After an eighteen-month study, five independent experts appointed by the UN Commission on Human Rights have just concluded that practices currently conducted at the US prison in Guantánamo amount to torture: excessive violence, force-feeding of hunger-striking detainees and arbitrary detention of prisoners that violates their right under international law to challenge the legality of their captivity before an independent judicial body.

The Bush Administration has condemned the publication of the Abu Ghraib photos and has rejected the UN report as "fundamentally flawed." But Americans should be grateful that people in the rest of the world are helping us discover what the Administration is trying to conceal from its own citizens: It is conducting war crimes in our name.

The UN report makes recommendations that are simple and obvious:

§ Immediately allow international inspection and supervision to insure an end to force-feeding and special interrogation techniques approved by the Defense Department but condemned under international law.

§ Bring the detainees to trial or release them without delay.

§ Conduct an investigation by an independent authority of all allegations of abuse to insure that all perpetrators of torture and other crimes are brought to justice--even high-level military and political officials.

§ Close the Guantánamo prison.

The demand to close Guantánamo was quickly seconded by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. And the European Union Parliament voted 80 to 1 to ask the United States to close Guantánamo and give every prisoner "a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, impartial tribunal" without delay.

The Bush Administration has placed the responsibility for prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere on a few "bad apples" in the lowest ranks. But since the Nuremberg Tribunal of Nazi war criminals, international law has maintained the principle of "command responsibility," which makes top officials who ordered the crimes or failed to prevent them accountable.

It's not just a question of international law. Administration officials are well aware that the US War Crimes Act makes it a serious crime for any American--including top government officials--to commit any "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions, including "willful killing, torture, or inhuman treatment" of detainees. Perhaps that has something to do with the Administration's eagerness to discredit the UN report.

If President Bush won't halt the abuse of US captives, Congress stands next in line for responsibility. Last December, it passed the so-called McCain amendment, which supposedly abolished all torture by US forces anywhere in the world. But the UN report makes clear that torture is continuing at Guantánamo.

The law's sponsor, Senator John McCain, promised that Congress would establish oversight over Guantánamo and other US prisons abroad to assure enforcement. But where's Senator McCain now? If he really wants to stop torture, why doesn't he fly to Guantánamo immediately and make sure no one is being abused? Isn't that what McCain would have wanted US senators to do when he was being tortured in a prison cell in Vietnam?

If Congress won't act, then it is up to the people. We must make every family dining table, every house of worship and every town meeting a place to stand up and speak out.

Only then will those who come after us know where the "good Americans" were.

Bush condemned the attack near the U.S. Consulate and a luxury hotel in Karachi, and said "terrorists and killers" would not prevent him from going to Pakistan on the final leg of his tour of South Asia.

"We have lost at least one U.S. citizen in the bombing, a foreign service officer, and I send our country's deepest condolences to that person's loved ones and family," Bush said at a news conference in neighboring India, without naming the diplomat.

The blast ripped through the parking lot of the Marriott Hotel, about 20 yards from the consulate gate, shattering windows at the consulate and on all 10 floors of the hotel. Ten cars were destroyed, and charred wreckage was flung as far as 200 yards.

Initial investigations showed a suicide attacker deliberately rammed his car into a vehicle carrying the U.S. diplomat, blowing it into the air, across a concrete barrier and into the grounds of the hotel, a Pakistani counterterrorism official and senior investigator said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

The driver of the diplomat's car, a Pakistani working for the consulate, also died. The other fatalities were a paramilitary guard and an unidentified woman.

The attacker was also presumed killed in the attack, the two security officials said. His body was not recovered.

The counterterrorism official said the attacker used high-intensity explosives and it was the most powerful blast he'd seen in Karachi - a hotbed of Islamic militancy.

A Pakistani Foreign Ministry statement said the bombing was a "horrific terrorist attack" and it expressed "deep sadness" over the deaths of the American diplomat and his local driver.

"This senseless act today further fortifies our resolve to fight terrorism," the statement said. "We all must work together to eliminate this terrible menace."

