Monday, October 30, 2006
Iraq and Our Money Being Spent In Our Name:
NY Times Editorial: Money Down the Drain in Iraq
"When the full encyclopedia of Bush administration misfeasance in Iraq is compiled, it will have to include a lengthy section on the contracting fiascos that wasted billions of taxpayer dollars in the name of rebuilding the country. It isn’t only money that was lost. Washington’s disgraceful failure to deliver on its promises to restore electricity, water and oil distribution, and to rebuild education and health facilities, turned millions of once sympathetic Iraqis against the American presence.
Their discovery that the world’s richest, most technologically advanced country could not restore basic services to minimal prewar levels left an impression of American weakness and, worse, of indifference to the well-being of ordinary Iraqis. That further poisoned a situation already soured by White House intelligence breakdowns, military misjudgments and political blunders.
The latest contracting revelations came in a report issued Tuesday by the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The office reviewed records covering $1.3 billion out of the $18.4 billion that Congress voted for Iraq reconstruction two years ago. Reported overhead costs ran from a low of 11 percent for several contracts awarded to Lucent to a high of 55 percent for, you guessed it, the Halliburton subsidiary, KBR Inc...
...The main explanation for these excessive overhead rates turned out to be not special security costs but simply the costly down time that resulted from sending workers and equipment to Iraq months before there was any actual work for them to do. That is yet another example of the shoddy contract writing, lax oversight and absent supervision that has consistently characterized Washington’s approach to Iraq reconstruction from the start..."
NY Times Editorial: Money Down the Drain in Iraq
"When the full encyclopedia of Bush administration misfeasance in Iraq is compiled, it will have to include a lengthy section on the contracting fiascos that wasted billions of taxpayer dollars in the name of rebuilding the country. It isn’t only money that was lost. Washington’s disgraceful failure to deliver on its promises to restore electricity, water and oil distribution, and to rebuild education and health facilities, turned millions of once sympathetic Iraqis against the American presence.
Their discovery that the world’s richest, most technologically advanced country could not restore basic services to minimal prewar levels left an impression of American weakness and, worse, of indifference to the well-being of ordinary Iraqis. That further poisoned a situation already soured by White House intelligence breakdowns, military misjudgments and political blunders.
The latest contracting revelations came in a report issued Tuesday by the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The office reviewed records covering $1.3 billion out of the $18.4 billion that Congress voted for Iraq reconstruction two years ago. Reported overhead costs ran from a low of 11 percent for several contracts awarded to Lucent to a high of 55 percent for, you guessed it, the Halliburton subsidiary, KBR Inc...
...The main explanation for these excessive overhead rates turned out to be not special security costs but simply the costly down time that resulted from sending workers and equipment to Iraq months before there was any actual work for them to do. That is yet another example of the shoddy contract writing, lax oversight and absent supervision that has consistently characterized Washington’s approach to Iraq reconstruction from the start..."
Friday, October 27, 2006
Trusting The Right Of Franchise To Questionable Technology:
The Guardian (UK) - US warned of ballot box chaos as elections near
"Six years after the emergence of the now infamous 'hanging chad' in the 2000 presidential elections, monitoring groups warn that technological glitches and hackers could throw next month's mid-term elections into chaos.
With polling day less than two weeks away, a report this week by electionline.org, a non-partisan organisation, anticipates problems at the ballot box in as many as 10 states.
'Machine failures, database delays and foul-ups, inconsistent procedures, new rules and new equipment have some predicting chaos at the polls at worst, and widespread polling place snafus at best,' the report says...
...In many states, voters will be casting their votes electronically for the first time. The officials at the polling stations may be equally inexperienced, and because such workers are typically elderly and retired, critics say they may be particularly poorly equipped to deal with any technological problems.
Those concerns crystallised last month, when a Princeton professor of computer science, Edward Felton, and two colleagues managed to hack into a new electronic voting machine without detection and install a virus that could alter vote counts - and go on to infect a wider network of machines.
The exercise, which Mr Felton repeated on television, took about a minute to complete. The manufacturers of the voting machine said Mr Felton had ignored newer software and security measures that safeguard against hacking.
However, vote monitoring organisations and computer scientists have grown increasingly wary about the new voting machines, especially those that do not leave a paper trail in case it is needed for future verification..."
The Guardian (UK) - US warned of ballot box chaos as elections near
"Six years after the emergence of the now infamous 'hanging chad' in the 2000 presidential elections, monitoring groups warn that technological glitches and hackers could throw next month's mid-term elections into chaos.
With polling day less than two weeks away, a report this week by electionline.org, a non-partisan organisation, anticipates problems at the ballot box in as many as 10 states.
'Machine failures, database delays and foul-ups, inconsistent procedures, new rules and new equipment have some predicting chaos at the polls at worst, and widespread polling place snafus at best,' the report says...
...In many states, voters will be casting their votes electronically for the first time. The officials at the polling stations may be equally inexperienced, and because such workers are typically elderly and retired, critics say they may be particularly poorly equipped to deal with any technological problems.
Those concerns crystallised last month, when a Princeton professor of computer science, Edward Felton, and two colleagues managed to hack into a new electronic voting machine without detection and install a virus that could alter vote counts - and go on to infect a wider network of machines.
The exercise, which Mr Felton repeated on television, took about a minute to complete. The manufacturers of the voting machine said Mr Felton had ignored newer software and security measures that safeguard against hacking.
However, vote monitoring organisations and computer scientists have grown increasingly wary about the new voting machines, especially those that do not leave a paper trail in case it is needed for future verification..."
Thursday, October 26, 2006
On Torture:
How this flies in the face of W's repeating the lie 'We do not torture' should be obvious to anyone.
Democracy Now! Headlines for October 26, 2006
"...Report: German Intel Agents Witnessed US Torture
In Germany, the magazine Stern is reporting German intelligence officials witnessed the torture of detainees at a secret US detention center in Bosnia just weeks after the 9/11 attacks. The development is the latest to contradict the German government’s assertion it only heard of the secret prisons after the story was exposed last year. A leaked intelligence report says the German agents watched an American interrogator beat a seventy-year old prisoner with repeated rifle butts to his head. The interrogator appeared proud of his actions. One of the Germans agents reported he felt as if he had witnessed a war crime, saying: 'The Serbs ended up before the international court in The Hague for this kind of thing,'..."
The Guardian (UK) - CIA tried to silence EU on torture flights
"The CIA tried to persuade Germany to silence EU protests about the human rights record of one of America's key allies in its clandestine torture flights programme, the Guardian can reveal.
According to a secret intelligence report, the CIA offered to let Germany have access to one of its citizens, an al-Qaida suspect being held in a Moroccan cell. But the US secret agents demanded that in return, Berlin should cooperate and 'avert pressure from EU' over human rights abuses in the north African country. The report describes Morocco as a 'valuable partner in the fight against terrorism'.
The classified documents prepared for the German parliament last February make clear that Berlin did eventually get to see the detained suspect, who was arrested in Morocco in 2002 as an alleged organiser of the September 11 strikes.
He was flown from Morocco to Syria on another rendition flight. Syria offered access to the prisoner on the condition that charges were dropped against Syrian intelligence agents in Germany accused of threatening Syrian dissidents. Germany dropped the charges, but denied any link.
After the CIA offered a deal to Germany, EU countries adopted an almost universal policy of downplaying criticism of human rights records in countries where terrorist suspects have been held. They have also sidestepped questions about secret CIA flights partly because of growing evidence of their complicity.
The disclosure is among fresh revelations about how the CIA flew terrorist suspects to locations where they were tortured, and Britain's knowledge of the practice known as 'secret rendition'. They are contained in Ghost Plane, by Stephen Grey, the journalist who first revealed details of secret CIA flights in the Guardian a year ago. More than 200 CIA flights have passed through Britain, records show..."
How this flies in the face of W's repeating the lie 'We do not torture' should be obvious to anyone.
Democracy Now! Headlines for October 26, 2006
"...Report: German Intel Agents Witnessed US Torture
In Germany, the magazine Stern is reporting German intelligence officials witnessed the torture of detainees at a secret US detention center in Bosnia just weeks after the 9/11 attacks. The development is the latest to contradict the German government’s assertion it only heard of the secret prisons after the story was exposed last year. A leaked intelligence report says the German agents watched an American interrogator beat a seventy-year old prisoner with repeated rifle butts to his head. The interrogator appeared proud of his actions. One of the Germans agents reported he felt as if he had witnessed a war crime, saying: 'The Serbs ended up before the international court in The Hague for this kind of thing,'..."
The Guardian (UK) - CIA tried to silence EU on torture flights
"The CIA tried to persuade Germany to silence EU protests about the human rights record of one of America's key allies in its clandestine torture flights programme, the Guardian can reveal.
According to a secret intelligence report, the CIA offered to let Germany have access to one of its citizens, an al-Qaida suspect being held in a Moroccan cell. But the US secret agents demanded that in return, Berlin should cooperate and 'avert pressure from EU' over human rights abuses in the north African country. The report describes Morocco as a 'valuable partner in the fight against terrorism'.
The classified documents prepared for the German parliament last February make clear that Berlin did eventually get to see the detained suspect, who was arrested in Morocco in 2002 as an alleged organiser of the September 11 strikes.
He was flown from Morocco to Syria on another rendition flight. Syria offered access to the prisoner on the condition that charges were dropped against Syrian intelligence agents in Germany accused of threatening Syrian dissidents. Germany dropped the charges, but denied any link.
After the CIA offered a deal to Germany, EU countries adopted an almost universal policy of downplaying criticism of human rights records in countries where terrorist suspects have been held. They have also sidestepped questions about secret CIA flights partly because of growing evidence of their complicity.
The disclosure is among fresh revelations about how the CIA flew terrorist suspects to locations where they were tortured, and Britain's knowledge of the practice known as 'secret rendition'. They are contained in Ghost Plane, by Stephen Grey, the journalist who first revealed details of secret CIA flights in the Guardian a year ago. More than 200 CIA flights have passed through Britain, records show..."
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Would This Much Security Spending Be Needed If Local Contractors Were Doing The Work?
NY TImes: Idle Contractors Add Millions to Iraq Rebuilding
"Overhead costs have consumed more than half the budget of some reconstruction projects in Iraq, according to a government estimate released yesterday, leaving far less money than expected to provide the oil, water and electricity needed to improve the lives of Iraqis.
The report provided the first official estimate that, in some cases, more money was being spent on housing and feeding employees, completing paperwork and providing security than on actual construction.
Those overhead costs have ranged from under 20 percent to as much as 55 percent of the budgets, according to the report, by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. On similar projects in the United States, those costs generally run to a few percent.
The highest proportion of overhead was incurred in oil-facility contracts won by KBR Inc., the Halliburton subsidiary formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root, which has frequently been challenged by critics in Congress and elsewhere.
The actual costs for many projects could be even higher than the estimates, the report said, because the United States has not properly tracked how much such expenses have taken from the $18.4 billion of taxpayer-financed reconstruction approved by Congress two years ago.
The report said the prime reason was not the need to provide security, though those costs have clearly risen in the perilous environment, and are a burden that both contractors and American officials routinely blame for such increases..."
NY TImes: Idle Contractors Add Millions to Iraq Rebuilding
"Overhead costs have consumed more than half the budget of some reconstruction projects in Iraq, according to a government estimate released yesterday, leaving far less money than expected to provide the oil, water and electricity needed to improve the lives of Iraqis.
The report provided the first official estimate that, in some cases, more money was being spent on housing and feeding employees, completing paperwork and providing security than on actual construction.
Those overhead costs have ranged from under 20 percent to as much as 55 percent of the budgets, according to the report, by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. On similar projects in the United States, those costs generally run to a few percent.
The highest proportion of overhead was incurred in oil-facility contracts won by KBR Inc., the Halliburton subsidiary formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root, which has frequently been challenged by critics in Congress and elsewhere.
The actual costs for many projects could be even higher than the estimates, the report said, because the United States has not properly tracked how much such expenses have taken from the $18.4 billion of taxpayer-financed reconstruction approved by Congress two years ago.
The report said the prime reason was not the need to provide security, though those costs have clearly risen in the perilous environment, and are a burden that both contractors and American officials routinely blame for such increases..."
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Is This Why Karl Rove Isn't Worried?
With nonsense like this going on, it is even more critical for voters to check their voter registration status with their county well before election day. If citizens register to vote with someone other than a county election official, it is incumbent upon them to make sure their registration actually made it into the county clerks's hands.
Greg Palast: Recipe for a Cooked Election
"A nasty little secret of American democracy is that, in every national election, ballots cast are simply thrown in the garbage. Most are called 'spoiled,' supposedly unreadable, damaged, invalid. They just don't get counted. This 'spoilage' has occurred for decades, but it reached unprecedented heights in the last two presidential elections. In the 2004 election, for example, more than three million ballots were never counted.
Almost as deep a secret is that people are doing something about it. In New Mexico, citizen activists, disgusted by systematic vote disappearance, demanded change - and got it.
In Ohio, during the 2004 Presidential election, 153,237 ballots were simply thrown away - more than the Bush 'victory' margin. In New Mexico the uncounted vote was five times the Bush alleged victory margin of 5,988. In Iowa, Bush's triumph of 13,498 was overwhelmed by 36,811 votes rejected. The official number is bad enough - 1,855,827 ballots cast not counted, according to the federal government's Elections Assistance Commission. But the feds are missing data from several cities and entire states too embarrassed to report the votes they failed to count.
Correcting for that under-reporting, the number of ballots cast but never counted goes to 3,600,380. Why doesn't your government tell you this?..."
With nonsense like this going on, it is even more critical for voters to check their voter registration status with their county well before election day. If citizens register to vote with someone other than a county election official, it is incumbent upon them to make sure their registration actually made it into the county clerks's hands.
Greg Palast: Recipe for a Cooked Election
"A nasty little secret of American democracy is that, in every national election, ballots cast are simply thrown in the garbage. Most are called 'spoiled,' supposedly unreadable, damaged, invalid. They just don't get counted. This 'spoilage' has occurred for decades, but it reached unprecedented heights in the last two presidential elections. In the 2004 election, for example, more than three million ballots were never counted.
