SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: unclewest who wrote (16284)11/15/2003 6:01:42 PM
From: michael97123  Respond to of 793808
 
Think they will hit surrogates. Italy the other day. Britain on alert. Embassies abroad. Naval vessels but i think they know they crossed a line with the sleeping giant on 9/11. I think the hits here will only be attempted when they get desparate. And i think the attempt will be far larger than 9/11 involving dirty weapons and bio weapons. Hopefully they will then be to weak to execute. Mike



To: unclewest who wrote (16284)11/15/2003 6:06:32 PM
From: Ish  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793808
 
<<They have to hit us again or lose respect.>>

That does worry me. I think lots of cells dissolved just before 9/11. Now they are looking for more home runs.



To: unclewest who wrote (16284)11/15/2003 7:01:20 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793808
 
Anybody got a Rope?

November 16, 2003
Should John Hinckley Go Free?
By MICHAEL SOKOLOVE - New York Times

In March 30, 1981 -- after a half-dozen years of aimless wandering between Texas, Colorado, Connecticut and California; after a stint living in Hollywood, where he hoped to become famous as a songwriter; after stalking President Jimmy Carter at campaign stops in Ohio and stalking the young actress Jodie Foster at Yale -- John W. Hinckley Jr. finally settled on a course of action. He awakened at the Park Central Hotel in Washington. He got breakfast from McDonald's. He left behind a note in his hotel room, addressed to Foster. ''Jodie,'' he pleaded, ''I'm asking you to please look into your heart and at least give me the chance, with this historical deed, to gain your respect and love.'' At 2:25 p.m., as President Ronald Reagan walked to his limousine after delivering a speech at the Washington Hilton, Hinckley fired six shots with a .22-caliber pistol that wounded four people and cast him, forever, as an American pariah.

One bullet lodged inches from Reagan's heart. Another struck his press secretary, James Brady, and ravaged his brain.

Fifteen months after the shooting, at the end of a seven-week trial, a jury in Washington rendered its verdict on John Hinckley: not guilty by reason of insanity. The first two words of that verdict -- ''not guilty'' -- were (and remain) the most important. Their meaning is that Hinckley was held legally blameless -- in the grip, on the day of the shootings, of a psychological defect that roiled his thinking and shut down his judgment.

Hinckley was 27 years old when he entered St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington on June 22, 1982, the day after the verdict. He is 48 now. The law is clear on what should happen at the point Hinckley is judged to be sane. When he is no longer a danger to himself or to others, he is to be set free.

This week, a hearing is scheduled to begin on Hinckley's petition for a ''limited conditional release.'' If it is granted, he will be permitted a series of visits off the hospital grounds with his parents -- and without hospital staff. These will be day outings, and if all goes well, overnight visits will follow.

When he entered St. Elizabeths, Hinckley was given a diagnosis of two major psychological maladies -- psychosis and major depression. According to his doctors, both are now in ''full remission.'' In fact, his treatment team began saying that as far back as 1985.

In his motion to the United States District Court, Hinckley's lawyer, Barry Levine, called the conditional release ''the appropriate next step in Mr. Hinckley's treatment.'' The hospital also supported Hinckley's conditional release, while recommending a more phased-in series of visits.

The government opposes any release, because the incremental steps lead ultimately to his full freedom. That Hinckley could live outside a prison or a locked hospital ward is, for many, a profoundly uncomfortable thought. He tried to kill the president. He had an attraction to Nazism and an affinity for Charles Manson.

But there is a powerful counterargument to be made that Hinckley's release is long overdue. In the disposition of ''insanity acquittees,'' the law does not sort them by whom they shot.

For 21 years now, Hinckley has lived on a ward inside the John Howard Pavilion, a five-story structure that houses the N.G.I.'s, as those who are found not guilty by reason of insanity are called at St. Elizabeths. His room is small, about 10 feet by 15 feet. It is furnished with a bed, a nightstand, a small dresser and little else. A book or two usually sits on his nightstand. Hinckley is a reader, although he is now extremely careful about the books he chooses, because his reading material in the past has raised alarms and been used against him.

He keeps his guitar in his room and sings and composes songs, as he has done for much of his life. He does not look much different than he did two decades ago. He resists strenuous exercise and is still a little pudgy and soft-looking. He has all his blond hair.

