.
9) United against terror.We are opposed to all forms of terrorism. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a crime under international law and all recognized codes of warfare, and it cannot be justified by the argument that it is done in a cause that is just. Terrorism inspired by Islamist ideology is widespread today. It threatens democratic values and the lives and freedoms of people in many countries. This does not justify prejudice against Muslims, who are its main victims, and amongst whom are to be found some of its most courageous opponents. But, like all terrorism, it is a menace that has to be fought, and not excused.
10) A new internationalism.We stand for an internationalist politics and the reform of international law — in the interests of global democratization and global development. Humanitarian intervention, when necessary, is not a matter of disregarding sovereignty, but of lodging this properly within the "common life" of all peoples. If in some minimal sense a state protects the common life of its people (if it does not torture, murder and slaughter its own civilians, and meets their most basic needs of life), then its sovereignty is to be respected. But if the state itself violates this common life in appalling ways, its claim to sovereignty is forfeited and there is a duty upon the international community of intervention and rescue. Once a threshold of inhumanity has been crossed, there is a "responsibility to protect".
11) A critical openness.Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the "anti-war" movement with illiberal theocrats), we reject the notion that there are no opponents on the Left. We reject, similarly, the idea that there can be no opening to ideas and individuals to our right. Leftists who make common cause with, or excuses for, anti-democratic forces should be criticized in clear and forthright terms. Conversely, we pay attention to liberal and conservative voices and ideas if they contribute to strengthening democratic norms and practices and to the battle for human progress.
12) Historical truth.In connecting to the original humanistic impulses of the movement for human progress, we emphasize the duty which genuine democrats must have to respect for the historical truth. Not only fascists, Holocaust-deniers and the like have tried to obscure the historical record. One of the tragedies of the Left is that its own reputation was massively compromised in this regard by the international Communist movement, and some have still not learned that lesson. Political honesty and straightforwardness are a primary obligation for us.
13) Freedom of ideas.We uphold the traditional liberal freedom of ideas. It is more than ever necessary today to affirm that, within the usual constraints against defamation, libel and incitement to violence, people must be at liberty to criticize ideas — even whole bodies of ideas — to which others are committed. This includes the freedom to criticize religion: particular religions and religion in general. Respect for others does not entail remaining silent about their beliefs where these are judged to be wanting.
14) Open source.As part of the free exchange of ideas and in the interests of encouraging joint intellectual endeavour, we support the open development of software and other creative works and oppose the patenting of genes, algorithms and facts of nature. We oppose the retrospective extension of intellectual property laws in the financial interests of corporate copyright holders. The open source model is collective and competitive, collaborative and meritocratic. It is not a theoretical ideal, but a tested reality that has created common goods whose power and robustness have been proved over decades. Indeed, the best collegiate ideals of the scientific research community that gave rise to open source collaboration have served human progress for centuries.
15) A precious heritage.We reject fear of modernity, fear of freedom, irrationalism, the subordination of women; and we reaffirm the ideas that inspired the great rallying calls of the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth century: liberty, equality and solidarity; human rights; the pursuit of happiness. These inspirational ideas were made the inheritance of us all by the social-democratic, egalitarian, feminist and anti-colonial transformations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries — by the pursuit of social justice, the provision of welfare, the brotherhood and sisterhood of all men and women. None should be left out, none left behind. We are partisans of these values. But we are not zealots. For we embrace also the values of free enquiry, open dialogue and creative doubt, of care in judgement and a sense of the intractabilities of the world. We stand against all claims to a total — unquestionable or unquestioning — truth.
C. Elaborations
We defend liberal and pluralist democracies against all who make light of the differences between them and totalitarian and other tyrannical regimes. But these democracies have their own deficits and shortcomings. The battle for the development of more democratic institutions and procedures, for further empowering those without influence, without a voice or with few political resources, is a permanent part of the agenda of the Left.
The social and economic foundations on which the liberal democracies have developed are marked by deep inequalities of wealth and income and the survival of unmerited privilege. In turn, global inequalities are a scandal to the moral conscience of humankind. Millions live in terrible poverty. Week in, week out, tens of thousands of people — children in particular — die from preventable illnesses. Inequalities of wealth, both as between individuals and between countries, distribute life chances in an arbitrary way.
These things are a standing indictment against the international community. We on the Left, in keeping with our own traditions, fight for justice and a decent life for everyone. In keeping with those same traditions, we have also to fight against powerful forces of totalitarian-style tyranny that are on the march again. Both battles have to be fought simultaneously. One should not be sacrificed for the other.
We repudiate the way of thinking according to which the events of September 11, 2001 were America's deserved comeuppance, or "understandable" in the light of legitimate grievances resulting from US foreign policy. What was done on that day was an act of mass murder, motivated by odious fundamentalist beliefs and redeemed by nothing whatsoever. No evasive formula can hide that.
The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted — rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.
This opposes us not only to those on the Left who have actively spoken in support of the gangs of jihadist and Baathist thugs of the Iraqi so-called resistance, but also to others who manage to find a way of situating themselves between such forces and those trying to bring a new democratic life to the country. We have no truck, either, with the tendency to pay lip service to these ends, while devoting most of one's energy to criticism of political opponents at home (supposedly responsible for every difficulty in Iraq), and observing a tactful silence or near silence about the ugly forces of the Iraqi "insurgency". The many left opponents of regime change in Iraq who have been unable to understand the considerations that led others on the Left to support it, dishing out anathema and excommunication, more lately demanding apology or repentance, betray the democratic values they profess.
Vandalism against synagogues and Jewish graveyards and attacks on Jews themselves are on the increase in Europe. "Anti-Zionism" has now developed to a point where supposed organizations of the Left are willing to entertain openly anti-Semitic speakers and to form alliances with anti-Semitic groups. Amongst educated and affluent people are to be found individuals unembarrassed to claim that the Iraq war was fought on behalf of Jewish interests, or to make other "polite" and subtle allusions to the harmful effect of Jewish influence in international or national politics — remarks of a kind that for more than fifty years after the Holocaust no one would have been able to make without publicly disgracing themselves. We stand against all variants of such bigotry.
The violation of basic human rights standards at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, and by the practice of "rendition", must be roundly condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles, for the establishment of which the democratic countries themselves, and in particular the United States of America, bear the greater part of the historical credit. But we reject the double standards by which too many on the Left today treat as the worst violations of human rights those perpetrated by the democracies, while being either silent or more muted about infractions that outstrip these by far. This tendency has reached the point that officials speaking for Amnesty International, an organization which commands enormous, worldwide respect because of its invaluable work over several decades, can now make grotesque public comparison of Guantanamo with the Gulag, can assert that the legislative measures taken by the US and other liberal democracies in the War on Terror constitute a greater attack on human rights principles and values than anything we have seen in the last 50 years, and be defended for doing so by certain left and liberal voices.
D. Conclusion
It is vitally important for the future of progressive politics that people of liberal, egalitarian and internationalist outlook should now speak clearly. We must define ourselves against those for whom the entire progressive-democratic agenda has been subordinated to a blanket and simplistic "anti-imperialism" and/or hostility to the current US administration. The values and goals which properly make up that agenda — the values of democracy, human rights, the continuing battle against unjustified privilege and power, solidarity with peoples fighting against tyranny and oppression — are what most enduringly define the shape of any Left worth belonging to.

