Powell says U.S. won't introduce new mideast plan WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Sunday he will not introduce a new plan for Middle East peace in a speech this week billed as a major statement on the region. Powell said Israel and the Palestinians should stick to the terms of an existing cease-fire plan put forward by former U.S. senator George Mitchell. ``I am not introducing a new plan ... We have a plan, it's a solid plan. It's called the Mitchell committee report,'' Powell said on Fox News Sunday. Powell said Palestinian President Yasser Arafat must do his part to end more than 13 months of Israeli-Palestinian fighting in which almost 900 people have been killed, the majority of them Palestinians. But Powell did not refer to demands by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for a full seven days of total calm in Israeli-Palestinian violence as a condition for implementing the Mitchell plan. Israeli media reports said Powell's keynote speech in Louisville, Kentucky, on Monday would describe the Israeli demand as unrealistic. Speaking about Arafat, Powell said, ``He needs to get the violence down, he needs to make a 100-percent effort to end all the violence and we need to see results that reflect that 100 percent effort.'' Powell said the Mitchell plan would lead ``to the kinds of negotiations that are required to settle these issues.'' ``But the only way you get to those negotiations is to enter the front door of the Mitchell plan by getting the violence down. And until that happens, we're not going to go anywhere. A new plan coming in from the flank isn't what's going to do it,'' Powell said. Mitchell's cease-fire plan calls for a truce followed by confidence-building measures that include an Israeli settlement freeze in occupied territories, and the eventual resumption of peace talks. Shared concerns for civil liberties unite left, right In an extraordinary convergence of ideologies, liberal and conservative groups that once spent much of their time squabbling now find themselves sounding similar alarms that the nation's hard-line response to terrorism could severely damage civil liberties. The concern has thrust such disparate organizations as Gun Owners of America and Americans for Tax Reform together with the likes of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. They fear the crackdown could subject innocent people to a host of abuses, from having their phones wiretapped and e-mail scrutinized to being jailed and having their property seized -- all based on flimsy evidence and with scant judicial review. Bush officials and their allies counter that the government must move quickly to meet a massive threat and can't wait for Congress and the courts to weigh in. ``The administration has acted responsibly, and these actions aren't drastic or dire, considering we are at war,'' said Jan Ting, a former assistant immigration commissioner. ``In war, the government always assumes greater powers, especially regarding enemy aliens,'' said Ting, a Temple University law professor. ``That's happened from Lincoln to FDR, with no lasting effect.'' Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., sounded a similar theme: ``The Constitution is not being suspended. Some steps are more hurried-up, but they are designed to keep people safe.'' But the swiftness and variety of anti-terror actions taken by the government in the past two months have quickly made allies of former bitter adversaries. Mutual fears Many on both sides figured the association between left and right would be a temporary response to the events of Sept. 11. But as additional issues arise -- including last week's presidential order calling for military trials for suspected terrorists -- it has blossomed into an ongoing relationship that activists say could result in the formal announcement soon of a more permanent coalition. All that deeply troubles some on the far right, who believe some infringement of freedoms may be necessary to combat terrorism and who regard any liaison with liberals as consorting with the enemy. Just ask Tom DeWeese, president of the non-profit American Policy Center in Virginia, which promotes free enterprise. He said some members of his organization have blasted him for questioning recent federal counter-terrorism proposals. ``They call us traitors,'' said DeWeese, noting that conservatives ``tend to rally around the government'' during wars or other crises. While that's fine to some extent, he said, ``I'm most appalled at people who start to cower and simper in the corner and say, `Whatever it takes, let's just do it' '' . . . That's how tyranny is created.'' Conservatives aren't the only ones stunned by this alliance. ``I am struck by it,'' said Ted Wang, policy director at Chinese for Affirmative Action in San Francisco. ``We rarely find ourselves in agreement.'' But what has brought conservatives and liberals together, Wang added, is a mutual fear ``that the government is going too far in the aftermath of Sept. 11. It is taking extraordinary powers and is not accountable to the public.'' While liberals usually get the most attention for promoting civil liberties, conservatives have gotten increasingly involved in the issue in recent years. That's particularly true in the wake of the government's 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, where federal agents killed