WASHINGTON - The Bush administration wants North Korea's attention, so like a scolding parent it's trying to make it tougher for that country's eccentric leader to buy iPods, plasma televisions and Segway electric scooters. The U.S. government's first-ever effort to use trade sanctions to personally aggravate a foreign president expressly targets items believed to be favored by Kim Jong Il or presented by him as gifts to the roughly 600 loyalist families who run the communist government. Kim, who engineered a secret nuclear weapons program, has other options for obtaining the high-end consumer electronics and other items he wants. But the list of proposed luxury sanctions, obtained by The Associated Press, aims to make Kim's swanky life harder: No more cognac, Rolex watches, cigarettes, artwork, expensive cars, Harley Davidson motorcycles or even personal watercraft, such as Jet Skis. The new ban would extend even to musical instruments and sports equipment. The 5-foot-3 Kim is an enthusiastic basketball fan; then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright presented him with a ball signed by Michael Jordan during a rare diplomatic trip in 2000. Kim's former secretary, widely believed to be his new wife, studied piano at the Pyongyang University of Music and Dance.
Kim, who engineered a secret nuclear weapons program, has other options for obtaining the high-end consumer electronics and other items he wants.
But the list of proposed luxury sanctions, obtained by The Associated Press, aims to make Kim's swanky life harder: No more cognac, Rolex watches, cigarettes, artwork, expensive cars, Harley Davidson motorcycles or even personal watercraft, such as Jet Skis.
The new ban would extend even to musical instruments and sports equipment. The 5-foot-3 Kim is an enthusiastic basketball fan; then-Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright presented him with a ball signed by Michael Jordan during a rare diplomatic trip in 2000. Kim's former secretary, widely believed to be his new wife, studied piano at the Pyongyang University of Music and Dance.
As the average EROI of an economy's energy sources drops toward 1 to 1, an ever-larger fraction of the economy's wealth must go to finding and producing energy. This means less wealth is left over for everything else that needs to be done, from building houses to moving around information to educating children. <...> ... the tar sands of Alberta, likely to be a prime energy source for the United States in the future, have an EROI of around 4 to 1, because a huge amount of energy (mainly from natural gas) is needed to convert the sands' raw bitumen into useable oil. <...> Without a doubt, mankind can find ways to push back these constraints on global growth with market- driven innovation on energy supply, efficient use of energy and pollution cleanup. But we probably can't push them back indefinitely, because our species' capacity to innovate, and to deliver the fruits of that innovation when and where they're needed, isn't infinite. Sometimes even the best scientific minds can't crack a technical problem quickly (take, for instance, the painfully slow evolution of battery technology in recent decades), sometimes market prices give entrepreneurs poor price signals (gasoline today is still far too cheap to encourage quick innovation in fuel-efficient vehicles) and, most important, sometimes there just isn't the political will to back the institutional and technological changes needed.
... the tar sands of Alberta, likely to be a prime energy source for the United States in the future, have an EROI of around 4 to 1, because a huge amount of energy (mainly from natural gas) is needed to convert the sands' raw bitumen into useable oil. <...>
Without a doubt, mankind can find ways to push back these constraints on global growth with market- driven innovation on energy supply, efficient use of energy and pollution cleanup.
But we probably can't push them back indefinitely, because our species' capacity to innovate, and to deliver the fruits of that innovation when and where they're needed, isn't infinite.
Sometimes even the best scientific minds can't crack a technical problem quickly (take, for instance, the painfully slow evolution of battery technology in recent decades), sometimes market prices give entrepreneurs poor price signals (gasoline today is still far too cheap to encourage quick innovation in fuel-efficient vehicles) and, most important, sometimes there just isn't the political will to back the institutional and technological changes needed.
Sometimes even the best scientific minds can't crack a technical problem quickly
There's also the little issue of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which "the best scientific minds" of the 19th century discovered as a result of investigating how to improve the efficiency of steam engines to power the industrial revolution.
