With hands twisted by arthritis, Linda Fleming was no stranger to pain.
But the 66-year-old Sequim woman met the limits of her endurance when she was diagnosed last month with terminal pancreatic cancer.
Rather than die in agony or spend her final days in a drug-induced haze, Fleming swallowed a fatal dose of barbiturates in her apartment Thursday night — becoming the first person in Washington to end her life under the state's new "Death with Dignity" law.
Family members, her beloved Chihuahua, Seri, and a physician were with her when she died, according to Compassion & Choices Washington, the organization that sponsored the measure adopted by Washington voters in November.
Fleming's friend and neighbor, Sharon Lake, came out on her porch at the Vintage apartment complex for senior citizens when she heard medics and police arrive.
"They told me: 'Linda is gone,' " said Lake, who had signed legal documents weeks earlier witnessing Fleming's decision.
"It was very hard on me, but I know this is truly what she wanted to do," Lake said.
At first, Fleming didn't tell many people about her intentions, for fear that opponents might turn her into a cause célèbre, said her friend Virginia Peterhansen. "She didn't want people picketing in her yard."
But Fleming did discuss her situation with representatives from Compassion & Choices, and left behind a statement.
"I am a very spiritual person, and it was very important to me to be conscious, clear-minded and alert at the time of my death," she wrote. "The powerful pain medications were making it difficult to maintain the state of mind I wanted to have at my death. And I knew I would have to increase them."
She said she was grateful that Washington's law provided her "the choice of a death that fits my own personal beliefs."
One opponent of the law called Fleming's death a "sad day" and criticized her choice as "egotistical."
"It's saying: 'I want to go out of life on my own terms, even though the vast majority of us accept the natural conclusion of our lives,' " said Chris Carlson, of the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide, one of the groups that raised $1.6 million to fight the measure.
Supporters raised $4.9 million, making the initiative the costliest on last year's ballot.
Retired Seattle cardiologist Dr. Tom Preston, medical director for Compassion & Choices, said Fleming's experience shows that the law can work as intended to give dying patients another option.
"The prescribed medication gives patients peace of mind that they can take control of their dying if suffering becomes intolerable," he said.
Peterhansen watched her friend decline rapidly after her diagnosis in early April.
Fleming had loved walking all over town and on Dungeness Spit, Peterhansen said. She had recently bought a car — a 1982 Oldsmobile station wagon — and was looking forward to delving more into pottery and contra dancing.
"She was allowing herself to enjoy things," Peterhansen said.
But the cancer and pain drugs dulled her mind, and the disease made it hard to swallow and left her with stomach pain. She couldn't keep down her food and began to lose weight.
Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest forms, and the disease usually progresses quickly and relentlessly.
"It can be very painful," said Preston, who during his years as a physician has attended more than 100 patients in their final days.
Washington is only the second state to allow doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medication for terminally ill patients.
The state's law is modeled on a 10-year-old measure in Oregon, where about 400 people have ended their lives.
Washington's law applies only to people age 18 or older, who are able to exercise sound judgment and have been diagnosed with six months or less to live. Though the drugs are prescribed by a physician, the sick person must self-administer them.
The patient must make two oral requests for the drugs, 15 days apart, and also must present a written request witnessed by two people.
As of Friday, lethal drugs have been dispensed to six Washington residents, according to the state Department of Health. Physicians have 30 days to file documents reporting deaths under the law.
About a third of Washington hospitals have barred their caregivers and pharmacies from helping patients die. But most individual doctors are free to decide whether to participate.
Lake, a Lutheran, was reluctant at first to serve as a witness for Fleming.
"I wondered, would God forgive us for that?" asked the former dairy farmer. "I told her: This is really going to upset your family."
But after conferring with her minister and listening to Fleming's arguments, she agreed.
"There's a lot of people who are suffering and wasting all the money for the families," Lake said. "They know they're not going to live, so why prolong it?"
As Fleming's health deteriorated, her daughter adopted Seri, the dog — but brought the animal back for a final visit. Fleming also gave away most of her possessions, including her car.
"That was Linda," Lake said. "Always helping the other person."
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Leadership Long Delayed
Macrobiotic living -- a one-with-nature philosophy heavy on the whole grains and vegetables -- is riding the wave of interest in organic and healthy foods to new popularity.
The macrobiotic diet, part of a greater doctrine of living a happy, healthy life in harmony with the environment, was brought to the U.S. in the 1950s by Japanese philosopher George Ohsawa, and has cycled in and out of fashion ever since. Right now, it is riding high -- Los Angeles has even seen the opening of several new macrobiotic restaurants in recent months.
"My phone's ringing more, students are showing up for classes more," says David Briscoe, a macrobiotic consultant and co-founder of Macrobiotics America in Oroville. "It's definitely an increasing trend."
Practitioners credit their diet for preventing diseases including colds and cancer. "Our kitchen is our pharmacy," says Mina Dobic, a macrobiotic counselor and state-certified nutritional advisor in Los Angeles. "When you eat well and you also live well, then you live a longer life."
Dobic's personal enthusiasm for macrobiotic food dates back 22 years, to the time when she was diagnosed with cancer and, she says, given two months to live. She credits macrobiotic living for her recovery and subsequent stellar health -- not a single cold in two decades, she says.
But to suggest macrobiotics is a panacea is a step too far, says Andrea Giancoli, a registered dietitian in Los Angeles and a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Assn. It does, however, have healthful features -- it is high in fiber and low in saturated fat and cholesterol. A diet packed with vegetables, fruits and whole grains is associated with reduced risk for heart disease and some cancers, according to the American Heart Assn. and American Cancer Society.
