gc_maine2
06-11 08:59 AM
You can write (c) (09) or (c) (9). Hope this helps.
What should be filled for question 16 in I765 form.
My lawyer asked me to fill C C 9, but the instruction says C 9. Which is correct.
What should be filled for question 16 in I765 form.
My lawyer asked me to fill C C 9, but the instruction says C 9. Which is correct.
wallpaper Air Jordan VI(6) - Oreo
.jpg "shoes nike Air Jordan 6")
prajarajyam
11-19 06:06 PM
Hi All,
My AP got approved with incorrect A#.
Where as receipt notice has correct A#.
Please let me know, what I need to do to get correct A# on my AP?
Thanks for your help.
Praja
My AP got approved with incorrect A#.
Where as receipt notice has correct A#.
Please let me know, what I need to do to get correct A# on my AP?
Thanks for your help.
Praja
AnotherDog
04-09 10:10 PM
I am on H1-B Visa and my wife on H4. She filed for GC in Schedule A(I140&I485 filed concurrently) category. Her I140 is not approved yet. We both got our EAD cards but have not worked using our EADs. I do not intend to use my EAD to work. Our question is:
* If her I-140 gets denied will she still have her H4 status as I am still maintaining my H1?
* If not, how can she get back to H4 status? Will she be asked to leave the country immediately?
Need immediate reply.
Thanks in advance
* If her I-140 gets denied will she still have her H4 status as I am still maintaining my H1?
* If not, how can she get back to H4 status? Will she be asked to leave the country immediately?
Need immediate reply.
Thanks in advance
2011 shoes nike Air Jordan 6
ChainReaction
02-01 10:15 AM
Not sure if increase in immigration fee will make GC processing faster.
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14379279
Yes, it will definitely make the GC processing faster but only for Agriculture/ illegal workers...we pay they benefit. :D :D :D
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14379279
Yes, it will definitely make the GC processing faster but only for Agriculture/ illegal workers...we pay they benefit. :D :D :D
more...
/air_jordan_vi(6)_retro_white_black-2.jpg "Air Jordan VI Retro")
Macaca
12-02 09:18 AM
Business Lobby Presses Agenda Before �08 Vote (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/washington/02lobby.html?hp) By ROBERT PEAR | NY Times, December 2, 2007
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 � Business lobbyists, nervously anticipating Democratic gains in next year�s elections, are racing to secure final approval for a wide range of health, safety, labor and economic rules, in the belief that they can get better deals from the Bush administration than from its successor.
Hoping to lock in policies backed by a pro-business administration, poultry farmers are seeking an exemption for the smelly fumes produced by tons of chicken manure. Businesses are lobbying the Bush administration to roll back rules that let employees take time off for family needs and medical problems. And electric power companies are pushing the government to relax pollution-control requirements.
�There�s a growing sense, a growing probability, that the next administration could be Democratic,� said Craig L. Fuller, executive vice president of Apco Worldwide, a lobbying and public relations firm, who was a White House official in the Reagan administration. �Corporate executives, trade associations and lobbying firms have begun to recalibrate their strategies.�
The Federal Register typically grows fat with regulations churned out in the final weeks of any administration. But the push for such rules has become unusually intense because of the possibility that Democrats in 2009 may consolidate control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first time in 14 years.
Even as they try to shape pending regulations, business lobbies are also looking beyond President Bush. Corporations and trade associations are recruiting Democratic lobbyists. And lobbyists, expecting battles over taxes and health care in 2009, are pouring money into the campaigns of Democratic candidates for Congress and the White House.
Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, said, �I am beefing up my staff, putting more money aside for economic analysis of regulations that I foresee coming out of a possible new Democratic administration.�
At the Transportation Department, trucking companies are trying to get final approval for a rule increasing the maximum number of hours commercial truck drivers can work. And automakers are trying to persuade officials to set new standards for the strength of car roofs � standards far less stringent than what consumer advocates say is needed to protect riders in a rollover.