Police initially said two car bombs had gone off, but provincial police chief Jahangir Mirza said that a single bomb may have triggered a second smaller explosion in a burning car.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack. But previous attacks against Westerners in Karachi have been blamed on al-Qaida-linked Islamic militant groups. Several suspects have been convicted while some are still at large.

Some 52 people were injured, including a young Moroccan girl who was hit by debris, said provincial government spokesman Salahuddin Haider. He added that investigators were trying to get video footage from surveillance cameras at the consulate.

Nida Emmons, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, confirmed an American and Pakistani employee of the consulate were killed, but wouldn't give their names. He said they were still investigating if any other consulate staff were hurt.

The bombing left a crater 8 feet wide and more than 2 feet deep. It propelled cars into the air and damaged nearby buildings, including a naval hospital. The street was strewn with mangled car parts.

Mohammed Ali, who sells cigarettes nearby, said the first explosion occurred around 9 a.m., knocking him down and flattening his wooden stall.

"Seconds later there was another explosion. We ran away to save our lives," said Ali. "The explosions set cars on fire and there was smoke all around ... I thought the explosions would burst my ear drums."

Mohammed Jameel, a former army colonel who was getting a medical checkup at the naval hospital, said the first explosion was "very intense" and the second one was smaller. "I saw two burning car seats land in the hospital lawn," he said.

Officials said the bombing could be timed for Bush's visit to Pakistan.

Bush will travel to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, which lies about 1,000 miles north of Karachi, later this week. He made a surprise visit to
Afghanistan on Wednesday before arriving in India.

"All international media are eyeing Pakistan at this time, and terrorists are using this to defame Pakistan and Muslims," said Ishratul Ibab, the provincial governor.

Islamic militants have targeted the U.S. Consulate in Karachi before.

In June 2002, a car bombing left 14 Pakistanis dead outside the building, which lies in an upscale district of the sprawling city's downtown.

In March 2004, police defused a huge bomb less than five minutes before it was timed to explode outside the consulate. The bomb was packed in a small van that was parked on a street near the building.

Marriott Hotel deputy manager Shahzad Ashif said windows were broken on all 10 floors in Thursday's attack and balcony door latches were blown in on the first two floors but no guests were injured. The hotel was being evacuated and guests moved to other hotels, he said.

The aides said that Conyers had them tutor and care for his two sons; help his wife, now-City Councilwoman Monica Conyers, with law studies; and drive him to political and private events.

The accusations come from Deanna Maher, former chief of Conyers' office in Southgate; Sydney Rooks, Conyers' lawyer from 1997 to 2000; and Dean Christian Thornton, a legislative aide fired in January, according to the Detroit Free Press.

Maher said that in 1998, Conyers ordered her to live in his Detroit house while his wife attended law classes in Oklahoma. Maher said she lived there for six weeks, caring for the couple's two young sons.

Maher and Thornton have written to the House Ethics Committee. Rooks said she talked to committee staffers on the subject in 1999 and 2004 and plans to make a formal complaint soon.

"I'm not going to get into responding to these things," said Stanley Brand, an attorney for Conyers.

Brand said Conyers responded to ethics committee questions when it considered some of the same allegations two years ago.

Conyers, 76, has served in the House since 1965. The Democrat is the senior minority member of the House Judiciary Committee.

The aides said that Conyers had them tutor and care for his two sons; help his wife, now-City Councilwoman Monica Conyers, with law studies; and drive him to political and private events.

The accusations come from Deanna Maher, former chief of Conyers' office in Southgate; Sydney Rooks, Conyers' lawyer from 1997 to 2000; and Dean Christian Thornton, a legislative aide fired in January, according to the Detroit Free Press.

Maher said that in 1998, Conyers ordered her to live in his Detroit house while his wife attended law classes in Oklahoma. Maher said she lived there for six weeks, caring for the couple's two young sons.

Maher and Thornton have written to the House Ethics Committee. Rooks said she talked to committee staffers on the subject in 1999 and 2004 and plans to make a formal complaint soon.

"I'm not going to get into responding to these things," said Stanley Brand, an attorney for Conyers.