Russia launches Israeli spy satellite
By HENRY MEIER Seattle Post Intelligencer
MOSCOW -- Russia on Tuesday launched a satellite for Israel that the Israelis say will be used to spy on Iran's nuclear program.
The Eros B satellite was launched from a mobile pad at the Svobodny cosmodrome in the Far East, said Alexei Kuznetsov, a spokesman for the Russian military space forces.
About 20 minutes later, the satellite successfully reached orbit, Russian news agencies reported, citing the space forces' press service.
"The Israeli satellite reached its target orbit and has been transferred to the client's control," Kuznetsov was quoted as saying by the ITAR-Tass news agency.
Israel's Channel 10 TV reported that the launch was successful, but the satellite would not deploy its power panels for another day and a half.
The satellite is designed to spot images on the ground as small as 27 1/2 inches, an Israeli defense official said. That level of resolution would allow Israel to gather information on Iran's nuclear program and its long-range missiles, which are capable of striking Israel, he said.
The satellite, which can remain in orbit for six years, can photograph the same spot on the Earth once every four days, according to ITAR-Tass.
"The most important thing in a satellite is its ability to photograph and its resolution," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive subject matter. "This satellite has very high resolution, and (state-run) Israel Aircraft Industries has a great ability to process information that is relayed."
It could take up to 10 days to see whether the images that are transmitted are sharp and clear, he said.
Israel has for years regarded Iran as the primary threat to its survival, disputing Tehran's claims that its nuclear program is peaceful. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made this threat more tangible by repeatedly questioning Israel's right to exist, most recently on Monday, when he said Israel was a "fake regime" that "cannot logically continue to live."
Interim Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Tuesday that he takes threats by Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel off the map "very seriously."
"We do not take it lightly," Olmert said, speaking from Jerusalem by satellite relay to an Anti-Defamation League meeting in Washington. "We are powerful and able to defend ourselves."
An attempt to launch a military spy satellite, Amos 6, failed last year. Amos 5 is still in orbit, and Channel 10 reported Israel plans to launch another spy satellite next year.
Iran's threatening comments about Israel had special resonance on Tuesday, which Israel marked as Holocaust remembrance day. Israeli Nobel peace laureate Shimon Peres, in Poland for observances, drew a parallel between Ahmadinejad and Adolf Hitler.
"We will haven't recovered from this (the Holocaust) and I still hear these calls from Iran to destroy Israel," Peres said.
Ahmadinejad's words, he added, "are enough to put us all on alert."

Alone Together:

Guest host "Walter"

From Andrew Sullivan: I agree completely! Read this and think about what a pest these gizmo's have become!
22 Apr 2006 02:35 pm
Eating dinner at a bar the other night, I sat next to a sales rep for a company that produces portable home dialysis units. He was drinking pretty hard, celebrating a deal that he'd just closed and telling me how soaring diabetes rates were going to create ever greater demand for his revolutionary product. I thought he was going to propose a toast to kidney failure.
But what bothered me most about our conversation was the streamlined plastic phone device implanted in his right ear and connected via Bluetooth to the Palm Treo lying on the bar in front of him. Every minute or two the earjack would light up, suddenly pulsing white and blue, and I'd forget whatever I was saying to him or whatever he was saying to me. Finally, I asked him what the light was. "That just means the thing's turned on," he said. As he said this, he was looking at his Treo screen, which he did about every thirty or forty seconds. His face changed -- had some important message arrived? Still speaking to me, but without much focus now, he tapped out a line or two of text with his amazingly prehensile thumbs. He'd left the scene, I sensed; he was somewhere else. At headquarters, perhaps. And I'd been placed on hold.
I didn't like it. I never like it. And it happens constantly. I'll be in the middle of what I take to be a sincere human interaction with somebody and they'll start cutting in and out -- checking the Blackberry, texting on the cell phone, stylus-ing the electronic calendar. No apologies, either. No 'excuse mes.' As though a mixture of physical proximity and electronic separation is the accepted new mode of social togetherness. I swear I've seen couples out on dates who speak to each other only when the menu comes, to negotiate their appetizers, and then drift off into conversations with others until the check arrives.
And yet they call it "communications technology."
When the dialysis salesman returned to earth, I committed a faux pas by asking him what he'd just been writing about. I thought I was entitled to ask this question because he'd been conducting his business in front of me. I found out otherwise. He glared at me. What kind of spying busybody was I? The warmth between us never returned and we ate our salads in different universes, staring at the TV behind the bar. The light in his earjack pulsed. I paid my tab. When I left, I mumbled a goodbye, but the salesman didn't acknowledge it. He was tapping on his keys.
--Walter

More on the fascist antics of Kansas A.G. Kline

Judge Blocks Law to Report Sex Under 16
By JODI RUDOREN (NY TIMES)
A federal judge ruled yesterday that Kansas law did not require health care workers to report to the authorities sexual activity by people under age 16, invalidating a 2003 opinion by the state's attorney general.
The judge, J. Thomas Marten of Federal District Court in Wichita, said the reporting of consensual sex among similarly aged teenagers would deter young people from seeking medical care and overwhelm the state authorities.
The ruling blocks the attorney general's advisory opinion from guiding the enforcement of Kansas' law requiring the reporting of abuse that causes injury. The opinion suggested that any pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease or request for contraception fell under the law.
The decision by Judge Marten came in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of doctors, nurses, therapists and sex educators. It was the second legal setback in as many months for the attorney general, Phill Kline, and his efforts to restrict abortions in the state.
The Kansas Supreme Court on Feb. 3 limited Mr. Kline's investigation into two abortion clinics by stripping the medical records he had requested of patients' identifying information.
In yesterday's decision, Judge Marten said Mr. Kline's opinion improperly conflated illegal sexual activity — intercourse, oral sex and lewd touching by anyone under 16 are prohibited in Kansas — with abuse.
"The opinion wrongly redefines the common understanding of both state agencies and mandatory reporters by denoting all sexual activity to be 'inherently injurious,' " wrote Judge Marten, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton. "The attorney general's overexpansive interpretation of the reporting statute not only fails to serve the public interest, it actually serves to undermine it."
Simon Heller, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group that filed the suit, said the ruling could have broad national implications because it was the first to assure adolescents constitutional protection for private communication with health care workers.
Another lawyer for the group, Bonnie Scott Jones, said in a statement, "States cannot be allowed to simply pull up a chair in every doctor's office in the state and listen in on teenagers seeking health services."
Mr. Kline, a Republican, was unavailable for an interview. A three-paragraph statement that he sent by e-mail to reporters largely ignored the substance of the judge's ruling, instead claiming success for defending the constitutionality of the reporting statute, which was not a central question in the lawsuit.
"I have always maintained, and continue to maintain, that the rape of a child harms a child," he said. "When the Kansas Legislature wrote this statute, they unquestionably had the protection of children in mind."
But Judge Marten said that Mr. Kline's advisory opinion was "contrary to a plain reading" of state law.

FROM NT TIMES 21 April 2006
Home
World
U.S.

The white flight to the Right
(English Workers Revolt!)