Macrobiotics categorizes foods as "expansive" or "contractive" -- the yin and yang, respectively, of macrobiotic eating. Cool, fresh expansive foods (such as apples) enhance relaxation; warm, salted contractive foods (such as fish) promote focus. Getting too much of one or the other can imbalance the body, Briscoe says, leading to health problems.
The primary macrobiotic prescription: whole grains. Vegetables and plant-based proteins, such as beans and soy products, are also key. The diet deemphasizes acid-forming foods such as dairy products.
Vegan principles -- no animal products at all -- are a common complement but not required; many macrobiotic menus include the occasional fish dish.
Macrobiotics' Asian origins also show in the recommended foods. Seaweed, high in minerals, is an essential component. Miso soup, made from a paste of fermented beans and grains, is also a top macrobiotic choice. Miso is the "bodyguard of the immune system," Dobic says.
Some research suggests that elements of the macrobiotic diet may have cancer- and infection-fighting properties, says Jane Teas, who studies seaweed and cancer at the University of South Carolina in Columbia.
For example, in a 2001 study, Japanese scientists found that a seaweed extract suppressed breast tumor growth in rats and caused human breast cancer cells growing in a dish to commit cellular suicide. Another Japanese research group has reported that a starch from algae has antiviral properties and prevented death in mice infected with the influenza virus.
"In my opinion, in 20 years seaweed will be part of that dietary pyramid," Teas says.
Collecting data to link macrobiotics to cancer prevention or treatment in humans is difficult, Teas adds. That's because people interpret the tenets of macrobiotics in a variety of ways. When she interviewed macrobiotic eaters for one study, "the range of what people said was macrobiotics was incredible." That variability, combined with the fact that the population of macrobiotics followers is small, makes rigorous scientific study challenging.
Though a macrobiotic diet includes many healthy characteristics, it isn't the only diet that has those advantages. And Giancoli has a few reservations about macrobiotic eating. Macrobiotics recommends that people minimize members of the nightshade family, such as tomatoes and potatoes, as well as many fruits because of their sugar content. "That's just silly," Giancoli says. "People shouldn't be afraid of fruit."
People considering a macrobiotic diet, particularly if they are vegan, should be careful about getting enough vitamin B-12, which is found only in animal products. After giving up meat and dairy, a person can live off the body's B-12 stores for five or six years, Giancoli says, but eventually supplements would be advisable. The U.S. government recommends adults get 2.4 micrograms of vitamin B-12 daily.
In many ways, macrobiotics has been ahead of the curve, says Lawrence Kushi, a cancer epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland. The son of macrobiotics leader Michio Kushi, he has watched as Americans have discovered the foods that he grew up with.
The government's dietary recommendations have certainly come to look more and more like macrobiotic guidelines, emphasizing plant foods and minimizing animal products. "Things that I thought were weird when I was in elementary school . . . now everyone has kind of moved in that direction," Kushi says
.
The macrobiotic diet, part of a greater doctrine of living a happy, healthy life in harmony with the environment, was brought to the U.S. in the 1950s by Japanese philosopher George Ohsawa, and has cycled in and out of fashion ever since. Right now, it is riding high -- Los Angeles has even seen the opening of several new macrobiotic restaurants in recent months.
"My phone's ringing more, students are showing up for classes more," says David Briscoe, a macrobiotic consultant and co-founder of Macrobiotics America in Oroville. "It's definitely an increasing trend."
Practitioners credit their diet for preventing diseases including colds and cancer. "Our kitchen is our pharmacy," says Mina Dobic, a macrobiotic counselor and state-certified nutritional advisor in Los Angeles. "When you eat well and you also live well, then you live a longer life."
Dobic's personal enthusiasm for macrobiotic food dates back 22 years, to the time when she was diagnosed with cancer and, she says, given two months to live. She credits macrobiotic living for her recovery and subsequent stellar health -- not a single cold in two decades, she says.
But to suggest macrobiotics is a panacea is a step too far, says Andrea Giancoli, a registered dietitian in Los Angeles and a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Assn. It does, however, have healthful features -- it is high in fiber and low in saturated fat and cholesterol. A diet packed with vegetables, fruits and whole grains is associated with reduced risk for heart disease and some cancers, according to the American Heart Assn. and American Cancer Society.
Macrobiotics categorizes foods as "expansive" or "contractive" -- the yin and yang, respectively, of macrobiotic eating. Cool, fresh expansive foods (such as apples) enhance relaxation; warm, salted contractive foods (such as fish) promote focus. Getting too much of one or the other can imbalance the body, Briscoe says, leading to health problems.
The primary macrobiotic prescription: whole grains. Vegetables and plant-based proteins, such as beans and soy products, are also key. The diet deemphasizes acid-forming foods such as dairy products.
Vegan principles -- no animal products at all -- are a common complement but not required; many macrobiotic menus include the occasional fish dish.
Macrobiotics' Asian origins also show in the recommended foods. Seaweed, high in minerals, is an essential component. Miso soup, made from a paste of fermented beans and grains, is also a top macrobiotic choice. Miso is the "bodyguard of the immune system," Dobic says.
Some research suggests that elements of the macrobiotic diet may have cancer- and infection-fighting properties, says Jane Teas, who studies seaweed and cancer at the University of South Carolina in Columbia.
For example, in a 2001 study, Japanese scientists found that a seaweed extract suppressed breast tumor growth in rats and caused human breast cancer cells growing in a dish to commit cellular suicide. Another Japanese research group has reported that a starch from algae has antiviral properties and prevented death in mice infected with the influenza virus.
"In my opinion, in 20 years seaweed will be part of that dietary pyramid," Teas says.
Collecting data to link macrobiotics to cancer prevention or treatment in humans is difficult, Teas adds. That's because people interpret the tenets of macrobiotics in a variety of ways. When she interviewed macrobiotic eaters for one study, "the range of what people said was macrobiotics was incredible." That variability, combined with the fact that the population of macrobiotics followers is small, makes rigorous scientific study challenging.