Beyond the John Howard Pavilion is the rest of St. Elizabeths: more than 100 red-brick buildings, some built before the Civil War, set on more than 300 acres of high ground perched above the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers, overlooking federal Washington. St. Elizabeths has been called the most famous mental institution in the nation, a renown that derives from its occasional celebrity residents -- most notably, the poet Ezra Pound from 1946 to 1958 -- as well as from its grand setting, stately architecture and sheer, imposing size. At its peak, the hospital housed 7,000 patients. The population now hovers around 500. Most of the buildings are vacant; the whole western part of the campus has been gated shut; grass and weeds grow through cracks in vast, empty parking lots.

Hinckley works as an archivist in the library, which makes him both a prominent figure in and a custodian of the hospital's history. After four hours of work on weekday mornings, he eats lunch, then has ''unaccompanied grounds privileges'' for the remainder of the day. He fills many of those hours walking the campus and feeding the many stray cats who prowl the grounds. ''Mr. Hinckley has 'adopted' a number of cats at the hospital, which he feeds daily,'' an August letter from the hospital to the District Court says.

Since 1999, Hinckley has participated in recreational trips off the hospital grounds, accompanied by staff members -- he has gone to bowling alleys, restaurants, bookstores, movies and the beach. The Secret Service tails him on these occasions. When he visited the bookstore, agents got close enough to ascertain what books caught his interest. It also observes him on the grounds of St. Elizabeths and, though the Secret Service refused to comment on this, will presumably shadow him for life, in or out of the hospital.

Hinckley's routine includes meeting with his hospital psychiatrist at least once a week. Additionally, he has regular contact with another doctor assigned to his ward. He participates in group therapy sessions. He still keeps mainly to himself, although his doctors have noted that he ''appears to be accepted by his peers in spite of his 'notoriety' status.''

He was off antipsychotic medicine for eight years and showed no symptoms but agreed to go back on medication, his lawyer wrote, when it was prescribed ''solely as a prophylactic measure.'' Hinckley did so, reluctantly, in order to be perceived as cooperating with authority.

''What people do not understand,'' Levine, his lawyer, told me, ''is how painful the process of getting well is for someone like John. He was delusional. He did not understand the wrongfulness of what he did. Acquiring insight into his conduct, truly understanding what he did, was a difficult and terrifying experience. That's when he became aware of the unspeakable horror of what he had done.''

Hinckley's parents have stuck by him. Jack and Jo Ann Hinckley moved from Evergreen, Colo., to Virginia to be closer to him, and they visit and call regularly. In the period just before the assassination attempt, his parents sent him to see a psychiatrist. Hinckley did not tell the doctor he was stalking Jodie Foster. He did not reveal that he had purchased guns. The doctor diagnosed his problem, essentially, as being pampered.

The Hinckleys ultimately lost patience with their son and with the encouragement of the psychiatrist, turned him out of the house, hoping that would force him to grow up and find some direction. Later, at his trial, they wore the devastated look of people swept up in a family tragedy of unimaginable proportions, one they feared they had helped bring about. Jack Hinckley testified, ''We forced him out at a time that he just simply couldn't cope.'' Levine pressed for the earliest possible hearing on his current motion partly in the hope that the Hinckleys and their son could be together for Thanksgiving.

In addition to his family and his lawyer, Hinckley's other close relationship in the last two decades has been with Leslie deVeau, a former patient at St. Elizabeths who in 1982 killed her sleeping 10-year-old daughter with a blast from a 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun. She then tried to shoot herself in the heart, but succeeded only in blowing her left arm off. DeVeau and Hinckley met at a dance at St. Elizabeths and became soulmates. She was considered well enough to leave the hospital in 1985, just three years after shooting her daughter. In 1990, she was released from outpatient supervision.

For a time, they considered themselves engaged. She told The New Yorker in 1999 that they had sexual relations on the grounds at St. Elizabeths. It was, apparently, Hinckley's first sexual experience other than with prostitutes. Their relationship is now said to be platonic, but she still comes regularly to see him. It is deVeau who provides the cat food.

he insanity defense in the United States is generally said to descend from the 1843 trial in Britain of Daniel M'Naghten, a Scottish woodcutter who believed he was being persecuted by the Tory Party. M'Naghten tried to shoot Sir Robert Peel, the British prime minister, but ended up killing his secretary. He was judged not guilty by reason of insanity, which outraged the public. After the verdict, the House of Lords set down what came to be known as the M'Naghten test: to be found not guilty, a defendant must be ''labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.''