Michael Collins

London Times 4/20/06
The break-up of old urban neighbourhoods explains the flirtation with the BNP
IN THEIR PURSUIT of the working-class vote in the local elections, Respect and the British National Party could do worse than to campaign jointly.
Although this might appear an unholy alliance, each party believes itself to be the traditional voice of socialism. While door-knocking in Bethnal Green during the general election, George Galloway, the leader of Respect, would always claim that he represented old Labour values; the literature being distributed by the BNP states: “We are the Labour Party your grandfathers voted for.”
Which Labour Party would that be? The one that an unprecedented number of trade union members deserted to vote Conservative in 1979? Or the one that some trade unionists joined at the fag end of the 19th century while also supporting the right-wing British Brothers’ League and its campaign for restricting immigration. That campaign was partly racially inspired, but it was also a response to the impact of large numbers of Jewish émigrés on housing and jobs in the densely populated East End.
To add to the confusion, after research by the Joseph Rowntree Trust reporting that a quarter of voters are considering voting BNP, dissident Labour backbenchers are having their say. They believe that new Labour’s wooing of “middle Britain” in marginal seats makes traditional Labour voters feel neglected, hence their turning to the BNP.
This is a brilliant piece of doublethink, and highlights a schism that has existed between the Left and the white working class since those trade unionists took against immigrants arriving in Stepney en masse in the 1890s. First, the Left always maintained that the far Right was dormant throughout the 1980s because the Tories were in power. Now it transpires that the far Right’s support is that of disgruntled Labour voters.
Secondly, the Left happily champions the collectivism of the white working class when it is defined in terms of its labour or union traditions, but ignores it when it is a matter of ethnic identity. Yet white working-class Londoners long felt themselves to be united by colour, and by a unique urban culture that existed from the 1880s until the 1960s; one that was built around local work, the pub, the market and attachment to place and neighbourhood.
If this sense of identity created an insularity, it made them no more insular or racist, than any other ethnic group. Indeed, they might ultimately have proven to be more flexible than others. While this class is bound up by a sense of belonging to a street or neighbourhood, it has also been subject to much more upheaval than other groups — whether from redevelopment or high immigration. Despite its bigots, the turf of these white working-class postcodes has bred inter-racial relationships and the cross-fertilisation of cultures. It’s here that the multiculturalism that has been so beneficial to middle-class liberals, with its curries, carnivals, Ukrainian nannies, Bosnian cleaners and cut-price Polish plumbers, was created.
The break-up of communities in those inner London areas in the 1960s, due to New Commonwealth immigration and the exodus of many whites to the suburbs, has now reached outer boroughs such as Barking and Dagenham. A little bit of history is repeating itself; old antagonisms and the fear of the far Right have re-emerged.
Margaret Hodge, the Employment Minister, has alerted the media to the prospect that a high proportion of white residents in her Barking constituency, and neighbouring Dagenham, plan to vote BNP. She explained: “They can’t get a home for their children, they see black and ethnic communities moving in and they are angry.”
That same housing story can be found in the recently published, The New East End. The authors, Geoff Dench, Kate Gavron and Michael Young, have continued the work of Michael Young and Peter Willmott’s classic 1950s study, Family and Kinship in East London. Their theme is that by the time postwar social housing had been built in East End in the 1960s, priority was being given to the immediate needs of new arrivals at the cost of long-established local families. They had to live in overcrowded conditions, and crawl up lengthy lists for council homes. “As a result”, confirms the research in The New East End, “it was often migrants and the homeless families who benefited when housing was allocated.”
Whether in the 1890s, the 1960s or the present, the changing character of working-class neighbourhoods leaves the Left in an uneasy bind. It is what David Goodhart writing in the centre-left magazine, Prospect, in 2004, referred to as the “progressive’s dilemma”: “The Left’s recent love affair with diversity may come at the expense of the values and even the people that it once championed.” In short, if the white working class feels let down by anyone, it is by those on the traditional Left.
That’s not to say that the BNP is likely to become the party of the white working class in the polls. Despite the rebrand, you wouldn’t have to look too far to find the bigotry that motivates the party. But racism doesn’t necessarily provide the impetus for those turning to it as a protest vote. Housing, jobs and immigration will always ensure that the populist far Right will occasionally have a spring in its step on polling day.
But the current percentage of prospective voters flirting with the BNP is a modern phenomenon, and one that perhaps owes more to the mood created by the prevailing orthodoxy of multiculturalism. Growing working-class willingness to vote BNP is not necessarily because of an endemic opposition to multiculturalism, but more an objection to the debate around it. It’s a discussion that fails to consult them; it’s a discussion in which they are daily cast in a dual role: as a dying breed, and as a racist blot on the landscape preventing multiculturalism reaching its true Nirvana.
If this “protest” vote does live up to the worrying forecasts, it may have little to do with the BNP’s flimsy excuse for a manifesto. Perhaps it’s simply that in an age when every racial or religious group demonstrates its right to be offended because of a lack of representation, the white working class has decided that it is its turn to take offence.
Michael Collins is the author of The Likes of Us: A Biography of the White Working Class

FROM ANDREW SULLIVAN Guest Blogger "Michelle"
19 Apr 2006 06:51 am
“I’m the decider, and I decide what’s best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense.” Thus spake Presidnt Bush in yesterday’s Rose Garden defense of his embattled Defense Secretary. And there, in a nutshell, is the Bush governing philosophy. I know best. Period. Leave everything to me. Don’t worry your pretty little head about it. Don’t question my decisions. Don’t bother looking at the facts—at least, not at any facts that might contradict my version of reality. And don’t you dare criticize my decisions unless you want to wind up branded an unpatriotic, fuzzy-headed, soft-on-terrorist type.
I can see how, once upon a time, this sort of macho, decisive, take-no-prisoners, govern-with-your-gut approach to the presidency had a certain appeal. Who wants a wishy-washy leader when the Islamist baddies are plotting the nation’s demise? And even if we suspected Bush wasn’t exactly the most curious or engaged or well-informed commander-in-chief, we were assured that he had a gift for picking smart, curious, engaged, talented advisers—people with “good hearts”--who would keep our CEO-president just informed enough to make good decisions.
But three-plus years of Iraq have pretty much shown the absurdity of that claim. Or at least it has introduced enough doubt into the equation that we really ought to demand more of an explanation for the seemingly ill-advised actions (or inaction) of our leader other than: “I’m the Daddy, that’s why.”
No one doubts that Bush knows how to make decisions. The increasingly pertinent question is whether he knows how to make good ones.
--Michelle

WHITE HOUSE WATCH A 'Third Term' for BushCondi Rice, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove need new jobs.
BY FRED BARNESMonday, March 20, 2006
It's time for President Bush to think about a third term. No, he doesn't need to overturn the Constitution. He can start the equivalent of his third term now, by filling his presidential staff and cabinet with new faces--or old faces in new positions--and by concentrating on new or forgotten initiatives. The goal: rejuvenation of his presidency by shocking the media and political community with a sweeping overhaul of his administration. The impact would be enormous because it's exactly what his foes have been demanding and exactly what he is not expected to do. And it would give him a chance to escape the political doldrums that may otherwise doom his presidency through its final 34 months.
Only a few months ago, it appeared the Bush administration didn't need emergency resuscitation. True, Mr. Bush had suffered a year of serious troubles--failure of Social Security reform, Katrina, Harriet Miers, Iraq--following his second inauguration. Yet he emerged bruised but politically alive. He'd even won the confirmation of two conservative Supreme Court justices.
Then he was belted with a new round of reversals. His State of the Union address was uninspiring, the Dubai ports deal had to be nixed, and his proposed spending cuts were going nowhere. This time the fallout was worse for Mr. Bush. Republican unity, so important to his past success, dissolved as congressional Republicans began criticizing the White House. And Iraq was again a political problem. Even several top Bush aides now suspect an infusion of fresh talent could liven up the administration.
A broad transformation, playing on the media's overreaction whenever surprised, would do more. Reporters would be forced to write stories about new officials, cover confirmation hearings, show up at press conferences they might have ignored, assess new policies, and--this is most important--take a fresh look at the president. It would be like the beginning of a new presidential term. Sure, the press and politicians would be cynical about Mr. Bush's bold moves, especially since he wouldn't be uprooting any policy or hiring Bush critics. In truth, there would be a large element of smoke and mirrors in his actions. The trade-off is that Mr. Bush might revitalize his presidency.