Brand said Conyers responded to ethics committee questions when it considered some of the same allegations two years ago.

Conyers, 76, has served in the House since 1965. The Democrat is the senior minority member of the House Judiciary Committee.

The agreement, which requires congressional action, is a major break with prior U.S. policy, which barred nuclear assistance to nations, like India, that have refused to sign the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Drawing protests from some politicians in both countries, Bush and Singh agreed that India would separate its civilian and military nuclear programs to gain U.S. expertise and nuclear fuel to meet its rapidly rising energy needs. Under the deal, only 14 of India's 22 nuclear plants classified for civilian use will be subject to inspections. The country's eight military reactors will be off limits.

The deal, announced in outline in July, was hailed by both leaders as an important breakthrough in U.S.-India relations less than a decade after the two nations were estranged and bitterly divided over India's nuclear ambitions.

"What this agreement says is, things change, times change, that leadership can make a difference," bush said at a joint press conference.

"We have made history today and I thank you," said Singh.

Still, the deal must clear several hurdles before it takes effect. Congress must overcome concerns from lawmakers in both parties about rewarding one of only three countries that has refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and change laws to permit the nuclear assistance. Bush and Singh also must convince the International Atomic Energy Agency -- the U.N. nuclear watchdog unit -- to fashion to India-specific guidelines for new international inspections of its nuclear plants.

China added its voice to these misgivings on Thursday, according to the Reuters news agency. India should sign the NPT and also dismantle its nuclear weapons, a spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry, Qin Gang, told a news briefing in Beijing.

"As a signatory country, China hopes non-signatory countries will join it as soon as possible as non-nuclear weapon states, thereby contributing to strengthening the international non-proliferation regime," he said.

Participants in the discussions said there had been debate within the administration about whether the deal with India -- which built its atomic arsenal in secret -- would undercut U.S. efforts to confront Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs. There were also concerns about how the agreement would be accepted in Pakistan, India's regional rival and an ally in the U.S. campaign against al Qaeda.

But supporters of the approach said it was an important part of a White House strategy to accelerate New Delhi's rise as a global power and as a regional counterweight to China. As part of the strategy, the administration is also seeking ways to bolster Japan's posture in the region.

"I'm trying to think differently," Bush said, "not to stay stuck in the past, and recognize that by thinking differently, particularly on nuclear power, we can achieve some important objectives," Bush said. In the short term, the deal allowed both leaders to proclaim Bush's first-ever visit to India a success since the nuclear pact topped the trip's agenda.

Hurried last minute negotiations to pave the way for the signing of the crucial civilian nuclear energy deal and continued protests marked the first day of Bush's visit to this capital of over a billion people. It was also reflective of how most Indians view the United States -- either as a useful ally or as an international bully.

A poll in the Hindustan Times, an English language daily said that while 54 percent of Indians think, "Close ties with the U.S. are a must for India to become a great power"; 51 percent think that "India cannot trust the U.S. in the long term."


In the build up to this state visit, much of the national focus in India had centered on the nuclear deal, which had been contentious for India's powerful leftist political leaders and the Hindu Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, both of whom had labeled such a move as acting under duress from the U.S. and endangering the country's nuclear deterrent.

The criticism had led to Prime Minister Singh's announcement in parliament Monday, that his government would not compromise the country's strategic program.

Even if little else of substance emerges from Bush's visit, it will be seen as a success by Indian business leaders and the Congress party-led ruling coalition, which has seen the signing of a such an agreement as crucial to ending over three decades of nuclear policy isolation for India despite the fact that India hasn't signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Even as the leaders hammered out the final details, a terrorist bombing in neighboring Pakistan killed one American and served as a deadly reminder of the volatility of the region and stubborn persistence of terrorism in South Asia. Bush told reporters the bombings that claimed the life of a U.S. foreign service officer would not effect his weekend stop in Islamabad. "Terrorists and killers are not going to prevent me from going to Pakistan," he said.