Business groups generally argue that federal regulations are onerous and needlessly add costs that are passed on to consumers, while their opponents accuse them of trying to whittle down regulations that are vital to safety and quality of life. Documents on file at several agencies show that business groups have stepped up lobbying in recent months, as they try to help the Bush administration finish work on rules that have been hotly debated and, in some cases, litigated for years.
At the Interior Department, coal companies are lobbying for a regulation that would allow them to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys. It would be prohibitively expensive to haul away the material, they say, and there are no waste sites in the area. Luke Popovich, a vice president of the National Mining Association, said that a Democratic president was more likely to side with �the greens.�
A coalition of environmental groups has condemned the proposed rule, saying it would accelerate �the destruction of mountains, forests and streams throughout Appalachia.�
A priority for many employers in 2008 is to secure changes in the rules for family and medical leave. Under a 1993 law, people who work for a company with 50 or more employees are generally entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborn children or sick relatives or to tend to medical problems of their own. The Labor Department has signaled its interest in changes by soliciting public comments.
The National Association of Manufacturers said the law had been widely abused and had caused �a staggering loss of work hours� as employees took unscheduled, intermittent time off for health conditions that could not be verified. The use of such leave time tends to rise sharply before holiday weekends, on the day after Super Bowl Sunday and on the first day of the local hunting season, employers said.
Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, an advocacy group, said she was �very concerned that the Bush administration will issue new rules that cut back on family and medical leave for those who need it.�
That could be done, for example, by narrowing the definition of a �serious health condition� or by establishing stricter requirements for taking intermittent leave for chronic conditions that flare up unexpectedly.
The Chamber of Commerce is seeking such changes. �We want to get this done before the election,� Mr. Johnson said. �The next White House may be less hospitable to our position.�
Indeed, most of the Democratic candidates for president have offered proposals to expand the 1993 law, to provide paid leave and to cover millions of additional workers. Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut was a principal author of the law. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York says it has been �enormously successful.� And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois says that more generous family leave is an essential part of his plan to �reclaim the American dream.�
Susan E. Dudley, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said, �Research suggests that regulatory activity increases in the final year of an administration, regardless of party.�
Whoever becomes the next president, Democrat or Republican, will find that it is not so easy to make immediate and sweeping changes. The Supreme Court has held that a new president cannot arbitrarily revoke final regulations that already have the force of law. To undo such rules, a new administration must provide a compelling justification and go through a formal rule-making process, which can take months or years.
Within hours of taking office in 2001, Mr. Bush slammed the brakes on scores of regulations issued just before he took office, so his administration could review them. A study in the Wake Forest Law Review found that one-fifth of those �midnight regulations� were amended or repealed by the Bush administration, while four-fifths survived.
Some of the biggest battles now involve rules affecting the quality of air, water and soil.
The National Chicken Council and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association have petitioned for an exemption from laws and rules that require them to report emissions of ammonia exceeding 100 pounds a day. They argue that �emissions from poultry houses pose little or no risk to public health� because the ammonia disperses quickly in the air.
Perdue Farms, one of the nation�s largest poultry producers, said that it was �essentially impossible to provide an accurate estimate of any ammonia releases,� and that a reporting requirement would place �an undue and useless burden� on farmers.
But environmental groups told the Bush administration that �ammonia emissions from poultry operations pose great risk to public health.� And, they noted, a federal judge in Kentucky has found that farmers discharge ammonia from their barns, into the environment, so it will not sicken or kill the chickens.
On another issue, the Environmental Protection Agency is drafting final rules that would allow utility companies to modify coal-fired power plants and increase their emissions without installing new pollution-control equipment.