We've know the damn (negative) answer to the question for 150 years, and just about immediately after the question posed itself in the early 19th century, but the knowledge still hasn't made it the la-la land of Economics (except, possibly in "fringe" environmental economics). Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
When does sectarian violence in Iraq turn into a civil war? It's an issue we - and others - have been wrestling with for some time. This week, the US TV network NBC became the latest news organisation to describe the fighting there in such terms. No-one who's watched, listened to or read the accounts of BBC correspondents Andrew North, Hugh Sykes, David Loyn and others in recent weeks, could be in any doubt about the level of violence seen in Baghdad and beyond. NBC is hardly alone in characterising what's going on in Iraq in such terms - as early as April, Iraq's former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi described it as a civil war; six weeks ago, one of the most respected US commentators, Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, said he too was in no doubt that Iraq was in a civil war. The murder of more than 200 people when Sunni Muslim insurgents blew up five car bombs and fired mortars into Baghdad's largest Shiite district last Thursday, suggests they might be right.
No-one who's watched, listened to or read the accounts of BBC correspondents Andrew North, Hugh Sykes, David Loyn and others in recent weeks, could be in any doubt about the level of violence seen in Baghdad and beyond.
NBC is hardly alone in characterising what's going on in Iraq in such terms - as early as April, Iraq's former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi described it as a civil war; six weeks ago, one of the most respected US commentators, Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, said he too was in no doubt that Iraq was in a civil war. The murder of more than 200 people when Sunni Muslim insurgents blew up five car bombs and fired mortars into Baghdad's largest Shiite district last Thursday, suggests they might be right.
Japan has the technological know-how to produce a nuclear weapon but has no immediate plans to do so, the foreign minister said Thursday, several weeks after communist North Korea carried out a nuclear test. Foreign Minister Taro Aso, who has called for discussion of Japan's non-nuclear policy, also asserted that the pacifist constitution does not forbid possession of the bomb. ''Japan is capable of producing nuclear weapons,'' Aso told a parliamentary committee on security issues. ''But we are not saying we have plans to possess nuclear weapons.'' <...> ''Possession of minimum level of arms for defense is not prohibited under the Article 9 of the Constitution,'' Aso said. ''Even nuclear weapons, if there are any that fall within that limit, they are not prohibited.''<...> The non-nuclear stance, however, has come under increasing scrutiny since North Korea's Oct. 9 nuclear test, which raised severe security concerns in Japan.
Foreign Minister Taro Aso, who has called for discussion of Japan's non-nuclear policy, also asserted that the pacifist constitution does not forbid possession of the bomb.
''Japan is capable of producing nuclear weapons,'' Aso told a parliamentary committee on security issues. ''But we are not saying we have plans to possess nuclear weapons.'' <...>
''Possession of minimum level of arms for defense is not prohibited under the Article 9 of the Constitution,'' Aso said. ''Even nuclear weapons, if there are any that fall within that limit, they are not prohibited.''<...>
The non-nuclear stance, however, has come under increasing scrutiny since North Korea's Oct. 9 nuclear test, which raised severe security concerns in Japan.
An empirical test for a variant of my brother-in-law's hypothesis? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
The South Koreans will not be amused if Japan develops nuclear weapons, and this would probably cause South Korea to develop nuclear weapons as well. The South Korean government and Japan do not get along well with one another.
There's not a tremendous awareness of the negative colonial legacy left by the Japanese in Korea. The South Koreans honestly are less worried about North Korea developing nukes than they would be about Japan. There's a tremendous resentment that Korea is divided, and this idea that the Japanes never were made to pay for their actions in Korea.
Sometimes I play the devil's advocate and deliberately say things to draw a response from my friend. He is very worried about his English, but when he gets a little heated he gains fluency. We go in circles about Kim Jong Il and Bush.
One time I asked him how he though the South Koreans would respond if Japan attacked nuclear facilities in North Korea. He said that an attack on North Korea would be like an attack on the South, and that the South Koreans would want to to hurt Japan then.
I get the sickening feeling that the Japanese and the South Koreans are deaf to one another, and that the Japanese might escalate without considering the consequences. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
The Koreans benefit from the status quo.
The Japanese feel that they can improve there positioon without paying a price.
The South Koreans are worried that the Japanese will create conflict.