On his first day of events in India, Bush was greeted by members of various branches of the Indian military, including cavalry on horseback, at the brilliant sandstone Rashtrapati Bhavan, the presidential residence that once served as the viceregal residence when India was a British colony. Bush reviewed the troops before telling a gaggle of U.S. and Indian reporters," I have been received in many capitals around the world but I have never seen a reception as well-organized or as grand," Bush said.

Bush and First Lady Laura Bush paid tribute to India's independence leader, Mahatma Gandhi, tossing flower petals where he was cremated in 1948 after being assassinated. Bush, well known for short international trips with scant sight-seeing time, was teased at lunch by Singh for claiming his scheduler would not let him visit the Taj Mahal, one of the world's most famous landmarks.

In a lunchtime toast, Singh told Mrs. Bush: "I'm truly sorry that the president is not taking you to Taj Mahal this time. I hope he will be more chivalrous the next time you are here." Bush laughed and promised the would visit the 350-year-old wonder -- next time.

But it was the nuclear deal that dominated the day inside and out of the official meetings. Indian television provided hours of coverage of the deal in the run-up to the midday announcement and afterwards, with commentators talking about new era of U.S.-India relations. Reaction was mixed in the bustling streets here.

Despite the enthusiasm in government quarters, security in New Delhi continued to be heavy as leftist politicians led thousands of people in protesting Bush's visit. Communist and socialist party leaders in parliament also held a rally outside the imposing colonial-era building and disrupted all activity within.

"If the government succumbs to the U.S. pressure on the nuclear deal, they have to face consequences," said Sitaram Yechury, a member of parliament from Communist Party of India (Marxist), according to the Press Trust of India news agency. He said the left would "protest and oppose any erosion of Indian interest." Although the leftist parties are not part of the ruling coalition, their support is crucial to the government's majority in parliament.

Armed policemen stood on alert and helicopters hovered overhead as thousands of protesters continued to gather in a fairground for a second day. "Bush -- Killer of Millions of Innocents. Go Back," said black posters all along the road that led to the protest site.

"He wants to control the world and our government is willing to support this. We are here to oppose this American neo-colonialism," Shabeg Singh, 64, a member of the CPI (M) who had come to the New Delhi rally from the neighboring Punjab state and carried a red Communist flag. Similar large protests were also held in other parts of the country including Calcutta and Mumbai.

R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state who flew to India fives times to work out the details, said in an interview that India -- unlike Iran and North Korea -- earned special treatment from the United States with it commitment to democracy and international inspections. Burns said one of the most crucial aspects of the pact is that India will subject future civilian plants to inspections.

Signs posted at the María Isabel-Sheraton, which is across from the iconic Monument to Independence at one of the city's most prominent intersections, made no mention of the dispute, instead accusing the 755-room luxury hotel of violating unspecified city codes.

But the official who signed the closure notice, Virginia Jaramillo, the chief of the city's Cuahtémoc district, had promised to move against the hotel after the 16-member Cuban delegation was asked to leave Feb. 2.

U.S. Treasury Department officials said the hotel would have been in violation of the U.S. trade embargo of Cuba had it allowed the Cubans to remain, but Mexican officials said the U.S. order infringed on Mexican sovereignty and violated Mexican law.

It was unknown whether city officials had consulted Mexico's federal government before ordering the closure.

''Due to the infringement of local law, the Sheraton's activities have been suspended,'' the notice said in eight languages. ``We are sorry for the inconvenience that this has caused. Thank you for your understanding.''

Large red signs reading ''closed'' in Spanish were on the hotel's doors.

The Sheraton's marketing director, Dolores Castillo, said the hotel was still open despite the closure notice. ''The hotel is operating at 100 percent,'' she said.

Hotel representatives were meeting with officials in an attempt to avoid expelling tourists, and people were allowed to enter the hotel.

Guests who were leaving for the most part declined to talk to reporters. One woman who said she was a member of the hotel's health club said managers had told her to call Wednesday to find out if the hotel would be open.

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., which owns the hotel, and U.S. Embassy officials had no comment.

The hotel is one of the city's best known. Adjacent to the U.S. Embassy, it's long been a symbol of American presence here.

