I am a tutor for both the Open University and Leicester University. In addition I work at Westminster as Political Secretary to Lord Bach and to Lord Hunt of King's Heath. Previously I have worked as Research and Policy Director in the Office of Sir Peter Soulsby MP. In 2001 and 2005 I stood for Parliament in the South Leicestershire Constituency of Blaby. I have a keen academic and practical interest in the workings of both the UK Parliament and the US Congress. I have made a number of study visits to Washington DC - and monitor proceedings, procedure and practice in the four chambers [House of Commons, House of Lords, House of Representative and the Senate] Over the years I have broadcast on both UK US Politics for BBC Radio Northampton.

All information >>> Read more...

Mr. Price of North Carolina: Madam Speaker, during the presidency of George W. Bush, many of us have watched with horror as the Administration has pursued policiessupposedly to help fight an ill- defined war against terrorismthat shock the conscience and undermine the values fundamental to our understanding of what it means to be an American: torture; disappearance; indefinite detention.
Historians will view the excesses of this era with the same scorn as the Alien and Sedition Acts and the reign of McCarthyism. Even in hindsight, however, it will be difficult to understand how these policies could have gained even tacit approval from so many.
Many of us have resisted these policies, questioned them, opposed them, and condemned them. We have, in the last two years, begun the monumental task of dismantling them.
We also have begun a second, equally daunting effort: to identify policies that will address our very real security challenges without compromising our fundamental values and our standing in the world. Simply put, global terrorism presents a serious and evolving threat, and it demands new thinking about the tools we must use to confront this threat.
On September 24, along with nine original co-sponsors, I introduced H.R. 7056, legislation aimed at generating more robust debate about the nature of the threat of terrorism and the tools we must apply to address it. My legislation focuses specifically upon the Bush Administrations most disgraceful and disturbing legacy: its architecture of law and practice in the realm of detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects.
My legislation recognizes, however, that a progressive response to the Administrations regressive policies cannot be limited to t do thatt torture, dont hold detainees indefinitely, and so onbut must offer a new vision that is responsive to the challenges and opportunities of the current context. I hope my proposals will spark new ideas that will lead to a new, more ethical, and more effective approach to battling global terrorism.
The question of how best to organize and mobilize the instruments of our national power in fighting global terrorism, especially with regard to interrogation and detention of terrorist suspects, is particularly pertinent as we prepare to determine the direction and leadership of our country for the next four years.
In my view, there are three major challenges the next president will have to address. One: How can we most effectively approach human intelligence collection, a task that includes determining the most effective and most ethical ways to conduct interrogations? Two: What is the best system to prosecute suspected terrorists quickly and effectively? Three: What will be the nature of our detention regime? Where, under what authority, with what rights, and for how long may suspects be detained? All of these questions will require fresh thinking and creative solutions.
Debate surrounding the first question has largely focused on whether or not the United States should engage in so-called enhanced interrogation practices, which often amount to torture. The Bush Administration has adopted policies authorizing aggressive interrogation practices that many of us would interpret to constitute torture or inhuman treatment, placing our nation in clear violation of the constitution, U.S. law, and international treaty obligations. The question these practices have posed is whether, and when, such practices are justified in the name of national security.
Most basically, the use of torture violates notions of human rights and dignity that in the American political and legal tradition have been regarded as inalienable and have preempted other considerations. The constitution explicitly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and requires that no individual be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The constitution does not limit the application of these protections to American citizens or to cases that do not involve potential terrorism or other dangers. Torturing an individual inflicts cruel and unusual punishment upon an individual without granting him or her due process of law.
The Bush Administration, by contrast, has taken a utilitarian moral approach in justifying the use of torture. Utilitarian approaches judge an action according to its ability to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Should torturing a single individual prove to save the lives of hundreds or thousands of others, the action of torturing could be deemed justifiable. When vetoing an Intelligence Authorization bill including prohibitions against torture, for example, President Bush argued, if we were to shut down this program and restrict the CIA . we could lose vital information from senior al Qaeda terrorists, and that could cost American lives.