Almost as deep a secret is that people are doing something about it. In New Mexico, citizen activists, disgusted by systematic vote disappearance, demanded change - and got it.
In Ohio, during the 2004 Presidential election, 153,237 ballots were simply thrown away - more than the Bush 'victory' margin. In New Mexico the uncounted vote was five times the Bush alleged victory margin of 5,988. In Iowa, Bush's triumph of 13,498 was overwhelmed by 36,811 votes rejected. The official number is bad enough - 1,855,827 ballots cast not counted, according to the federal government's Elections Assistance Commission. But the feds are missing data from several cities and entire states too embarrassed to report the votes they failed to count.
Correcting for that under-reporting, the number of ballots cast but never counted goes to 3,600,380. Why doesn't your government tell you this?..."
Monday, October 23, 2006
When Convenience Trumps Security (And Common Sense):
NY Times: Researchers See Privacy Pitfalls in No-Swipe Credit Cards - New York Times
"...Tens of millions of [RFID credit] cards have been issued, and equipment for their use is showing up at a growing number of locations, including CVS pharmacies, McDonald’s restaurants and many movie theaters.
The card companies have implied through their marketing that the data is encrypted to make sure that a digital eavesdropper cannot get any intelligible information. American Express has said its cards incorporate '128-bit encryption,' and J. P. Morgan Chase has said that its cards, which it calls Blink, use 'the highest level of encryption allowed by the U.S. government.'
But in tests on 20 cards from Visa, MasterCard and American Express, the researchers here found that the cardholder’s name and other data was being transmitted without encryption and in plain text. They could skim and store the information from a card with a device the size of a couple of paperback books, which they cobbled together from readily available computer and radio components for $150.
They say they could probably make another one even smaller and cheaper: about the size of a pack of gum for less than $50..."
The Environment:
One would think that an authoriarian regime (the USSR) could have placed much more emphasis on actual welfare of its citizens in dictating that this type of situation is one that should be avoided. The currupt state of affairs in present-day Russia leaves very little hope for improvement.
BBC News: Nuclear waste poses Arctic threat
"For almost half a century, the Northern Fleet has operated two-thirds of the navy's nuclear-powered vessels.
Much of the spent fuel from these vessels has been dumped directly into the Barents and Kara seas, with the remainder placed in vastly inadequate storage.
A journey west along the Kola Peninsula's rugged Barents Sea coastline displays a natural beauty that belies the harsh realities lying hidden below the choppy surface.
About halfway between Severomorsk and the Norwegian border lies Andreeva Bay, an environmental nightmare where the waters are completely devoid of life.
Leaks from the region's largest nuclear waste storage facility mean no fish will ever swim in this fjord. Onshore, both the soil and the groundwater are badly contaminated.
On this vast site, 32 tons of highly radioactive waste with a high uranium content is stored in crumbling concrete bunkers and rusting tanks and containers - about a third of the nuclear waste mountain that can be found on the Kola Peninsula.
Most of it is spent fuel from the Northern Fleet's nuclear powered submarines, some from nuclear powered ice breakers.
And these days nobody, not even the officials in charge, suggests it is safe..."
NY Times: Researchers See Privacy Pitfalls in No-Swipe Credit Cards - New York Times
"...Tens of millions of [RFID credit] cards have been issued, and equipment for their use is showing up at a growing number of locations, including CVS pharmacies, McDonald’s restaurants and many movie theaters.
The card companies have implied through their marketing that the data is encrypted to make sure that a digital eavesdropper cannot get any intelligible information. American Express has said its cards incorporate '128-bit encryption,' and J. P. Morgan Chase has said that its cards, which it calls Blink, use 'the highest level of encryption allowed by the U.S. government.'
But in tests on 20 cards from Visa, MasterCard and American Express, the researchers here found that the cardholder’s name and other data was being transmitted without encryption and in plain text. They could skim and store the information from a card with a device the size of a couple of paperback books, which they cobbled together from readily available computer and radio components for $150.
They say they could probably make another one even smaller and cheaper: about the size of a pack of gum for less than $50..."
The Environment:
One would think that an authoriarian regime (the USSR) could have placed much more emphasis on actual welfare of its citizens in dictating that this type of situation is one that should be avoided. The currupt state of affairs in present-day Russia leaves very little hope for improvement.
BBC News: Nuclear waste poses Arctic threat
"For almost half a century, the Northern Fleet has operated two-thirds of the navy's nuclear-powered vessels.
Much of the spent fuel from these vessels has been dumped directly into the Barents and Kara seas, with the remainder placed in vastly inadequate storage.
A journey west along the Kola Peninsula's rugged Barents Sea coastline displays a natural beauty that belies the harsh realities lying hidden below the choppy surface.
About halfway between Severomorsk and the Norwegian border lies Andreeva Bay, an environmental nightmare where the waters are completely devoid of life.
Leaks from the region's largest nuclear waste storage facility mean no fish will ever swim in this fjord. Onshore, both the soil and the groundwater are badly contaminated.
On this vast site, 32 tons of highly radioactive waste with a high uranium content is stored in crumbling concrete bunkers and rusting tanks and containers - about a third of the nuclear waste mountain that can be found on the Kola Peninsula.
Most of it is spent fuel from the Northern Fleet's nuclear powered submarines, some from nuclear powered ice breakers.
And these days nobody, not even the officials in charge, suggests it is safe..."
The Right Wing's Influence:
The Huffington Post: Fox News: Increasing The Republican Vote Tally, One Viewer At A Time
"Leave it to the National Bureau of Economic Research to confirm what we've suspected all along: Fox News affects how people vote.
Per a recent post: 'The introduction of Fox News had a small but statistically significant effect on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000.' NBER's Les Picker examines 'The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting' (NBER Working Paper No. 12169) by Stefano DellaVigna and Ethan Kaplan who examine the correlations between the introduction of Fox News into cable markets and subsequent voting patterns..."
The Huffington Post: Google's New PAC Skews Republican
"Looks like Google's been watching Fox News — its new Google NetPAC, launched last month, made contributions to three Republicans congressional candidates, according to the San Jose Mercury News. The Merc's Frank Davies reports $1,000 contributions to each of Reps. Heather Wilson of New Mexico, Deborah Pryce of Ohio, and James Sensenbrenner, head of the House Judiciary Committee and sometime gavel-wielding control freak. At least two of the candidates, Wilson and Sensenbrenner, have porfolios that implicate the use and regulation of the Internet.
Three of Google's new lobbyists were drawn from Republican rankss: Jamie Brown, former legislative liaison in the Bush administration, and former GOP senators Connie Mack and Dan Coats (Davies does not mention what proportion of Google's lobbying staff that comprises). According to Davies, in the past Google executives have donated 'overwhelmingly to Democrats and liberal groups' (he also notes that Google employees skew Democratic). Google lobbyist Alan Davidson says PAC donations are intended for the building of 'long-term relationships with policy-makers' supported 'across party lines.' To that end, Google also donated $1,000 each to two Democrats candidates, Rep. Anna Eshoo* of Palo Alto (where Google HQ is located) and Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan..."
Trusting The Right Of Franchise To Questionable Technology:
More on the discs delivered to Cheryl Kagan, former Maryland Democratic legislator.
ABC News: ABC News: Electronic Voting Machines Could Skew Elections
"...Diebold, the company that makes the voting machines, told ABC News, 'These discs do not alter the security of the Diebold touch-screen system in any way,' because election workers can set their own passwords.
But ABC News has obtained an independent report commissioned by the state of Maryland and conducted by Science Applications International Corporation revealing that the original Diebold factory passwords are still being used on many voting machines.
The SAIC study also shows myriad other security flaws, including administrative over-ride passwords that cannot be changed by local officials but can be used by hackers or those who have seen the discs.
The report further states that one of the high risks to the system comes if operating code discs are lost, stolen or seen by unauthorized parties — precisely what seems to have occurred with the discs sent to Kagan, who worries that the incident indicates the secret source code is not that difficult to obtain.
'Certainly, just tweaking a few votes in a couple of states could radically change the outcome of our policies for the coming year,' she said...
...Diebold argues that the software from the 2004 elections has been updated to fix any possible security problems. But Spoonamore is not convinced, saying Diebold's 'system is utterly unsecured. The entire cyber-security community is begging them to come back to reality and secure our nation's voting.'
There is also the matter of computer glitches. In primary elections and test runs this year, there were glitches with electronic voting machines from Diebold and other companies.
Machines malfunctioned in Texas, where 100,000 votes were added.
In California, directions for voters with vision problems came out in Vietnamese.
And in Maryland, screens froze and memory cards went missing.
Gov. Robert Ehrlich, a Republican running for reelection, advised residents to vote by absentee ballot because he had no confidence in the machines.
'I don't care if we paid half a billion dollars or $1 billion,' Ehrlich said. 'If it's going to put the election at risk, there's no price tag for a phony election or a fraudulent election,'..."
The Huffington Post: Fox News: Increasing The Republican Vote Tally, One Viewer At A Time
"Leave it to the National Bureau of Economic Research to confirm what we've suspected all along: Fox News affects how people vote.
Per a recent post: 'The introduction of Fox News had a small but statistically significant effect on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000.' NBER's Les Picker examines 'The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting' (NBER Working Paper No. 12169) by Stefano DellaVigna and Ethan Kaplan who examine the correlations between the introduction of Fox News into cable markets and subsequent voting patterns..."
The Huffington Post: Google's New PAC Skews Republican
"Looks like Google's been watching Fox News — its new Google NetPAC, launched last month, made contributions to three Republicans congressional candidates, according to the San Jose Mercury News. The Merc's Frank Davies reports $1,000 contributions to each of Reps. Heather Wilson of New Mexico, Deborah Pryce of Ohio, and James Sensenbrenner, head of the House Judiciary Committee and sometime gavel-wielding control freak. At least two of the candidates, Wilson and Sensenbrenner, have porfolios that implicate the use and regulation of the Internet.
Three of Google's new lobbyists were drawn from Republican rankss: Jamie Brown, former legislative liaison in the Bush administration, and former GOP senators Connie Mack and Dan Coats (Davies does not mention what proportion of Google's lobbying staff that comprises). According to Davies, in the past Google executives have donated 'overwhelmingly to Democrats and liberal groups' (he also notes that Google employees skew Democratic). Google lobbyist Alan Davidson says PAC donations are intended for the building of 'long-term relationships with policy-makers' supported 'across party lines.' To that end, Google also donated $1,000 each to two Democrats candidates, Rep. Anna Eshoo* of Palo Alto (where Google HQ is located) and Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan..."
Trusting The Right Of Franchise To Questionable Technology:
More on the discs delivered to Cheryl Kagan, former Maryland Democratic legislator.
ABC News: ABC News: Electronic Voting Machines Could Skew Elections
"...Diebold, the company that makes the voting machines, told ABC News, 'These discs do not alter the security of the Diebold touch-screen system in any way,' because election workers can set their own passwords.
But ABC News has obtained an independent report commissioned by the state of Maryland and conducted by Science Applications International Corporation revealing that the original Diebold factory passwords are still being used on many voting machines.
The SAIC study also shows myriad other security flaws, including administrative over-ride passwords that cannot be changed by local officials but can be used by hackers or those who have seen the discs.
The report further states that one of the high risks to the system comes if operating code discs are lost, stolen or seen by unauthorized parties — precisely what seems to have occurred with the discs sent to Kagan, who worries that the incident indicates the secret source code is not that difficult to obtain.
'Certainly, just tweaking a few votes in a couple of states could radically change the outcome of our policies for the coming year,' she said...
...Diebold argues that the software from the 2004 elections has been updated to fix any possible security problems. But Spoonamore is not convinced, saying Diebold's 'system is utterly unsecured. The entire cyber-security community is begging them to come back to reality and secure our nation's voting.'
There is also the matter of computer glitches. In primary elections and test runs this year, there were glitches with electronic voting machines from Diebold and other companies.
Machines malfunctioned in Texas, where 100,000 votes were added.
In California, directions for voters with vision problems came out in Vietnamese.
And in Maryland, screens froze and memory cards went missing.
Gov. Robert Ehrlich, a Republican running for reelection, advised residents to vote by absentee ballot because he had no confidence in the machines.
'I don't care if we paid half a billion dollars or $1 billion,' Ehrlich said. 'If it's going to put the election at risk, there's no price tag for a phony election or a fraudulent election,'..."
Saturday, October 21, 2006
NYT Readers Respond To The Death Of Habeas Corpus:
The collective yawn with which much of America reacted to the Military Commissions Act becoming law was shamefully blasé. The readers' opinions below are examples of exceptions. The notion that one fallable human being can declare a U.S. citizen to be an 'enemy combatant,' subject to torture and arbitrary detention, would surely have been deemed spectacularly problematic by the Founding Fathers.
Letter To The NY Times: Bush, the Prisoners and Our Rights (7 Letters)
The collective yawn with which much of America reacted to the Military Commissions Act becoming law was shamefully blasé. The readers' opinions below are examples of exceptions. The notion that one fallable human being can declare a U.S. citizen to be an 'enemy combatant,' subject to torture and arbitrary detention, would surely have been deemed spectacularly problematic by the Founding Fathers.
Letter To The NY Times: Bush, the Prisoners and Our Rights (7 Letters)
The Distorter In Chief:
What Bush, and others like him, fail to mention is that by the time Reagan came into office, the USSR was already functionally bankrupt, as a result of JFK’s commitment to ‘close the missile gap’ and Carter continuing to spend money on missiles, missile-subs, etc. Reagan knew this, Team B knew it too, but they still pushed for additional (unnecessary) contracts for their defense contractor friends in the South. This was pure political payback for their campaign-cash-contributing cronies. A splendid example of cheating the taxpayer, while pontificating on the virtues of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty.’
The Raw Story: Bush claims Democratic Party's 'philosophical shift' began in Cold War era
"During a speech delivered at a National Republican Senatorial Committee reception, President George Bush suggested that a 'philosophical shift' by the Democratic Party began in the Cold War era, stating that the party at that time gave up the war against communism and backed away from beliefs in 'the power of liberty and freedom,'...
...'Fortunately, in the 1980s, America had a Republican president who saw things differently,' Bush said. 'Ronald Reagan declared, 'My theory of the Cold War is that we win and they lose,''..."