A sweeping overhaul on a smaller scale has worked before. In one swoop in 1975, President Ford replaced Defense Secretary James Schlesinger with Donald Rumsfeld, made Dick Cheney chief of staff, appointed George H.W. Bush as CIA director in place of William Colby, and stripped Secretary of State Henry Kissinger of his second post as national security adviser, installing Brent Scowcroft. These surprising and dramatic steps strengthened a weak Ford presidency. President Carter tried something similar in 1979 when his presidency was at a low point. But the overhaul was handled clumsily. Mr. Carter appeared to act arbitrarily and his presidency never recovered.
Mr. Bush's first task must be to jettison his admirable but unrealistic sense of loyalty. Unlike other presidents, he reciprocates the loyalty of his aides. But for the good of his presidency, he must let some of them go, regardless of whether they deserve firing.
The president's most spectacular move would be to anoint a presidential successor. This would require Vice President Cheney to resign. His replacement? Condoleezza Rice, whom Mr. Bush regards highly. Her replacement? Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, whose Bush-like views on Iraq and the war on terror have made him a pariah in the Democratic caucus.
Mr. Cheney would probably be happy to step down and return to Wyoming. But it would make more sense for him to move to the Pentagon to replace Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, a job Mr. Cheney held during the elder Bush's administration. The Senate confirmation hearing for Mr. Cheney alone would produce political fireworks and attract incredible attention. At Treasury, Mr. Bush has a perfect replacement for John Snow, someone he already knows. That's Glenn Hubbard, former chairman of Mr. Bush's council of economic advisers and currently dean of Columbia's business school. He is in sync with Mr. Bush ideologically and has the added value of being respected on Wall Street.
With these changes, Mr. Bush would have brought in new Cabinet chiefs at three of the big four agencies. Only Justice would be untouched, but it might be too much for the president to force his friend Alberto Gonzales out as attorney general.
At the White House, highly visible changes would be required, starting with the most visible post of all besides the presidency--press secretary. Dan Senor, a Republican and former spokesman for Paul Bremer in Iraq, would be a perfect successor to Scott McClellan. He would be an articulate and forceful defender of Mr. Bush on Iraq. And if not Mr. Senor, then presidential counselor Dan Bartlett, who always does well in TV interviews.
As a new chief of staff, Mr. Bush's pal from his Harvard Business School days, Al Hubbard, could replace Andy Card. Mr. Hubbard is miscast as top White House economic adviser. To replace him, Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute would fit. He has close ties to the Bush White House. There's also a natural choice for national security adviser to replace Stephen Hadley. It's Zalmay Khalilzad, the tough-minded ambassador to Iraq. Once a permanent government is installed there, he could be summoned home.

The trickiest issue is how to handle Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff and political adviser. He is the closest thing to indispensable--on policy as well as politics--at the White House. But any overhaul that didn't involve him would run the risk of not being taken seriously. The solution is to send Mr. Rove to the Republican National Committee as chairman and bring the current chairman, Ken Mehlman, back to the president's staff as communications chief. The president lauded Mr. Rove as "the architect" of his re-election in 2004. Now he could be the architect of a Republican comeback in 2006. Mr. Mehlman would sharpen the president's communication operation. He and Mr. Rove would work together, as they do now.
New faces and personnel shifts are necessary but not sufficient to produce the aura of a new presidential term. Major policy initiatives are required, too. And there are plenty to choose from. For one, Mr. Bush could mount a fresh crusade for confirmation of federal appeals court judges: 11 of them are waiting in the wings. And there's always taxes, a hardy GOP perennial. Mr. Bush's tax reform commission was a bust, but that shouldn't stop him from proposing significant tax reforms and cuts. He doesn't have to win congressional approval. To revive his presidency, at this point he only need focus on them.
In foreign policy, there's a broad new alliance waiting to be packaged, now that NATO has lost its rationale. Suggested by Tom Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute, it would bring together four antiterrorist, free-market democracies, all concerned about the growing power of China. They are the U.K., India, Japan and the U.S.
The new but still conservative look of the Bush administration and its new policy emphasis would thrill the base and perhaps independents as well. Should that lead to an unanticipated Republican victory in the midterm election in November, Mr. Bush would be empowered to return to old initiatives such as Social Security reform and his faith-based initiative.
Of course, there are risks and problems in trying to revitalize a flagging administration. The most worrisome risk is that Mr. Bush would look weak and desperate. Mr. Carter did in 1979 and became a laughingstock. That could happen to Mr. Bush. Also, it may be difficult to persuade outsiders to join what looks to them as a hopelessly lame-duck administration.
The president could lose a lot more than face. But the potential upside of a stunning facelift of his administration is great. It could make his presidency productive and enjoyable again rather than stymied and disheartened. Achieving the aura and feel of a new presidential term is not farfetched. Mr. Bush fooled everyone by becoming the president of big ideas and bold plans. He could fool them again.
Mr. Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, is author of "Rebel in Chief," published last month by Crown Forum.
Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Britain's top scientist sees dangerous rise in global warmingApr 14
In a grim warning on climate change, the British government's chief scientist said the world must immediately put into place measures to address global warming, even if they take decades to produce results.
Sir David King said that, even by the most optimistic forecasts, carbon dioxide levels are set to rise to double what they were at the time of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century.

That will lead to a three-degree centigrade rise in temperature, King said, adding that if nothing is done to manage such change, few eco-systems on Earth will be able to adapt.
Even worse, said King in an interview on BBC radio, up to 400 million people around the world would find themselves at risk of hunger, because 20 million to 400 million tonnes of cereal production will be lost.
In Britain, the main threat will be flooding and "coastal attack" as a result of rising sea levels.
"If you ask me where do we feel the temperature is likely to end up if move to a level of carbon dioxide of 500 parts per million -- which is roughly twice the pre-industrial (revolution) level and the level at which we would be optimistically hoping we could settle -- the temperature rise could well be in excess of three degrees centigrade," he said.
"Yet we are saying 500 parts per million in the atmosphere is probably the best we can achieve through global agreement."
King, who has the ear of Prime Minister Tony Blair and other key policy makers, said it was essential that the world act now to be able to cope with such climate change.
"We don't have to succumb to a state of despondency where we say that there is nothing we can do, so let's just carry on living as per usual," he said. "It is very important to understand that we can manage the risks."
"What we are talking about here is something that will play through over decades. We are talking 100 years or so. We need to begin that process of investment. It is going to be a major challenge for the developing countries."
Blair wants to see a global consensus on global warming that goes beyond the disputed Kyoto protocol and puts China and India -- both economically booming -- at the heart of the issue.
But the United States in particular is opposed to slashing carbon dioxide emissions, while the European Union -- including Britain -- proposed in 2002 limiting a rise in the average global temperature to two degrees centigrade.
King said the situation would be even worse if the average global temperature broke through the three degrees centigrade level.
"If we go beyond 500 parts per million, we reach levels of temperature increase and sea level rise in terms of the coming century which would be extremely difficult for world populations to manage," he said.
He lashed out at politicians who feel the answer lies in new technologies which produce cleaner fuels, saying they ought to start listening to scientists instead.
"There is a difference between optimism and (putting one's) head in the sand," he said.
"Quite clearly what we have to do as we move forward with these discussions is see that this consensus position of the scientific community is brought right into the table where the discussions are taking place."
Last month Blair's government unveiled plans to fight global warming by cutting greenhouse gases in every sector of the nation's economy, including imposing stricter emission caps on industry.
It claimed that Britain was on course to well exceed the 12.5 percent reduction target by 2012 under the Kyoto protocol -- but would fall short of its own goal of 20 percent by 2010.