At least two of the factual premises of the utilitarian argument are highly problematic. While advocates often present the case in terms of a dramatic choice to torture one in order to save many, the truth is that torture and abuse have been applied far more widely than to a few unique individuals. The argument might be stronger if torture were a unique exception applied in a singular and critically urgent circumstancethe ticking bomb scenario. The case begins to fall apart, however, when torture is officially sanctioned policy, available at the discretion of interrogators.
What of the claim that violating human rights and liberties might serve some greater good? Even if one acepts such moral reasoning, it is based on false assumptions. Several current and former practitioners of interrogation have persuasively argued that so-called enhanced interrogation practicesor torturesimply do not work. Such practices are no more likely to yield actionable intelligence than traditional methods and, in fact, in many cases, are more likely to yield false information.
As Rear Admiral John Hutson, a former Navy JAG, has explained, torture doesnt work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners. Torture will get you information, but its not reliable. Eventually, if you dont accidentally kill them first, torture victims will tell you something just to make you stop.
Even the Army Field Manual on Interrogation states that the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.
Both moral and practical arguments thus lead to the same conclusion: the use of torture and cruel or inhuman practices is the wrong way forward.
But the question of torture is only the beginning of the debate, not the end. For far too long, public debate focused our attention only on the abuses of enhanced interrogation, ignoringto our peril and to the detriment of our counterterrorism effortsthe equally important questions regarding our ability to effectively detain and prosecute individuals involved in terrorism. A long litany of policies undertaken by the Bush administration in the service of its war on terrorism indefinite detention, habeas corpus exceptions, special military tribunals, and so onare as morally questionable as the practice of torture.
Yet, too often, we have engaged in passionate ideological debate about whether these policies are morally justified, when we might first ask the simple question: do they work?
While Supreme Court justices and legal scholars have debated the legality and morality of the Bush administrations justice system for terrorist suspects, reaching an array of different conclusions about the theoretical validity of Guantanamo Bay, the military commissions system, and the like, few would attempt to argue that this legal regime actually works.
To wit: the administrations controversial military tribunal system has yielded exactly two convictions in the seven years since 9-11, including one off a guilty plea. In the same time span, the civilian justice system that the tribunal system supposedly improves upon has delivered over 145 convictions. If our objective is a speedy, effective instrument for bringing terrorists to justice, the tribunal system fails miserably to deliver.
The denial of habeas corpus rights meets a similar fate when examined from a practical standpoint. This denial has led to numerous lawsuits bogging down the judicial process and has undermined the moral high ground on which U.S. antiterrorism efforts previously stood. In short, the denial of such rights simply does not work to benefit our efforts in combating terrorism.
And practices such as the detention of high-value prisoners at secret, so-called black site prisons, the extraordinary rendition of detainees to countries known to torture suspects, and the broad round-ups of thousands of detainees with limited evidence of links to terrorism similarly have proven to be bankrupt as policies. There is no evidence to suggest that they have improved our human intelligence collection capabilities, they have not advanced our efforts to bring terrorists to justice, and in every case they have had severe dilatory effects on the credibility of our leadership in the global fight against terrorism. In short, they have hurt us far more than they have helped.
Looking at real-world results may help us debunk some of the Bush Administrations misguided assertions, but it is not sufficient to help us formulate the right approach. Rather, it is essential that we inform our policymaking by a deep examination and national debate about the relationship between our long-held valuesas enshrined in the constitution and law and expressed in our religious and ethical traditionsand our security prerogatives.
Examining our detention and interrogation policies through this lens is far more difficult, because legitimate differences do exist about what direction is most just, fair, and ethical, as well as what is most effective.
Nevertheless, it is critical that our country have this debate, and that we reach beyond the relatively basic question of whether or not to engage in Our approach to this area of policy will be most effective when it is well informed by all three branches of government, by politicians and the public, and by the lessons of our experience.
Unfortunately, this national conversation has not occurred and, whats worse, has been precluded by shrill fear-mongering and divisive rhetoric. The Bush administration deserves much of the blame. In debates over anti-torture provisions, FISA, military commissions, and the like, it has generally resorted to scare tactics, sharp partisanship, and questions about its critics patriotism. Such tactics do not promote a productive national debate that will make our nation safer from terrorism; they have only served to deflect attention from the enormous flaws of the Administrations policies.