That may have heightened Mexican resentment at the news that the Bush administration had pressured the hotel to expel the Cuban officials, who were attending a meeting with American oil-company executives about investment opportunities in Cuba's petroleum industry.

Mexican officials denounced the expulsion, and Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez complained to the State Department.

They didn't advocate closing the hotel, however. Jaramillo, who's the top administrative official of the district that the hotel is in, first suggested that step in early February, when she said inspections prompted by the expulsion had found violations of city building codes.

Sunday, former Mexico City Mayor Andrés Manuel López Obrador, campaigning for president in the city's main square, made an issue of U.S. policy toward Cuba. He promised that Mexico would return to its tradition of a ''noninterventionist'' policy, a slap at President Vicente Fox, who's sided with the United States by condemning the lack of civil liberties in Cuba.

Those who worry that the world's Arab and Muslim populations pose a threat to free speech in Western democracies need not fear. The first Amendment remains intact-particularly, it seems, when it comes to the "right" to inflict racial slurs. Indeed, the last few weeks have witnessed a spate of pundits and politicians exercising their right to freely engage in racist demagoguery against Arabs and Muslims without repercussion.

Celebrity hatemonger Ann Coulter did not disappoint the rabid crowd at the annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C. last month. The highlight of Coulter's address, sandwiched between speeches by Dick Cheney, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Newt Gingrich, was, "I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'" Journalist Max Blumenthal remarked, "This declaration prompted a boisterous ovation" from the overflow crowd.

Fifteen minutes later, Blumenthal asked Frist his opinion on the "raghead" characterization. Frist responded, "I wasn't there so I better not comment." No major newspaper reported on Coulter's racial epithet to the more than 1,000 Republican Party stalwarts.

The "raghead" comment is consistent with an article Coulter posted on her website, which reads in part, "Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that's offensive. How about 'camel jockey'? What? Now what'd I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy."

Last week, the level of xenophobia surged on Capitol Hill when Democrats Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, along with Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, whipped themselves into a (bipartisan) frenzy to block Dubai Ports World from replacing a British company in running six U.S. ports.

As the Washington Post reported, "The lawmakers said they feared that national security might be compromised by letting a Middle Eastern firm manage key U.S. ports."

Raising the level of melodrama, Clinton argued that the port management deal would "turn over our sovereignty to another country." New York Republican congressman Vito Fossella compared the port deal to an "announcement that Dubai was to take over security at our airports."

Schumer told reporters, "How can we turn over one of the most vital areas in our nation to a country with a significant nexus of involvement with terrorists?"

Although Schumer argued in a February 22 USA Today op-ed piece that Congressional opposition "has nothing to do with the fact that the United Arab Emirates...is an Arab nation," the Democrats' media attack dogs were already cut loose.

That same day, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd called for "corporate racial profiling," quoting Jan Gadiel of 9/11 Families for a Secure America: "Our borders are wide open. We don't know who's in our country right now, not a clue. And now they're giving away our ports."

Even Dowd admitted that election-year politics played a role in the Congressional mutiny. "Lawmakers, many up for re-election, have learned well from Karl Rove. Playing the terror card works."

Wall Street Journal columnist Dan Henninger argued, "It gave the Democrats an opportunity to get to the right of the president on a terror issue, and attack him for being soft on terror."

It is now acceptable-indeed, commonplace-to racially stereotype and denigrate Arabs and Muslims. And there is no outcry against the curtailment of their civil liberties and rights.

A December 2004 Cornell University opinion poll showed 44 percent of Americans approved curtailing some civil liberties for all Muslim Americans-including registering with the federal government, close monitoring of mosques by law enforcement agencies and racially profiling citizens of Muslim or Middle Eastern heritage.

Interestingly, a recent Gallup World Poll of predominantly Islamic countries showed that overwhelming majorities said they favored the right to freedom of speech in their own countries.

As journalist Robert C. Koehler remarked, " Maybe we should be careful about making common cause with born-again free speech advocates who never showed any tolerance for it until it became a handy club for bashing Muslims." He added, in the current atmosphere, "It's OK to torture them because they've already been dehumanized en masse. Anything could follow."