FROM ANDREW SULLIVAN

A longtime reader sent an email as part of a conversation we'd been having. I reprint it, despite its great length, because it's powerfully written, and I disagree with much of it. But I disagree with it less than I did a year ago. See what you think:
I supported the action in Afganistan. Everyone - the whole world - realized that that action was necessary. Hell, even Dennis Kucinich supported it. There was no other choice. And had we prosecuted the action in Afganistan competently, and to the end, by securing the peace and rebuilding the country, we might have come out of the war on terror with our heads held high and with the world's respect and even admiration. Certainly our action there, and the related pressure on Pakistan, resulted in the most important single victory in the war on terror to date: the unmasking of the A. Q. Khan network. But we never finished in Afganistan. We let bin Laden escape. We did not and have not secured the country, or rebuilt it. Why? Well, why have we not secured or rebuilt Iraq? There is a reason. This is not just criminal negligence. This is a pattern.
I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. It smelled. It smelled to high heaven. This was no action in response to 9/11. This was something else. Some grand design for restructuring the Middle East, for "draining the swamp". A war of revenge against the man who ordered the President's father assassinated. Unfinished business. Oil. Yes, all those and more, as Wolfowitz admitted, but none of them would do as a trigger, so WMD was chosen. WMD was the one excuse that would work, the one threat that, tied to 9/11, would inspire action and overwhelm and silence opposition.
But the real motivation for the war in Iraq, Andrew, was the consolidation of Republican power here at home. Iraq was to be George W. Bush's great victory, and Karl Rove's hammer. The victory of the Republican right was to be complete and permanent. Bush and his crew knew the WMD excuse was fraudulent. As Zinni said, he knew, and they had the same information he had. But they did believe the old stockpiles, or some portion of them, were still there, moldering in Saddam's secret bunkers, and would provide all the evidence needed to justify their war, cover their lies, and secure their political triumph. The shame of the election of 2000 would be history, Bush would become the image of the man he always wished to be, and Rove would secure the Republican realignment.
But Bush's great victory has turned to ash, and Rove's hammer to a dagger he holds by the blade. One could write a book (and no doubt many will) on the Oedipal complex that drove Bush the son to surpass the father, and fail. A Greek tragedy played out in real life, right before our eyes. And could Shakespeare have bettered the cast of characters we have lived with these last six years, or the themes, or the plot? My God, what a play! He would be writing furiously even now. One play? No. Three, perhaps: Bush the Second, Parts I, II and III. We are in the middle of the third play. The end is coming.
I'm not being facetious. The horror and terror of tragedy is its inevitability. The audience sees what the characters cannot. And the audience knows that they too suffer, like the characters they watch. The play is a mirror. The war in Iraq has been our tragedy, our mirror. Perhaps, if we are lucky, our catharsis. But we are not yet to that stage, which comes after. We are still in the midst of the horror, unable to look away from the mirror. You stare into the face of Abu Ghraib. Me? What do I stare at? And all of us. We are living one of the great stories of history, Andrew.
Did I really know all this back then? Yes. Not so clearly, or at least, I would not have been able to express it so simply. Many people saw it, people of good faith, not just mindless Bush-haters or partisans. And every suspicion I had, and shared with those others, about Bush, and Rove and the rest, and about their motivations and methods, has proved out, and then some. And there is, I know, future revelations yet to come. None of it surprises me.
I'm only surprised that you are surprised. I think, Andrew, you were blinded by idealism, the desire to slay the monster Saddam. Have you read the Gilgamesh Epic? Or Castenada? We are betrayed, not by our faults, but by our strengths. Because that's where we're truly blind. Thus you. And me. And Bush. The difference is of degree, not kind. But that difference of degree is crucial. Bush doubts nothing. He is trapped in a rigid arrogance, a self-righteousness based ultimately on low self-esteem and fear of failure. Fear is his basic spiritual signature. You refused to doubt, because you love the ideal. We love you for that. But that's also your blind spot. Yet you have never been trapped like Bush (or Rumsfeld or Gonzalez or Yoo) because, quite simply, you are far more humble, far more secure in your own being and in your trust of the Divine. Your humanity is alive and kicking, while theirs is deeply compromised. And me? Good question. I doubt much, and it has served me well. But I have not trusted enough, and that has not. That is my confession. And so we struggle, Andrew.
But there is one great dividing line here, between you and me on one side, and Bush and his cohort (and the Christianists and the Islamists and the scientific reductionists, and all the other -ists) on the other: the humility of a faith based on love, with its attendant qualities of acceptance, inclusion and non-violence, and the arrogance of a faith based on fear, with its attendant qualities of judgment, exclusion and, inevitably, violence. You have written of this division in your own way when you wrote of the "conservatism of doubt" vs "conservatism of faith". I truly believe this division marks the great spiritual, social and political challenge before us in the 21st century: the shift from a faith - and a world - based on the fear of God to one based on the love of God. That is an evolutionary challenge. And a global challenge. And I think that some day it will be recognized as the great theme being played out at the center of the Bush Presidency, and the American tragedy in Iraq. Fear and lies, or love and truth. It's just that simple.
I could have supported intervention in Iraq. Saddam was a monster. But not Bush's intervention. If his Dad, and Powell, had put together a true global coalition, with a real commitment to pay the high price in money, manpower and years necessary to free Iraq, secure the peace and rebuild the country, yes, I could have supported it. But I knew GWB and his team would never accomplish those ends, because those ends were not his ends. His ends, and his means, speak for themselves. All the rest is lies.
The battle within faith - between a faith of certainty and order and a faith of humility and wonder - is indeed the great battle of our time. I've just finished the rewrite of a book on politics. Re-reading it, I realize it's also a book about religion. The tragedy of our time is that the two subjects are now almost interchangeable.

Discovered: the missing link that solves a mystery of evolution
Alok Jha, science correspondent
GuardianScientists have made one of the most important fossil finds in history: a missing link between fish and land animals, showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago.
Palaeontologists have said that the find, a crocodile-like animal called the Tiktaalik roseae and described today in the journal Nature, could become an icon of evolution in action - like Archaeopteryx, the famous fossil that bridged the gap between reptiles and birds.
As such, it will be a blow to proponents of intelligent design, who claim that the many gaps in the fossil record show evidence of some higher power.
Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, said: "Our emergence on to the land is one of the more significant rites of passage in our evolutionary history, and Tiktaalik is an important link in the story."
Tiktaalik - the name means "a large, shallow-water fish" in the Inuit language Inuktikuk - shows that the evolution of animals from living in water to living on land happened gradually, with fish first living in shallow water.
The animal lived in the Devonian era lasting from 417m to 354m years ago, and had a skull, neck, and ribs similar to early limbed animals (known as tetrapods), as well as a more primitive jaw, fins, and scales akin to fish.
The scientists who discovered it say the animal was a predator with sharp teeth, a crocodile-like head, and a body that grew up to 2.75 metres (9ft) long.
"It's very important for a number of reasons, one of which is simply the fact that it's so well-preserved and complete," said Jennifer Clack, a paleontologist at Cambridge University and author of an accompanying article in Nature.
Scientists have previously been able to trace the transition of fish into limbed animals only crudely over the millions of years they anticipate the process took place. They suspected that an animal which bridged the gap between fish and land-based tetrapods must have existed - but, until now, there had been scant evidence of one.
"Tiktaalik blurs the boundary between fish and land-living animal both in terms of its anatomy and its way of life," said Neil Shubin, a biologist at the University of Chicago, and a leader of the expedition which found Tiktaalik.
The near-pristine fossil was found on Ellesmere Island, Canada, which is 600 miles from the north pole in the Arctic Circle.
Scientists from the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, the University of Chicago, and Harvard University led several expeditions into the inhospitable icy desert to search for the fossils.
The find is the first complete evidence of an animal that was on the verge of the transition from water to land. "The find is a dream come true," said Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences.
"We knew that the rocks on Ellesmere Island offered a glimpse into the right time period and were formed in the right kinds of environments to provide the potential for finding fossils documenting this important evolutionary transition."
When Tiktaalik lived, the Canadian Arctic region was part of a land mass which straddled the equator. Like the Amazon basin today, it had a subtropical climate and the animal lived in small streams. The skeleton indicates that it could support its body under the force of gravity.
Farish Jenkins, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University said: "This represents a critical early phase in the evolution of all limbed animals, including humans - albeit a very ancient step." Tiktaalik also gives biologists a new understanding of how fins turned into limbs. Its fin contains bones that compare to the upper arm, forearm and primitive parts of the hand of land-living animals.
"Most of the major joints of the fin are functional in this fish," Professor Shubin said.
"The shoulder, elbow and even parts of the wrist are already there and working in ways similar to the earliest land-living animals."
Dr Clack said that, judging from the fossil, the first evolutionary transition from sea to land probably involved learning how to breathe air. "Tiktaalik has lost a series of bones that, in fishes, covers the gill region and helps to operate the gill-breathing mechanism," she said. "The air-breathing mechanism it had would have been elaborated and having lost the series of bones that lies between the head and the shoulder girdle means it's got a neck, it can raise its head more easily in order to gulp the air.
"The flexible robust limbs appear to be connected with pushing the head out of the water to breathe the air."
H Richard Lane, director of sedimentary geology and palaeobiology at the US National Science Foundation, said: "These exciting discoveries are providing fossil Rosetta stones for a deeper understanding of this evolutionary milestone - fish to land-roaming tetrapods."
A cast of the fossil goes on display at the Science Museum in South Kensington central London today.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