Instead of such cynical partisanship, we must truly wrestle with the very real challenges of developing smart detention and interrogation policies. Such wrestling must go beyond simply opposing the administrations flawed policies.
Opposing torture, opposing the denial of habeas rights, opposing extraordinary renditionthese stances are all good and appropriate, but the rejection of bad policy alone cannot make good policy. Instead, we must seek ways to affirmatively improve our human intelligence collection, strengthen the capacity of our courts to prosecute terrorists, and better understand the nature and vulnerabilities of the terrorist threat.
In the interest of encouraging such a debate, the bill I have introduced offers a number of proposals for how we might effectively approach human intelligence collection, detention, and prosecution in terrorism cases.
My bill combines the imperative of rolling back the Administrations worst abuses with what I hope is forward thinking about improving our ability to collect human intelligence and bring terrorists to justice.
It would repeal the Military Commissions Act and direct prosecution of terrorism cases to the time-tested civilian and military justice systems, which have proven far more effective at bringing terrorists to justice; It would close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
It would establish a new, cross-government, uniform set of standards for interrogation practices, enacting a clear prohibition against torture and building in a regular Congressional review. Rather than imposing the Armys standards on everyone, it would establish a process for military and civilian intelligence agencies to work together to develop new standards.
It would prohibit the use of private contractors for the critically sensitive, inherently governmental business of conducting interrogations, a red line that I hope we can all agree on.
And it would require that all high-level interrogations be videotaped, as proposed by our colleague, Representative Rush Holt.
These much-needed reforms are founded upon both moral and practical analyses of the current systems flaws. Such correctives are needed to return our nation to a solid footing. But they must be paired with steps to ensure that our nations capacity for human intelligence collection is equal to the challenge of global terrorism.
To that end, my bill proposes a number of new initiatives designed to make our human intelligence collection better, smarter, and more penetrating.
It would establish a new interagency center of excellence to train intelligence collectors, review U.S. policies, and carry out sustained research on the best practices of interrogation and intelligence collection.
It would seek to enhance U.S. intelligence cooperation with key allieslike Britain, Spain, and Israelthat have significant experience in dealing with human intelligence collection and anti- terrorism efforts. We need to learn from their successes and mistakes as well as our own.
It would require the military to further develop intelligence collection career paths so that, instead of rotating officers in and out of the intelligence specialty, we retain the best and brightest in the field and benefit from the expertise they develop over the course of their careers.
And it would require the formulation of a strategy to prevent the radicalization of inmates held in both domestic and overseas detention facilities
I offer my legislation with the belief that we must have a far broader national conversation about the questions and the hope that my bill will point to some new and creative answers.
The American public must undertake this conversation with a deep reassessment of an even more fundamental question: what makes our nation truly secure? Is our nation more secure when we use aggressive measures that, even if they make some terrorist suspects talk, fuel the radicalization of a new generation of terrorists? Is our nation more secure if we detain hundreds of terrorist suspects extralegally, but then face legal obstacles that prevent us from convicting them? Is our nation more secure if we take measures designed to increase our security against attacks that undermine values we hold sacred?
Our national conversation must be oriented toward helping us develop a set of policies that makes far more effective use of the instruments of our national power to defeat terrorism on the battlefield, while capitalizing on the moral authority of our free and open society to defeat terrorism in the battle of ideas.
Against those who would do us harm, we must be vigilant and ready to mount an effective defense. But the number of such adversaries, the support they gain, and the threat they pose will depend not only on the defense we mount, at home or abroad, but on the values we project and the role our nation plays in the world.
The legislation I offer today will restore our grounding in the values of justice and respect for human rights that have guided our nation through two hundred thirty-two years of history. It will help us lead again through the power of our example. And it will help us mount that vigilant defense against global terrorists by enhancing the effectiveness of our efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Americano new top 10 >>> Read more...

