Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Iraq/Iran:
The Raw Story: WSJ: US report on Iranian weapons in Iraq 'delayed significantly'
"In a little-noticed story, the Los Angeles Times reported two weeks ago that American promises to offer proof that Iran was arming Iraqi militants had fallen through.
'A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran,' wrote the Times' Tina Susman. 'A U.S. military spokesman attributed the confusion to a misunderstanding. ... When U.S. explosives experts went to investigate, they discovered they were not Iranian after all.'
Now the Wall Street Journal has added a fresh twist to the mystery of the alleged Iranian arms, writing that 'the U.S. military, in a shift, has postponed the release of a report detailing allegations of Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents, according to people familiar with the matter.'
According to the Journal, 'The military had initially planned to publicize the report several weeks ago but instead turned the dossier over to the Iraqi government, these people said. The Iraqis are using the information to pressure Tehran to curb the flow of Iranian weaponry and explosives into Iraq, these people said,'..."
Weapons Of War:
AFP: Landmark cluster bomb ban agreed by 111 countries
"Delegates from 111 nations agreed Wednesday a landmark treaty to ban cluster bombs, Ireland's foreign ministry said, in a deal that lacks the backing of major producers and stockpilers of the lethal weapons.
After 10 days of painstaking negotiations at Croke Park stadium in Dublin, diplomats agreed the wording of a wide-ranging pact to outlaw the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions by its signatories.
It also provides for the welfare of victims and the clearing of areas contaminated by unexploded cluster bombs.
The agreement will be formally adopted on Friday, and signed in Oslo on December 2-3. Signatories would then need to ratify it.
'This is a very strong and ambitious text which nevertheless was able to win consensus among all delegations,' said Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin. 'It is a real contribution to international humanitarian law.'
But crucially, the United States, Russia, China, India, Israel and Pakistan -- all major producers and stockpilers of cluster bombs -- were absent from the Dublin talks, and thus not part of the agreement..."
Banking:
NPR: Auditor: Supervisors Covered Up Risky Loans
"Now that millions of people are facing foreclosure because they got into loans that never should have been approved, everybody's looking for someone to blame. Borrowers, or their brokers, lied on loan applications. Others got high interest rates they couldn't afford.
A big unanswered question is whether the Wall Street investment banks that were packaging these mortgages knew they were selling garbage loans to investors. A wave of litigation is starting against these firms. One former worker whose job was to catch bad loans says her supervisors covered them up.
Tracy Warren is not surprised by the foreclosure crisis. She saw the roots of it firsthand every day. She worked for a quality-control contractor that reviewed subprime loans for investment banks before they were sold off on Wall Street.
It was her job to dig into the loans and ferret out problems. By 2006, they were easy to find...
...Warren thinks her supervisors didn't want her to do her job. She says that when she would reject, or kick out, a loan, they usually would overrule her and approve it.
'The QC reviewer who reviewed our kicks would say, 'Well, I thought it had merit.' And it was like 'What?' Their credit score was below 580. And if it was an income verification, a lot of times they weren't making the income. And it was like, 'What kind of merit could you have determined?' And they were like, 'Oh, it's fine. Don't worry about it.''
After a while, Warren says, her supervisors stopped telling her when she had been overruled. She figured it out by going back later and pulling the loans up on her computer.
'I would look every couple of days, and just see, if it was a loan that I thought was a bad loan, I'd go back and see if it was pulled.'
About 75 percent of the time, loans that should have been rejected were still put into the pool and sold, she says..."
On Torture:
Stephen Gillers: The Torture Memo
"The Justice Department is investigating the lawyers whose memos gave the Bush Administration the legal support it needed for waterboarding and other brutal interrogation techniques. We are 'examining whether the legal advice in these memoranda was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys,' H. Marshall Jarrett, counsel for the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, wrote to two Democratic senators in February.
The torture memos from 2002 were mainly the work of Jay Bybee, then head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and now a federal appellate judge in San Francisco, and Bybee's deputy, John Yoo, who has since returned to teaching law at the University of California, Berkeley. This month the Pentagon released a long-rumored torture memo from 2003 written solely by Yoo, which is even more adamant in its embrace of unfettered presidential power.
The memos are an abysmal piece of work, but they had great value to the President. Dismissing the Geneva Conventions and other law, they used the veneer of serious legal scholarship (abundant footnotes, many citations, long dense paragraphs) to create an aura of legitimacy for near-death interrogation tactics and unrestrained executive power. The memos had high credibility because they came from the OLC, the legal brain trust for the executive branch and (until then) the gold standard for legal acumen.