the wife and child of white separatist Randy Weaver, and the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas, where 75 people died. Liberals and conservatives have worked together before on such things as seeking redress for Japanese-Americans mistreated during World War II and complaining about authorities improperly confiscating the assets of drug dealers. Nonetheless, many activists call this latest cooperative effort remarkable. Shared statement Within days of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, more than 150 groups ranging from the far left to far right banded together as Organizations in Defense of Freedom. All of them signed a statement urging authorities ``not to erode the liberties and freedoms that are at the core of the American way of life,'' and to ``resist efforts to target people because of their race, religion, ethnic background or appearance.'' Much of their attention was initially focused on the anti-terrorism measure signed by Bush on Oct. 26. It bolstered the ability of authorities to find terrorists' assets, share information, use wiretaps, monitor e-mail or other computer data and detain immigrants suspected of terrorist activities for seven days without having to file charges. Conservatives got some provisions that had troubled them modified before it was passed. But they remain unhappy with other parts that weren't changed. The fear the law could result in everything from people having their firearms and other property confiscated to being subjected to unreasonable searches and jailed for carrying too much undeclared cash on foreign trips. To monitor how the law is put into use and guard against other worrisome proposals, such as the proposed creation of a national identification card, some activists have proposed establishing an ongoing relationship. Among those favoring this approach is Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, who said he would like to see conservative and liberal groups routinely share information via e-mail message groups or phone trees. ``A lot of us got very nervous'' when the anti-terrorism bill was introduced, Norquist said. ``The government's power is a very, very dangerous thing and it needs to be limited.'' Those concerns grew last week when President Bush issued an order allowing military tribunals to try suspected terrorists here and abroad. Those tribunals would be able to impose sentences as severe as death on a two-thirds vote, hold secret trials and rely on evidence that would be rejected in a civil court. ``It undermines the courts, obviously,'' said Tim Lynch, director of the project on criminal justice at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C. ``And it undermines Congress because it is essentially legislating action by presidential edict.'' Still, the effort at unity ``doesn't mean all of a sudden we love each other,'' said longtime conservative leader Phyllis Schlafly, or that they all view civil liberties the same way. Discomfort Although Schlafly's Eagle Forum joined Organizations in Defense of Freedom, she argues that non-citizens shouldn't have the same degree of civil liberties as citizens. And that puts her at serious odds with many of her liberal counterparts, particularly those who advocate on behalf of immigrants. Because of such differences, John Tateishi, executive director of the Japanese American Citizens League in San Francisco, said he wouldn't be surprised if the coalition doesn't last. ``I think the cliche `politics makes strange bedfellows' in some ways is very true,'' he said. But if the national obsession with terrorism fades, he added, ``I think we'll start to separate again.'' After all, ``there's probably a real discomfort among both the liberal and conservative groups to find this kind of alignment.'' S.J. may relax development rules near clogged intersections Traffic at sluggish intersections could worsen if developers are allowed to pay for amenities like landscaping instead of widening streets to handle more cars Traffic at some of San Jose's busiest intersections may be about to get worse. The city is poised to change a 23-year-old policy that bans development at intersections where delays exceed a minute. Now, delays at 139 of the city's 781 major crossroads -- nearly 20 percent -- are at or above that threshold. Tuesday, the council will consider a policy change that would let developers move ahead with their projects by paying for other improvements, such as bike lanes or shade trees for walkers, instead of street modifications, such as new lanes. The problem is that in many cases there is no room to widen streets to accommodate additional traffic. In other cases, street improvements would create gaping boulevards or involve ripping out residents' front lawns. City transportation officials acknowledge that traffic could increase markedly at some of these intersections because most of the new residents or workers drawn by the developments would be likely to drive rather than walk, bike or use public transportation. But they say the trade-off is necessary in some cases if the city is to achieve its long-term goal of allowing dense growth inside the city while preserving the hillsides. Under the proposed change, the council would stick to the original prohibition most of the time, but would have discretion to override it, said Hans Larsen, a deputy transportation director.