Bold reform will reduce dependence on foreign oil, increase use and production of clean energy
BOSTON — The House of Representatives has unanimously approved a comprehensive, best in the nation energy reform bill that will reduce the Commonwealth’s use of foreign oil, increase use and production of cleaner, more renewable energy and help save costs at a critical time for consumers.
The Green Communities Act, also unanimously approved by the Senate, is expected to become law Wednesday with the signing of Governor Deval Patrick.
“When we saw the energy crisis on the horizon last year, the Massachusetts House acted and now we will have a law that comprehensively and aggressively tackles this crisis at just the right time,” said Representative Barbara L’Italien (D-Andover). “I am pleased to have been a part of this historic energy reform in the Commonwealth.”
The bill’s lead author, House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi said, “Bold energy reform was my top priority this session and we have produced a nation-leading law that will reduce our reliance on foreign oil and encourage the production and use of more sustainable, renewable energy that can save us all money in the years to come. I am very pleased to have worked with such a broad coalition of stakeholders to make my original bill far stronger and I thank them, particularly the members of the House, Senate President Murray, Governor Patrick and his energy Secretary Ian Bowles, for their hard work.”
“With the cost of energy skyrocketing, this legislation comes at a critical time and puts Massachusetts at the forefront of clean energy policies and the development of alternative fuel sources,” said Senate President Therese Murray. “With this landmark legislation, the Commonwealth will tip the scales away from fossil fuels in favor of more efficient and affordable energy alternatives. Emerging technologies and conservation are major parts of this effort, and Massachusetts will lead the way.”
Ian Bowles, Governor Patrick’s Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs added, “I congratulate the Legislature for bringing this landmark piece of legislation to fruition. I commend particularly Speaker DiMasi for his early leadership, and Senate President Murray for working with him, Governor Patrick, and myself to move Massachusetts toward a clean energy future. This bill makes sweeping changes to the electricity marketplace. It will provide a huge boost to renewable power generation, give consumers major new tools to reduce their energy costs, cut our greenhouse gas emissions and launch a new wave of clean energy technologies. We look forward to implementing it.”
The bill originally unveiled by Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi in December 2006 was redrafted over several months with Senate President Murray, Governor Patrick, the energy industry, environmentalists and other key stakeholders.
The Green Communities Act will place a renewed focus on cost-saving energy efficiency and renewable energy throughout the Commonwealth. The bill retains many important provisions in the final legislation passed in the House in November and Senate in January after months of work by legislators, the administration and coalitions of environmental, business and energy industry leaders.
The bill places a focus on “Efficiency First Energy Procurement,” and requires distribution companies to consider all available energy resources when purchasing power. It also mandates that the state’s electric companies purchase the most cost-effective and stable resources, with the goal of procuring all cost-effective energy efficiency and conservation, prior to the acquisition of more expensive supply from traditional sources.
On a local level, the bill charges the new Division of Green Communities, under the newly-elevated Department of Energy Resources, to establish a green communities program to give cities and towns the opportunity to take advantage of loans and grants provided by the state to finance the cost of energy efficiency improvements and renewable and alternative energy projects.
This effort represents the collaboration of a broad coalition of support for clean energy technologies and energy efficiency that will benefit ratepayers and allow us to continue to meet our energy demands,” said Representative Brian S. Dempsey (D-Haverhill), House Chairman of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy. “Initiatives such as the Green Communities Program will be key to advancing the clean energy goals of the Commonwealth.”
The bill also revamps the existing Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust Fund, housed within the Massachusetts Technology Park Collaborative. The Fund, still under the direction of the Collaborative, will now be directly overseen and administered by a Governing Board, chaired by the Commissioner of the Department of Energy Resources. The new Board will be charged with ensuring that funds will be used to generate the maximum economic and environmental benefits from renewable energy to the ratepayers of the Commonwealth through initiatives which utilizes the advantages of renewable energy in a more competitive energy marketplace.
Also established in the bill is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Auction Trust Fund, consisting of funds recovered through carbon dioxide allowance auctions. Massachusetts joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cooperative effort by Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states to reduce carbon dioxide emission, in January 2007. Funds from these auctions, deposited into the trust, will be used for projects like the green communities program and the promotion of energy efficiency, conservation and demand response.
The proposal also amends the current renewable energy portfolio standard and creates a second tier to assist our regions existing renewable resources while we continue to promote new renewable energy to come online. Class I eligible technologies will include new and incremental renewable generation while the second tier, Class II, is created to include existing renewable generation.
Other portions of the bill include provisions that:
• Direct the state to replace state-owned and operated vehicles with more fuel-efficient vehicles.
• Direct the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs to establish a program whereby homeowners or tenants can purchase renewable energy products for the home with no up-front payment, and pay them off monthly on their utility bill.
• Establish a 5-year pilot program, requiring distribution companies to enter into cost-effective renewable energy contracts, over 10 to 15 years, to help eliminate a barrier in the financing of renewable energy generation in the Commonwealth.
• Codify the Office of the Ratepayer Advocate under the Attorney General to intervene in proceedings on behalf of Massachusetts ratepayers.
• Encourage net metering to promote on-site generation through financial incentives.
• Establish a commission to examine the environmental and economic impact of instituting a green building plan for the Commonwealth.