Though a macrobiotic diet includes many healthy characteristics, it isn't the only diet that has those advantages. And Giancoli has a few reservations about macrobiotic eating. Macrobiotics recommends that people minimize members of the nightshade family, such as tomatoes and potatoes, as well as many fruits because of their sugar content. "That's just silly," Giancoli says. "People shouldn't be afraid of fruit."
People considering a macrobiotic diet, particularly if they are vegan, should be careful about getting enough vitamin B-12, which is found only in animal products. After giving up meat and dairy, a person can live off the body's B-12 stores for five or six years, Giancoli says, but eventually supplements would be advisable. The U.S. government recommends adults get 2.4 micrograms of vitamin B-12 daily.
In many ways, macrobiotics has been ahead of the curve, says Lawrence Kushi, a cancer epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland. The son of macrobiotics leader Michio Kushi, he has watched as Americans have discovered the foods that he grew up with.
The government's dietary recommendations have certainly come to look more and more like macrobiotic guidelines, emphasizing plant foods and minimizing animal products. "Things that I thought were weird when I was in elementary school . . . now everyone has kind of moved in that direction," Kushi says
.
U.S holds journalist without charges in Iraq
: May 22, 2009
For anyone eager to see the United States take a serious leadership role on the issue of global warming, this week was enormously encouraging.
Greenhouse Gas EmissionsIt began with the White House’s announcement that it will impose the first-ever limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. It ended with a House committee approving a comprehensive energy and global warming bill — an important first step on legislation that seeks to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil, reverse emissions of carbon dioxide and create millions of clean energy jobs.
In fairly short order, President Obama and a Democratically controlled Congress have made the lassitude and indifference of the Bush years seem like ancient history. And they have greatly improved the prospects that American negotiators will arrive at the next round of global climate negotiations in Copenhagen with a credible strategy in hand and with the leverage to encourage other major emitters like China to get cracking.
The trick now will be to sustain the momentum — at home and internationally.
The legislation approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee must survive scrutiny by other committees and, of course, the whole House. Even after the strong endorsement of expert scientists, only one of the committee’s Republicans — Mary Bono Mack of California — voted for the bill. And then comes the Senate, where 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster and where a climate change bill crashed to defeat last year.
The House bill’s main architect, Representative Henry Waxman of California, and his chief lieutenant, Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts, have politically tailored this bill to do better.
It calls for a 17 percent reduction in 2005 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 — and 83 percent by 2050. It would put a price on carbon through a cap-and-trade system that would impose a steadily declining ceiling on emissions while allowing polluters to trade permits, or allowances, to give them more flexibility in meeting their targets. It also mandates greater use of renewable power sources like wind and solar, sets tough new efficiency standards for buildings and invests in cleaner energy technologies, largely through the sale of carbon allowances.
To placate politicians from industrial states that rely heavily on coal, and whose energy costs are likely to rise, the bill includes a variety of mechanisms to help industries make the near-term transition to cleaner and more efficient ways of creating energy. The most prominent of these are “ offsets” that would allow polluters to satisfy their own emissions-reduction obligations by investing in carbon-reducing programs elsewhere, like preventing deforestation.
Critics says these and other provisions are too generous to polluters, and in truth the bill is not as strong as it should be. But anything more might well fail, as other bills have failed, and then the country would be back to Square 1. As it is, the bill represents an ambitious first step toward a solution too long delayed for a problem too long denied.
For anyone eager to see the United States take a serious leadership role on the issue of global warming, this week was enormously encouraging.
Greenhouse Gas EmissionsIt began with the White House’s announcement that it will impose the first-ever limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. It ended with a House committee approving a comprehensive energy and global warming bill — an important first step on legislation that seeks to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil, reverse emissions of carbon dioxide and create millions of clean energy jobs.
In fairly short order, President Obama and a Democratically controlled Congress have made the lassitude and indifference of the Bush years seem like ancient history. And they have greatly improved the prospects that American negotiators will arrive at the next round of global climate negotiations in Copenhagen with a credible strategy in hand and with the leverage to encourage other major emitters like China to get cracking.
The trick now will be to sustain the momentum — at home and internationally.
The legislation approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee must survive scrutiny by other committees and, of course, the whole House. Even after the strong endorsement of expert scientists, only one of the committee’s Republicans — Mary Bono Mack of California — voted for the bill. And then comes the Senate, where 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster and where a climate change bill crashed to defeat last year.
The House bill’s main architect, Representative Henry Waxman of California, and his chief lieutenant, Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts, have politically tailored this bill to do better.
It calls for a 17 percent reduction in 2005 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 — and 83 percent by 2050. It would put a price on carbon through a cap-and-trade system that would impose a steadily declining ceiling on emissions while allowing polluters to trade permits, or allowances, to give them more flexibility in meeting their targets. It also mandates greater use of renewable power sources like wind and solar, sets tough new efficiency standards for buildings and invests in cleaner energy technologies, largely through the sale of carbon allowances.
To placate politicians from industrial states that rely heavily on coal, and whose energy costs are likely to rise, the bill includes a variety of mechanisms to help industries make the near-term transition to cleaner and more efficient ways of creating energy. The most prominent of these are “ offsets” that would allow polluters to satisfy their own emissions-reduction obligations by investing in carbon-reducing programs elsewhere, like preventing deforestation.
Critics says these and other provisions are too generous to polluters, and in truth the bill is not as strong as it should be. But anything more might well fail, as other bills have failed, and then the country would be back to Square 1. As it is, the bill represents an ambitious first step toward a solution too long delayed for a problem too long denied.