The Edison Electric Institute, the lobby for power companies, said the companies needed regulatory relief to meet the growing demand for �safe, reliable and affordable electricity.�
But John D. Walke, director of the clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the rules would be �the Bush administration�s parting gift to the utility industry.�
If Democrats gain seats in Congress or win the White House, that could pose problems for all-Republican lobbying firms like Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, whose founders include Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Loren Monroe, chief operating officer of the Barbour firm, said: �If the right person came along, we might hire a Democrat. And it�s quite possible we could team up in an alliance with a Democratic firm.�
Two executive recruiters, Ivan H. Adler of the McCormick Group and Nels B. Olson of Korn/Ferry International, said they had seen a growing demand for Democratic lobbyists. �It�s a bull market for Democrats, especially those who have worked for the Congressional leadership� or a powerful committee, Mr. Adler said.
Few industries have more cause for concern than drug companies, which have been a favorite target of Democrats. Republicans run the Washington offices of most major drug companies, and a former Republican House member, Billy Tauzin, is president of their trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The association has hired three Democrats this year, so its lobbying team is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a policy research organization, said: �Defense contractors have not only begun to prepare for the next administration. They have begun to shape it. They�ve met with Hillary Clinton and other candidates.�
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 � Business lobbyists, nervously anticipating Democratic gains in next year�s elections, are racing to secure final approval for a wide range of health, safety, labor and economic rules, in the belief that they can get better deals from the Bush administration than from its successor.
Hoping to lock in policies backed by a pro-business administration, poultry farmers are seeking an exemption for the smelly fumes produced by tons of chicken manure. Businesses are lobbying the Bush administration to roll back rules that let employees take time off for family needs and medical problems. And electric power companies are pushing the government to relax pollution-control requirements.
�There�s a growing sense, a growing probability, that the next administration could be Democratic,� said Craig L. Fuller, executive vice president of Apco Worldwide, a lobbying and public relations firm, who was a White House official in the Reagan administration. �Corporate executives, trade associations and lobbying firms have begun to recalibrate their strategies.�
The Federal Register typically grows fat with regulations churned out in the final weeks of any administration. But the push for such rules has become unusually intense because of the possibility that Democrats in 2009 may consolidate control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first time in 14 years.
Even as they try to shape pending regulations, business lobbies are also looking beyond President Bush. Corporations and trade associations are recruiting Democratic lobbyists. And lobbyists, expecting battles over taxes and health care in 2009, are pouring money into the campaigns of Democratic candidates for Congress and the White House.
Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, said, �I am beefing up my staff, putting more money aside for economic analysis of regulations that I foresee coming out of a possible new Democratic administration.�
At the Transportation Department, trucking companies are trying to get final approval for a rule increasing the maximum number of hours commercial truck drivers can work. And automakers are trying to persuade officials to set new standards for the strength of car roofs � standards far less stringent than what consumer advocates say is needed to protect riders in a rollover.
Business groups generally argue that federal regulations are onerous and needlessly add costs that are passed on to consumers, while their opponents accuse them of trying to whittle down regulations that are vital to safety and quality of life. Documents on file at several agencies show that business groups have stepped up lobbying in recent months, as they try to help the Bush administration finish work on rules that have been hotly debated and, in some cases, litigated for years.
At the Interior Department, coal companies are lobbying for a regulation that would allow them to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys. It would be prohibitively expensive to haul away the material, they say, and there are no waste sites in the area. Luke Popovich, a vice president of the National Mining Association, said that a Democratic president was more likely to side with �the greens.�
A coalition of environmental groups has condemned the proposed rule, saying it would accelerate �the destruction of mountains, forests and streams throughout Appalachia.�
A priority for many employers in 2008 is to secure changes in the rules for family and medical leave. Under a 1993 law, people who work for a company with 50 or more employees are generally entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborn children or sick relatives or to tend to medical problems of their own. The Labor Department has signaled its interest in changes by soliciting public comments.
The National Association of Manufacturers said the law had been widely abused and had caused �a staggering loss of work hours� as employees took unscheduled, intermittent time off for health conditions that could not be verified. The use of such leave time tends to rise sharply before holiday weekends, on the day after Super Bowl Sunday and on the first day of the local hunting season, employers said.
Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, an advocacy group, said she was �very concerned that the Bush administration will issue new rules that cut back on family and medical leave for those who need it.�
That could be done, for example, by narrowing the definition of a �serious health condition� or by establishing stricter requirements for taking intermittent leave for chronic conditions that flare up unexpectedly.
The Chamber of Commerce is seeking such changes. �We want to get this done before the election,� Mr. Johnson said. �The next White House may be less hospitable to our position.�
Indeed, most of the Democratic candidates for president have offered proposals to expand the 1993 law, to provide paid leave and to cover millions of additional workers. Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut was a principal author of the law. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York says it has been �enormously successful.� And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois says that more generous family leave is an essential part of his plan to �reclaim the American dream.�
Susan E. Dudley, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said, �Research suggests that regulatory activity increases in the final year of an administration, regardless of party.�
Whoever becomes the next president, Democrat or Republican, will find that it is not so easy to make immediate and sweeping changes. The Supreme Court has held that a new president cannot arbitrarily revoke final regulations that already have the force of law. To undo such rules, a new administration must provide a compelling justification and go through a formal rule-making process, which can take months or years.
Within hours of taking office in 2001, Mr. Bush slammed the brakes on scores of regulations issued just before he took office, so his administration could review them. A study in the Wake Forest Law Review found that one-fifth of those �midnight regulations� were amended or repealed by the Bush administration, while four-fifths survived.
Some of the biggest battles now involve rules affecting the quality of air, water and soil.
The National Chicken Council and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association have petitioned for an exemption from laws and rules that require them to report emissions of ammonia exceeding 100 pounds a day. They argue that �emissions from poultry houses pose little or no risk to public health� because the ammonia disperses quickly in the air.
Perdue Farms, one of the nation�s largest poultry producers, said that it was �essentially impossible to provide an accurate estimate of any ammonia releases,� and that a reporting requirement would place �an undue and useless burden� on farmers.
But environmental groups told the Bush administration that �ammonia emissions from poultry operations pose great risk to public health.� And, they noted, a federal judge in Kentucky has found that farmers discharge ammonia from their barns, into the environment, so it will not sicken or kill the chickens.
On another issue, the Environmental Protection Agency is drafting final rules that would allow utility companies to modify coal-fired power plants and increase their emissions without installing new pollution-control equipment.
The Edison Electric Institute, the lobby for power companies, said the companies needed regulatory relief to meet the growing demand for �safe, reliable and affordable electricity.�
But John D. Walke, director of the clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the rules would be �the Bush administration�s parting gift to the utility industry.�
If Democrats gain seats in Congress or win the White House, that could pose problems for all-Republican lobbying firms like Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, whose founders include Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Loren Monroe, chief operating officer of the Barbour firm, said: �If the right person came along, we might hire a Democrat. And it�s quite possible we could team up in an alliance with a Democratic firm.�
Two executive recruiters, Ivan H. Adler of the McCormick Group and Nels B. Olson of Korn/Ferry International, said they had seen a growing demand for Democratic lobbyists. �It�s a bull market for Democrats, especially those who have worked for the Congressional leadership� or a powerful committee, Mr. Adler said.
Few industries have more cause for concern than drug companies, which have been a favorite target of Democrats. Republicans run the Washington offices of most major drug companies, and a former Republican House member, Billy Tauzin, is president of their trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The association has hired three Democrats this year, so its lobbying team is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a policy research organization, said: �Defense contractors have not only begun to prepare for the next administration. They have begun to shape it. They�ve met with Hillary Clinton and other candidates.�
adham_a
04-16 10:54 AM
Grendizer and dukefleed :)
more...
neeshpal
07-14 10:20 AM
Hi,
I'll appreciate if someone can help me clarify my below questions.
my situation:
- my h1b visa was rejected in my home country in Mar'2010 and I applied for h4 and came back to US in june'2010.