Ick.... And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Could you expand on these two points? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Japan can attack North Korea, but North Korea can't attack Japan. North Korea can attack the South if they feel that the Japanese intend to unseat Kim. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Are you talking about reach or accuracy? As far as Japanese civilians are concerned, I don't think it matters.
Can North Korean missiles strike Japan? North Korea has two missiles, and possibly three, that can strike Japan. The Nodong could deliver conventional and WMD warheads throughout most of Japan (including several U.S. military bases). However, given the missile's relative inaccuracy, the Nodong is more useful as a "terror weapon" against population centers than as a significant military system -- unless it is armed with a nuclear warhead. The Nodong is estimated to have a circular error probable (CEP) of 2-4 kilometers (km), which means half of the Nodongs fired would fall outside a circle of that radius.5 This poor accuracy means that North Korean efforts to strike U.S. bases in Japan would likely cause significant Japanese civilian casualties. The Paektusan-1 (also known as the Taepodong-1) is a two-stage missile with a Nodong as the first stage and a Scud variant as the second stage. The Paektusan-1 can strike anywhere in Japan's territory, but this system is even less accurate and less reliable than the Nodong. Center for Nonproliferation Studies Monterey Institute of International Studies CNS Special Report on North Korean Ballistic Missile Capabilities [PDF]
Center for Nonproliferation Studies Monterey Institute of International Studies CNS Special Report on North Korean Ballistic Missile Capabilities [PDF]
CNS Special Report on North Korean Ballistic Missile Capabilities [PDF]
In any case, I just don't see it happening. China is not stupid enough to let it happen; and I don't think Kim Jong-Il is that stupid either. The possibility of some rogue elements in the NK military/government pulling a General Ripper always exists, but the likelihood of that happening seems just too small. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Separately, but still on the theme of go getting a bad press in Japan lately (no fault of go itself, mind you), the post-match commentary Ricoh Pairs final was disrupted by a racist old man in the front row who made a comment politely rendered as "a foreigner won" in the hearing of co-winner (with Inori) Cho Chikun. Cho blew up and pointed out he'd lived in Japan 40 years and could do without comments like that. With the 1,000-strong audience shocked into silence, ushers tried to remove the old man but he wouldn't budge. Eventually Cho told the ushers to desist as that would only make things worse. Racism is not new in Japanese go, of course. Go Seigen was a victim. But it seems indiscriminate. O Rissei seems to be another victim but Rin Kaiho is adored.
The Bolivian president, Evo Morales, has secured the passage of a sweeping land reform bill with the help of thousands of peasants who marched on La Paz. He signed the bill into law at a midnight ceremony on Tuesday, prompting jubilation from his supporters, after overcoming fierce resistance from senators representing large landowners. The law is intended to reverse centuries of discrimination against the indigenous majority by seizing 77,000 square miles of land deemed unproductive or illegally owned and redistributing it to the poor. "This is the struggle of our ancestors, the struggle for power and territory," he said. "Now the change is in our hands."
He signed the bill into law at a midnight ceremony on Tuesday, prompting jubilation from his supporters, after overcoming fierce resistance from senators representing large landowners.
The law is intended to reverse centuries of discrimination against the indigenous majority by seizing 77,000 square miles of land deemed unproductive or illegally owned and redistributing it to the poor. "This is the struggle of our ancestors, the struggle for power and territory," he said. "Now the change is in our hands."
AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - President Bush's high-profile meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Wednesday was canceled in a stunning turn of events after disclosure of U.S. doubts about the Iraqi leader's capabilities and a political boycott in Baghdad protesting his attendance. Instead of two days of talks, Bush and al-Maliki will have breakfast and a single meeting followed by a news conference on Thursday morning, the White House said. The abrupt cancellation was an almost unheard-of development in the high-level diplomatic circles of a U.S. president, a king and a prime minister. There was confusion - and conflicting explanations - about what happened. Bush had been scheduled to meet in a three-way session with al-Maliki and Jordan's King Abdullah II on Wednesday night, and had rearranged his schedule to be in Amman for both days for talks aimed at reducing the spiral of violence in Iraq. The last-minute cancellation was not announced until Bush had already come to Raghadan Palace and posed for photographs alone with the king.