U.S holds journalist without charges in Iraq
The soldiers came at 1:30 a.m, rousing family members who were sleeping on the roof to escape the late-summer heat.
They broke down the front door. Accompanied by dogs, American and Iraqi troops burst into the Jassam family home south of Baghdad in the town of Mahmoudiya.
"Where is the journalist Ibrahim?" one of the Iraqi soldiers barked at the grandparents, children and grandchildren as they staggered blearily down the stairs.
Ibrahim Jassam, a cameraman and photographer for the Reuters news agency, stepped forward, one of this brothers recalled. "Take me if you want me, but please leave my brothers." The soldiers rifled through the house, confiscating his computer hard drive and cameras. And then they led him away, handcuffed and blindfolded.
That was Sept. 2.
Jassam, 31, has been in U.S. custody ever since. His case represents the latest in a dozen detentions the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists has documented since 2001.
No formal accusations have been made against Jassam, and an Iraqi court ordered in November that he be released for lack of evidence. But the U.S. military continues to hold him, saying it has intelligence that he is "a high security threat," according to Maj. Neal Fisher, spokesman for detainee affairs.
The Obama administration harshly criticized Iran for its imprisonment of Roxana Saberi, the U.S.-Iranian journalist who was convicted of espionage and sentenced to eight years in prison before being freed last week. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Iran's treatment of Saberi as "non-transparent, unpredictable and arbitrary."
Washington also has called upon North Korea to expedite the trial of two U.S. journalists being held there on spying charges.
Yet the United States has routinely used the arbitrary powers it assumed after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorism attacks to hold without charge journalists in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Committee to Protect Journalists points out.
None of the detained journalists has been convicted of any charge, said Joel Simon, executive director of the group, undermining the United States reputation when it comes to criticizing other countries on issues of press freedom.
"The U.S. has a record of holding journalists for long periods of time without due process and without explanation," he said. "Its standing would be improved if it addressed this issue."
Reuters has expressed disappointment at Jassam's detention and has said there is no evidence against him.
Sami Haj, a cameraman for the Al Jazeera TV network, was detained by Pakistani authorities as he tried to cross into Afghanistan in 2001 to cover the offensive against the Taliban. He was turned over to the U.S. military, which held him for six years at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He was accused him of being a courier for militant Islamic organizations, but was never charged. He was released a year ago.
In Iraq, Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein was held for two years without trial before he was released last April on the orders of an Iraqi judge under the terms of an Iraqi amnesty law. The U.S. military maintained that Hussein had links to insurgents, but the AP insisted that the allegations were based on nothing more than the Pulitzer Prize-winning photographs of insurgents that he had taken on the streets of Ramadi, in western Iraq.
Jassam is the only Iraqi journalist still in U.S. custody, the last to be detained under wartime rules in force prior to a U.S.-Iraqi security agreement signed in December. Under the new accord, U.S. forces are required to obtain a warrant before they can arrest an Iraqi citizen.
Jassam was detained without a warrant "as the result of his activity with a known insurgent organization," Fisher alleged.
No evidence against Jassam was presented at his court hearing in November, Fisher said, because the military intelligence against him had not yet been verified.
Under the wartime rules in place at the time, he said, "there was no requirement to link the military intelligence with rule of law type of evidentiary procedures."
After the court ordered Jassam's release, Fisher said, fresh evidence came to light that suggested he was a "high security threat."
The journalist committee's Simon said it was possible for someone to use the cover of journalism to conduct other activities.
"No one is suggesting that journalists should have a get out of jail free card," he said. "But if you accuse someone of something there needs to be a fair legal process. That's what we said in the Roxana Saberi case, and that's what we say in the Ibrahim Jassam case."
Jassam will have to wait for the requirements of the security pact to play out before he receives another day in court or his release. Under the agreement, the U.S. is supposed to release low-threat detainees in a "safe and orderly" fashion, while referring "high threat" cases to the Iraqi Justice Ministry for review.
The decision to release him or transfer him to the Iraqi legal system will be made by the Iraqi government. The only timetable for that to happen is "by the end of the year," Fisher said. By that time, Jassam will have been in custody for more than a year.
Jassam's brother, Walid, visited him recently in Camp Bucca, the desolate, tented U.S. prison camp in the desert in southern Iraq, and found him close to breaking point.
"He used to be handsome, but now he's pale and he's tired," said Walid, who insists his brother had no contacts with insurgents. "Every now and then while we were talking, he would start crying. He was begging me, 'please do something to get me out of here. I don't know what is the charge against me."
"I told him we already tried everything
They broke down the front door. Accompanied by dogs, American and Iraqi troops burst into the Jassam family home south of Baghdad in the town of Mahmoudiya.
"Where is the journalist Ibrahim?" one of the Iraqi soldiers barked at the grandparents, children and grandchildren as they staggered blearily down the stairs.
Ibrahim Jassam, a cameraman and photographer for the Reuters news agency, stepped forward, one of this brothers recalled. "Take me if you want me, but please leave my brothers." The soldiers rifled through the house, confiscating his computer hard drive and cameras. And then they led him away, handcuffed and blindfolded.
That was Sept. 2.
Jassam, 31, has been in U.S. custody ever since. His case represents the latest in a dozen detentions the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists has documented since 2001.
No formal accusations have been made against Jassam, and an Iraqi court ordered in November that he be released for lack of evidence. But the U.S. military continues to hold him, saying it has intelligence that he is "a high security threat," according to Maj. Neal Fisher, spokesman for detainee affairs.
The Obama administration harshly criticized Iran for its imprisonment of Roxana Saberi, the U.S.-Iranian journalist who was convicted of espionage and sentenced to eight years in prison before being freed last week. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Iran's treatment of Saberi as "non-transparent, unpredictable and arbitrary."