The insanity defense in United States law was broadened over time to include defendants whose acts were the ''product'' of mental disease, who may have known they were committing a crime but were driven by some irresistible impulse or delusion. In the Hinckley trial, Federal District Judge Barrington Parker instructed the jury to acquit Hinckley if they found his actions were related to ''any abnormal condition of the mind, regardless of its medical label, which substantially affects mental or emotional processes and substantially impairs his behavior controls.'' The instruction was straightforward; the jury's task was anything but. Rather than making a finding of fact, the jury had to determine what was in Hinckley's mind.

That Hinckley was fairly well kempt and able to make his way around the country -- to get on airplanes and check in and out of hotels, to insert exploding ''Devastator'' bullets into his gun rather than the more conventional ammunition he also carried -- struck many as signs of his sanity. His bizarre belief that he could actually win the heart of a famous actress by shooting Ronald Reagan was powerful evidence of his insanity.

The diagnosis that Hinckley was given after he entered St. Elizabeths -- psychosis, N.O.S. (meaning ''not otherwise specified'') -- was an indication that he did not present classic or stereotypical signs of schizophrenia. The designation does not mean that the diagnosis is in doubt, but rather that it does not precisely match any of the definitions in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

''Psychosis usually means you are having hallucinations or delusions; you're out of touch with reality,'' says E. Fuller Torrey, a prominent psychiatrist who worked at St. Elizabeths in the early 1980's and examined Hinckley. ''To a lay person, John Hinckley didn't look like the raving maniac you usually think of. But to those of us in the business who looked at some of the things he was writing and saying, there was no question he was delusional.''

The hearing set to begin on Monday will not involve a jury; the decision will rest solely with Federal District Judge Paul Friedman, a former president of the District of Columbia Bar who was appointed to the bench in 1994 by President Clinton. The previous judge, June L. Green, ruled consistently for the government. (She heard cases until a month before her death, in 2001, at age 87.) This will be Friedman's first chance to make a major ruling in the case, and both sides see it as a critical moment. Instead of looking at the reasons Hinckley acted, as the jury did in 1982, Friedman will have to make an equally difficult judgment: what is Hinckley likely, or not likely, to do in the future?

inckley's I.Q. has been measured at 113, which is considered ''bright normal.'' He's not a genius, and should not be able, at least in theory, to fool his highly trained doctors and a hospital staff that has custody of him 24 hours a day. When they say, plainly, that he is not a danger to himself or others, they presumably are in a position to know.

Hinckley has filed several motions since the late 1980's for his conditional release, and all have either been denied or withdrawn before a judge could rule. He has tended to undermine himself. In 1987, hospital staff discovered a grandiose, defiant journal entry that has come back to haunt him at several legal proceedings. It said: ''I dare say that not one psychiatrist who has analyzed me knows any more about me than the average person on the street who has read about me in the newspapers. Psychiatry is a guessing game, and I do my best to keep the fools guessing about me. They will never know the true John Hinckley.''

The journal entry was written during his turbulent first decade at St. Elizabeths, when he did various things that damaged his prospects for release. Fifty-seven pictures of Foster were discovered in his room in 1987. He corresponded with the serial killer Ted Bundy. He granted interviews, including one to Penthouse in 1983, in which he said he was ''surprised, shocked and flabbergasted'' to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. He also suggested that he was a ''political revolutionary'' and that he planned to become a crusader for stricter gun-control laws. Hinckley also attempted suicide at least twice after arriving at St. Elizabeths.

His interviews and craving of public attention have been used by government prosecutors as evidence that his other psychiatric malady, narcissistic personality disorder -- extreme grandiosity and a sense of entitlement -- still seemed to be raging. Psychiatrists do not generally say that personality disorders are in remission, but a goal of therapy would be to come to terms with such a disorder and bring it under control.

Hinckley no longer gives interviews. Neither do his parents. It is a strategic decision, intended to enhance his prospects for liberty.