Atlantic Hurricane Season to Top Normal for 4th Year (Update1)
April 4 (Bloomberg) -- Another above-average Atlantic basin hurricane season is expected this year following a record number of storms in 2005, scientists said.
The June-through-November period will yield nine hurricanes out of a total of 17 named storms, Colorado State University scientists Philip Klotzbach and William Gray said in a report today from Fort Collins. The 2005 season produced a record 15 hurricanes and 27 named storms.
``The climate signals are such that this looks like it's going to be an active year,'' Gray said in a telephone interview today from his office. ``Atlantic sea-surface temperatures are very warm. That's a major factor.''
Five of the nine hurricanes will pack sustained winds of 111 miles (179 kilometers) per hour or more, making them major hurricanes on the five-step Saffir-Simpson scale, the scientists said. Today's forecast agrees with the Colorado team's December outlook.
The forecast for another above-active hurricane season this year conforms to the scientists' theory that the Atlantic basin is in an extended period of above-average hurricane activity. Nine of the past 11 years have been above-average seasons, Gray said, and he expects the trend to last another 15 to 20 years. The 2003 and 2004 seasons generated seven hurricanes and nine hurricanes, respectively.
La Nina
``The hurricane forecast team expects continued warm tropical and north Atlantic sea-surface temperatures, prevalent in most years since 1995, as well as neutral or weak La Nina conditions -- a recipe for greatly enhanced Atlantic basin hurricane activity,'' the researchers said in the report.
La Nina refers to the cooling of ocean surface temperatures off the western coast of South America. The phenomenon affects the jet stream, alters storm tracks and creates unusual weather patterns. La Nina typically increases tropical activity in the Atlantic Ocean.
The 2006 season probably will not see as many storms make landfall as last year or 2004, the report's authors said. Four hurricanes hit the U.S. coastline in each of those years: Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma last year and Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne in 2004. Gray attributed the higher-than-normal number of storms hitting the U.S. in those years to upper-air currents over the Atlantic that helped push storms toward the mainland.
The 2005 season was the most destructive ever, the researchers said.
The number of hurricanes last year topped the previous record of 12 in 1969, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The total of 27 named storms exceeded the previous record of 21 in 1993 and forced the government to turn to the Greek alphabet for the first time to name storms. Epsilon was the 15th hurricane of the 2005 season.
Katrina and Rita
Katrina in August flooded as much as 80 percent of New Orleans and wreaked havoc in Mississippi and Alabama. Hundreds of thousands of evacuees from across the Gulf Coast were forced to flee.
Katrina, and Rita in September, wrecked offshore oil and natural-gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, hampering production that's still not yet recovered. The storms tore drilling rigs from their moorings and flooded onshore processing plants and refineries.
At one point, all of the region's oil production and more than 80 percent of its gas output was shut, along with about 30 percent of the country's oil-refining capacity. Prices for crude oil, natural gas, gasoline and heating oil soared to records between late August and early October.
Still Not Recovered
As of March 22, 23 percent of normal daily oil production remained offline in the Gulf, and 14 percent of gas output was down. So far, a quarter of annual oil production and 19 percent of gas output have been lost to the storms.
Gray and Klotzbach last year predicted seven hurricanes would develop in the Atlantic out of a total 13 named storms.
Storms get names when wind speeds reach 39 mph or more, signaling they've reached tropical-storm strength. Storms become hurricanes on the Saffir-Simpson scale when wind speeds reach at least 74 mph. Gray has been forecasting Atlantic basin hurricane seasons for 23 years.
Alberto, Ernesto, Helene, Oscar and Valerie are among names set aside for this year's season, according to the Web site of the National Hurricane Center in Miami.
The average season has 10 named storms and six hurricanes, Gray said. Two of the hurricanes typically are major storms, meaning they are at least Category 3 hurricanes on the Saffir- Simpson scale. Category 5 storms are the strongest.
In the 2004 season, Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne caused more than $20 billion in U.S. property damage. To contact the reporter on this story:
Geoffrey Smith in New York at gsmith15@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: April 4, 2006 11:54 EDT

CORRECTIONS CLEANUP

By MARC CAPUTO

mcaputo@MiamiHerald.com
TALLAHASSEE - With Vietnam's jungles and the corpse-strewn landscape of Rwanda in his past, old soldier Jim McDonough now faces one ''tough mission'': clean up Florida's prison system, mired in investigations and reports of theft, cronyism and a cut-throat softball culture of steroids and beer brawls.
''Sexual harassment seems to be pretty rife at the department. Man, it just goes on,'' said McDonough, who marvels at the ''cultural malaise'' that gripped the nation's third-largest prison system.
In less than two months on the job as head of the Department of Corrections, McDonough fired, suspended, demoted or forced the resignations of so many people that he lost count -- the number is 22. He is reviewing the DOC's finances, its 900 contracts and its 26,000-employee payroll. He even referred to reviewing a few old ''suspicious'' deaths but wouldn't specify.
McDonough, 59, Florida's former drug czar, had retired as a U.S. Army colonel in 1996 and counts among his medals three Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart, earned after stepping on a Vietnamese land mine. Despite no corrections experience, he's treading fearlessly in his new job in the belief that improving the decayed agency ''isn't brain science'': instill professionalism and punish wrongdoers to change the tone.
''It had become a culture that was trying to compete with the prisoner culture,'' McDonough said. 'Instead of a professionalism that most people wanted to do, it had become a culture of `We are bigger. We are tougher. We are meaner. We are more brutal. We can do what we need to do because we are all of those things,' instead of saying, 'Wait a minute. We're professionals. We have a code of ethics that we abide by.' ''
A MILITARY SPIT-POLISH
McDonough's actions have encouraged many of the rank and file, intimidated some of the old guard and provided Gov. Jeb Bush a badly needed military spit-polish on Florida's tarnished jails and prisons: Aside from the troubles at DOC, the Department of Juvenile Justice is reeling from the Jan. 6 death of a 14-year-old after he was beaten by guards at a boot camp. The former executive director of the now-defunct commission overseeing the state's private-run prisons pleaded guilty last month to stealing $225,000 in tax money. And an audit in September showed that the state overpaid two private prison companies $13 million.
Meantime, the FBI and state investigators launched a massive probe of the DOC that began with the breakup of a steroid ring.
But as Democrats started publicly asking ''who's minding the store?'' Bush brushed criticism aside last fall and stood by McDonough's predecessor, James Crosby, refusing his resignation.
Bush abruptly fired Crosby in February -- a month before Bush headed into his final 60-day lawmaking session -- from the $124,000-a-year job, citing the investigation. Bush praised McDonough recently for ''providing some stability to the department'' and leading it properly. When asked why it took so long, Bush said only that the matter has been under investigation.
McDonough literally wrote an Army manual on how to conduct warfare as well as two novels and a memoir of Vietnam. Earning a political-science degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, McDonough served in Vietnam shortly after graduating from West Point in 1969. Having led the first U.S. soldiers into Rwanda after the genocide, he later left the Army in 1996 and worked in the White House drug-czar office but left after criticizing President Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky affair.
Gov. Bush tapped McDonough in 1999 to become Florida's drug-control strategist until now. He is Bush's longest-serving agency chief.
Soon after he was tapped for the prisons job, McDonough asserted his independence when he demoted Brad Tunnell, son of McDonough's colleague, Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Guy Tunnell. Brad Tunnell, 31, then resigned.
Tunnell had been suspended with pay by Crosby in October for his alleged involvement in a drunken beat-down at a Tallahassee softball banquet between prison higher-ups and a former employee. A month later, Tunnell allegedly broke the jaw of another DOC employee in a bar in Jacksonville where the department was hosting its annual softball tournament.
Tunnell claimed that Crosby tried to exert pressure to get his dad to cancel the FDLE prison probe. Crosby told FDLE investigators he did nothing improper. Crosby declined to comment to The Miami Herald, as did Tunnell, concerning the he-said-he-said probe that is now closed.
'PERVERSION' OF VALUES
Like many insiders and observers of the Department of Corrections, McDonough was taken aback by ''this infatuation with softball,'' which he called ''a perversion of what is valued.'' Just last week, a former minor-league baseball player pleaded guilty to defrauding the state when he accepted a no-show job to play on the winning team in the softball tournament.
''It was a dominant-macho, physical-ability, raw-power culture. Softball fits a lot of that,'' McDonough said. ``Overlaid with the softball, by the way, was an awful lot of excessive drinking.''
And steroids.
Of the seven who had pleaded guilty in federal court to steroid charges, many were avid softball players and were connected to Crosby's protégé, former North Florida prison boss Allen Clark, a five-foot-nine, 230-pound man who narrowly avoided a criminal trial in the softball-banquet fight. State agents seized auto parts from the vehicles owned by Clark and four others during the investigation into alleged theft and misused labor.
Clark was appointed by Bush to sit on a commission that nominates judges for the bench. Clark has since cut all official ties to the state. Asked whether he had any regrets about Clark's appointment, Bush issued a terse: ``No.''
Many of the allegations about misused labor, steroids and softball were long ago reported by an activist named Kay Lee on a popular ''Department of Corruptions'' website. So far, she praises McDonough.
MORE TO COME?
'We desperately need someone there who has absolutely no connection to the good ol' boys,'' Lee said. ''Although I like most of what McDonough has done so far, the housecleaning has not swept nearly deep enough. I hope there's much more to come.'' McDonough briefly froze 50 employee funds that were supposed to pay for parties but were diverted for softball teams. McDonough said he's looking into a number of deals, including a troubled pharmaceutical contract.
He promised widespread and frequent random drug tests of guards. ''We used to have drug dogs. Somehow they got rid of drug dogs. The drug dogs are coming back,'' he said.
McDonough's zero-tolerance policy isn't so much a vestige of his time as a drug czar as it is a style of leadership that dates to when he stopped an entire patrol in Vietnam and ordered a young soldier to return a soda he stole from a villager.
''If I allowed him to steal, I allow him to slap. If I allow him to slap, I allow him to rape. If I allow him to rape, I allow him to murder,'' he said. ``You have to draw the line early.''
© 2006 MiamiHerald.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.http://www.miami.com