Washington also has called upon North Korea to expedite the trial of two U.S. journalists being held there on spying charges.
Yet the United States has routinely used the arbitrary powers it assumed after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorism attacks to hold without charge journalists in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Committee to Protect Journalists points out.
None of the detained journalists has been convicted of any charge, said Joel Simon, executive director of the group, undermining the United States reputation when it comes to criticizing other countries on issues of press freedom.
"The U.S. has a record of holding journalists for long periods of time without due process and without explanation," he said. "Its standing would be improved if it addressed this issue."
Reuters has expressed disappointment at Jassam's detention and has said there is no evidence against him.
Sami Haj, a cameraman for the Al Jazeera TV network, was detained by Pakistani authorities as he tried to cross into Afghanistan in 2001 to cover the offensive against the Taliban. He was turned over to the U.S. military, which held him for six years at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He was accused him of being a courier for militant Islamic organizations, but was never charged. He was released a year ago.
In Iraq, Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein was held for two years without trial before he was released last April on the orders of an Iraqi judge under the terms of an Iraqi amnesty law. The U.S. military maintained that Hussein had links to insurgents, but the AP insisted that the allegations were based on nothing more than the Pulitzer Prize-winning photographs of insurgents that he had taken on the streets of Ramadi, in western Iraq.
Jassam is the only Iraqi journalist still in U.S. custody, the last to be detained under wartime rules in force prior to a U.S.-Iraqi security agreement signed in December. Under the new accord, U.S. forces are required to obtain a warrant before they can arrest an Iraqi citizen.
Jassam was detained without a warrant "as the result of his activity with a known insurgent organization," Fisher alleged.
No evidence against Jassam was presented at his court hearing in November, Fisher said, because the military intelligence against him had not yet been verified.
Under the wartime rules in place at the time, he said, "there was no requirement to link the military intelligence with rule of law type of evidentiary procedures."
After the court ordered Jassam's release, Fisher said, fresh evidence came to light that suggested he was a "high security threat."
The journalist committee's Simon said it was possible for someone to use the cover of journalism to conduct other activities.
"No one is suggesting that journalists should have a get out of jail free card," he said. "But if you accuse someone of something there needs to be a fair legal process. That's what we said in the Roxana Saberi case, and that's what we say in the Ibrahim Jassam case."
Jassam will have to wait for the requirements of the security pact to play out before he receives another day in court or his release. Under the agreement, the U.S. is supposed to release low-threat detainees in a "safe and orderly" fashion, while referring "high threat" cases to the Iraqi Justice Ministry for review.
The decision to release him or transfer him to the Iraqi legal system will be made by the Iraqi government. The only timetable for that to happen is "by the end of the year," Fisher said. By that time, Jassam will have been in custody for more than a year.
Jassam's brother, Walid, visited him recently in Camp Bucca, the desolate, tented U.S. prison camp in the desert in southern Iraq, and found him close to breaking point.
"He used to be handsome, but now he's pale and he's tired," said Walid, who insists his brother had no contacts with insurgents. "Every now and then while we were talking, he would start crying. He was begging me, 'please do something to get me out of here. I don't know what is the charge against me."
"I told him we already tried everything
U.S. Relies More on Allies in Questioning Terror Suspects
The United States is now relying heavily on foreign intelligence services to capture, interrogate and detain all but the highest-level terrorist suspects seized outside the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to current and former American government officials.
The change represents a significant loosening of the reins for the United States, which has worked closely with allies to combat violent extremism since the 9/11 attacks but is now pushing that cooperation to new limits.
In the past 10 months, for example, about a half-dozen midlevel financiers and logistics experts working with Al Qaeda have been captured and are being held by intelligence services in four Middle Eastern countries after the United States provided information that led to their arrests by local security services, a former American counterterrorism official said.
In addition, Pakistan’s intelligence and security services captured a Saudi suspect and a Yemeni suspect this year with the help of American intelligence and logistical support, Pakistani officials said. The two are the highest-ranking Qaeda operatives captured since President Obama took office, but they are still being held by Pakistan, which has shared information from their interrogations with the United States, the official said.
The current approach, which began in the last two years of the Bush administration and has gained momentum under Mr. Obama, is driven in part by court rulings and policy changes that have closed the secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency, and all but ended the transfer of prisoners from outside Iraq and Afghanistan to American military prisons.
Human rights advocates say that relying on foreign governments to hold and question terrorist suspects could carry significant risks. It could increase the potential for abuse at the hands of foreign interrogators and could also yield bad intelligence, they say.
The fate of many terrorist suspects whom the Bush administration sent to foreign countries remains uncertain. One suspect, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who was captured by the C.I.A. in late 2001 and sent to Libya, was recently reported to have died there in Libyan custody.
“As a practical matter you have to rely on partner governments, so the focus should be on pressing and assisting those governments to handle those cases professionally,” said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.
The United States itself has not detained any high-level terrorist suspects outside Iraq and Afghanistan since Mr. Obama took office, and the question of where to detain the most senior terrorist suspects on a long-term basis is being debated within the new administration. Even deciding where the two Qaeda suspects in Pakistani custody will be kept over the long term is “extremely, extremely sensitive right now,” a senior American military official said, adding, “They’re both bad dudes. The issue is: where do they get parked so they stay parked?”
How the United States is dealing with terrorism suspects beyond those already in the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was a question Mr. Obama did not address in the speech he gave Thursday about his antiterrorism policies. While he said he might seek to create a new system that would allow preventive detention inside the United States, the government currently has no obvious long-term detention center for imprisoning terrorism suspects without court oversight.