What Bush, and others like him, fail to mention is that by the time Reagan came into office, the USSR was already functionally bankrupt, as a result of JFK’s commitment to ‘close the missile gap’ and Carter continuing to spend money on missiles, missile-subs, etc. Reagan knew this, Team B knew it too, but they still pushed for additional (unnecessary) contracts for their defense contractor friends in the South. This was pure political payback for their campaign-cash-contributing cronies. A splendid example of cheating the taxpayer, while pontificating on the virtues of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty.’
The Raw Story: Bush claims Democratic Party's 'philosophical shift' began in Cold War era
"During a speech delivered at a National Republican Senatorial Committee reception, President George Bush suggested that a 'philosophical shift' by the Democratic Party began in the Cold War era, stating that the party at that time gave up the war against communism and backed away from beliefs in 'the power of liberty and freedom,'...
...'Fortunately, in the 1980s, America had a Republican president who saw things differently,' Bush said. 'Ronald Reagan declared, 'My theory of the Cold War is that we win and they lose,''..."
Electronic Voting:
Washington Post: Officials Probing Possible Theft of Voting Software in Maryland
"The FBI is investigating the possible theft of software developed by the nation's leading maker of electronic voting equipment, said a former Maryland legislator who this week received three computer disks that apparently contain key portions of programs created by Diebold Election Systems.
Cheryl C. Kagan, a former Democratic delegate who has long questioned the security of electronic voting systems, said the disks were delivered anonymously to her office in Olney on Tuesday and that the FBI contacted her yesterday. The package contained an unsigned letter critical of Maryland State Board of Elections Administrator Linda H. Lamone that said the disks were 'right from SBE' and had been 'accidentally picked up.'
Lamone's deputy, Ross Goldstein, said 'they were not our disks,' but he acknowledged that the software was used in Maryland in the 2004 elections. Diebold said in a statement last night that it had never created or received the disks.
The disks bear the logos of two testing companies that send such disks to the Maryland board after using the software to conduct tests on Diebold equipment. A Ciber Inc. spokeswoman said the disks had not come from Ciber, and Wyle Laboratories Inc. said it was not missing any disks.
Diebold spokesman Mark Radke and Goldstein said that the labels on the disks referred to versions of the software that are no longer in use in Maryland, although the Diebold statement said the version of one program apparently stored on the disks is still in use in 'a limited number of jurisdictions' and is protected by encryption. The statement also said the FBI is investigating the disks' chain of custody.
Michelle Crnkovich, an FBI spokeswoman in Baltimore, said she had no knowledge of an investigation.
In an unrelated development, Maryland state auditors said in a report yesterday that the State Board of Elections is not properly controlling access to a new statewide database of registered voters or verifying what changes are made to it. The report comes at a time of heightened concern over the security and effectiveness of electronic voting systems.
Legislative auditor Bruce Myers said it was unusual to allow 'across-the-board access' by local election officials to a sensitive database, but Lamone defended the board's practices. In a letter released with the Office of Legislative Audits report, she wrote that the board 'is unaware of any allegations of the falsification of additions or deletions to the system.'
The FBI investigation into the disks could focus further scrutiny on the security of Maryland's electronic voting system.
The disks delivered to Kagan's office bear labels indicating that they hold 'source code' - the instructions that constitute the core of a software program - for Diebold's Ballot Station and Global Election Management System (GEMS) programs. The former guides the operation of the company's touch-screen voting machines; the latter is in part a tabulation program used to tally votes after an election.
Three years ago, Diebold was embarrassed when an activist obtained some of its confidential software by searching the Internet. The company vowed to improve its security procedures to prevent another lapse.
The release of such software poses a risk, computer scientists say, because it could allow someone to discover security vulnerabilities or to write a virus that could be used to manipulate election results.
In September, computer scientists at Princeton University who had obtained a Diebold voting machine demonstrated how a program they had created could secretly alter the votes cast on the machine. Diebold President Dave Byrd called the demonstration 'unrealistic and inaccurate' and said it ignored the 'physical security' measures used to safeguard voting machines.
The Washington Post obtained copies of the disks Wednesday and allowed Avi Rubin, a computer scientist at Johns Hopkins University, along with a colleague and a graduate student, to review the software on the condition that they make no copies of it.
'I would be stunned if it's not real,' Rubin said.
Rubin, who has said that electronic voting systems that do not produce a paper record of each vote cannot be secured, led a team that produced an analysis that pointed out security vulnerabilities in the Diebold software found on the Internet in 2003.
Sam Small, the graduate student, said the version of Ballot Station 'was consistent with what we've seen previously.' Small could not gain access to the GEMS software because the material on two of the disks was protected by a password.
Radke, the Diebold spokesman, said the versions of Ballot Station released since the version identified on the disks have many new security features. The Diebold statement said 'it would take years for a knowledgeable scientist' to break the encryption used on the software apparently contained on the disks delivered to Kagan. But Rubin said 'the data and files were not encrypted' on the Ballot Station disk he reviewed..."
Team Bush's Approach To Mine Safety, Or Allowing The Fox To Watch The Henhouse:
The Charleston Gazette: Bush Names Mining Chief Twice Rejected by Senate
"President Bush on Thursday went around the US Senate to put a longtime coal industry official in charge of the federal agency that regulates mine safety.
Bush waited until the Senate had recessed for next month's election, and re-nominated West Virginia native Richard Stickler to be assistant secretary of labor in charge of the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
Twice this year, the Senate sent Stickler's nomination back to the White House without a vote, citing opposition from the United Mine Workers and other safety advocates, along with this year's spike in coal-mining deaths.
'It's certainly been a long process for me,' Stickler said in a phone call with reporters. 'And at this time, I'm just happy to have the opportunity.'
Senate Democrats were furious.
Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia said, 'The sad reality of the Bush administration's actions is that the person who will now lead MSHA lacks the trust of the miners he's charged to protect and has a skewed view of what the safety priorities should be.
'We need a bulldog agency that will place miner safety over all other priorities, and not an agency that will continue to place a higher priority on mine production than on miner protection,' Byrd said.
Under the recess appointment, Stickler would likely be able to remain in the MSHA post - without Senate approval - until the end of 2007..."
Washington Post: Officials Probing Possible Theft of Voting Software in Maryland
"The FBI is investigating the possible theft of software developed by the nation's leading maker of electronic voting equipment, said a former Maryland legislator who this week received three computer disks that apparently contain key portions of programs created by Diebold Election Systems.
Cheryl C. Kagan, a former Democratic delegate who has long questioned the security of electronic voting systems, said the disks were delivered anonymously to her office in Olney on Tuesday and that the FBI contacted her yesterday. The package contained an unsigned letter critical of Maryland State Board of Elections Administrator Linda H. Lamone that said the disks were 'right from SBE' and had been 'accidentally picked up.'
Lamone's deputy, Ross Goldstein, said 'they were not our disks,' but he acknowledged that the software was used in Maryland in the 2004 elections. Diebold said in a statement last night that it had never created or received the disks.
The disks bear the logos of two testing companies that send such disks to the Maryland board after using the software to conduct tests on Diebold equipment. A Ciber Inc. spokeswoman said the disks had not come from Ciber, and Wyle Laboratories Inc. said it was not missing any disks.
Diebold spokesman Mark Radke and Goldstein said that the labels on the disks referred to versions of the software that are no longer in use in Maryland, although the Diebold statement said the version of one program apparently stored on the disks is still in use in 'a limited number of jurisdictions' and is protected by encryption. The statement also said the FBI is investigating the disks' chain of custody.
Michelle Crnkovich, an FBI spokeswoman in Baltimore, said she had no knowledge of an investigation.
In an unrelated development, Maryland state auditors said in a report yesterday that the State Board of Elections is not properly controlling access to a new statewide database of registered voters or verifying what changes are made to it. The report comes at a time of heightened concern over the security and effectiveness of electronic voting systems.
Legislative auditor Bruce Myers said it was unusual to allow 'across-the-board access' by local election officials to a sensitive database, but Lamone defended the board's practices. In a letter released with the Office of Legislative Audits report, she wrote that the board 'is unaware of any allegations of the falsification of additions or deletions to the system.'
The FBI investigation into the disks could focus further scrutiny on the security of Maryland's electronic voting system.
The disks delivered to Kagan's office bear labels indicating that they hold 'source code' - the instructions that constitute the core of a software program - for Diebold's Ballot Station and Global Election Management System (GEMS) programs. The former guides the operation of the company's touch-screen voting machines; the latter is in part a tabulation program used to tally votes after an election.
Three years ago, Diebold was embarrassed when an activist obtained some of its confidential software by searching the Internet. The company vowed to improve its security procedures to prevent another lapse.
The release of such software poses a risk, computer scientists say, because it could allow someone to discover security vulnerabilities or to write a virus that could be used to manipulate election results.
In September, computer scientists at Princeton University who had obtained a Diebold voting machine demonstrated how a program they had created could secretly alter the votes cast on the machine. Diebold President Dave Byrd called the demonstration 'unrealistic and inaccurate' and said it ignored the 'physical security' measures used to safeguard voting machines.
The Washington Post obtained copies of the disks Wednesday and allowed Avi Rubin, a computer scientist at Johns Hopkins University, along with a colleague and a graduate student, to review the software on the condition that they make no copies of it.
'I would be stunned if it's not real,' Rubin said.
Rubin, who has said that electronic voting systems that do not produce a paper record of each vote cannot be secured, led a team that produced an analysis that pointed out security vulnerabilities in the Diebold software found on the Internet in 2003.
Sam Small, the graduate student, said the version of Ballot Station 'was consistent with what we've seen previously.' Small could not gain access to the GEMS software because the material on two of the disks was protected by a password.
Radke, the Diebold spokesman, said the versions of Ballot Station released since the version identified on the disks have many new security features. The Diebold statement said 'it would take years for a knowledgeable scientist' to break the encryption used on the software apparently contained on the disks delivered to Kagan. But Rubin said 'the data and files were not encrypted' on the Ballot Station disk he reviewed..."
Team Bush's Approach To Mine Safety, Or Allowing The Fox To Watch The Henhouse:
The Charleston Gazette: Bush Names Mining Chief Twice Rejected by Senate
"President Bush on Thursday went around the US Senate to put a longtime coal industry official in charge of the federal agency that regulates mine safety.
Bush waited until the Senate had recessed for next month's election, and re-nominated West Virginia native Richard Stickler to be assistant secretary of labor in charge of the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
Twice this year, the Senate sent Stickler's nomination back to the White House without a vote, citing opposition from the United Mine Workers and other safety advocates, along with this year's spike in coal-mining deaths.
'It's certainly been a long process for me,' Stickler said in a phone call with reporters. 'And at this time, I'm just happy to have the opportunity.'
Senate Democrats were furious.
Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia said, 'The sad reality of the Bush administration's actions is that the person who will now lead MSHA lacks the trust of the miners he's charged to protect and has a skewed view of what the safety priorities should be.
'We need a bulldog agency that will place miner safety over all other priorities, and not an agency that will continue to place a higher priority on mine production than on miner protection,' Byrd said.
Under the recess appointment, Stickler would likely be able to remain in the MSHA post - without Senate approval - until the end of 2007..."
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
On Torture:
LA Times: Marine Corps Issues Gag Order in Detainee Abuse Case
"The U.S. Marine Corps has threatened to punish two members of the military legal team representing a terrorism suspect being held at Guantanamo Bay if they continue to speak publicly about reported prisoner abuse, a civilian lawyer from the defense team said Saturday.
The action directed at Lt. Col. Colby Vokey and Sgt. Heather Cerveny follows their report last week that Guantanamo guards bragged about beating detainees, said Muneer Ahmad, an American University law professor who assists in the defense of Canadian suspect Omar Khadr.
The order has heightened fears among the military defense lawyers for Guantanamo prisoners that their careers will suffer for exposing flaws and injustices in the system, Ahmad said.
'In one fell swoop, the government is gagging a defense lawyer and threatening retaliation against a whistle-blower,' Ahmad said. 'It really points out what is wrong with the detainee legislation that Bush is scheduled to sign on Tuesday: It permits the abuse of detainees to continue, immunizes the wrongdoers and precludes the detainees from ever challenging it in court,'..."
Targeting Iran:
Democracy Now! - Scott Ritter on 'Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change'
"AMY GOODMAN: What do you think is the key to understand about Iran right now, about the U.S., well, about your title targeting -- Target Iran?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, the most important thing is to understand the reality that Iran is squarely in the crosshairs as a target of the Bush administration, in particular, as a target of the Bush administration as it deals -- as it relates to the National Security Strategy of the United States. You see, this isn’t a hypothetical debate among political analysts, foreign policy specialists. Read the 2006 version of the National Security Strategy, where Iran is named sixteen times as the number one threat to the national security of the United States of America, because in the same document, it embraces the notion of pre-emptive wars of aggression as a legitimate means of dealing with such threats. It also recertifies the Bush administration doctrine of regional transformation globally, but in this case particularly in the Middle East. So, we’re not talking about hypotheticals here, regardless of all the discussion the Bush administration would like you to believe there is about diplomacy. There is no diplomacy, as was the case with Iraq. Diplomacy is but a smokescreen to disguise the ultimate objective of regime change.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the difference in approach the U.S. takes to North Korea, which has, according to their own reports, set off a nuclear bomb, and Iran?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, the only thing that the Bush administration’s approach towards North Korea and the Bush administration’s approach towards Iran have in common is that the endgame is regime change. Other than that, what you see -- I guess the other thing they have in common is the total incoherence of their approach. Look, North Korea and Iran, you can’t compare; it’s apples and oranges.
North Korea is a declared nuclear power. They even declared their intent to have nuclear weapons. They haven’t hidden this from anybody. They withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in total conformity with the rule of law. They put the world on notice. They said, we will not participate. They gave them the appropriate timeline. They invited the inspectors out. And then, surprise, surprise, despite the fact that the Bush administration said, 'Well, they’re just bluffing,' well, they’re not bluffing. They just popped one off. And guess what. If we continue to push North Korea irresponsibly -- because again, what are we talking about here?