The press tends to overlook the lawyers when scandal breaks, focusing instead on their clients. That's understandable, but in public and commercial life no serious move is possible (no corporate maneuver, no new financial instrument, no war, no severe interrogation tactic) without legal approval. Even if the advice proves wrong, the client, if sued or indicted, can claim reliance on counsel...
...If a private lawyer gave such a lopsided and wrongheaded analysis to a business client, he'd be history. Lawyers advising private clients about to make important decisions (a 'bet the company' kind of decision) meticulously analyze all sides of a question so the clients can assess risk and choose wisely.
The client deserved better, and that raises another issue, the most troubling. Who was the client? The lawyers told the President what he wanted to hear, but the nation was their client, and its sole interest was in thorough and independent legal analysis. Neither the President's political agenda nor the authors' views of what the law should say can be allowed to slant the OLC's work. So maybe the best and brightest lawyers got it so wrong because they forgot whom they served. Maybe they acted politically, not professionally. If so, we are dealing with a perversion of law and legal duty, a betrayal of the client and professional norms, not mere incompetence, which would be bad enough. Whatever the reason, Jarrett should find that this work is not 'consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys.' Jarrett must hold the lawyers accountable if he means to restore OLC's reputation and vindicate the rule of law."
Journalists As Targets:
Democracy Now! - Headlines for May 20, 2008
"The International Federation of Journalists is calling for a full probe into the 2003 US shelling of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad that killed two foreign journalists: Spanish cameraman Jose Couso of Telecinco and Ukrainian-born Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk. The media rights group called for the investigation after former Army Sergeant Adrienne Kinne told Democracy Now! that she saw the Palestine Hotel on a target list. At the time, Kinne was working in military intelligence. She said she knew journalists were in the hotel, because she was frequently intercepting their phone calls.
Sgt. Adrienne Kinne: 'One of the instances was the fact that we were listening to journalists who were staying in the Palestine Hotel. And I remember that, specifically because during the buildup to Shock and Awe, which people in my unit were really disturbingly excited about, we were given a list of potential targets in Baghdad, and the Palestine Hotel was listed as a potential target. And I remember this specifically, because, putting one and one together, that there were journalists staying at the Palestine Hotel and this hotel was listed as a potential target,'..."
The Raw Story: WSJ: US report on Iranian weapons in Iraq 'delayed significantly'
"In a little-noticed story, the Los Angeles Times reported two weeks ago that American promises to offer proof that Iran was arming Iraqi militants had fallen through.
'A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran,' wrote the Times' Tina Susman. 'A U.S. military spokesman attributed the confusion to a misunderstanding. ... When U.S. explosives experts went to investigate, they discovered they were not Iranian after all.'
Now the Wall Street Journal has added a fresh twist to the mystery of the alleged Iranian arms, writing that 'the U.S. military, in a shift, has postponed the release of a report detailing allegations of Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents, according to people familiar with the matter.'
According to the Journal, 'The military had initially planned to publicize the report several weeks ago but instead turned the dossier over to the Iraqi government, these people said. The Iraqis are using the information to pressure Tehran to curb the flow of Iranian weaponry and explosives into Iraq, these people said,'..."
Weapons Of War:
AFP: Landmark cluster bomb ban agreed by 111 countries
"Delegates from 111 nations agreed Wednesday a landmark treaty to ban cluster bombs, Ireland's foreign ministry said, in a deal that lacks the backing of major producers and stockpilers of the lethal weapons.
After 10 days of painstaking negotiations at Croke Park stadium in Dublin, diplomats agreed the wording of a wide-ranging pact to outlaw the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions by its signatories.
It also provides for the welfare of victims and the clearing of areas contaminated by unexploded cluster bombs.
The agreement will be formally adopted on Friday, and signed in Oslo on December 2-3. Signatories would then need to ratify it.
'This is a very strong and ambitious text which nevertheless was able to win consensus among all delegations,' said Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin. 'It is a real contribution to international humanitarian law.'
But crucially, the United States, Russia, China, India, Israel and Pakistan -- all major producers and stockpilers of cluster bombs -- were absent from the Dublin talks, and thus not part of the agreement..."
Banking:
NPR: Auditor: Supervisors Covered Up Risky Loans
"Now that millions of people are facing foreclosure because they got into loans that never should have been approved, everybody's looking for someone to blame. Borrowers, or their brokers, lied on loan applications. Others got high interest rates they couldn't afford.