"He didn't have a political fantasy and think he was saving the world by shooting my father and all the other people he shot,'' Ron Reagan Jr., the former president's son, says to me. ''He was just trying to impress a girl, and I don't think that's changed. I think he's still the grown baby that he was. If he doesn't think he's getting his due, all the attention he wants, then he could still be a danger to people.''

Ron Reagan says that his father long ago forgave Hinckley. ''He made peace with it. He forgave this crazy young man. Maybe I'm just not the forgiving type, but I don't trust Mr. Hinckley. He wanted to be pen pals with Ted Bundy. Who the hell writes to Ted Bundy?'' He adds: ''An attack on the president or other leading members of the government is an attack on the nation itself. You can't get a free pass on that.''

That last statement no doubt resonates with much of the American public. Eighty-three percent of the respondents to a 1982 ABC News poll said they disagreed with the verdict in the Hinckley case. It is safe to say that there is no public groundswell for Hinckley's release. Lynette (Squeaky) Fromme and Sara Jane Moore, who made unsuccessful assassination attempts on President Gerald Ford within a month of each other in 1975, remain in prison, as do Sirhan Sirhan, who murdered Robert Kennedy, and Mark David Chapman, John Lennon's murderer.

Public opinion should not, of course, play any part in Hinckley's fate. But the prosecutors and Hinckley's lawyer are acutely aware of it and have been sparring about how much the public should see before the hearing. Levine has tried to keep certain documents -- including the actual motion for conditional release -- under seal until the hearing starts. The government has argued for the unsealing of documents, claiming that the public has a ''legitimate interest'' in the case. In response, Levine wrote that prosecutors were trying to ''whip up media frenzy and public unrest.'' (The judge has unsealed some documents and kept others out of the public court file.)

Hinckley's hearing before Judge Friedman could last for more than a week. Most of it will consist of testimony by psychiatrists, including Hinckley's treatment team, and two psychiatrists chosen by prosecutors. As there was at his 1982 trial, there is likely to be disagreement among the experts, conflicting views of what Hinckley's mental state might hold for the future.

The government will argue that he is simply too dangerous and unpredictable to be trusted. Hinckley's lawyers will counter that the 1981 shootings came from a particularly dire ''confluence'' of psychological conditions, and that if his mental state starts to decline, there will be plenty of advance warning before he becomes dangerous. Hinckley himself is not expected to testify; taking the stand could expose him to days of cross-examination, much of it focused on what transpired when he was a young man.

Unless it is revealed that Hinckley has committed some recent misdeeds, that he has corresponded unwisely or stashed new pictures of Jodie Foster -- and there is no indication such evidence is coming -- the momentum is likely to continue in the direction of more freedom. How much, and how soon, will depend on the weight Judge Friedman places on Hinckley's current diagnosis as opposed to the weight he gives to past deceptions. It also depends, of course, on Friedman's taste for making unpopular decisions.
nytimes.com



To: unclewest who wrote (16284)11/15/2003 9:07:02 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793808
 
This is the best "Military" Blog I have found. Just outstanding articles.
___________________________________

Belmont Club
History and history in the making


Saturday, November 15, 2003

The Jihadi Air Defense
If the touchstone of the anti-American Left is Vietnam, the formative experiences of Al Qaeda were rooted in Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent, Somalia. It was here that they gained confidence in their ability to defeat a superpower foe. Neither began auspiciously for the jihadi. Kabul was taken in a textbook aerial assault by the Soviet Army. For years afterward, the Islamists were unable to make any headway against Soviet forces because the helicopters provided Russian commanders with an instant source of vertical envelopment.

After suffering thousands of casualties against a seemingly invincible Soviet foe, the jihadi began to develop a series of tactics designed to make the Soviet rotary-wing advantage an actual liability. The key was to achieving this was the US Stinger missile which inflicted heavy losses on Soviet transport and attack helicopters. It forced Soviet Frontal Aviation to fly at over 2,000 foot altitudes, which essentially blinded the ground columns and denied them aerial support. Then the jihadi took a page out of the North Vietnamese army playbook. They deliberately initiated contact with the intention of ambushing the relief force. In one violent engagement, the jihadi tricked the Soviets into landing 800 air assault troops into a kill zone, blocked out the airbridge with missiles and killed the Russians to a man. By forcing the Soviets to fight on terms of essential tactical equality, the jihadis eventually prevailed.