Instead of two days of talks, Bush and al-Maliki will have breakfast and a single meeting followed by a news conference on Thursday morning, the White House said.
The abrupt cancellation was an almost unheard-of development in the high-level diplomatic circles of a U.S. president, a king and a prime minister. There was confusion - and conflicting explanations - about what happened.
Bush had been scheduled to meet in a three-way session with al-Maliki and Jordan's King Abdullah II on Wednesday night, and had rearranged his schedule to be in Amman for both days for talks aimed at reducing the spiral of violence in Iraq.
The last-minute cancellation was not announced until Bush had already come to Raghadan Palace and posed for photographs alone with the king.
In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
[...] The decision [to cancel the meeting] occurred on a day that a classified White House memorandum expressing doubts about Mr. Maliki was disclosed and after Iraqi officials loyal to a powerful Shiite cleric said they were suspending participation in the Maliki government because he had ignored their request to cancel the Bush meeting entirely. The president and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were already aboard Air Force One, on the way to Amman from Riga, Latvia, where they had been attending a NATO summit meeting, when they received the news by telephone from the United States ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad. The White House insisted Mr. Bush was not upset and had not been snubbed. "Absolutely not," said Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president. [yeah, right - ed.] [...] The White House tacked the hastily planned trip to Amman onto Mr. Bush's swing through the Baltics so he could meet Mr. Maliki on safe ground. But the careful orchestration leading up to the Bush-Maliki summit meeting -- including a news conference Tuesday in Estonia, where Mr. Bush promised to press the Iraqi prime minister on his strategy for stability -- was upended when The New York Times published the classified assessment of Mr. Maliki in Wednesday's issue. The memo, written by the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said that while Mr. Maliki seemed to have good intentions when talking with Americans, "the reality on the streets suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what's going on, misrepresenting his intentions or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient." Publication of the memorandum just as Mr. Bush was to see Mr. Maliki left the White House struggling to put a positive spin on the news on a day when it had hoped to highlight a decision by NATO members that would lift some restrictions on troops operating in Afghanistan.
The decision [to cancel the meeting] occurred on a day that a classified White House memorandum expressing doubts about Mr. Maliki was disclosed and after Iraqi officials loyal to a powerful Shiite cleric said they were suspending participation in the Maliki government because he had ignored their request to cancel the Bush meeting entirely.
The president and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were already aboard Air Force One, on the way to Amman from Riga, Latvia, where they had been attending a NATO summit meeting, when they received the news by telephone from the United States ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad. The White House insisted Mr. Bush was not upset and had not been snubbed.
"Absolutely not," said Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president. [yeah, right - ed.]
[...]
The White House tacked the hastily planned trip to Amman onto Mr. Bush's swing through the Baltics so he could meet Mr. Maliki on safe ground. But the careful orchestration leading up to the Bush-Maliki summit meeting -- including a news conference Tuesday in Estonia, where Mr. Bush promised to press the Iraqi prime minister on his strategy for stability -- was upended when The New York Times published the classified assessment of Mr. Maliki in Wednesday's issue.
The memo, written by the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said that while Mr. Maliki seemed to have good intentions when talking with Americans, "the reality on the streets suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what's going on, misrepresenting his intentions or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient."
Publication of the memorandum just as Mr. Bush was to see Mr. Maliki left the White House struggling to put a positive spin on the news on a day when it had hoped to highlight a decision by NATO members that would lift some restrictions on troops operating in Afghanistan.
UNITED NATIONS: In an unprecedented letter to the American people, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday launched a scathing attack on US President George W Bush's foreign policy and urged a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. "Now that Iraq has a constitution and an independent assembly and government, would it not be more beneficial to bring the US officers and soldiers home and to spend the astronomical US military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people?" the Iranian leader said in a letter released by his country's UN mission here. He pointed out that since the start of the US-led war in Iraq in 2003, "hundreds of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced." "With the presence of the US military in Iraq, nothing has been done to rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty," Ahmadinejad said. "I consider it extremely unlikely that you, the American people, consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure." "Noble Americans, our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world," Ahmadinejad said as he sought to establish a direct dialogue with Americans by bypassing their government. "Hundreds of thousands of my Iranian compatriots are living amongst you in friendship and peace, and are contributing positively to your society," he added. "The legitimacy, power and influence of a government do not emanate from its arsenals of tanks, fighter aircraft, missiles or nuclear weapons," he noted. "Legitimacy and influence reside in sound logic, quest for justice and compassion and empathy for all humanity," Ahmadinejad said.