What do we want to achieve in North Korea? Do we really care about the North Korean people, want human rights to -- no, regime change. This is all about regime change. This is about the United States being able to dictate the terms of coexistence with everybody else in the world. Do people understand that our policy towards China is regime change? Do they understand what the ramifications of that is? That’s what’s going on with North Korea. And we shouldn’t be surprised that they did exactly what they said they were going to do.
Now, we take Iran. Iran is a nation that says, 'We don’t have a nuclear weapons program. We have no intention.' In fact, when North Korea exploded their device, the Iranians condemned it. They said nuclear weapons cannot be part of a global equation. And yet, we continue to try and lump them together as if North Korea and Iran are part and parcel of the same policy. Well, maybe they are part and parcel of the same incoherent approach that the Bush administration has taken to dealing with nuclear proliferation..."
LA Times: Marine Corps Issues Gag Order in Detainee Abuse Case
"The U.S. Marine Corps has threatened to punish two members of the military legal team representing a terrorism suspect being held at Guantanamo Bay if they continue to speak publicly about reported prisoner abuse, a civilian lawyer from the defense team said Saturday.
The action directed at Lt. Col. Colby Vokey and Sgt. Heather Cerveny follows their report last week that Guantanamo guards bragged about beating detainees, said Muneer Ahmad, an American University law professor who assists in the defense of Canadian suspect Omar Khadr.
The order has heightened fears among the military defense lawyers for Guantanamo prisoners that their careers will suffer for exposing flaws and injustices in the system, Ahmad said.
'In one fell swoop, the government is gagging a defense lawyer and threatening retaliation against a whistle-blower,' Ahmad said. 'It really points out what is wrong with the detainee legislation that Bush is scheduled to sign on Tuesday: It permits the abuse of detainees to continue, immunizes the wrongdoers and precludes the detainees from ever challenging it in court,'..."
Targeting Iran:
Democracy Now! - Scott Ritter on 'Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change'
"AMY GOODMAN: What do you think is the key to understand about Iran right now, about the U.S., well, about your title targeting -- Target Iran?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, the most important thing is to understand the reality that Iran is squarely in the crosshairs as a target of the Bush administration, in particular, as a target of the Bush administration as it deals -- as it relates to the National Security Strategy of the United States. You see, this isn’t a hypothetical debate among political analysts, foreign policy specialists. Read the 2006 version of the National Security Strategy, where Iran is named sixteen times as the number one threat to the national security of the United States of America, because in the same document, it embraces the notion of pre-emptive wars of aggression as a legitimate means of dealing with such threats. It also recertifies the Bush administration doctrine of regional transformation globally, but in this case particularly in the Middle East. So, we’re not talking about hypotheticals here, regardless of all the discussion the Bush administration would like you to believe there is about diplomacy. There is no diplomacy, as was the case with Iraq. Diplomacy is but a smokescreen to disguise the ultimate objective of regime change.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the difference in approach the U.S. takes to North Korea, which has, according to their own reports, set off a nuclear bomb, and Iran?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, the only thing that the Bush administration’s approach towards North Korea and the Bush administration’s approach towards Iran have in common is that the endgame is regime change. Other than that, what you see -- I guess the other thing they have in common is the total incoherence of their approach. Look, North Korea and Iran, you can’t compare; it’s apples and oranges.
North Korea is a declared nuclear power. They even declared their intent to have nuclear weapons. They haven’t hidden this from anybody. They withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in total conformity with the rule of law. They put the world on notice. They said, we will not participate. They gave them the appropriate timeline. They invited the inspectors out. And then, surprise, surprise, despite the fact that the Bush administration said, 'Well, they’re just bluffing,' well, they’re not bluffing. They just popped one off. And guess what. If we continue to push North Korea irresponsibly -- because again, what are we talking about here?
What do we want to achieve in North Korea? Do we really care about the North Korean people, want human rights to -- no, regime change. This is all about regime change. This is about the United States being able to dictate the terms of coexistence with everybody else in the world. Do people understand that our policy towards China is regime change? Do they understand what the ramifications of that is? That’s what’s going on with North Korea. And we shouldn’t be surprised that they did exactly what they said they were going to do.
Now, we take Iran. Iran is a nation that says, 'We don’t have a nuclear weapons program. We have no intention.' In fact, when North Korea exploded their device, the Iranians condemned it. They said nuclear weapons cannot be part of a global equation. And yet, we continue to try and lump them together as if North Korea and Iran are part and parcel of the same policy. Well, maybe they are part and parcel of the same incoherent approach that the Bush administration has taken to dealing with nuclear proliferation..."
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Targeting Iran:
Let's recall that it was Rep. Hoekstra who pushed for a recent House Intelligence Commitee report on Iran's Nuclear capabilities that drew strong criticism from the IAEA as being erroneus and flawed.
Raw Story: Intelligence laundry: To Paris again
"Senior Member of Congress met with Front Man for Arms Dealer, Sources Say
The Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), has recently held meetings in Paris with a front man working for Iranian arms dealer and Iran-Contra figure Manucher Ghorbanifar, US and foreign intelligence sources tell RAW STORY...
...One source says they believe the meeting to be part of a larger campaign to allegedly create and launder falsified intelligence by planting it with key publications and individuals abroad, in hopes that it will seep back into official American channels as though it were legitimate information, collected by allied intelligence organizations. Such a campaign of disinformation, if it exists, would be difficult to track, precisely because it is designed to mask its origins through other channels.
While other sources could not definitely confirm this aspect of the story, they indicated that they were not surprised by the possibility, identifying the "cooking" of pre-war intelligence on Iraq as an earlier example of such a campaign..."
Let's recall that it was Rep. Hoekstra who pushed for a recent House Intelligence Commitee report on Iran's Nuclear capabilities that drew strong criticism from the IAEA as being erroneus and flawed.
Raw Story: Intelligence laundry: To Paris again
"Senior Member of Congress met with Front Man for Arms Dealer, Sources Say
The Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), has recently held meetings in Paris with a front man working for Iranian arms dealer and Iran-Contra figure Manucher Ghorbanifar, US and foreign intelligence sources tell RAW STORY...
...One source says they believe the meeting to be part of a larger campaign to allegedly create and launder falsified intelligence by planting it with key publications and individuals abroad, in hopes that it will seep back into official American channels as though it were legitimate information, collected by allied intelligence organizations. Such a campaign of disinformation, if it exists, would be difficult to track, precisely because it is designed to mask its origins through other channels.
While other sources could not definitely confirm this aspect of the story, they indicated that they were not surprised by the possibility, identifying the "cooking" of pre-war intelligence on Iraq as an earlier example of such a campaign..."
Sunday, October 15, 2006
The Rule Of Law:
Is this an example providing due process being 'too expensive' as John Yoo says?
AP: 1 Man Still Locked Up From 9/11 Sweeps
"In a jail cell at an immigration detention center in Arizona sits a man who is not charged with a crime, not suspected of a crime, not considered a danger to society.
But he has been in custody for five years.
His name is Ali Partovi. And according to the Department of Homeland Security, he is the last to be held of about 1,200 Arab and Muslim men swept up by authorities in the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks..."
Energy Market Deregulation
...is about increasing profits rather than creating an environment of increased competition. Why else would Enron have been pushing so hard for this in Texas, and everywhere else? Regulated energy systems are reliable, but also costly to maintain, affecting profits.
NY Times: Competitive Era Fails to Shrink Electric Bills
"A decade after competition was introduced in their industries, long-distance phone rates had fallen by half, air fares by more than a fourth and trucking rates by a fourth. But a decade after the federal government opened the business of generating electricity to competition, the market has produced no such decline...
...About 40 percent of all electricity customers — those in 23 states and the District of Columbia where new competition was approved — mostly paid modestly lower prices over the past decade. But those savings were primarily because states, which continue to have some rate-setting power, imposed cuts, freezes and caps at the behest of consumer groups that wanted to insulate customers from any initial price swings..."
The Environment:
NY Times Editorial: Science Ignored, Again
"The Bush administration loves to talk about the virtues of 'sound science,' by which it usually means science that buttresses its own political agenda. But when some truly independent science comes along to threaten that agenda, the administration often ignores or minimizes it. The latest example involves the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to reject the recommendations of experts inside and outside the government who had urged a significant tightening of federal standards regulating the amount of soot in the air..."
Is this an example providing due process being 'too expensive' as John Yoo says?
AP: 1 Man Still Locked Up From 9/11 Sweeps
"In a jail cell at an immigration detention center in Arizona sits a man who is not charged with a crime, not suspected of a crime, not considered a danger to society.
But he has been in custody for five years.
His name is Ali Partovi. And according to the Department of Homeland Security, he is the last to be held of about 1,200 Arab and Muslim men swept up by authorities in the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks..."
Energy Market Deregulation
...is about increasing profits rather than creating an environment of increased competition. Why else would Enron have been pushing so hard for this in Texas, and everywhere else? Regulated energy systems are reliable, but also costly to maintain, affecting profits.
NY Times: Competitive Era Fails to Shrink Electric Bills
"A decade after competition was introduced in their industries, long-distance phone rates had fallen by half, air fares by more than a fourth and trucking rates by a fourth. But a decade after the federal government opened the business of generating electricity to competition, the market has produced no such decline...
...About 40 percent of all electricity customers — those in 23 states and the District of Columbia where new competition was approved — mostly paid modestly lower prices over the past decade. But those savings were primarily because states, which continue to have some rate-setting power, imposed cuts, freezes and caps at the behest of consumer groups that wanted to insulate customers from any initial price swings..."
The Environment:
NY Times Editorial: Science Ignored, Again
"The Bush administration loves to talk about the virtues of 'sound science,' by which it usually means science that buttresses its own political agenda. But when some truly independent science comes along to threaten that agenda, the administration often ignores or minimizes it. The latest example involves the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to reject the recommendations of experts inside and outside the government who had urged a significant tightening of federal standards regulating the amount of soot in the air..."
Friday, October 13, 2006
Perverting The Right To Petition Government:
None of this would be possible without the twin notions of money being equal to speech, and corporations having the right of 'personhood.' This combination yields a potent means to outlobby anything that serves the public interest, as in this example of unabashed quid pro quo (read: bribery).
Washington Post: Senate Report: Abramoff, Norquist 'Perpetrated a Fraud' on Taxpayers
"Five conservative nonprofit organizations, including one run by prominent Republican Grover Norquist, 'appear to have perpetrated a fraud' on taxpayers by selling their clout to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Senate investigators said in a report issued yesterday.
The report includes previously unreleased e-mails between the now-disgraced lobbyist and officers of the nonprofit groups, showing that Abramoff funneled money from his clients to the groups. In exchange, the groups, among other things, produced ostensibly independent newspaper op-ed columns or news releases that favored the clients' positions.
Officers of the groups 'were generally available to carry out Mr. Abramoff's requests for help with his clients in exchange for cash payments,' said the report, issued by the Senate Finance Committee. The report was written by the Democratic staff after a yearlong investigation and authorized by the Republican chairman, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).
Abramoff has pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy and could go to prison as early as next month. Prosecution and defense lawyers jointly filed papers yesterday asking a judge to recommend that he be sent to a federal facility in Cumberland, Md., to make it easier for him to cooperate with the ongoing probe. The investigation has resulted in one conviction and seven guilty pleas -- including one from a lawmaker, Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), who is to appear today before a federal judge in the District.
The Senate report released yesterday states that the nonprofit groups probably violated their tax-exempt status 'by laundering payments and then disbursing funds at Mr. Abramoff's direction; taking payments in exchange for writing newspaper columns or press releases that put Mr. Abramoff's clients in a favorable light; introducing Mr. Abramoff's clients to government officials in exchange for payment; and agreeing to act as a front organization for congressional trips paid for by Mr. Abramoff's clients.'
The report bolstered earlier revelations that Abramoff laundered money through the nonprofits to pay for congressional trips and paid Norquist to arrange meetings for Abramoff's clients with government officials including White House senior adviser Karl Rove.
The groups named in the report are Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform; the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, which was co-founded by Norquist and Gale Norton before she became secretary of the interior; Citizens Against Government Waste; the National Center for Public Policy Research, a spinoff of the Heritage Foundation; and Toward Tradition, a Seattle-based religious group founded by Rabbi Daniel Lapin..."
Iraq:
After these comments, how long with this man keep his job?
BBC News: General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal
"The head of the British Army has said the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq 'exacerbates the security problems,'..."
None of this would be possible without the twin notions of money being equal to speech, and corporations having the right of 'personhood.' This combination yields a potent means to outlobby anything that serves the public interest, as in this example of unabashed quid pro quo (read: bribery).
Washington Post: Senate Report: Abramoff, Norquist 'Perpetrated a Fraud' on Taxpayers
"Five conservative nonprofit organizations, including one run by prominent Republican Grover Norquist, 'appear to have perpetrated a fraud' on taxpayers by selling their clout to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Senate investigators said in a report issued yesterday.
The report includes previously unreleased e-mails between the now-disgraced lobbyist and officers of the nonprofit groups, showing that Abramoff funneled money from his clients to the groups. In exchange, the groups, among other things, produced ostensibly independent newspaper op-ed columns or news releases that favored the clients' positions.
Officers of the groups 'were generally available to carry out Mr. Abramoff's requests for help with his clients in exchange for cash payments,' said the report, issued by the Senate Finance Committee. The report was written by the Democratic staff after a yearlong investigation and authorized by the Republican chairman, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).
Abramoff has pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy and could go to prison as early as next month. Prosecution and defense lawyers jointly filed papers yesterday asking a judge to recommend that he be sent to a federal facility in Cumberland, Md., to make it easier for him to cooperate with the ongoing probe. The investigation has resulted in one conviction and seven guilty pleas -- including one from a lawmaker, Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), who is to appear today before a federal judge in the District.
The Senate report released yesterday states that the nonprofit groups probably violated their tax-exempt status 'by laundering payments and then disbursing funds at Mr. Abramoff's direction; taking payments in exchange for writing newspaper columns or press releases that put Mr. Abramoff's clients in a favorable light; introducing Mr. Abramoff's clients to government officials in exchange for payment; and agreeing to act as a front organization for congressional trips paid for by Mr. Abramoff's clients.'