Sharon Smith's new book is Women and Socialism. She can be reached at: sharon@internationalsocialist.org

"It is outrageous that the government is withholding this vital information", said James H. Fetzer, founder and co-chair of the society. "This concerns one of the monstrous events of our time and deserves to be in the public domain." The group, whose members include such prominent figures as David Ray Griffin, Morgan Reynolds, John McMurtry, Wayne Madsen, Robert Bowman, Webster Tarpley, and Andreas von Buelow, has been speaking out against what its own research suggests has been complicity by elements of the administration in the crime.

They are calling for immediate release of the full Pentagon surveillance tape as well as video tapes seized by
FBI agents minutes after the Pentagon hit; a complete inventory of the plane wreckage and debris from Flights 11, 77, 93, 175 or any other aircraft that crashed or was destroyed on September 11, 2001, including, but not limited to their location (whether warehoused or otherwise), catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any items from the planes, and results of all tests and examinations conducted concerning any of these items.

Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit demanding that DoD release its film footage. In addition, the scholars call for the release of a complete inventory of any steel, other metal, or other materials from the World Trade Center, including, but not limited to the location (whether warehouses or otherwise) of all such items, catalog of photographs and videotapes of any items from the scene, and results of all tests and examinations conducted concerning any of those items.

Judy Wood, a professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University and a full member of the society of scholars, has emphasized the importance of this material for those studying the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7. "This material has the potential to resolve crucial questions about the forces that were responsible for the buildings' fall, including the possible use of incendiaries and explosives", she observed. "It is of great importance that we have access to it."

They also call for release of 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST; tape recordings of interviews by air traffic controllers, at least some of which were deliberately destroyed while in the possession of representatives of the government; a complete accounting of "terror drills" that were being conducted that morning, which may have been used to mask the attack; the cockpit voice recorders and other "black boxes", three of four of which are reported to have survived the Twin Towers' collapse; and other related evidence.

According to Professor Fetzer, the SEC possesses knowledge of "put options" on American and United Airlines, which are suggestive of advanced knowledge that the attacks would take place; Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta gave very important testimony to The 9/11 Commission, which it chose not to include in its report; and the Secret Service conducted itself in a manner suggesting that it knew there was no serious threat to the President, even following the attacks in New York, while the Commander-in-Chief ignored the unfolding drama.

"We are inclined to believe that these events were orchestrated by the Bush administration in order to instill fear in the American people," Fetzer said. "The use of violence and threats of violence to manipulate a populace based on fear," he observed, "is the definition of terrorism. The release of this vital evidence will help to confirm or to dispel our concerns about what happened on 9/11." Added Wood, "The American people are entitled to know the truth about their own history. If the government has nothing to hide, it should have no objections to releasing all this evidence for experts and scholars to study."

Fetzer also noted today's Zogby International Poll, which shows that 90% of American troops in Iraq believe that they are fighting to avenge Saddam Hussein's role in 9/11. "This would be funny if it weren't so sad", Fetzer said. "The administration falsely linked Iraq to 9/11 even though it knew better", he remarked. "Even the Osama Bin Laden 'confession tape' appears to have been faked. We want to know the identity of those who perpetrated these despicable acts."

Scholars for 9/11 Truth maintains its own public web site at www.st911.org. Documentary support for its request is available at www.st911.org/petition/.

"We think that if your company complies with the FDA processes, if you bring forward the benefits and risks of your drug, and let your information be judged through a process with highly trained scientists, you should not be second-guessed by state courts that don't have the same scientific knowledge," said Scott Gottlieb, the FDA's deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs.

The agency's assertion of "federal preemption" was included as a preamble to its new drug labeling guidelines.

The claim of preemption was quickly attacked by trial lawyers and members of Congress as another effort by the Bush administration to limit the public's ability to bring and win lawsuits, according to the January 19, 2006 Washington Post.