Mr. Obama has said he still intends to close the Guantánamo prison by January, despite misgivings in Congress, and the Supreme Court has ruled that inmates there may challenge their detention before federal judges. Some suspects are being imprisoned without charges at a United States air base in Afghanistan, but a federal court has ruled that at least some of them may also file habeas corpus lawsuits to challenge their detentions.
American officials say that in the last years of the Bush administration and now on Mr. Obama’s watch, the balance has shifted toward leaving all but the most high-level terrorist suspects in foreign rather than American custody. The United States has repatriated hundreds of detainees held at prisons in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan, but the current approach is different because it seeks to keep the prisoners out of American custody altogether.
How the United States deals with terrorism suspects remains a contentious issue in Congress.
Leon E. Panetta, the director of the C.I.A., said in February that the agency might continue its program of extraordinary rendition, in which captured terrorism suspects are transferred to other countries without extradition proceedings.
He said the C.I.A. would be likely to continue to transfer detainees from their place of capture to other countries, either their home countries or nations that intended to bring charges against them.
As a safeguard against torture, Mr. Panetta said, the United States would rely on diplomatic assurances of good treatment. The Bush administration sought the same assurances, which critics say are ineffective.
A half-dozen current and former American intelligence and counterterrorism officials and allied officials were interviewed for this article, but all spoke on the condition of anonymity because the detention and interrogation programs are classified.
Officials say the United States has learned so much about Al Qaeda and other militant groups since the 9/11 attacks that it can safely rely on foreign partners to detain and question more suspects. “It’s the preferred method now,” one former counterterrorism official said.
The Obama administration’s policies will probably become clearer after two task forces the president created in January report to him in July on detainee policy, interrogation techniques and extraordinary rendition.
In many instances now, allies are using information provided by the United States to pick up terrorism suspects on their own territory — including the two suspects seized in Pakistan this year.
The Saudi militant, Zabi al-Taifi, was picked up by Pakistani commandos in a dawn raid at a safe house outside Peshawar on Jan. 22, an operation conducted with the help of the C.I.A.
A Pakistani official said the Yemeni suspect, Abu Sufyan al-Yemeni, was a Qaeda paramilitary commander who was on C.I.A. and Pakistani lists of the top 20 Qaeda operatives. He was believed to be a conduit for communications between Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and cells in East Africa, Iran, Yemen and elsewhere. American and Pakistani intelligence officials say they believe that Mr. Yemeni, who was arrested Feb. 24 by Pakistani authorities in Quetta, helped arrange travel and training for Qaeda operatives from various parts of the Muslim world to the Pakistani tribal areas.
He is now in the custody of Pakistan’s main spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, but his fate is unclear. The Pakistani official said that he would remain in Pakistani hands, but that it would be difficult to try him because the evidence against him came from informers.
American officials said the United States would still take custody of the most senior Qaeda operatives captured in the future. As a model, they cited the case of Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, an Iraqi Kurd who is said to have joined Al Qaeda in the late 1990s and risen to become a top aide to Osama bin Laden, and who was captured by a foreign security service in 2006. He was handed over to the C.I.A., which transferred him to Guantánamo Bay in April 2007. He was one of the last detainees shipped there
The change represents a significant loosening of the reins for the United States, which has worked closely with allies to combat violent extremism since the 9/11 attacks but is now pushing that cooperation to new limits.
In the past 10 months, for example, about a half-dozen midlevel financiers and logistics experts working with Al Qaeda have been captured and are being held by intelligence services in four Middle Eastern countries after the United States provided information that led to their arrests by local security services, a former American counterterrorism official said.
In addition, Pakistan’s intelligence and security services captured a Saudi suspect and a Yemeni suspect this year with the help of American intelligence and logistical support, Pakistani officials said. The two are the highest-ranking Qaeda operatives captured since President Obama took office, but they are still being held by Pakistan, which has shared information from their interrogations with the United States, the official said.
The current approach, which began in the last two years of the Bush administration and has gained momentum under Mr. Obama, is driven in part by court rulings and policy changes that have closed the secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency, and all but ended the transfer of prisoners from outside Iraq and Afghanistan to American military prisons.
Human rights advocates say that relying on foreign governments to hold and question terrorist suspects could carry significant risks. It could increase the potential for abuse at the hands of foreign interrogators and could also yield bad intelligence, they say.
The fate of many terrorist suspects whom the Bush administration sent to foreign countries remains uncertain. One suspect, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who was captured by the C.I.A. in late 2001 and sent to Libya, was recently reported to have died there in Libyan custody.
“As a practical matter you have to rely on partner governments, so the focus should be on pressing and assisting those governments to handle those cases professionally,” said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.
The United States itself has not detained any high-level terrorist suspects outside Iraq and Afghanistan since Mr. Obama took office, and the question of where to detain the most senior terrorist suspects on a long-term basis is being debated within the new administration. Even deciding where the two Qaeda suspects in Pakistani custody will be kept over the long term is “extremely, extremely sensitive right now,” a senior American military official said, adding, “They’re both bad dudes. The issue is: where do they get parked so they stay parked?”
How the United States is dealing with terrorism suspects beyond those already in the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was a question Mr. Obama did not address in the speech he gave Thursday about his antiterrorism policies. While he said he might seek to create a new system that would allow preventive detention inside the United States, the government currently has no obvious long-term detention center for imprisoning terrorism suspects without court oversight.
Mr. Obama has said he still intends to close the Guantánamo prison by January, despite misgivings in Congress, and the Supreme Court has ruled that inmates there may challenge their detention before federal judges. Some suspects are being imprisoned without charges at a United States air base in Afghanistan, but a federal court has ruled that at least some of them may also file habeas corpus lawsuits to challenge their detentions.
American officials say that in the last years of the Bush administration and now on Mr. Obama’s watch, the balance has shifted toward leaving all but the most high-level terrorist suspects in foreign rather than American custody. The United States has repatriated hundreds of detainees held at prisons in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan, but the current approach is different because it seeks to keep the prisoners out of American custody altogether.