- I am on h4 visa currently.
- I've a h1b petition valid till dec' 2010 (with company A)
Ques:
- If I apply for a transfer (with a new company B) of my H1b petition and also file a COS (i.e h4 to h1b) , does uscis going to give me a new I-94 or they'll approve my transfer without an i-94. I guess my question is that is it totally a USCIS discretion to give I-94 or we can do something to make sure that we get an I-94 in order to avoid travel and visa stamping.
( I've heard that they are troubling people who are filing h4 to h1 COS)
- Can I also file an extension (simultaneously with transfer and COS) of my current h1b based on my I-140 approval (I am planning to file I-140 within 15 days in premium) so that I can get 3 yrs extended on my h1b.
Thanks a lot.
I'll appreciate if someone can help me clarify my below questions.
my situation:
- my h1b visa was rejected in my home country in Mar'2010 and I applied for h4 and came back to US in june'2010.
- I am on h4 visa currently.
- I've a h1b petition valid till dec' 2010 (with company A)
Ques:
- If I apply for a transfer (with a new company B) of my H1b petition and also file a COS (i.e h4 to h1b) , does uscis going to give me a new I-94 or they'll approve my transfer without an i-94. I guess my question is that is it totally a USCIS discretion to give I-94 or we can do something to make sure that we get an I-94 in order to avoid travel and visa stamping.
( I've heard that they are troubling people who are filing h4 to h1 COS)
- Can I also file an extension (simultaneously with transfer and COS) of my current h1b based on my I-140 approval (I am planning to file I-140 within 15 days in premium) so that I can get 3 yrs extended on my h1b.
Thanks a lot.
2010 Air Jordan 6 Rings Concords
bonjovi
10-10 12:31 PM
I have this thought. We start a letter campaign sending letters to all the house members: 1) To get them aware of Legal immigration and 2) To put our case fwd.
I feel it will be very effective as the flower campaign. Atleast most of us can participate in it, less expensive, less time consuming. And we can see why we wouldn't they respond to the bulk of mail they are getting every day.
I know we did letters through email etc. But i think sending through post will be different and they will be obligated to respond.
I do not know whether this is a good idea. so please dont rush at me.:)
Ravi
I feel it will be very effective as the flower campaign. Atleast most of us can participate in it, less expensive, less time consuming. And we can see why we wouldn't they respond to the bulk of mail they are getting every day.
I know we did letters through email etc. But i think sending through post will be different and they will be obligated to respond.
I do not know whether this is a good idea. so please dont rush at me.:)
Ravi
more...
xgr3
05-14 08:59 PM
No, I have not moved to different state. I am in the same state since the day I filed my labor.
hair Air Jordan 6 Retro “Detroit
cr125rider
04-19 08:33 PM
Try to incorporate some kirupa.com-ie stuff. Like the orange or something of that sort. I like the "priceless" idea though.
OFF TOPIC: Like the MX and fox avatar.
OFF TOPIC: Like the MX and fox avatar.
more...
JunRN
09-13 07:11 AM
Question: If the I-140 is pending and not yet approved and I filed for I-485, will I receive Fingerprint Notice or I-140 approval is needed before Fingerprinting?
hot Air Jordan VI Retro
kisana
11-03 12:05 AM
This is urgent please advise,
I was planning to join new empolyer with my EAD. I gave my Labor certificate to my manager, some how things are now going well with my new employer manager. Somehow I am in double mind whether to join or not join this new employer, I was just worrried since he has my labor certificate he can negatively affect me , if I do not join this new employer. Please advise if he can negatively affect me any way, or what precation I need to take in case I do not join him.