"Eliminating the rights of individuals to hold negligent drug companies accountable puts patients in even more danger than they already are in from drug company executives that put profits before safety," said Ken Suggs, president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.

"The fact that the drug industry can get the FDA to rewrite the rules so that CEOs can escape accountability for putting dangerous and deadly drugs on the market is the scariest example yet of how much control these big corporations have over our political process," Mr Suggs told the Post.

In response to the FDA's announcement, Senator Kennedy issued a statement that said: "It's a typical abuse by the Bush Administration -- take a regulation to improve the information that doctors and patients receive about prescription drugs and turn it into a protection against liability for the drug industry."

The National Conference of State Legislatures, a bipartisan group that represents state lawmakers, accused the FDA of trying to seize authority that it did not have.

Over the past several years, lawmakers have been turning up the heat on both the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry in response to their combined failure to reveal problems found during studies conducted on top selling drugs like Vioxx.

At one point, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, came right out and accused the FDA of suppressing studies in order to protect pharmaceutical industry profits and the careers of certain FDA officials.

"The Vioxx example showed that the FDA and Merck were too close for comfort," Senator Grassely told Health News on March 12, 2005. "Testimony and documents at our Finance Committee hearing showed that the FDA allowed itself to be manipulated by Merck," he said.

Based on a trial that took place in 2000, both the FDA and Merck were aware that heart attacks were five times more likely in patients taking Vioxx than among those taking a similar drug, Sen Grassley pointed out, but the FDA did nothing to change the labeling on the drug for nearly two years, while Merck aggressively marketed its product on nightly TV.

Back on November 18, 2004, he generated enormous media attention when he held hearings on Vioxx, and FDA scientist, Dr David Graham, who works in the FDA Office of Drug Safety, testified that Vioxx may have been responsible for tens of thousands of heart attacks and strokes but that his superiors had pressured him to keep silent about his findings.

"The estimates range from 88,000 to 139,000 Americans," Dr Graham told the committee. "Of these, 30 to 40 percent probably died," he advised.

"For the survivors," he added, "their lives were changed forever."

To put this large number of injuries into perspective, Dr Graham told members of the committee that instead of a serious side-effect of a prescription drug, to think of it as if they were talking about jetliners.

"If there were an average of 150 to 200 people on an aircraft," he said, "this range of 88,000 to 138,000 would be the rough equivalent of 500 to 900 aircraft dropping from the sky."

"This translates to 2-4 aircraft every week," he noted, "week in and week out, for the past 5 years."

"If you were confronted by this situation," Dr Graham asked the committee, "what would be your reaction, what would you want to know and what would you do about it?"

He condemned the FDA's failure to acknowledge the risks that Vioxx posed to millions of people in the 5 years it was allowed to remain on the market. "I strongly believe that this should have been, and largely could have been, avoided," Dr Graham told the committee.

The Vioxx matter caught the attention of the Senate Finance Committee basically because of the Vioxx related costs to government programs like Medicaid and Medicare. The committee is responsible for oversight of the two programs. At the November 18, 2004 hearing, Senator Max Baucus said:

"In the 5 years that Vioxx was on the market, Medicaid spent more than $1 billion on the drug."

"And Medicaid bears the cost of any additional medical care necessary when drugs cause injury," he pointed out.

The hearings followed a study that estimated between 28,000 and 160,000 deaths may have been caused by the Vioxx since it gained FDA approval in 1999.

By far, the Vioxx debacle is the most serious public health failure to occur since the FDA took on the authority for safety oversight of medical products in 1938.

On September 3, 2005, Shane Ellison, M.Sc, a former pharmaceutical chemist turned whistleblower and author of the book, "Health Myths Exposed," gave an interview to Crusador Magazine and discussed Vioxx and some of the problems within the FDA.

His book which was published before Vioxx began making headlines, referred to Vioxx as the "silent killer."

According to Mr Ellison, the FDA and Merck knew about the dangers associated with Vioxx for at least 4 years before it was taken off the market. "Instead of removing the drug immediately," he said, "they kept it on the drug market for matters of wealth not health."