How the United States deals with terrorism suspects remains a contentious issue in Congress.
Leon E. Panetta, the director of the C.I.A., said in February that the agency might continue its program of extraordinary rendition, in which captured terrorism suspects are transferred to other countries without extradition proceedings.
He said the C.I.A. would be likely to continue to transfer detainees from their place of capture to other countries, either their home countries or nations that intended to bring charges against them.
As a safeguard against torture, Mr. Panetta said, the United States would rely on diplomatic assurances of good treatment. The Bush administration sought the same assurances, which critics say are ineffective.
A half-dozen current and former American intelligence and counterterrorism officials and allied officials were interviewed for this article, but all spoke on the condition of anonymity because the detention and interrogation programs are classified.
Officials say the United States has learned so much about Al Qaeda and other militant groups since the 9/11 attacks that it can safely rely on foreign partners to detain and question more suspects. “It’s the preferred method now,” one former counterterrorism official said.
The Obama administration’s policies will probably become clearer after two task forces the president created in January report to him in July on detainee policy, interrogation techniques and extraordinary rendition.
In many instances now, allies are using information provided by the United States to pick up terrorism suspects on their own territory — including the two suspects seized in Pakistan this year.
The Saudi militant, Zabi al-Taifi, was picked up by Pakistani commandos in a dawn raid at a safe house outside Peshawar on Jan. 22, an operation conducted with the help of the C.I.A.
A Pakistani official said the Yemeni suspect, Abu Sufyan al-Yemeni, was a Qaeda paramilitary commander who was on C.I.A. and Pakistani lists of the top 20 Qaeda operatives. He was believed to be a conduit for communications between Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and cells in East Africa, Iran, Yemen and elsewhere. American and Pakistani intelligence officials say they believe that Mr. Yemeni, who was arrested Feb. 24 by Pakistani authorities in Quetta, helped arrange travel and training for Qaeda operatives from various parts of the Muslim world to the Pakistani tribal areas.
He is now in the custody of Pakistan’s main spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, but his fate is unclear. The Pakistani official said that he would remain in Pakistani hands, but that it would be difficult to try him because the evidence against him came from informers.
American officials said the United States would still take custody of the most senior Qaeda operatives captured in the future. As a model, they cited the case of Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, an Iraqi Kurd who is said to have joined Al Qaeda in the late 1990s and risen to become a top aide to Osama bin Laden, and who was captured by a foreign security service in 2006. He was handed over to the C.I.A., which transferred him to Guantánamo Bay in April 2007. He was one of the last detainees shipped there
Scientists admit: we were wrong about 'E'
It was billed as the one of the most dramatic warnings the world has ever received over the dangers of ecstasy. A study from one of America's leading universities concluded that taking the drug for just one evening could leave clubbers with irreversible brain damage, and trigger the onset of Parkinson's disease.
The study, published in the eminent journal Science last September, had an immediate impact. Doctors and anti-drug crusaders spoke of a 'neurological time bomb' facing the young. Others suggested that taking one of the tablets was the equivalent of playing Russian roulette with the brain, and demanded tighter 'anti-rave' laws to deal with it.
But today, scientists are facing up to the humiliation of admitting that the stark results they reported in the study were not a breakthrough but a terrible, humiliating blunder.
The study was based on the fact that laboratory monkeys and baboons had a severe reaction to the drug when it was injected in small doses. But it emerged this weekend that the vials of liquid did not contain ecstasy. Instead, the animals received a dose of methamphetamine, or speed - a drug widely known to affect the body's dopamine system. The tubes had somehow been mislabelled by the supplier.
In this week's Science, the scientists will publish a retraction of their original study, reigniting the row over the role of those who investigate ecstasy, as well as the real risks or benefits of the drug.
In academic circles, the mistake is a severe embarrassment to Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland, which attracts millions of dollars of research funding from both government and companies. Questions are already being asked about whether the lead researcher, George Ricaurte, was inherently biased against the drug.
The mistake only came to light when follow-up tests gave conflicting results. The original study reported how two out of 10 animals died quickly after their second or third dose. Six weeks later, the dopamine levels in the surviving animals were down by 65 per cent, leading Ricaurte and his colleagues to conclude that it could provoke the onset of Parkinson's, which is linked to a loss of dopamine-producing cells.
He said at the time: 'It is possible that some of the more recent cases of suspected young-onset Parkinson's disease might be related, but that this link has not been recognised.'
When the study was published last September, a chorus of experts saw it as evidence of drug damage. Professor Colin Blakemore of Oxford University, soon to be the new head of the Medical Research Council, said it provided further evidence that 'ecstasy can be toxic to nerve cells'.
Dr Alan Leshner, chief executive of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal, went as far as to describe taking ecstasy as playing 'Russian roulette' with brain function.
He added: 'This study showed that even very occasional use can have long-lasting effects on many different brain systems. It sends an important message to young people - don't experiment with your brain.'
Yesterday, Ricaurte was attempting to put a brave face on the calamity. He is under attack from all sides, and has already been accused of rushing his study into print because Congress was looking at a bill known as the Anti-Rave Act, which would punish club owners who knew that drugs such as ecstasy were being used on their premises.
Ricaurte has denied political bias. He said yesterday that his laboratory made 'a simple human error', adding: 'We're scientists, not chemists.' Asked why the vials of liquid were not checked before being used on the animals, he replied: 'We're not chemists. We get hundreds of chemicals here - it's not customary to check them.'
It is unusual for Science to have to publish a retraction, but that is exactly the right thing to do, according to Joe Collier, professor of medicines policy at St George's Hospital Medical School.