Sadism in Florida: Cracker Justice Lives!

MIAMI HERALD WATCHDOGMinor offenses at camp brought beatingsA smile, a mumble and other forms of nonviolent behavior resulted in force against teenage boys at a Florida sheriff's boot camp, a Miami Herald investigation found.

BY CAROL MARBIN MILLERcmarbin@MiamiHerald.com
The teenage boys smiled, they shrugged and they smirked. They spoke without permission or they refused to speak at all.
That's all it took for the boys at the Bay County Sheriff's Office Boot Camp to provoke a swift and painful response from their guards. Even crying and ''whimpering'' brought harsh discipline.
The scenes were repeated over and over, 180 times over the past three years, at the juvenile boot camp in Panama City, according to Florida Department of Juvenile Justice records obtained by The Miami Herald under the state's public-records law.
In only eight of the 180 instances documented since January 2003 were the teenagers described as hitting guards, fighting with other youths, threatening to escape or trying to harm themselves.
The documents -- use-of-force reports written by the guards themselves -- show that the overwhelming majority of the youths were subjected to ''takedowns,'' hammer-fist blows and ''knee strikes'' for:
• Being unwilling or unable to perform rigorous exercises.
• Exercising without sufficient ``motivation.''
• Being ''insolent'' with guards.
• Speaking without permission.
• ``Breathing heavily.''
• ''Tensing'' themselves.
Boys were physically ''restrained'' for furrowing their brows, mumbling or gritting their teeth. On Christmas Day 2004, one boy was disciplined for smiling.
VIOLENT PUNISHMENT KNEES, FISTS, THUMBS USED FOR DISCIPLINE
Their punishments: knees jabbed forcefully into their thighs, hammer-fist punches to the arms, wrist twisting, and being wrestled to the ground. Another common tactic was the use of ''pressure points,'' in which guards used their thumbs to cause pain by pressing on sensitive areas behind the youths' ears or under their chins.
''I . . . observed offender become still and his breathing become shallow and I felt him tense his right arm. . . . I then applied a knee strike to his left thigh area,'' a sergeant wrote after one episode on Feb. 23, 2005.
In many of the cases, the guards used the tactics despite written orders by Department of Juvenile Justice chief Anthony Schembri, who in June 2004 banned the use of physical force except in extreme situations.
TREATMENT CRITICIZED EXPERT FINDS `PATTERN OF TORTURING CHILDREN'
Juvenile justice experts who reviewed the documents at The Miami Herald's request said the treatment of the youths was unjustifiable.
''What you have there is an administratively approved, systematic pattern of torturing children,'' said Ron Davidson, director of mental health policy in the psychiatry department of the University of Illinois at Chicago, who studied the 180 reports. Davidson has reviewed nearly 400 group homes, mental hospitals and juvenile justice facilities for the U.S. Department of Justice, the Illinois Department of Children & Family Services and other agencies.
Waylon Graham, a Panama City attorney for the camp's second-highest-ranking officer, Lt. Charles Helms, defends the actions of the guards, saying they behaved exactly as DJJ and Sheriff's Office administrators expected of them, and never intended to harm the youths in their custody.
''They were tightly supervised,'' Graham said. ``Everything was videotaped there. There were no rogue drill sergeants out of control. To be blunt, some of those kids showed up at the boot camp mean as hell, after they'd been rejected by alternative programs. This was kind of the end of the line.''
A computer analysis of the boot camp use-of-force reports -- which were redacted by the state to exclude the youths' names for privacy reasons -- shows that all but seven of the 180 incidents were declared ''appropriate'' by the camp's administrators. Three were found to have been inappropriate, and four were left unresolved.
Among the unresolved cases: the Jan. 6 death of Martin Lee Anderson, who was punched, kneed and choked by several guards when he said he couldn't breathe and couldn't run more laps. Martin's death remains under investigation by a special prosecutor in Tampa appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush.
The physical punishments meted out at the camp were well known to officials at the DJJ. All of the use-of-force reports were faxed to DJJ headquarters in Tallahassee for review, and there is no record of DJJ officials ever objecting to the boot camp's methods for dealing with uncooperative detainees.
''Whoever read those reports has to share the blame -- and there is blame,'' said retired Miami-Dade Juvenile Judge Tom Petersen, who also reviewed the use-of-force reports for The Miami Herald. ``The fact that this went on, and went on for years, makes it so much worse.''
A spokeswoman for Bay County Sheriff Frank McKeithen did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Since Martin's death, the Sheriff's Office has declined to discuss the camp, citing state and federal investigations into the teenager's death. The camp is closing down Thursday, although all of the youthful offenders have already been released or moved to other DJJ facilities.
The Bay County Sheriff's Office Boot Camp opened in 1994, as the state tried to cope with a series of violent, well-publicized crimes by teens. Some of the mayhem had been directed at tourists, the state's economic lifeblood.
The theoretical underpinning of the boot camp programs, all run by county sheriffs, was that troubled youths needed strong discipline and an outlet for limitless energy, as well as successful adult role models to emulate.
But at some point, academic experts say, many of the camps became all ''tough'' and no ``love.''
''You communicate to the kid, right away, that he is in a very intimidating place, and he can get the tar kicked out of him unless he does exactly what you want,'' said Petersen, who also taught juvenile justice for 10 years at the University of Miami. ``It's not the way to run a juvenile justice program, and we've known that for years.''
EXERCISE IS A BIG ISSUE GUARDS OFTEN CITED YOUTHS' AVERSION TO IT
Exercise -- or the inability or refusal of many detainees to perform it -- was the cause for much of the physical force used at the camp. Guards cited lack of ''motivation'' during physical training in 58 of the use-of-force reports.
In a typical incident, on Jan. 22, 2004, an officer slammed his knee into a youth's thigh because the teen displayed a ''threatening posture.'' The incident began when the boy showed ''poor motivation during alternative training'' and was ordered ``to raise his motivation and to continue performing exercises as instructed.''
On May 6, 2004, a guard hit a youth with his knee and pressed his thumb on pressure points on his head twice because the teen was ''performing his alternative training with extremely poor motivation,'' a report said. ``Offender became passive aggressive by not completing his exercises.''
On Feb. 15, 2005, a guard used the pressure-point tactic on a boy who insisted he couldn't continue to do ''low crawl'' exercises during orientation to the camp.
'Offender began speaking without permission in an insolent tone, `Sir, I can't do this, sir,' '' the report states.
And on Sept. 22, 2005, a guard used pressure points and the ''bent wrist'' technique on a boy when he was found ``performing . . . pushups with low motivation.''
Whatever the provocation, the physical-force sessions often escalated. Typically, youths who misbehaved were placed in what guards called the ''escort'' position for ''counseling.'' In practice, that meant a boy would have one or two guards holding him forcefully by the arms, often against a wall or pole, or prone on the ground.