In Somalia, the Al Qaeda experimented to see whether the concepts they had developed in Afghanistan would work against the Americans. When the UN ordered Americans to hunt down General Aideed, Osama Bin Laden had a perfect opportunity to play against Rangers and Special Forces. He realized that if he could develop effective tactics against those elite forces, they would perform with even greater effect against regular Army units. The result was the infamous "Blackhawk Down" incident. From Mogadishu, the jihadi learned that US vertical assault tactics were vulnerable to mere RPGs if these were used to strike helos in the last, low level stages of their descent. Moreover, he discovered that Americans would cancel offensive operations immediately and concentrate on recovering the survivors of the first attack. They codified the notion of trapping the first fly and swatting whatever came to its rescue.

Although the cause of the crash of two UH-60 Blackhawks over Mosul has not yet been officially determined, it may have been caused or provoked by an RPG attack on helicopters responding to an attack on a US ground element. Even if the cause of the crash is subsequently determined to be accidental, the effect is certainly one that Al Qaeda training manual would have aimed for. The American adaptation has been partly technological and partly tactical. Army aviation -- which has been the primary target of the shootdowns -- is doctrinally committed to high-speed, low-level flying. That is their key pilot skill and bragging right. US rotary wing craft also have far better decoys, like flares, than the Soviets. But these advantages can be negated by a foe which pickets certain lines of approach, using an outpost of spotters with cell phones to give the missile shooters a few minutes of warning about the heading of inbound helicopters. And the tactical and technological adaptations vanish utterly when an air assault helicopter flares for its final approach and the enemy is firing unguided RPGs, which cannot be decoyed away.

The cycle of adaptation never ceases, and the US is working to deploy rotary wing UAVs other robotic platforms to change the fundamental need to risk lives to obtain information. These UAVs will eventually be armed, too. But one tactic that will soon be viable with the availability of more Iraqi policemen and intelligence agents to coalition forces is the counter ambush against anti-air forces. The jihadi air defense men, pickets and lookouts are themselves vulnerable to being spotted by Iraqis on the ground. Keeping lookout on a hilltop copse, or trundling through a street in a car full of RPGs, these jihadis are vulnerable to destruction or capture in detail at the instance of a sharp-eyed coalition agent, disguised as an ordinary civilian. The coalition can pick off their spotters by the dozen. That fact alone would collapse the jihadi air defense and lead to a further penetration of the enemy's cells. During the Battle of Britain, Winston Churchill often wondered why the Nazis never attacked the Chain Home radar sets which provided advance warning to the RAF of Luftwaffe raids. One historian writing about an unrepeated German attack on British radar said:

No German agent during the war learnt much about the British radar system. Had they done, German Intelligence would have discovered that the power and receiving rooms were extremely vulnerable to attack, and that the raid on Ventnor had been a devastating success. It is certain that had German intelligence discovered the full effect of their attack on Ventnor, more radar stations would have been increasingly bombed, with devastating consequences.

The Germans could have altered the course of the Battle of Britain with existing technology and tactics if they had analyzed the enemy's weakness correctly. They didn't and lost the war. The fight against the jihadi enemy will require creative thinking as much as it will need new and better equipment.
belmontclub.blogspot.com



To: unclewest who wrote (16284)11/16/2003 12:42:57 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793808
 
The Drug companies cut their own throats on this issue.
_______________________________

PRESCRIPTIONS FILLED
If Americans Want to Pay Less for Drugs, They Will
By GARDINER HARRIS New York Times

AMERICANS, who pay the highest drug prices in the world, are clamoring for access to cheap imports of prescription drugs.

The governors of Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin — Democrats and Republicans alike — want their constituents to be able to buy drugs from Canada. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg says he would like the same option for New York City employees and hospitals. Municipal workers in Springfield, Mass., already have that right, though federal regulators threaten to stop them.

Though American drug companies have spent millions to discourage Congress from legalizing the import of cheap prescription drugs — and succeeded last week in keeping the ban on imports in a proposed bill — even some industry executives privately acknowledge that they are fighting an uphill battle. With public pressure growing, drugs, the only legal products specifically prohibited from being imported, will ultimately join automobiles, software and all the other products that trade across borders.