'People must realise that mistakes are made, even by scientists,' said Collier. 'It is embarrassing - a lot of self-questioning will be going on over there - but it's important we learn from this.'
Over the past five years, controversy has raged about the real dangers of ecstasy, a drug which is taken by around a million clubbers in Britain every weekend.
Some studies have suggested that ecstasy has no long-term impact on the levels of the hormone serotonin in the brain, while others have suggested that it leaves clubbers feeling depressed and unable to concentrate.
The controversy is not likely to go away quickly while the scientists themselves are caught up in such a political and academic minefield
The study, published in the eminent journal Science last September, had an immediate impact. Doctors and anti-drug crusaders spoke of a 'neurological time bomb' facing the young. Others suggested that taking one of the tablets was the equivalent of playing Russian roulette with the brain, and demanded tighter 'anti-rave' laws to deal with it.
But today, scientists are facing up to the humiliation of admitting that the stark results they reported in the study were not a breakthrough but a terrible, humiliating blunder.
The study was based on the fact that laboratory monkeys and baboons had a severe reaction to the drug when it was injected in small doses. But it emerged this weekend that the vials of liquid did not contain ecstasy. Instead, the animals received a dose of methamphetamine, or speed - a drug widely known to affect the body's dopamine system. The tubes had somehow been mislabelled by the supplier.
In this week's Science, the scientists will publish a retraction of their original study, reigniting the row over the role of those who investigate ecstasy, as well as the real risks or benefits of the drug.
In academic circles, the mistake is a severe embarrassment to Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland, which attracts millions of dollars of research funding from both government and companies. Questions are already being asked about whether the lead researcher, George Ricaurte, was inherently biased against the drug.
The mistake only came to light when follow-up tests gave conflicting results. The original study reported how two out of 10 animals died quickly after their second or third dose. Six weeks later, the dopamine levels in the surviving animals were down by 65 per cent, leading Ricaurte and his colleagues to conclude that it could provoke the onset of Parkinson's, which is linked to a loss of dopamine-producing cells.
He said at the time: 'It is possible that some of the more recent cases of suspected young-onset Parkinson's disease might be related, but that this link has not been recognised.'
When the study was published last September, a chorus of experts saw it as evidence of drug damage. Professor Colin Blakemore of Oxford University, soon to be the new head of the Medical Research Council, said it provided further evidence that 'ecstasy can be toxic to nerve cells'.
Dr Alan Leshner, chief executive of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal, went as far as to describe taking ecstasy as playing 'Russian roulette' with brain function.
He added: 'This study showed that even very occasional use can have long-lasting effects on many different brain systems. It sends an important message to young people - don't experiment with your brain.'
Yesterday, Ricaurte was attempting to put a brave face on the calamity. He is under attack from all sides, and has already been accused of rushing his study into print because Congress was looking at a bill known as the Anti-Rave Act, which would punish club owners who knew that drugs such as ecstasy were being used on their premises.
Ricaurte has denied political bias. He said yesterday that his laboratory made 'a simple human error', adding: 'We're scientists, not chemists.' Asked why the vials of liquid were not checked before being used on the animals, he replied: 'We're not chemists. We get hundreds of chemicals here - it's not customary to check them.'
It is unusual for Science to have to publish a retraction, but that is exactly the right thing to do, according to Joe Collier, professor of medicines policy at St George's Hospital Medical School.
'People must realise that mistakes are made, even by scientists,' said Collier. 'It is embarrassing - a lot of self-questioning will be going on over there - but it's important we learn from this.'
Over the past five years, controversy has raged about the real dangers of ecstasy, a drug which is taken by around a million clubbers in Britain every weekend.
Some studies have suggested that ecstasy has no long-term impact on the levels of the hormone serotonin in the brain, while others have suggested that it leaves clubbers feeling depressed and unable to concentrate.
The controversy is not likely to go away quickly while the scientists themselves are caught up in such a political and academic minefield
HEART DISEASE& STROKE: THE FACTS
The UK has one of the highest rates of death from heart disease in the world - one British adult dies from the disease every three minutes - and stroke is the country's third biggest killer, claiming 70,000 lives each year.
Heart attacks occur when blood flow is blocked, often by a blood clot, while strokes are caused either by blocked or burst blood vessels in the brain. A range of other conditions, including heart failure, when blood is not pumped properly around the body, and congenital heart defects can also cause long term problems, and even death, for sufferers.
Left atrium - The blood returns from the lungs to the upper left chamber of the heart where it is again briefly stored until the atrium fills, before flowing on to the left ventricle.Right atrium - “Impure” or “blue” blood returning from the atrium enters the heart here, where it is held until the atrium - or chamber - fills up.Left ventricle - This is the most powerful chamber of the heart. It pumps the newly oxygenated blood to the rest of the body through the aorta, or main artery.Right ventricle - This powerful pump propels blood into the pulmonary artery, the tube which carries blood to the lungs, where carbon dioxide in the blood is removed and oxygen added.
Heart attacks occur when blood flow is blocked, often by a blood clot, while strokes are caused either by blocked or burst blood vessels in the brain. A range of other conditions, including heart failure, when blood is not pumped properly around the body, and congenital heart defects can also cause long term problems, and even death, for sufferers.
Left atrium - The blood returns from the lungs to the upper left chamber of the heart where it is again briefly stored until the atrium fills, before flowing on to the left ventricle.Right atrium - “Impure” or “blue” blood returning from the atrium enters the heart here, where it is held until the atrium - or chamber - fills up.Left ventricle - This is the most powerful chamber of the heart. It pumps the newly oxygenated blood to the rest of the body through the aorta, or main artery.Right ventricle - This powerful pump propels blood into the pulmonary artery, the tube which carries blood to the lungs, where carbon dioxide in the blood is removed and oxygen added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)