The report bolstered earlier revelations that Abramoff laundered money through the nonprofits to pay for congressional trips and paid Norquist to arrange meetings for Abramoff's clients with government officials including White House senior adviser Karl Rove.
The groups named in the report are Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform; the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, which was co-founded by Norquist and Gale Norton before she became secretary of the interior; Citizens Against Government Waste; the National Center for Public Policy Research, a spinoff of the Heritage Foundation; and Toward Tradition, a Seattle-based religious group founded by Rabbi Daniel Lapin..."
Iraq:
After these comments, how long with this man keep his job?
BBC News: General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal
"The head of the British Army has said the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq 'exacerbates the security problems,'..."
Thursday, October 12, 2006
North Korea:
Robert Parry: Moon, North Korea & the Bushes
"Given the nuclear crisis involving North Korea, we are republishing, with minor revisions, this six-year-old article about millions of dollars allegedly funneled from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon - The Washington Times founder and a Bush family financial backer - to leaders of North Korea's communist dictatorship in the 1990s..."
The Rule Of Law:
Keith Olbermann: Why Does Habeas Corpus Hate America
Robert Parry: Moon, North Korea & the Bushes
"Given the nuclear crisis involving North Korea, we are republishing, with minor revisions, this six-year-old article about millions of dollars allegedly funneled from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon - The Washington Times founder and a Bush family financial backer - to leaders of North Korea's communist dictatorship in the 1990s..."
The Rule Of Law:
Keith Olbermann: Why Does Habeas Corpus Hate America
Ignoring Front Page News:
One always must inquire as to who benefits from a news blackout...
Media Matters: Network newscasts comply with White House declaration that '[n]othing more will come from' resignation of Susan Ralston, a Bush aide with ties to Abramoff
"Newscasts on the three major television networks have completely ignored the resignation of Susan Ralston, a key aide to White House senior adviser Karl Rove, soon after a congressional report disclosed Ralston's alleged connections to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and receipt of numerous tickets to sporting events and concerts from Abramoff. The story appeared on the front page of The Washington Post and The New York Times on October 7. The Post article included a quote from White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino, who stated that, following Ralston's resignation, 'Nothing more will come from the [congressional] report, no further fallout from the report.' But the news of Ralston's departure -- as well as the White House's purporting to wash its hands of the matter -- has gone unreported on ABC, NBC, and CBS, including weekend and morning programming, according to a Media Matters for America review..."
Iraq:
Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail: US Military 'Turns Blind Eye to Killings'
"This little-known city 50 kilometers northeast of Baghdad is emerging as one of the fiercest hotbeds of resistance in Iraq, with internecine violence escalating amid widespread complaints that the US military is deliberately turning a blind eye to sectarian killings committed by government security forces.
A political leader in the city said: 'The Iraqi people have complained to everyone, but naturally no one will do anything about it. We know who is in charge and who is responsible and eventually who is to be damned. It is the government of the United States of America.'
The local leader, speaking from his home in Baquba, said the situation in the area was becoming dire: 'The worst is the direct participation of the national security forces in criminal acts, and the US Army's sudden disappearance from the scene as soon as those murderers show up,' he said. Many have been killed, and hundreds arrested in Diyala province, he said..."
Destroy Your Career By Standing Up For The Rule Of Law:
The Navy's action is not only reprehensible, but sends a clear message to the numerous remaining JAG Corps. officers who share the concerns of Lt. Cmdr. Swift.
New York Times Editorial: The Cost of Doing Your Duty
"In 2003, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift was assigned to represent Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen accused of being a high-ranking member of Al Qaeda — for the sole purpose of getting him to plead guilty before one of the military commissions that President Bush created for Guantánamo Bay. Instead of carrying out this morally repugnant task, Commander Swift concluded that the commissions were unconstitutional. He did his duty and defended his client. The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in June that the tribunals violated American law as well as the Geneva Conventions.
The Navy responded by killing his military career. About two weeks after the historic high court victory in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Commander Swift was told he was being denied a promotion. Under the Navy’s up-or-out system, that spelled the end of his 20-year career, and Commander Swift said last week that he will be retiring in March or April...
...With his defense of Mr. Hamdan and his testimony before Congress starting in July 2003, Commander Swift did as much as any single individual to expose the awful wrongs of Guantánamo Bay and Mr. Bush’s lawless military commissions. It was a valuable public service and a brave act of conscience, and his treatment is deeply troubling.
The law creating military tribunals for terror suspects, passed by Congress in a pre-election panic, leaves enormous room for the continued abuse of prisoners and for the continued detention of scores of men who committed no crime. If their military lawyers are afraid to represent them vigorously, their hopes for justice dim even further.
The Navy gave no reason for refusing Commander Swift’s promotion. But there is no denying the chilling message it sends to remaining military lawyers about the potential consequences of taking their job, and justice, seriously."
One always must inquire as to who benefits from a news blackout...
Media Matters: Network newscasts comply with White House declaration that '[n]othing more will come from' resignation of Susan Ralston, a Bush aide with ties to Abramoff
"Newscasts on the three major television networks have completely ignored the resignation of Susan Ralston, a key aide to White House senior adviser Karl Rove, soon after a congressional report disclosed Ralston's alleged connections to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and receipt of numerous tickets to sporting events and concerts from Abramoff. The story appeared on the front page of The Washington Post and The New York Times on October 7. The Post article included a quote from White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino, who stated that, following Ralston's resignation, 'Nothing more will come from the [congressional] report, no further fallout from the report.' But the news of Ralston's departure -- as well as the White House's purporting to wash its hands of the matter -- has gone unreported on ABC, NBC, and CBS, including weekend and morning programming, according to a Media Matters for America review..."
Iraq:
Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail: US Military 'Turns Blind Eye to Killings'
"This little-known city 50 kilometers northeast of Baghdad is emerging as one of the fiercest hotbeds of resistance in Iraq, with internecine violence escalating amid widespread complaints that the US military is deliberately turning a blind eye to sectarian killings committed by government security forces.
A political leader in the city said: 'The Iraqi people have complained to everyone, but naturally no one will do anything about it. We know who is in charge and who is responsible and eventually who is to be damned. It is the government of the United States of America.'
The local leader, speaking from his home in Baquba, said the situation in the area was becoming dire: 'The worst is the direct participation of the national security forces in criminal acts, and the US Army's sudden disappearance from the scene as soon as those murderers show up,' he said. Many have been killed, and hundreds arrested in Diyala province, he said..."
Destroy Your Career By Standing Up For The Rule Of Law:
The Navy's action is not only reprehensible, but sends a clear message to the numerous remaining JAG Corps. officers who share the concerns of Lt. Cmdr. Swift.
New York Times Editorial: The Cost of Doing Your Duty
"In 2003, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift was assigned to represent Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen accused of being a high-ranking member of Al Qaeda — for the sole purpose of getting him to plead guilty before one of the military commissions that President Bush created for Guantánamo Bay. Instead of carrying out this morally repugnant task, Commander Swift concluded that the commissions were unconstitutional. He did his duty and defended his client. The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in June that the tribunals violated American law as well as the Geneva Conventions.
The Navy responded by killing his military career. About two weeks after the historic high court victory in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Commander Swift was told he was being denied a promotion. Under the Navy’s up-or-out system, that spelled the end of his 20-year career, and Commander Swift said last week that he will be retiring in March or April...
...With his defense of Mr. Hamdan and his testimony before Congress starting in July 2003, Commander Swift did as much as any single individual to expose the awful wrongs of Guantánamo Bay and Mr. Bush’s lawless military commissions. It was a valuable public service and a brave act of conscience, and his treatment is deeply troubling.
The law creating military tribunals for terror suspects, passed by Congress in a pre-election panic, leaves enormous room for the continued abuse of prisoners and for the continued detention of scores of men who committed no crime. If their military lawyers are afraid to represent them vigorously, their hopes for justice dim even further.
The Navy gave no reason for refusing Commander Swift’s promotion. But there is no denying the chilling message it sends to remaining military lawyers about the potential consequences of taking their job, and justice, seriously."
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Iraq:
W took a question about the report below today, citing it as 'not credible.' What would be 'credible'? A report that still says that 30,000 Iraqis have perished, the same nonsense figure he uttered some months ago?
Reuters: Study estimates 655,000 Iraqi deaths due to invasion: "American and Iraqi public health experts have calculated that about 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion and subsequent violence, far above previous estimates.
Researchers used household interviews rather than body counts to estimate how many more Iraqis had died because of the war than used to die annually in peacetime.
'We estimate that as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March 18, 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation,' said Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the United States.
That means 2.5 percent of the Iraqi population have died because of the invasion and ensuing strife, he said.
The team's study, published online by the medical journal The Lancet, estimated pre-war deaths in Iraq at 143,000 a year, and said Iraq's death rate is now 2-1/2 times that of the pre-war period..."
W took a question about the report below today, citing it as 'not credible.' What would be 'credible'? A report that still says that 30,000 Iraqis have perished, the same nonsense figure he uttered some months ago?
Reuters: Study estimates 655,000 Iraqi deaths due to invasion: "American and Iraqi public health experts have calculated that about 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion and subsequent violence, far above previous estimates.
Researchers used household interviews rather than body counts to estimate how many more Iraqis had died because of the war than used to die annually in peacetime.
'We estimate that as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March 18, 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation,' said Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the United States.
That means 2.5 percent of the Iraqi population have died because of the invasion and ensuing strife, he said.
The team's study, published online by the medical journal The Lancet, estimated pre-war deaths in Iraq at 143,000 a year, and said Iraq's death rate is now 2-1/2 times that of the pre-war period..."
Monday, October 09, 2006
On Torture:
Reuters: Guards Describe Guantanamo Prisoner Abuse
"...Guantanamo guards described physically and mentally abusing detainees, including slamming one's head into a cell door and denying them privileges merely to anger them, a U.S. Marine said in a document made public on Friday.
'Examples of this abuse included hitting detainees, denying them water, and removal of privileges for no reason,' the Marine Corps sergeant stated in a sworn affidavit sent to the Pentagon's inspector general's office for investigation.
The affidavit, signed on Wednesday, was provided by lawyers representing some of the approximately 455 foreign terrorism suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It represents the latest in a series of allegations of abuse of Guantanamo detainees by U.S. personnel.
The name of the sergeant, a female paralegal in a detainee criminal case, was blacked out. The sergeant described an hourlong conversation with guards at a bar at the base on September 23, but the affidavit mentioned only the first names of those accused of taking part in the abuse.
U.S. Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand, a spokesman for the military task force running the Guantanamo facility, said: 'The mission of the Joint Task Force is the safe and humane care and custody of detained enemy combatants. Abuse or harassment of detainees in any form is not condoned or tolerated.'
'The Joint Task Force will cooperate fully with the inspector general to learn the facts of the matter and will take action where misconduct is discovered,' Durand added by e-mail.
A Navy sailor named Bo told of beating detainees. 'One such story Bo told involved him taking a detainee by the head and hitting the detainee's head into the cell door,' the sergeant wrote, adding that Bo stated that others at Guantanamo knew of his actions and did not punish him.
A guard named Steven said that even when the conduct of detainees was good, guards would take away personal items. 'He said they do this to anger the detainees so they can punish them when they object or complain,' she stated..."
30,000 On The Wrong List?
AP: Report: Thousands Wrongly on Terror List
"Thousands of people have been mistakenly linked to names on terror watch lists when they crossed the border, boarded commercial airliners or were stopped for traffic violations, a government report said Friday.
More than 30,000 airline passengers have asked just one agency - the Transportation Security Administration - to have their names cleared from the lists, according to the Government Accountability Office report.
Hundreds of millions of people each year are screened against the lists by Customs and Border Protection, the State Department and state and local law enforcement agencies. The lists include names of people suspected of terrorism or of possibly having links to terrorist activity.
'Misidentifications can lead to delays, intensive questioning and searches, missed flights or denied entry at the border,' the report said. 'Whether appropriate relief is being afforded these individuals is still an open question.'
When questions arose about tens of thousands of names between December 2003 and January 2006, the names were sent back to the agencies that put them on the lists, the GAO said. Half of those were found to be misidentified, the report found.
In December 2003, disparate agencies with counterterrorism responsibilities consolidated dozens of watch lists of known or suspected terrorists into the new Terrorist Screening Center run by the FBI.
People are considered 'misidentified' if they are matched to the database and then, upon further examination, are found not to match. They are usually misidentified because they have the same name as someone in the database.
People are considered 'mistakenly listed' if they were put on the list in error or if they should no longer be included on the list because of subsequent events, the report said...'
Jack Who?
...is now the retort of those well-connected to and heavily influenced by K Street lobbyists.
NY Times Editorial: The White House and Mr. Abramoff
"...The White House has consistently played down the ties key officials like Karl Rove had with Mr. Abramoff, who pleaded guilty last January to conspiring to bribe public officials. But the administration has declined to publicly provide detailed answers or grant full access to relevant documents needed to establish the truth.
A newly released report, prepared with unusual bipartisan backing by the House Government Reform Committee, paints a different reality. It reveals that between January 2001 and March 2004, Mr. Abramoff and members of his staff had some 485 contacts with key White House officials, including at least 10 direct contacts between Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Rove. Billing records and e-mail messages unearthed by the committee indicate that Mr. Abramoff and his colleagues spent nearly $25,000 on meals and tickets for White House officials.
The report belies Mr. Rove’s description of Mr. Abramoff as merely a 'casual acquaintance.' An assistant to Mr. Rove, Susan Ralston, who resigned on Friday, had formerly worked for Mr. Abramoff. The report suggests that she sought Mr. Abramoff’s help to obtain seats for Mr. Rove and his aides at popular sporting events, and often acted as a conduit, passing messages between the lobbyist and top White House officials, including Mr. Rove and Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee who was then a senior White House political strategist..."
Globalization & the Environment
NY Times Editorial: An African Dumping Ground
"...As reported in Monday’s Times by Lydia Polgreen and Marlise Simons, the waste — a fuming mix of petrochemicals and caustic soda — that started out in the Mediterranean and ended up in Africa could have been safely disposed of earlier in its journey. But Trafigura, the Swiss trading company that leased the tanker, balked at paying European prices. Instead, 85,000 people ended up seeking medical treatment, and at least eight have died.
