Friday 24 June 2005

High Court Approves Bush's 'Clean City Act'

5-4 Decision Paves Way for Govt. Cherry-Picking Eminent Domain Properties

After weeks of negative press and losing battles, President Bush received a boost yesterday, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a municipality taking a neighborhood by eminent domain, largely for projects by private developers.

For the President, it was a vindication and endorsement of his quietly-pushed agenda item, his 'Clean City Act'.

In the closely watched case, the City of New London, Conn., by a 5-4- decision, won the right to move forward with its "economic development" plans, by taking 15 homes in the fading Fort Trumbull neighborhood for private developers to build and lease a "riverwalk" along the Thames River, consisting of office space for research and development, a conference hotel, new residences and the pedestrian "riverwalk.

New London condemned the properties in November 2000, the homeowners then sued in state court, and the case ending with the Connecticut Supreme Court upholding the use of eminent domain in a ruling last year.

President Bush, caught up in the fight to get his judicial nominations, as well as pushing his plan for Social Security reform, quietly plugged away at getting the Clean City Act through the courts. The Congress is expected to pass the bill easily, now that the Supreme Court has ruled in its' favor.

"The President firmly believes", offered White House Spokesman, Scott McClellan, 'that government has the right to develop their economic development programs, without hindrance".

Hindrance, in this case, came from 15 homeowners in Fort Trumbull neighborhood, who were represented by a public-interest law firm, the Institute for Justice. Lawyers for the Institute cited eminent domain abuse, and argued that taking property, for private economic development, even if such development enhanced the tax base for the municipality, could never be considered "public use".

The Supreme Court, the majority led by Justice John Paul Stevens, broadly defined "public purpose".

Writing for the minority opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor disagreed, and cited that "under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded."

"Every trip the President takes to Crawford (Texas)", McClellan continued, "that, along with his bicycle riding, he clears acres-and acres of brush, all with the eye of developing and increasing the value of the property. He believes he knows best on what to do with that property and the President is confident that New London, and other cities, also know best what to do with their properties."

When asked if the President has plans to combine his Clear Skies Act and the new Clean City Act, McClellan stated that "the President always looks at all the options and the best way to undertake those options to maximize them for the best possible results".


Frist Distances Himself From Gitmo MD's

Ethical Issues Reveled; Frist Says He's Never Made Exam or Viewed Tape

Senator Bill Frist quickly distanced himself from a study conducted by the Pentagon, and mental health professionals, looking into the ethical issues surrounding the treatment of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp in Cuba.

The study shows that military doctors aided interrogators in increasing psychological duress on detainees, and exploiting their fears.

In an article published by The New England Journal of Medicine this week, the authors said their interviews with doctors who helped devise and supervise the interrogation regimen at Guantánamo showed that the program was explicitly designed to increase fear and distress among detainees as a means to obtaining intelligence.

The Pentagon, officially declined comment of the report, but various Pentagon officials that the practices violated no ethics guidelines, and they disputed the conclusions of the medical journal's article.

Frist immediately upon hearing of the report, declared that he has not made "one diagnosis of a Gitmo prisoner"

"I haven't seen any detainee, nor have I reviewed any videotape of the detainees. I haven't stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate and offered any medical advice or opinions on any detainee in Guantanamo, or any other section of Cuba."

Guidelines include prohibitions against doctors' participating in abusive treatment, but they all make an exception for "lawful" interrogations.

The article also charges that non-medical personnel reviewed the medical records of detainees and that doctors usually observed interrogations from behind a one-way mirror, or, at times, were also in the room with the detainee and interrogator.

"I can say for the record", Frist added, "that I have never made a diagnosis from a one-way mirror. I would say that any detainee should be seen and diagnosed by a competent physician, who can make a complete and thorough examination, face-to-face and not from behind a sheet of glass".