Mr Ellison says pharmaceutically compliant politicians have "democratized" the drug industry. "This means that drug approval is a matter of 51% telling the other 49% that deadly drugs are safe and necessary," he reports. "Science and choice no longer prevail at the FDA or at pharmaceutical companies," he added.

"To go against the 51% means losing your career," Mr Ellison said. "Therefore, the majority of scientists choose to please drug companies, not the general public."

To substantiate this claim, Dr Ellison pointed to Dr Curt Furberg, a member of the FDA's drug safety advisory committee.

In the wake of the Vioxx revelations, Dr Furberg went public with findings that Pfizer's drug Bextra also caused heart attacks and strokes and said studies "showed that Bextra is no different than Vioxx, and Pfizer is trying to suppress that information," in the British Medical Journal.

"Immediately thereafter," Mr Ellison said, "Dr. Furberg was barred from serving on the panel that was responsible for considering the safety of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX 2) inhibitors."

"The end result being more votes in favor of COX 2 inhibitors, the drug company wins by votes – not science," he told Crusador.

A little-mentioned fact is that many FDA employees end up working for the pharmaceutical industry. "The old joke is that the FDA is sort of like a showcase for a future job in the drug industry," Robert Whitaker, author of Mad In America, said in an August 2005 interview with Street Spirit.

"You go there, you work awhile, then you go off into the drug industry," he said, "the progression that people make, in essence they're making good old boy network connections, so they're not going to be so harsh on the drug companies."

Critic say the passage of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act in 1992 contributed to the current problems within the FDA. The Act allows the agency to collect a fee from a drug company seeking approval for a new drug. In return, the FDA is expected complete the review process within 12 months.

User fees now account for about 40% of the approval process, which means the FDA is dependent on drug companies for nearly half of its funding.

This situation is the root of a major conflict of interest according to Dr Graham: "This culture (at the FDA) views the pharmaceutical industry it is supposed to regulate as its client. It overvalues the benefits of the drugs it approves, and seriously undervalues, disregards and disrespects drug safety," he told members of Congress.

Another problem he cited is that even when the FDA does try to take measures to limit harm, the agency lacks the enforcement authority to force drug companies to comply. In the case of Vioxx, Dr Graham said it took more than 2 years to get Merck to add the increased risk of heart attack and stroke to its label.

Then there are the conflicts of interests involving the FDA panels that advise the agency on matters such as which drugs should be approved, what their warning labels should say, and how studies should be conducted.

The 300 experts on the 18 committees make decisions that affect billions of dollars in sales and with few exceptions the FDA follows their recommendations.

Members of the panels are supposed to be free of conflicts of interest relating to products they consider. But the FDA can grant a waiver if a member's expertise is deemed to outweigh the risk of a conflict or if the financial interest is minimal. Waivers are liberally granted all the time.

For instance, in February 2005, when the highly publicized hearings were held to determine whether the COX-2 inhibitors, manufactured by Merck and Pfizer, should be permitted to remain on the market, an advisory committee that was mired with conflicts of interest was exposed. Out of the 32 advisers voting on the issue, ten had served as consultants to Merck and Pfizer in recent years.

This revelation prompted Senator Mike Enzi, (R-WY), the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, along with Senators, Edward Kennedy (D-MA), and Richard Durbin (D-IL), to ask the General Accounting Office to look into the FDA's practice of letting scientists serve on panels when they have conflicts of interest.

"We are concerned about the process that supports FDA's decisions to waive conflicts of interest rules for scientists with financial ties to the manufacturers of the products under consideration, or their competitors," said a letter to the GAO, signed by Senators in September 2005.

"These practices appear to have undermined the public's faith in the objectivity and fairness of FDA's advisory committees," they wrote. The Senators specifically noted the conflicts among the panels that studied the Cox-2 inhibitors like Vioxx.

According to the Associated Press on January 24, 2006, Merck currently faces 9,200 Vioxx lawsuits, with about 4,050 in federal courts and the rest in state courts. Without state product liability laws, drug companies like Merck will be able to escape liability for injuries and deaths caused by drugs like Vioxx.