The details and legal responsibilities are still being sorted out. But the lesson is plain. Without strict, and strictly enforced, international rules on waste disposal, dangerous cargoes will find the course of least resistance, least cost, and least regulation, scarring the lives of some of the world’s poorest, worst governed and most defenseless people.
This story began in July, when a Greek-owned Panamanian-flagged tanker, leased by Trafigura, stopped in Amsterdam and attempted to unload its waste. That fell through when a Dutch company that had contracted to do the job for $15,000 found far more noxious material in the ship’s hold than it had been led to believe. Completing safe disposal there would instead cost $300,000, plus perhaps as much again in delays.
That sent Trafigura looking for cheaper alternatives. But for a company that had revenues of $28 billion last year, it was not a prohibitive price — especially considering what happened. The ship moved on to several more ports, ending up in Abidjan, where Trafigura hired a local disposal company that did the nocturnal backyard dumping.
Trafigura says the Ivoirian authorities told it that the local company could do the job safely. If that is true, those officials were recklessly incompetent. In any case, a stronger system of international regulations — backed up by a threat of fines or other penalties — might have forced Trafigura to think twice about whom it was hiring.
Unless such regulations are tightened and reliably enforced, the sick and the dead in Ivory Coast will have suffered for nothing. And the whole story will soon be repeated in some other country where costs are low, rules are slack, and, as an inevitable result, human life is cheap."
Reuters: Guards Describe Guantanamo Prisoner Abuse
"...Guantanamo guards described physically and mentally abusing detainees, including slamming one's head into a cell door and denying them privileges merely to anger them, a U.S. Marine said in a document made public on Friday.
'Examples of this abuse included hitting detainees, denying them water, and removal of privileges for no reason,' the Marine Corps sergeant stated in a sworn affidavit sent to the Pentagon's inspector general's office for investigation.
The affidavit, signed on Wednesday, was provided by lawyers representing some of the approximately 455 foreign terrorism suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It represents the latest in a series of allegations of abuse of Guantanamo detainees by U.S. personnel.
The name of the sergeant, a female paralegal in a detainee criminal case, was blacked out. The sergeant described an hourlong conversation with guards at a bar at the base on September 23, but the affidavit mentioned only the first names of those accused of taking part in the abuse.
U.S. Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand, a spokesman for the military task force running the Guantanamo facility, said: 'The mission of the Joint Task Force is the safe and humane care and custody of detained enemy combatants. Abuse or harassment of detainees in any form is not condoned or tolerated.'
'The Joint Task Force will cooperate fully with the inspector general to learn the facts of the matter and will take action where misconduct is discovered,' Durand added by e-mail.
A Navy sailor named Bo told of beating detainees. 'One such story Bo told involved him taking a detainee by the head and hitting the detainee's head into the cell door,' the sergeant wrote, adding that Bo stated that others at Guantanamo knew of his actions and did not punish him.
A guard named Steven said that even when the conduct of detainees was good, guards would take away personal items. 'He said they do this to anger the detainees so they can punish them when they object or complain,' she stated..."
30,000 On The Wrong List?
AP: Report: Thousands Wrongly on Terror List
"Thousands of people have been mistakenly linked to names on terror watch lists when they crossed the border, boarded commercial airliners or were stopped for traffic violations, a government report said Friday.
More than 30,000 airline passengers have asked just one agency - the Transportation Security Administration - to have their names cleared from the lists, according to the Government Accountability Office report.
Hundreds of millions of people each year are screened against the lists by Customs and Border Protection, the State Department and state and local law enforcement agencies. The lists include names of people suspected of terrorism or of possibly having links to terrorist activity.
'Misidentifications can lead to delays, intensive questioning and searches, missed flights or denied entry at the border,' the report said. 'Whether appropriate relief is being afforded these individuals is still an open question.'
When questions arose about tens of thousands of names between December 2003 and January 2006, the names were sent back to the agencies that put them on the lists, the GAO said. Half of those were found to be misidentified, the report found.
In December 2003, disparate agencies with counterterrorism responsibilities consolidated dozens of watch lists of known or suspected terrorists into the new Terrorist Screening Center run by the FBI.
People are considered 'misidentified' if they are matched to the database and then, upon further examination, are found not to match. They are usually misidentified because they have the same name as someone in the database.
People are considered 'mistakenly listed' if they were put on the list in error or if they should no longer be included on the list because of subsequent events, the report said...'
Jack Who?
...is now the retort of those well-connected to and heavily influenced by K Street lobbyists.
NY Times Editorial: The White House and Mr. Abramoff
"...The White House has consistently played down the ties key officials like Karl Rove had with Mr. Abramoff, who pleaded guilty last January to conspiring to bribe public officials. But the administration has declined to publicly provide detailed answers or grant full access to relevant documents needed to establish the truth.
A newly released report, prepared with unusual bipartisan backing by the House Government Reform Committee, paints a different reality. It reveals that between January 2001 and March 2004, Mr. Abramoff and members of his staff had some 485 contacts with key White House officials, including at least 10 direct contacts between Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Rove. Billing records and e-mail messages unearthed by the committee indicate that Mr. Abramoff and his colleagues spent nearly $25,000 on meals and tickets for White House officials.
The report belies Mr. Rove’s description of Mr. Abramoff as merely a 'casual acquaintance.' An assistant to Mr. Rove, Susan Ralston, who resigned on Friday, had formerly worked for Mr. Abramoff. The report suggests that she sought Mr. Abramoff’s help to obtain seats for Mr. Rove and his aides at popular sporting events, and often acted as a conduit, passing messages between the lobbyist and top White House officials, including Mr. Rove and Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee who was then a senior White House political strategist..."
Globalization & the Environment
NY Times Editorial: An African Dumping Ground
"...As reported in Monday’s Times by Lydia Polgreen and Marlise Simons, the waste — a fuming mix of petrochemicals and caustic soda — that started out in the Mediterranean and ended up in Africa could have been safely disposed of earlier in its journey. But Trafigura, the Swiss trading company that leased the tanker, balked at paying European prices. Instead, 85,000 people ended up seeking medical treatment, and at least eight have died.
The details and legal responsibilities are still being sorted out. But the lesson is plain. Without strict, and strictly enforced, international rules on waste disposal, dangerous cargoes will find the course of least resistance, least cost, and least regulation, scarring the lives of some of the world’s poorest, worst governed and most defenseless people.
This story began in July, when a Greek-owned Panamanian-flagged tanker, leased by Trafigura, stopped in Amsterdam and attempted to unload its waste. That fell through when a Dutch company that had contracted to do the job for $15,000 found far more noxious material in the ship’s hold than it had been led to believe. Completing safe disposal there would instead cost $300,000, plus perhaps as much again in delays.
That sent Trafigura looking for cheaper alternatives. But for a company that had revenues of $28 billion last year, it was not a prohibitive price — especially considering what happened. The ship moved on to several more ports, ending up in Abidjan, where Trafigura hired a local disposal company that did the nocturnal backyard dumping.
Trafigura says the Ivoirian authorities told it that the local company could do the job safely. If that is true, those officials were recklessly incompetent. In any case, a stronger system of international regulations — backed up by a threat of fines or other penalties — might have forced Trafigura to think twice about whom it was hiring.
Unless such regulations are tightened and reliably enforced, the sick and the dead in Ivory Coast will have suffered for nothing. And the whole story will soon be repeated in some other country where costs are low, rules are slack, and, as an inevitable result, human life is cheap."
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Not Serving The Public Interest As Best They Could...
...but would ADM, CIT, PacificLife, British Petroleum, Toyota and other corporate sponsors of the program still write the checks? When the business office tells the editorial office what or what not to broadcast, it's no longer legitimate journalism.
Fairnes And Accuracy In Reporting: Study Finds Lack of Balance, Diversity, Public at PBS NewsHour
"The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS's flagship news program, touts its 'signature style—low-key, evenhanded, inclusive of all perspectives'; Corporation for Public Broadcasting ombud Ken Bode called it "the mother ship of balance." But a new FAIR study finds that the NewsHour fails to provide either balance or diversity of perspectives—or a true public-minded alternative to its corporate competition.
To evaluate the NewsHour's evenhandedness and commitment to the public interest, Extra! studied its guestlist during the six-month period spanning October 2005 through March 2006.
Among the most prominent findings:
* Public interest groups accounted for just 4 percent of total sources. General public—"person in the street," workers, students— accounted for only 14 percent, while current and former government and military officials totaled 50 percent of all sources.
* Male sources outnumbered women by more than 4-to-1 (82 percent to 18 percent). Moreover, 72 percent of U.S. guests were white males, while just 6 percent were women of color.
* People of color made up only 15 percent of U.S. sources. African-Americans made up 9 percent, Latinos 2 percent, and Asian- Americans and people of Mideastern descent made up one percent each. Alberto Gonzales accounted for more than 30 percent of Latino sources, while Condoleeza Rice accounted for nearly 13 percent of African-American sources.
* Among partisan sources, Republicans outnumbered Democrats on the NewsHour by 2-to-1 (66 percent vs. 33 percent). Only one representative of a third party appeared during the study period.
* At a time when a large proportion of the U.S. public already favored withdrawal from Iraq, "stay the course" sources outnumbered pro-withdrawal sources more than 5-to-1. In the entire six months studied, not a single peace activist was heard on the NewsHour on the subject of Iraq.
* Segments on Hurricane Katrina accounted for less than 10 percent of all sources, but provided nearly half (46 percent) of all African-American sources during the study period. Those African-Americans were largely presented as victims rather than leaders or experts: In segments on the human impact of the storm, African-Americans made up 51 percent of sources, but in reconstruction segments, whites dominated with 72 percent of sources; 59 percent of all African-American sources across Katrina segments were general public sources.
The findings confirmed the results of FAIR's 1990 study of the NewsHour, which found that the PBS news program offered less diversity than ABC's Nightline.
PBS's editorial guidelines emphasize that "the surest road to intellectual stagnation and social isolation is to stifle the expression of uncommon ideas." With at least 15 years on that road, the NewsHour has utterly failed the public it exists to serve."
...but would ADM, CIT, PacificLife, British Petroleum, Toyota and other corporate sponsors of the program still write the checks? When the business office tells the editorial office what or what not to broadcast, it's no longer legitimate journalism.
Fairnes And Accuracy In Reporting: Study Finds Lack of Balance, Diversity, Public at PBS NewsHour
"The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS's flagship news program, touts its 'signature style—low-key, evenhanded, inclusive of all perspectives'; Corporation for Public Broadcasting ombud Ken Bode called it "the mother ship of balance." But a new FAIR study finds that the NewsHour fails to provide either balance or diversity of perspectives—or a true public-minded alternative to its corporate competition.
To evaluate the NewsHour's evenhandedness and commitment to the public interest, Extra! studied its guestlist during the six-month period spanning October 2005 through March 2006.
Among the most prominent findings:
* Public interest groups accounted for just 4 percent of total sources. General public—"person in the street," workers, students— accounted for only 14 percent, while current and former government and military officials totaled 50 percent of all sources.
* Male sources outnumbered women by more than 4-to-1 (82 percent to 18 percent). Moreover, 72 percent of U.S. guests were white males, while just 6 percent were women of color.
* People of color made up only 15 percent of U.S. sources. African-Americans made up 9 percent, Latinos 2 percent, and Asian- Americans and people of Mideastern descent made up one percent each. Alberto Gonzales accounted for more than 30 percent of Latino sources, while Condoleeza Rice accounted for nearly 13 percent of African-American sources.
* Among partisan sources, Republicans outnumbered Democrats on the NewsHour by 2-to-1 (66 percent vs. 33 percent). Only one representative of a third party appeared during the study period.
* At a time when a large proportion of the U.S. public already favored withdrawal from Iraq, "stay the course" sources outnumbered pro-withdrawal sources more than 5-to-1. In the entire six months studied, not a single peace activist was heard on the NewsHour on the subject of Iraq.
* Segments on Hurricane Katrina accounted for less than 10 percent of all sources, but provided nearly half (46 percent) of all African-American sources during the study period. Those African-Americans were largely presented as victims rather than leaders or experts: In segments on the human impact of the storm, African-Americans made up 51 percent of sources, but in reconstruction segments, whites dominated with 72 percent of sources; 59 percent of all African-American sources across Katrina segments were general public sources.
The findings confirmed the results of FAIR's 1990 study of the NewsHour, which found that the PBS news program offered less diversity than ABC's Nightline.
PBS's editorial guidelines emphasize that "the surest road to intellectual stagnation and social isolation is to stifle the expression of uncommon ideas." With at least 15 years on that road, the NewsHour has utterly failed the public it exists to serve."
Friday, October 06, 2006
Our (Fleeting) Constitutional Rights:
AP: 6th Circuit allows warrantless surveillance to continue for now
"The Bush administration may continue its warrantless surveillance program while it appeals a judge's ruling that the program is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.
The president says the program is needed in the war on terrorism; opponents say it oversteps constitutional boundaries on free speech, privacy and executive powers.
The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allows the program to continue during the appeal, which could take months.
In their brief order in ACLU v. National Security Agency, the judges said they balanced the likelihood of success of an appeal, the potential damage to either side and the public interest.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit challenging the program in January, says it hopes for a ruling by the end of the year.
'We are confident that when the 6th Circuit addresses the merits of this case, it will agree that warrantless wiretapping of Americans violates the law and is unconstitutional,' Melissa Goodman, an ACLU attorney, said in a news release.
Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino said the president viewed the program as critical to preventing terrorist attacks..."
AP: 6th Circuit allows warrantless surveillance to continue for now
"The Bush administration may continue its warrantless surveillance program while it appeals a judge's ruling that the program is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.
The president says the program is needed in the war on terrorism; opponents say it oversteps constitutional boundaries on free speech, privacy and executive powers.
The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allows the program to continue during the appeal, which could take months.
In their brief order in ACLU v. National Security Agency, the judges said they balanced the likelihood of success of an appeal, the potential damage to either side and the public interest.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit challenging the program in January, says it hopes for a ruling by the end of the year.
'We are confident that when the 6th Circuit addresses the merits of this case, it will agree that warrantless wiretapping of Americans violates the law and is unconstitutional,' Melissa Goodman, an ACLU attorney, said in a news release.
Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino said the president viewed the program as critical to preventing terrorist attacks..."
The Rule of Law Is Too Expensive To Apply To All Humans Under U.S. Control:
DailyKos is quoting Steve Inskeep's Morning Edition (NPR) interview with John Yoo, who served as a deputy assistant attorney general from 2001 to 2003.
Daily Kos: John Yoo: Habeas Corpus COSTS TOO MUCH MONEY
"[John Yoo:] There's no perfect system. I agree, Steve, that there's always the chance that there will be people who are detained who are not enemy combatants. The same is true of our criminal justice system... that's why we have all these processes, that's why we have all these appeal levels, is to try and correct any mistakes that were made and fix errors. (processes in the criminal justice system, not the military commission system. Nice bit of attempted conflation there -ed.)
Inskeep: You said 'always a chance.' Isn't it a certainty, especially given that some cases have already been found to be, almost indisputably, cases of people who were innocent, being held at Guantanamo for a long time and held elsewhere?
Yoo: I would say yes, in wartime, there's always people who are going to be picked up...
Inskeep: Do you, as a lawyer, who's worked for the Bush Administration and obviously thought about these issues, think that this law does everything possible to prevent error?
Yoo: I think we could probably do a lot more, but it'd be a lot more expensive. I think what we have here is something close to the civilian sytem.
Inskeep: (shaking his head until his eyes bugged out, I'm assuming) Are you saying it would be too expensive to give habeas corpus protection to non-citizens?
Yoo: Yeah, I think that's what Congress decided when they passed this law last week (see, it's CONGRESS arguing this, not me! -ed.) is that, you could have the possibility of hundreds and hundreds of habeas corpus proceedings, and they do impose a cost. They impose a cost on our judicial system, they impose a cost on our government and our military. Think about it, you'd have to pull witnesses in from abroad. You have the cost of potentially releasing classified information. All of this process does have a cost on our system, it's not free."
DailyKos is quoting Steve Inskeep's Morning Edition (NPR) interview with John Yoo, who served as a deputy assistant attorney general from 2001 to 2003.
Daily Kos: John Yoo: Habeas Corpus COSTS TOO MUCH MONEY
"[John Yoo:] There's no perfect system. I agree, Steve, that there's always the chance that there will be people who are detained who are not enemy combatants. The same is true of our criminal justice system... that's why we have all these processes, that's why we have all these appeal levels, is to try and correct any mistakes that were made and fix errors. (processes in the criminal justice system, not the military commission system. Nice bit of attempted conflation there -ed.)
Inskeep: You said 'always a chance.' Isn't it a certainty, especially given that some cases have already been found to be, almost indisputably, cases of people who were innocent, being held at Guantanamo for a long time and held elsewhere?
Yoo: I would say yes, in wartime, there's always people who are going to be picked up...
Inskeep: Do you, as a lawyer, who's worked for the Bush Administration and obviously thought about these issues, think that this law does everything possible to prevent error?
Yoo: I think we could probably do a lot more, but it'd be a lot more expensive. I think what we have here is something close to the civilian sytem.
Inskeep: (shaking his head until his eyes bugged out, I'm assuming) Are you saying it would be too expensive to give habeas corpus protection to non-citizens?
Yoo: Yeah, I think that's what Congress decided when they passed this law last week (see, it's CONGRESS arguing this, not me! -ed.) is that, you could have the possibility of hundreds and hundreds of habeas corpus proceedings, and they do impose a cost. They impose a cost on our judicial system, they impose a cost on our government and our military. Think about it, you'd have to pull witnesses in from abroad. You have the cost of potentially releasing classified information. All of this process does have a cost on our system, it's not free."
Thursday, October 05, 2006
The First Amendment And Dick Cheney's Tolerance For Public Criticism:
Democracy Now! - Denver Man Sues Secret Service for Arrest After He Criticized Cheney on Iraq War
"...AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Why don't you explain exactly what happened? What day was it?
STEVEN HOWARDS: I think it was the middle of June, and I was in Beaver Creek, Colorado, with my two kids, accompanying them to a piano camp. And that morning, I had read about the deaths, the rising death toll in Iraq. And who walks by me, but Mr. Cheney. And to be honest, I couldn't resist the temptation. So I approached Mr. Cheney and told him that I thought his policies in Iraq were absolutely reprehensible.
AMY GOODMAN: Just one sec. He, by himself, walked by you in a mall? Vice President Dick Cheney?
STEVEN HOWARDS: Well, you know, yes. There was apparently -- Gerald Ford has an annual kind of get-together of political VIPs, if you will, that -- I don't know -- discuss world issues. And I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to cross Mr. Cheney. Mr. Cheney was actually going across an outdoor mall, kind of a pedestrian mall, in Beaver Creek, Colorado. And there were lots of Secret Service agents, but he was walking through, taking some time, shaking hands. There were probably more Secret Service agents there than there were members of Joe Public. But I, you know, I waited my turn, and I walked up to Mr. Cheney, and I told him what I thought. And then I quickly exited, because I didn't want to create a scene or give anyone opportunity to cause me any problems.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, what happened next?
STEVEN HOWARDS: Well, I then continued on, took my child to piano camp, came back about ten minutes later, because if you know this area, you've got to pass through the same area. And I was approached by a Secret Service agent, who accused me of assaulting the Vice President. My eight-year-old son was standing next to me at that point in time. His exact words were, “Did you assault the Vice President?” And I said, “No, I didn't. But I did tell him the way I felt about the war in Iraq, and if Mr. Cheney wanted to be shielded from public criticism, he should avoid public places.”
And I closed by telling the agent that if freedom of speech was against the law, he should arrest me, at which point he grabbed me, cuffed my hands behind my back and started carting me across the mall. I stopped and told him I could not abandon my eight-year-old son in the middle of a public mall, at which point he responded, “We'll call Social Services.” Fortunately, on the way out, we passed my wife, who -- my son was with my wife. He had run off in terror. He wouldn't even talk, he was so scared.
They took me to jail, with my hands cuffed behind my back for three hours. The Secret Service agent told my wife, myself and anyone else that would listen that I was being charged with assaulting the Vice President. Those charges were later reduced to harassment. And two weeks later or three weeks later, the charges were dismissed altogether.
AMY GOODMAN: What happened to you during that time? During that two weeks, did other people see you being arrested? Did they know who you were?
STEVEN HOWARDS: Oh, yeah. Oh, absolutely. No, it was a scene. I was treated as though I was a convict, like criminal. It was horrifying for my kids. And so we waited for a few weeks. Actually, we left. We were going on vacation. We left a few days later. This actually happened two days before Father's Day, so it was quite a memorable Father's Day, as you can imagine. We left a few days later for our vacation, and we got back. In the mail, there was a notice that the charges had been dismissed. Apparently, the Secret Service had come to my office and to try to see me, and they would not leave their names. It was very Gestapo-ish, I must say. But I never returned their calls, and I have no reason why they came to my place of work. And that's it.
AMY GOODMAN: And why have you decided to sue the government now?
STEVEN HOWARDS: You know, because it's such a transparent attempt to suppress free speech. You know, we view the suppression of free speech and -- my family, we view the suppression of free speech and the assault that this administration has made on our constitutional rights to free speech as a greater threat to the future of this country than Osama bin Laden ever will be. You know, first this administration argued that if you criticize their policies, you were in fact providing support to people like Osama bin Laden. You were boosting the threat to national security. Then they suggested that if you oppose their policies, you were actually equivalent to a Nazi sympathizer.
You know, the nation is united on the need to fight terror. That's not an issue. The question is, the issue is how this administration has gone about choosing to do that. And lots of people are very upset about that.
And now, the administration has forged the final link by suggesting that if you exercise your constitutional rights to free speech in opposing this administration's policies in Iraq, you are therefore posing a threat to national security and subject to arrest. And I don't know about the rest of America, but I find that thought and that logic, that twisted logic, absolutely terrifying. So we brought the lawsuit to really expose this issue and to raise the question of, do we in fact still live in a free nation, where people are free to express their opposition to government policies?..."
Democracy Now! - Denver Man Sues Secret Service for Arrest After He Criticized Cheney on Iraq War
"...AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Why don't you explain exactly what happened? What day was it?
STEVEN HOWARDS: I think it was the middle of June, and I was in Beaver Creek, Colorado, with my two kids, accompanying them to a piano camp. And that morning, I had read about the deaths, the rising death toll in Iraq. And who walks by me, but Mr. Cheney. And to be honest, I couldn't resist the temptation. So I approached Mr. Cheney and told him that I thought his policies in Iraq were absolutely reprehensible.
AMY GOODMAN: Just one sec. He, by himself, walked by you in a mall? Vice President Dick Cheney?
STEVEN HOWARDS: Well, you know, yes. There was apparently -- Gerald Ford has an annual kind of get-together of political VIPs, if you will, that -- I don't know -- discuss world issues. And I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to cross Mr. Cheney. Mr. Cheney was actually going across an outdoor mall, kind of a pedestrian mall, in Beaver Creek, Colorado. And there were lots of Secret Service agents, but he was walking through, taking some time, shaking hands. There were probably more Secret Service agents there than there were members of Joe Public. But I, you know, I waited my turn, and I walked up to Mr. Cheney, and I told him what I thought. And then I quickly exited, because I didn't want to create a scene or give anyone opportunity to cause me any problems.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, what happened next?
STEVEN HOWARDS: Well, I then continued on, took my child to piano camp, came back about ten minutes later, because if you know this area, you've got to pass through the same area. And I was approached by a Secret Service agent, who accused me of assaulting the Vice President. My eight-year-old son was standing next to me at that point in time. His exact words were, “Did you assault the Vice President?” And I said, “No, I didn't. But I did tell him the way I felt about the war in Iraq, and if Mr. Cheney wanted to be shielded from public criticism, he should avoid public places.”
And I closed by telling the agent that if freedom of speech was against the law, he should arrest me, at which point he grabbed me, cuffed my hands behind my back and started carting me across the mall. I stopped and told him I could not abandon my eight-year-old son in the middle of a public mall, at which point he responded, “We'll call Social Services.” Fortunately, on the way out, we passed my wife, who -- my son was with my wife. He had run off in terror. He wouldn't even talk, he was so scared.
They took me to jail, with my hands cuffed behind my back for three hours. The Secret Service agent told my wife, myself and anyone else that would listen that I was being charged with assaulting the Vice President. Those charges were later reduced to harassment. And two weeks later or three weeks later, the charges were dismissed altogether.
AMY GOODMAN: What happened to you during that time? During that two weeks, did other people see you being arrested? Did they know who you were?
STEVEN HOWARDS: Oh, yeah. Oh, absolutely. No, it was a scene. I was treated as though I was a convict, like criminal. It was horrifying for my kids. And so we waited for a few weeks. Actually, we left. We were going on vacation. We left a few days later. This actually happened two days before Father's Day, so it was quite a memorable Father's Day, as you can imagine. We left a few days later for our vacation, and we got back. In the mail, there was a notice that the charges had been dismissed. Apparently, the Secret Service had come to my office and to try to see me, and they would not leave their names. It was very Gestapo-ish, I must say. But I never returned their calls, and I have no reason why they came to my place of work. And that's it.
AMY GOODMAN: And why have you decided to sue the government now?
STEVEN HOWARDS: You know, because it's such a transparent attempt to suppress free speech. You know, we view the suppression of free speech and -- my family, we view the suppression of free speech and the assault that this administration has made on our constitutional rights to free speech as a greater threat to the future of this country than Osama bin Laden ever will be. You know, first this administration argued that if you criticize their policies, you were in fact providing support to people like Osama bin Laden. You were boosting the threat to national security. Then they suggested that if you oppose their policies, you were actually equivalent to a Nazi sympathizer.
You know, the nation is united on the need to fight terror. That's not an issue. The question is, the issue is how this administration has gone about choosing to do that. And lots of people are very upset about that.
And now, the administration has forged the final link by suggesting that if you exercise your constitutional rights to free speech in opposing this administration's policies in Iraq, you are therefore posing a threat to national security and subject to arrest. And I don't know about the rest of America, but I find that thought and that logic, that twisted logic, absolutely terrifying. So we brought the lawsuit to really expose this issue and to raise the question of, do we in fact still live in a free nation, where people are free to express their opposition to government policies?..."
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Scrutinizing The Foreign Press:
As if we need a better idea about which U.S. policies upset world opinion?
NY Times: Software Being Developed to Monitor Opinions of U.S.
"A consortium of major universities, using Homeland Security Department money, is developing software that would let the government monitor negative opinions of the United States or its leaders in newspapers and other publications overseas.
Such a 'sentiment analysis' is intended to identify potential threats to the nation, security officials said...
...American officials have long relied on newspapers and other news sources to track events and opinions here and abroad, a goal that has included the routine translation of articles from many foreign publications and news services.
The new software would allow much more rapid and comprehensive monitoring of the global news media, as the Homeland Security Department and, perhaps, intelligence agencies look 'to identify common patterns from numerous sources of information which might be indicative of potential threats to the nation,' a statement by the department said...
...Even the basic research has raised concern among journalism advocates and privacy groups, as well as representatives of the foreign news media.
'It is just creepy and Orwellian,' said Lucy Dalglish, a lawyer and former editor who is executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Andrei Sitov, Washington bureau chief of the Itar-Tass news agency of Russia, said he hoped that the objective did not go beyond simply identifying threats to efforts to stifle criticism about an American president or administration.
'This is what makes your country great, the open society where people can criticize their own government,' Mr. Sitov said.
The researchers, using an grant provided by a research group once affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency, have complied a database of hundreds of articles that it is being used to train a computer to recognize, rank and interpret statements.
The software would need to be able to distinguish between statements like 'this spaghetti is good' and 'this spaghetti is not very good — it’s excellent,' said Claire T. Cardie, a professor of computer science at Cornell.
Professor Cardie ranked the second statement as a more intense positive opinion than the first..."
As if we need a better idea about which U.S. policies upset world opinion?
NY Times: Software Being Developed to Monitor Opinions of U.S.
"A consortium of major universities, using Homeland Security Department money, is developing software that would let the government monitor negative opinions of the United States or its leaders in newspapers and other publications overseas.