"With the presence of the US military in Iraq, nothing has been done to rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty," Ahmadinejad said.
"I consider it extremely unlikely that you, the American people, consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure." "Noble Americans, our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world," Ahmadinejad said as he sought to establish a direct dialogue with Americans by bypassing their government.
"Hundreds of thousands of my Iranian compatriots are living amongst you in friendship and peace, and are contributing positively to your society," he added. "The legitimacy, power and influence of a government do not emanate from its arsenals of tanks, fighter aircraft, missiles or nuclear weapons," he noted. "Legitimacy and influence reside in sound logic, quest for justice and compassion and empathy for all humanity," Ahmadinejad said.
NYT: Iraq Panel to Recommend Pullback of Combat Troops
WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 -- The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reached a consensus on Wednesday on a final report that will call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq but stop short of setting a firm timetable for their withdrawal, according to people familiar with the panel's deliberations. [...] But four people involved in the debate, representing different points of view, agreed to outline its conclusions in broad terms to address what they said might otherwise be misperceptions about the findings. Some said their major concern was that the report might be too late. "I think we've played a constructive role," one person involved in the committee's deliberations said, "but from the beginning, we've worried that this entire agenda could be swept away by events." [...] As described by the people involved in the deliberations, the bulk of the report by the Baker-Hamilton group focused on a recommendation that the United States devise a far more aggressive diplomatic initiative in the Middle East than Mr. Bush has been willing to try so far, including direct engagement with Iran and Syria. Initially, those contacts might be part of a regional conference on Iraq or broader Middle East peace issues, like the Israeli-Palestinian situation, but they would ultimately involve direct, high-level talks with Tehran and Damascus. Mr. Bush has rejected such contacts until now, and he has also rejected withdrawal, declaring in Riga, Latvia, on Tuesday that while he will show flexibility, "there's one thing I'm not going to do: I'm not going to pull the troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete." Commission members have said in recent days that they had to navigate around such declarations, or, as one said, "We had to move the national debate from whether to stay the course to how do we start down the path out." Their report, as described by those familiar with the compromise, may give Republicans political cover to back away from parts of the president's current strategy, even if Democrats claim that the report is short on specific deadlines.
But four people involved in the debate, representing different points of view, agreed to outline its conclusions in broad terms to address what they said might otherwise be misperceptions about the findings. Some said their major concern was that the report might be too late.
"I think we've played a constructive role," one person involved in the committee's deliberations said, "but from the beginning, we've worried that this entire agenda could be swept away by events."
As described by the people involved in the deliberations, the bulk of the report by the Baker-Hamilton group focused on a recommendation that the United States devise a far more aggressive diplomatic initiative in the Middle East than Mr. Bush has been willing to try so far, including direct engagement with Iran and Syria. Initially, those contacts might be part of a regional conference on Iraq or broader Middle East peace issues, like the Israeli-Palestinian situation, but they would ultimately involve direct, high-level talks with Tehran and Damascus.
Mr. Bush has rejected such contacts until now, and he has also rejected withdrawal, declaring in Riga, Latvia, on Tuesday that while he will show flexibility, "there's one thing I'm not going to do: I'm not going to pull the troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete."
Commission members have said in recent days that they had to navigate around such declarations, or, as one said, "We had to move the national debate from whether to stay the course to how do we start down the path out."