"Eventually we're going to get rolled on this," said a top industry executive on condition of anonymity.

A House provision allowing the eventual import of prescription drugs was included in a bill creating a Medicare drug benefit. But last week in the Senate-House negotiations on the final legislation, the proposal was not included.

Supporters of the idea say the battle is far from over. Some polls show that Americans are even more enthusiastic about measures to reduce the cost of prescription drugs than they are about a Medicare drug benefit, according to Robert Leitman, a pollster at Harris Interactive. Even the elderly — who would gain most from a Medicare drug benefit — prefer drug price controls to the Medicare benefit, by 52 percent to 35 percent, Mr. Leitman said.

American drug companies say that domestic prices are higher to cover the high cost of developing new drugs, a process that can take years. Cutting prices, they say, will reduce research, producing fewer new drug breakthroughs.

The demand for cheaper prescription drugs has grown for many reasons. The spread of Internet sites advertising the lower prices has allowed Americans to see just how much more they are paying than their neighbors — though it is illegal to import medicine. At the same time, drug prices in the United States continue to climb, and consumers pay an increasing share of these costs out of their pockets.

Drug prices in Europe and Canada are far lower because they have national health care, and the governments negotiate deep discounts. The American manufacturers submit to these discounts because pills are cheap to make, so even sales at significantly reduced prices are profitable. Drug company scientists routinely introduce medicines similar to drugs already being marketed. European bureaucrats tell drug company executives that if they don't cut their prices, the government will go to a competitor.

The companies say that even if they still make a profit, the discounts squeeze the amount of money available for research. That is what American consumers are supporting when they pay the higher costs.

In America, they pay high prices because nobody is negotiating on their behalf on a national scale, and patients might not know that the drug their doctor prescribed could be replaced by an equivalent, often cheaper, medicine in some cases.

Tight-fisted payers say there are few good medical reasons to buy all drugs within a class at list price, so they drive hard bargains. When governments are doing the bargaining, it is called price controls.

The drug industry deplores price controls and says doctors should be able to prescribe whatever drug they deem appropriate because patients can react differently even to similar drugs.

But consumer advocates say that doctors can be as susceptible to expensive marketing efforts by pharmaceutical companies as consumers are, raising costs for the entire medical system.

GlaxoSmithKline, for example, recently introduced a new version of its big-selling antidepressant, Paxil, that the company calls Paxil CR. Doctors now regularly prescribe Paxil CR, and GlaxoSmithKline says it is "better tolerated" than Paxil. In fact, say researchers who make generic drugs, there is little difference between Paxil and Paxil CR. Generic versions of Paxil have recently been introduced, but the success of Paxil CR has meant that thousands of patients haven't taken advantage of the savings. They may not even be aware of the cheaper alternatives.

This is also the case with Nexium, a heartburn drug that replaced Prilosec. Thomas A. Scully, the administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told doctors at a medical conference earlier this year that you "should be embarrassed if you prescribe Nexium" because it increases costs without any medical benefit. Thousands of doctors prescribe it nonetheless.

A variety of drugs introduced by major pharmaceutical companies in recent years are like Nexium and Paxil CR. Drug imports could drastically cut the prices of these expensive drugs and the incentives for making them.

At the same time, the imports will have no effect on the prices of many biotechnology drugs developed by companies that have discovered life-saving cures for hard-to-treat illnesses. The prices for these breakthrough medications are as high or higher in Europe as they are in the United States because there are no ready alternatives. Gleevec, a miracle cure developed by Novartis for some types of leukemia, is one such drug.

If cheap imports reduce industry profits and mean less money for research, it could be that some Gleevecs of the future won't emerge as rapidly, though that won't be known for years because research takes so long to bear fruit.

"Drug import legislation is politically perfect," said Rebecca Henderson, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies corporate research and who often consults for drug makers, pointing out the tendency of politicians to consider short-term gain rather than long-term consequences. "You get the benefit now, but the pain doesn't come for a long time."

Already the industry is beginning to raise prices in Canada in advance of the day when drug imports will be legalized. And some executives are threatening to withhold products from Europe unless prices are raised. But no one is predicting that short of imports being legalized, drug prices abroad will ever be as expensive as those in the United States.

nytimes.com