I was planning to join new empolyer with my EAD. I gave my Labor certificate to my manager, some how things are now going well with my new employer manager. Somehow I am in double mind whether to join or not join this new employer, I was just worrried since he has my labor certificate he can negatively affect me , if I do not join this new employer. Please advise if he can negatively affect me any way, or what precation I need to take in case I do not join him.
more...
house Air Jordan 6 Retro All White
agrisiva
10-26 03:57 PM
Dear Attorney,
I work for a non-profit State University (6+ years), and my supervisor is letting me work from Canada for a year or so. As my university HR needs to have an H1B permit to keep me on the payroll, my University's International Officer is willing to keep my permit valid and keep renewing it even beyond 6 years as my I-140 is approved. She says that I can also apply for an H1B visa in Canada and visit US whenever my supervisor asks me to do so.
Wondering if this is doable without violating the USCIS & LCA rules and regulations? Thanks.
I work for a non-profit State University (6+ years), and my supervisor is letting me work from Canada for a year or so. As my university HR needs to have an H1B permit to keep me on the payroll, my University's International Officer is willing to keep my permit valid and keep renewing it even beyond 6 years as my I-140 is approved. She says that I can also apply for an H1B visa in Canada and visit US whenever my supervisor asks me to do so.
Wondering if this is doable without violating the USCIS & LCA rules and regulations? Thanks.
tattoo Air Jordan 6 “Infrared” Retro
va_dude
09-29 12:11 PM
I think the PD is usually posted on the I-140. Right people?
more...
pictures ÍĻØ altquot;Air Jordan 6 (VI)
dilbert_cal
06-25 02:05 AM
Dont worry and lose sleep over it. In case it is noticed, you will be asked for clarification. Most probably it will not be noticed.
dresses The Air Jordan 6 (VI) Retro
josecuervo
04-26 03:03 PM
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
more...
makeup Air Jordan 6 Retro white pink
kaps
06-13 10:43 PM
Hi all,
When started working for Company A it used to operated from 2 diffrent locations Newjersy ,New hampshire (Excutive office).
My Company applied Labor from NH in March 2005 (before perm).6 months back my case was moved to New York regional center ( i am not sure why it is moved to NY insted of newark NJ).
Recently they closed (in April 2010) the NH Branch .
What will happen to my green card ..? (labor is applied for NH location)
When i check with my employer he is saying NH location is Executive office it will not have any impact .
if reuqired he is ready open office in NH with new address
What should i Do...? i am totally in confusion state .. and now my dates current from july ,2010.
When started working for Company A it used to operated from 2 diffrent locations Newjersy ,New hampshire (Excutive office).
My Company applied Labor from NH in March 2005 (before perm).6 months back my case was moved to New York regional center ( i am not sure why it is moved to NY insted of newark NJ).
Recently they closed (in April 2010) the NH Branch .
What will happen to my green card ..? (labor is applied for NH location)
When i check with my employer he is saying NH location is Executive office it will not have any impact .
if reuqired he is ready open office in NH with new address
What should i Do...? i am totally in confusion state .. and now my dates current from july ,2010.
girlfriend Air Jordan 6 Retro Low WMNS
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
hairstyles NIKE Air Jordan 6 VI Retro
aadimanav
10-11 07:01 PM
If the LC says salary $52,000. Is it safe to accept the job offer with more than $95,000?
Thanks!
Thanks!
sufiyan_ansari
03-24 11:22 AM
Hi,
Id like to drag and drop images of the size 100x100 onto the InkCanvas... is it possible?? Plz tell me it is..
Cheers!!:stare:
Id like to drag and drop images of the size 100x100 onto the InkCanvas... is it possible?? Plz tell me it is..
Cheers!!:stare:
jliechty
June 26th, 2006, 09:20 PM
Nikon is taking their time with this one, as they're taking their time with the WT-3 transmitter for the D200. I am interested, but by now I've invested a bit too heavily in a DNG-based workflow by converting everything to DNG and attaching IPTC metadata, to consider Capture NX as a serious contender for my workflow. Though, I do imagine that I'd use it for those rare times when I need a really high quality conversion for very large printing.