Such a 'sentiment analysis' is intended to identify potential threats to the nation, security officials said...
...American officials have long relied on newspapers and other news sources to track events and opinions here and abroad, a goal that has included the routine translation of articles from many foreign publications and news services.
The new software would allow much more rapid and comprehensive monitoring of the global news media, as the Homeland Security Department and, perhaps, intelligence agencies look 'to identify common patterns from numerous sources of information which might be indicative of potential threats to the nation,' a statement by the department said...
...Even the basic research has raised concern among journalism advocates and privacy groups, as well as representatives of the foreign news media.
'It is just creepy and Orwellian,' said Lucy Dalglish, a lawyer and former editor who is executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Andrei Sitov, Washington bureau chief of the Itar-Tass news agency of Russia, said he hoped that the objective did not go beyond simply identifying threats to efforts to stifle criticism about an American president or administration.
'This is what makes your country great, the open society where people can criticize their own government,' Mr. Sitov said.
The researchers, using an grant provided by a research group once affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency, have complied a database of hundreds of articles that it is being used to train a computer to recognize, rank and interpret statements.
The software would need to be able to distinguish between statements like 'this spaghetti is good' and 'this spaghetti is not very good — it’s excellent,' said Claire T. Cardie, a professor of computer science at Cornell.
Professor Cardie ranked the second statement as a more intense positive opinion than the first..."
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Election Fraud;
Lauren Dorgan: Former Pollster Describes 2000 Election Theft
"Former UNH professor and pollster David Moore contends that his new book about the 2000 presidential election - titled 'How to Steal an Election' - is not partisan. Moore said he knows it's a 'hard sell,' but he argues the book simply explains how George W. Bush took the presidency that was rightfully won by Al Gore.
The question of partisanship isn't academic: Moore was fired from his job as a senior editor at the Gallup Poll after he told his bosses about the book last spring. Gallup General Counsel Steve O'Brien said yesterday that writing the book was a 'colossally stupid' thing for Moore to do given the polling firm's nonpartisan mission. O'Brien scoffed at the idea that any book with such a title could be impartial.
Moore disagrees.
'I think it's probably as objective as you can be about what really happened,' said Moore, who founded the UNH Survey Center in the 1970s and led it until he left for Gallup in 1993. 'All I do is present evidence about how an election was stolen,'..."
Lauren Dorgan: Former Pollster Describes 2000 Election Theft
"Former UNH professor and pollster David Moore contends that his new book about the 2000 presidential election - titled 'How to Steal an Election' - is not partisan. Moore said he knows it's a 'hard sell,' but he argues the book simply explains how George W. Bush took the presidency that was rightfully won by Al Gore.
The question of partisanship isn't academic: Moore was fired from his job as a senior editor at the Gallup Poll after he told his bosses about the book last spring. Gallup General Counsel Steve O'Brien said yesterday that writing the book was a 'colossally stupid' thing for Moore to do given the polling firm's nonpartisan mission. O'Brien scoffed at the idea that any book with such a title could be impartial.
Moore disagrees.
'I think it's probably as objective as you can be about what really happened,' said Moore, who founded the UNH Survey Center in the 1970s and led it until he left for Gallup in 1993. 'All I do is present evidence about how an election was stolen,'..."
The Assault On Our Constitutional Rights:
Molly Ivins: Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)
"With a smug stroke of his pen, President Bush is set to wipe out a safeguard against illegal imprisonment that has endured as a cornerstone of legal justice since the Magna Carta..."
William Rivers Pitt: In Case I Disappear
"...The Republicans in Congress have managed, at the behest of Mr. Bush, to draft a bill that all but erases the judicial branch of the government. Time will tell whether this aspect, along with all the others, will withstand legal challenges. If such a challenge comes, it will take time, and meanwhile there is this bill. All of the above is deplorable on its face, indefensible in a nation that prides itself on Constitutional rights, protections and the rule of law.
Underneath all this, however, is where the paranoia sets in.
Underneath all this is the definition of 'enemy combatant' that has been established by this legislation. An 'enemy combatant' is now no longer just someone captured 'during an armed conflict' against our forces. Thanks to this legislation, George W. Bush is now able to designate as an 'enemy combatant' anyone who has 'purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.'
Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other part of the so-called 'War on Terror.'
If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them up.
By writing this essay, I could be deemed an 'enemy combatant.' It's that simple, and very soon, it will be the law. I always laughed when people told me to be careful. I'm not laughing anymore.
In case I disappear, remember this. America is an idea, a dream, and that is all. We have borders and armies and citizens and commerce and industry, but all this merely makes us like every other nation on this Earth. What separates us is the idea, the simple idea, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are our organizing principles. We can think as we please, speak as we please, write as we please, worship as we please, go where we please. We are protected from the kinds of tyranny that inspired our creation as a nation in the first place.
That was the idea. That was the dream. It may all be over now, but once upon a time, it existed. No good idea ever truly dies. The dream was here, and so was I, and so were you."
Molly Ivins: Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)
"With a smug stroke of his pen, President Bush is set to wipe out a safeguard against illegal imprisonment that has endured as a cornerstone of legal justice since the Magna Carta..."
William Rivers Pitt: In Case I Disappear
"...The Republicans in Congress have managed, at the behest of Mr. Bush, to draft a bill that all but erases the judicial branch of the government. Time will tell whether this aspect, along with all the others, will withstand legal challenges. If such a challenge comes, it will take time, and meanwhile there is this bill. All of the above is deplorable on its face, indefensible in a nation that prides itself on Constitutional rights, protections and the rule of law.
Underneath all this, however, is where the paranoia sets in.
Underneath all this is the definition of 'enemy combatant' that has been established by this legislation. An 'enemy combatant' is now no longer just someone captured 'during an armed conflict' against our forces. Thanks to this legislation, George W. Bush is now able to designate as an 'enemy combatant' anyone who has 'purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.'
Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other part of the so-called 'War on Terror.'
If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them up.
By writing this essay, I could be deemed an 'enemy combatant.' It's that simple, and very soon, it will be the law. I always laughed when people told me to be careful. I'm not laughing anymore.
In case I disappear, remember this. America is an idea, a dream, and that is all. We have borders and armies and citizens and commerce and industry, but all this merely makes us like every other nation on this Earth. What separates us is the idea, the simple idea, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are our organizing principles. We can think as we please, speak as we please, write as we please, worship as we please, go where we please. We are protected from the kinds of tyranny that inspired our creation as a nation in the first place.
That was the idea. That was the dream. It may all be over now, but once upon a time, it existed. No good idea ever truly dies. The dream was here, and so was I, and so were you."
Monday, October 02, 2006
The So-Called War On Terror:
Given this information, we now have the choice of calling Ms. Rice:
a) incompetent in her post as National Security Advisor or
b) willfully complicit in an agenda to ignore a threat that would create an excuse (PNAC's 'catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor') to scare the American people into acquiescing to the launch of the spectacularly expensive War On Terror; the Security/Military Industrial Complex's new raison d'etre in the Post Cold War era.
William Rivers Pitt: Condi Rice, 9/11 and Another Nest of Lies
"...At one point...Commission Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton directly asked Rice about the so-called intelligence failures leading up to 9/11: 'At the end of the day, of course, we were unable to protect our people. And you suggest in your statement - and I want you to elaborate on this, if you want to - that in hindsight it would have been - better information about the threats would have been the single - the single most important thing for us to have done, from your point of view, prior to 9/11, would have been better intelligence, better information about the threats. Is that right? Are there other things that you think stand out?'
Rice responded, 'Well, Mr. Chairman, I took an oath of office on the day that I took this job to protect and defend. And like most government officials, I take it very seriously. And so, as you might imagine, I've asked myself a thousand times what more we could have done. I know that, had we thought that there was an attack coming in Washington or New York, we would have moved heaven and earth to try and stop it. And I know that there was no single thing that might have prevented that attack.'
Not only did Rice fail to mention the dramatic warnings given to her by Tenet and Black, she goes on to flatly state that neither she nor the administration had a clue that an attack was coming. Further, she claims that 'no single thing could have prevented that attack.'
'The July 10 meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice went unmentioned in the various reports of investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks,' read the Post report on Sunday, 'but it stood out in the minds of Tenet and Black as the starkest warning they had given the White House on bin Laden and al-Qaeda.'
Combined with the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing delivered to Bush, which explicitly stated that bin Laden intended to attack the United States, the revelation of this meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice indicates that the Bush White House should have and could have made a far greater effort at thwarting the 9/11 attacks. Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on the matter may rise to the level of perjury. At a minimum, it exposes yet another nest of lies delivered by a member of this administration.
'A mixture of shock, anger, and sadness overcame me,' wrote Peter Rundlet in his Think Progress article, 'when I read about revelations in Bob Woodward's new book about a special surprise visit that George Tenet and his counterterrorism chief Cofer Black made to Condi Rice, also on July 10, 2001. If true, it is shocking that the administration failed to heed such an overwhelming alert from the two officials in the best position to know.'
Indeed."
NY Times: C.I.A. Chief Warned Rice on Al Qaeda
"JIDDA, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 2 Â A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday.
The account by the spokesman, Sean McCormack, came hours after Ms. Rice, the secretary of state, told reporters aboard her airplane that she did not recall the specific meeting on July 10, noting that she had met repeatedly with Mr. Tenet that summer about terrorist threats. Ms. Rice, the national security adviser at the time, said it was 'incomprehensible' to suggest she had ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Mr. McCormack also said records showed that the Sept. 11 commission had been informed about the meeting, a fact that former intelligence officials and members of the commission confirmed on Monday.
When details of the meeting emerged last week in a new book by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, Bush administration officials questioned Mr. WoodwardÂs reporting.
Now, after several days, both current and former Bush administration officials have confirmed parts of Mr. WoodwardÂs account.
Officials now agree that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism deputy, J. Cofer Black, were so alarmed about intelligence pointing to an impending attack by Al Qaeda that they demanded an emergency meeting at the White House with Ms. Rice and her National Security Council staff.
According to two former intelligence officials, Mr. Tenet told those assembled at the White House about the growing body of intelligence the C.I.A. had collected suggesting an attack was in the works. But both current and former officials, including allies of Mr. Tenet, took issue with Mr. WoodwardÂs account that he and his aides had left the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had ignored them.
Earlier this week, some members of the Sept. 11 commission said they could not recall being told about a meeting like the one described by Mr. Woodward..."
Given this information, we now have the choice of calling Ms. Rice:
a) incompetent in her post as National Security Advisor or
b) willfully complicit in an agenda to ignore a threat that would create an excuse (PNAC's 'catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor') to scare the American people into acquiescing to the launch of the spectacularly expensive War On Terror; the Security/Military Industrial Complex's new raison d'etre in the Post Cold War era.
William Rivers Pitt: Condi Rice, 9/11 and Another Nest of Lies
"...At one point...Commission Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton directly asked Rice about the so-called intelligence failures leading up to 9/11: 'At the end of the day, of course, we were unable to protect our people. And you suggest in your statement - and I want you to elaborate on this, if you want to - that in hindsight it would have been - better information about the threats would have been the single - the single most important thing for us to have done, from your point of view, prior to 9/11, would have been better intelligence, better information about the threats. Is that right? Are there other things that you think stand out?'
Rice responded, 'Well, Mr. Chairman, I took an oath of office on the day that I took this job to protect and defend. And like most government officials, I take it very seriously. And so, as you might imagine, I've asked myself a thousand times what more we could have done. I know that, had we thought that there was an attack coming in Washington or New York, we would have moved heaven and earth to try and stop it. And I know that there was no single thing that might have prevented that attack.'
Not only did Rice fail to mention the dramatic warnings given to her by Tenet and Black, she goes on to flatly state that neither she nor the administration had a clue that an attack was coming. Further, she claims that 'no single thing could have prevented that attack.'
'The July 10 meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice went unmentioned in the various reports of investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks,' read the Post report on Sunday, 'but it stood out in the minds of Tenet and Black as the starkest warning they had given the White House on bin Laden and al-Qaeda.'
Combined with the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing delivered to Bush, which explicitly stated that bin Laden intended to attack the United States, the revelation of this meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice indicates that the Bush White House should have and could have made a far greater effort at thwarting the 9/11 attacks. Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on the matter may rise to the level of perjury. At a minimum, it exposes yet another nest of lies delivered by a member of this administration.
'A mixture of shock, anger, and sadness overcame me,' wrote Peter Rundlet in his Think Progress article, 'when I read about revelations in Bob Woodward's new book about a special surprise visit that George Tenet and his counterterrorism chief Cofer Black made to Condi Rice, also on July 10, 2001. If true, it is shocking that the administration failed to heed such an overwhelming alert from the two officials in the best position to know.'
Indeed."
NY Times: C.I.A. Chief Warned Rice on Al Qaeda
"JIDDA, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 2 Â A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday.
The account by the spokesman, Sean McCormack, came hours after Ms. Rice, the secretary of state, told reporters aboard her airplane that she did not recall the specific meeting on July 10, noting that she had met repeatedly with Mr. Tenet that summer about terrorist threats. Ms. Rice, the national security adviser at the time, said it was 'incomprehensible' to suggest she had ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Mr. McCormack also said records showed that the Sept. 11 commission had been informed about the meeting, a fact that former intelligence officials and members of the commission confirmed on Monday.
When details of the meeting emerged last week in a new book by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, Bush administration officials questioned Mr. WoodwardÂs reporting.
Now, after several days, both current and former Bush administration officials have confirmed parts of Mr. WoodwardÂs account.
Officials now agree that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism deputy, J. Cofer Black, were so alarmed about intelligence pointing to an impending attack by Al Qaeda that they demanded an emergency meeting at the White House with Ms. Rice and her National Security Council staff.
According to two former intelligence officials, Mr. Tenet told those assembled at the White House about the growing body of intelligence the C.I.A. had collected suggesting an attack was in the works. But both current and former officials, including allies of Mr. Tenet, took issue with Mr. WoodwardÂs account that he and his aides had left the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had ignored them.
Earlier this week, some members of the Sept. 11 commission said they could not recall being told about a meeting like the one described by Mr. Woodward..."