ACTIONS AND REACTIONS RESPONSES TO FORCE BRING MORE RESTRAINTS
Experts who reviewed the records say the teens' reactions were to be expected: They became tense. They spoke disrespectfully. They mumbled. They clenched their teeth.
Invariably, that provoked more force.
On March 9, 2005, one boy slammed a door and then showed ''low motivation [and] a poor attitude while stretching'' before exercises. An officer ordered the boy to ''open his eyes and answer . . . questions.'' The boy refused, and the guard thrust his thumb into the pressure point behind the boy's ear.
'Offender began crying, tensed up his arm and stated in an insolent tone, `All y'all want to do is bring me down!' '' the guard's report said. ``At that time, I delivered a knee strike to offender's right thigh as a distractionary technique and escorted him to the ground.''
On Sept. 9, 2005, a youth got into trouble for becoming ''visibly angry'' by furrowing his eyebrows and hanging his head. His ''poor attitude'' got him a knee strike.
''Offender became passive resistant by not answering my questions,'' the guard wrote. ''When asked a question offender would begin to make whimpering sounds. . . . I again applied the hollow behind the ear'' pressure-point technique.
Five days later, on Sept. 14, guards used force on a boy who was ''mumbling'' during a drill and ceremony class.
''Offender then rolled his eyes and stood staring directly at me,'' a guard wrote. ``I applied a bent wrist to [his] right wrist for approximately 12 to 15 seconds.''
Pressure points behind the ear were used on one boy for questioning whether the guards were allowed to rough him up. ''Offender began to speak without permission and told me that I could not touch him without a reason,'' a guard wrote on June 1, 2005.
Petersen, the veteran juvenile judge, said the guards' actions amounted to needless violence.
'It's absolutely absurd that they would interpret `breathing heavily' or 'tensing the left arm' as some kind of threat that justifies physical force,'' he said.
``All that violence. It's evil.''
USE OF FORCE IS RISKY OFFICIAL CITES INJURIES TO 'TOO MANY' YOUTHS
Camp officials have maintained that the use-of-force techniques are fairly harmless.
But records from the DJJ and the boot camp suggest that such manhandling of children carries risks.
On June 21, 2004, DJJ chief Schembri banned four physical restraints that had been in wide use at DJJ youth programs, including all ''pressure points'' and the ''wristlock,'' a technique similar to the ''bent wrist'' often used at the Bay County boot camp.
''Too many youth have been injured in incidents with these techniques,'' Schembri wrote in the memo. ``While these holds may be appropriate for an adult population, experience has shown us that it is too easy to injure a young person when applying these holds.
``Physical restraint should be applied only to prevent a youth from hurting himself or others, and to prevent property damage or escape.''
NEED FOR REVIEW CITED`WE CAN DO BETTER,' FLORIDA AGENCY SAYS
It is unclear why the banned techniques were used on nonviolent youths at the Bay County boot camp, which operated under contract with the DJJ. Cynthia Lorenzo, a spokeswoman for the DJJ, declined to discuss why the agency failed to react to the barrage of force reports from Panama City that showed that the camp was ignoring state policy.
''Recent events have brought to light the need for a more thorough review of the procedures involving use of force at juvenile facilities,'' Lorenzo said in a brief statement. ``The agency is committed to the safety and well being of youths in our care. We need to do better, we can do better, and we will do more.''
Dr. Janet Konefal, director of complementary medicine at the University of Miami and a longtime practitioner of acupuncture and pressure-point techniques in healing, said that applying extreme pressure to certain parts of the body can cause great pain -- which is why pressure points also are used in martial arts.
''Most people will just comply because it hurts,'' Konefal said. ``You can bring somebody to their knees. You can make somebody faint.''
BEHAVIOR QUESTIONED FORCEFUL TACTICS LIKENED TO CHILD ABUSE
Chelly Schembera, a retired Florida social service administrator with extensive child welfare, juvenile justice and inspector general experience during her 27-year tenure with the Department of Children & Families, said the use of such tactics as using pressure points, knee strikes and wrist holds would send parents or other caregivers straight to jail.
''This would be categorized as child abuse,'' said Schembera, who reviewed all the camp's use-of-force re- ports for The Miami Herald.
One teenager told the Bay County boot camp's second in command why he struck out at three officers who used force against him when, according to the camp's report, he ''began to perform exercises poorly.'' The youth was charged with battery, although the charges were later dropped.
''I was getting tired and I wasn't doing [push-ups] as quickly as I could,'' the boy said in a taped statement on Nov, 5, 2004. ``Sir, I was yelling, sir, like in pain, sir. . . . I rolled over and I struck the officer trying to get him off me . . . cause they put [pressure] underneath my throat, sir, and I couldn't breathe.''
''I was crying, I had tears, sir, I just wanted to get this over so I was trying to get my mind to think about something else,'' the boy said.
A report on the Oct. 30, 2004, incident said the boy had a ''dime-size'' bruise behind his right ear that had scabbed up from one of the pressure points applied to his head.
Another boy described how pressure was applied to his throat on Feb. 8, 2005. Officers used force on the boy shortly after he entered the boot camp.
''They asked me if they were going to have any problems with me, and I stopped to think about it and the next thing I know . . . the staff is in my face yelling at me,'' the boy is quoted as saying in a Sheriff's Office report, written for the DJJ inspector general. ''One of the [guards] placed his hand on my adam's apple and tilted my head back applying pressure,'' the youth said in a taped statement. ``He applied pressure to my adam's apple to the point where it felt like I was being choked.''
One boy was given a ''rug burn'' above his eye during a ''takedown'' on Feb. 8, 2005, after an encounter that the guards described as ``search and instructions.''
The report does not say how a takedown led to a rug burn on the face.
Another teen got his lip cut during a lengthy use of force the next day. The boy provoked guards by ''talking to himself while sitting in his doorway,'' a report said. As guards maneuvered to do a takedown, the boy ``tensed his left arm after being repeatedly ordered not to tense his arm.''
For that, the youth was slammed with a knee and pressed with a thumb behind the ear.
''I then noticed that offender had blood on his bottom lip,'' the report said, giving no explanation for how the youth got cut.
GUARDS HAD LEEWAY THEIR TACTICS LABELED `CORPORAL PUNISHMENT'
Schembera, the retired DCF official, said the guards should never have been allowed to use force in the incidents they reported.
''I don't have any doubt in the world that this is corporal punishment,'' she said. ``And I don't have any doubt in the world that it would not be allowed by any state agency or government contractor -- especially without any real justification.
``It is against the law to use corporal punishment on children in state care in the state of Florida.''
© 2006 MiamiHerald.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.http://www.miami.com