The best top 10 >>> Read more...

Cr Paul Tully is the longest-serving City Councillor in Queensland over a period of 29 years from 1979 - 2008. He has a Law degree from the University of Queensland and has been a political and consumer advocate for over 30 years. Cr Tully was an elected Queensland delegate to the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1998 and has been a longtime supporter of an Australian Republic and a nuclear free Australia, in his capacity as National Secretary of the Australian Nuclear Free Zones Secretariat. He has fought enthusiastically for the past 30 years for the introduction of daylight saving in Queensland. Cr Tully is a passionate historian with a special interest in Australian history.

Americano the best top 10 >>> house of representative

Contact:
Stacey Farnen Bernards
202-225-3130
For Planning Purposes Only
June 24, 2008
TOMORROW: Hoyer, House Leaders Hold Press Conference on ADA Amendments Act

WASHINGTON - A bipartisan group of members of the House and representatives from the disability and business communities will discuss the ADA Amendments Act at a press conference tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. before expected House passage later in the day.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have narrowly interpreted the definition of “disability” under the ADA – thus making it more difficult for people to avail themselves of the law’s protections – even though Congress intentionally chose a definition of “disability” that was broad. The bill being voted on in the House tomorrow will ensure that the ADA is interpreted as originally intended by Congress.
WHO: Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (MD)
Representative Jim Langevin (D-RI)
Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY)
Education Labor Committee Ranking Member Buck McKeon (R-CA)
Education Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA)
Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Jay Timmons, Executive Vice President, National Association
of Manufacturers
Elizabeth Goldberg, Chair of Epilepsy Foundation Youth Council
WHAT: Press Conference on the ADA Amendments Act before House passage
WHERE: Cannon Terrace (corner of the Cannon House Office
Building, New Jersey Independence Avenue)
[Rain Site: House Education and Labor Subcommittee Room -
Room 2261 in the Rayburn House Office Building]
**Both locations are accessible**
WHEN: 2:00 p.m.

News >>> house of representative

Email), D-Woburn, has announced that the House of Representative passed reforms to the current Sex Offender Laws which will better protect children from sex offenders through the enforcement of tougher sentences and enhanced tracking of online predators.

These new reforms strengthen the current laws in protecting the children of the Commonwealth said Natale. The House displayed strong support passing this legislation because there is no higher priority than the protection of our children.Here in the city of Woburn we know all to well the devastating impact these predatory sex offenders can cause, he added. In January 2004, a Level 3 sex offender raped and murdered a Woburn mother, Joanne Presti, age 34, and murdered her daughter, Alyssa Presti age 12.

The legislation provides a number of minimum mandatory sentences for child predators, creates three new criminal charges for child rape and broadens the aggravating factors for the new crimes to include the use of a weapon, providing drugs or alcohol to the victim and cases where the offender holds a position of trust and authority over the victim such as teacher, coaches and clergy.

The legislation amends current law to help prosecutors to better track online predators as well as offenders of other crimes, by allowing the use of administrative subpoenas to Internet service providers to obtain basic subscriber information.

The bill also expands criminal laws regarding subsequent offenses, allowing prosecutors to charge a subsequent offense for those who had previously been convicted of crimes such as indecent assault and battery on a child or attempted rape of a child.

The bill also instructs the Chief Justice for Administration and Management of the Massachusetts Trial Court to establish and implement an annual reporting system to provide the Joint Committee on the Judiciary with information regarding the prosecution and disposition of sex offender cases as of December 31, 2008.

The legislation now proceeds to the Senate for its consideration.

All information >>> house of representative

© 2005-2008 Buckeye Firearms Association. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Privacy and Security Policy

Paid for by Buckeye Firearms Association, Mary Friscone, Treasurer. 15 West Winter Street, Delaware, Ohio 43015
Items within this site are the property of Buckeye Firearms Association. Opinions belong to their authors.
Legal Disclaimer: Nothing within this website is to be deemed or considered legal advice.
Consult a lawyer when any firearm issue or law is of concern.

Americano news >>> house of representative