Their report, as described by those familiar with the compromise, may give Republicans political cover to back away from parts of the president's current strategy, even if Democrats claim that the report is short on specific deadlines.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 -- The federal government agreed to pay $2 million Wednesday to an Oregon lawyer wrongly jailed in connection with the 2004 terrorist bombings in Madrid, and it issued a formal apology to him and his family. The unusual settlement caps a two-and-a-half-year ordeal that saw the lawyer, Brandon Mayfield, go from being a suspected terrorist operative to a symbol, in the eyes of his supporters, of government overzealousness in the war on terrorism. "The United States of America apologizes to Mr. Brandon Mayfield and his family for the suffering caused" by his mistaken arrest, the government's apology began. It added that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which erroneously linked him to the Madrid bombs through a fingerprinting mistake, had taken steps "to ensure that what happened to Mr. Mayfield and the Mayfield family does not happen again." At an emotional news conference in Portland announcing the settlement, Mr. Mayfield said he and his wife, an Egyptian immigrant, and their three children still suffered from the scars left by the government's surveillance of him and his jailing for two weeks in May 2004. "The horrific pain, torture and humiliation that this has caused myself and my family is hard to put into words," said Mr. Mayfield, an American-born convert to Islam and a former lieutenant in the Army. "The days, weeks and months following my arrest," he said, "were some of the darkest we have had to endure. I personally was subject to lockdown, strip searches, sleep deprivation, unsanitary living conditions, shackles and chains, threats, physical pain and humiliation." Fingerprint examiners at the F.B.I. erroneously linked Mr. Mayfield to the terrorist bombings in Madrid through a mistaken identification of a print taken from a plastic bag containing detonator caps that was found at the scene of the bombings. [...]. Despite doubts from Spanish officials about the validity of the fingerprint match, American officials began an aggressive high-level investigation into Mr. Mayfield in the weeks after the bombings. The fact that he had represented a terrorism defendant in a child-custody case in Portland spurred further interest in him. Using expanded surveillance powers under the USA Patriot Act, the government wiretapped his conversations, conducted secret searches of his home and his law office and jailed him for two weeks as a material witness in the case before a judge threw out the case against him. The settlement includes an unusual condition that frees the government from future liability except in one important area: Mr. Mayfield is allowed to continue a lawsuit seeking to overturn parts of the Patriot Act as a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
The unusual settlement caps a two-and-a-half-year ordeal that saw the lawyer, Brandon Mayfield, go from being a suspected terrorist operative to a symbol, in the eyes of his supporters, of government overzealousness in the war on terrorism.
"The United States of America apologizes to Mr. Brandon Mayfield and his family for the suffering caused" by his mistaken arrest, the government's apology began. It added that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which erroneously linked him to the Madrid bombs through a fingerprinting mistake, had taken steps "to ensure that what happened to Mr. Mayfield and the Mayfield family does not happen again."
At an emotional news conference in Portland announcing the settlement, Mr. Mayfield said he and his wife, an Egyptian immigrant, and their three children still suffered from the scars left by the government's surveillance of him and his jailing for two weeks in May 2004.
"The horrific pain, torture and humiliation that this has caused myself and my family is hard to put into words," said Mr. Mayfield, an American-born convert to Islam and a former lieutenant in the Army.
"The days, weeks and months following my arrest," he said, "were some of the darkest we have had to endure. I personally was subject to lockdown, strip searches, sleep deprivation, unsanitary living conditions, shackles and chains, threats, physical pain and humiliation."
Fingerprint examiners at the F.B.I. erroneously linked Mr. Mayfield to the terrorist bombings in Madrid through a mistaken identification of a print taken from a plastic bag containing detonator caps that was found at the scene of the bombings. [...].
Despite doubts from Spanish officials about the validity of the fingerprint match, American officials began an aggressive high-level investigation into Mr. Mayfield in the weeks after the bombings. The fact that he had represented a terrorism defendant in a child-custody case in Portland spurred further interest in him. Using expanded surveillance powers under the USA Patriot Act, the government wiretapped his conversations, conducted secret searches of his home and his law office and jailed him for two weeks as a material witness in the case before a judge threw out the case against him.
The settlement includes an unusual condition that frees the government from future liability except in one important area: Mr. Mayfield is allowed to continue a lawsuit seeking to overturn parts of the Patriot Act as a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