A big unanswered question is whether the Wall Street investment banks that were packaging these mortgages knew they were selling garbage loans to investors. A wave of litigation is starting against these firms. One former worker whose job was to catch bad loans says her supervisors covered them up.
Tracy Warren is not surprised by the foreclosure crisis. She saw the roots of it firsthand every day. She worked for a quality-control contractor that reviewed subprime loans for investment banks before they were sold off on Wall Street.
It was her job to dig into the loans and ferret out problems. By 2006, they were easy to find...
...Warren thinks her supervisors didn't want her to do her job. She says that when she would reject, or kick out, a loan, they usually would overrule her and approve it.
'The QC reviewer who reviewed our kicks would say, 'Well, I thought it had merit.' And it was like 'What?' Their credit score was below 580. And if it was an income verification, a lot of times they weren't making the income. And it was like, 'What kind of merit could you have determined?' And they were like, 'Oh, it's fine. Don't worry about it.''
After a while, Warren says, her supervisors stopped telling her when she had been overruled. She figured it out by going back later and pulling the loans up on her computer.
'I would look every couple of days, and just see, if it was a loan that I thought was a bad loan, I'd go back and see if it was pulled.'
About 75 percent of the time, loans that should have been rejected were still put into the pool and sold, she says..."
On Torture:
Stephen Gillers: The Torture Memo
"The Justice Department is investigating the lawyers whose memos gave the Bush Administration the legal support it needed for waterboarding and other brutal interrogation techniques. We are 'examining whether the legal advice in these memoranda was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys,' H. Marshall Jarrett, counsel for the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, wrote to two Democratic senators in February.
The torture memos from 2002 were mainly the work of Jay Bybee, then head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and now a federal appellate judge in San Francisco, and Bybee's deputy, John Yoo, who has since returned to teaching law at the University of California, Berkeley. This month the Pentagon released a long-rumored torture memo from 2003 written solely by Yoo, which is even more adamant in its embrace of unfettered presidential power.
The memos are an abysmal piece of work, but they had great value to the President. Dismissing the Geneva Conventions and other law, they used the veneer of serious legal scholarship (abundant footnotes, many citations, long dense paragraphs) to create an aura of legitimacy for near-death interrogation tactics and unrestrained executive power. The memos had high credibility because they came from the OLC, the legal brain trust for the executive branch and (until then) the gold standard for legal acumen.
The press tends to overlook the lawyers when scandal breaks, focusing instead on their clients. That's understandable, but in public and commercial life no serious move is possible (no corporate maneuver, no new financial instrument, no war, no severe interrogation tactic) without legal approval. Even if the advice proves wrong, the client, if sued or indicted, can claim reliance on counsel...
...If a private lawyer gave such a lopsided and wrongheaded analysis to a business client, he'd be history. Lawyers advising private clients about to make important decisions (a 'bet the company' kind of decision) meticulously analyze all sides of a question so the clients can assess risk and choose wisely.
The client deserved better, and that raises another issue, the most troubling. Who was the client? The lawyers told the President what he wanted to hear, but the nation was their client, and its sole interest was in thorough and independent legal analysis. Neither the President's political agenda nor the authors' views of what the law should say can be allowed to slant the OLC's work. So maybe the best and brightest lawyers got it so wrong because they forgot whom they served. Maybe they acted politically, not professionally. If so, we are dealing with a perversion of law and legal duty, a betrayal of the client and professional norms, not mere incompetence, which would be bad enough. Whatever the reason, Jarrett should find that this work is not 'consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys.' Jarrett must hold the lawyers accountable if he means to restore OLC's reputation and vindicate the rule of law."
Journalists As Targets:
Democracy Now! - Headlines for May 20, 2008
"The International Federation of Journalists is calling for a full probe into the 2003 US shelling of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad that killed two foreign journalists: Spanish cameraman Jose Couso of Telecinco and Ukrainian-born Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk. The media rights group called for the investigation after former Army Sergeant Adrienne Kinne told Democracy Now! that she saw the Palestine Hotel on a target list. At the time, Kinne was working in military intelligence. She said she knew journalists were in the hotel, because she was frequently intercepting their phone calls.
Sgt. Adrienne Kinne: 'One of the instances was the fact that we were listening to journalists who were staying in the Palestine Hotel. And I remember that, specifically because during the buildup to Shock and Awe, which people in my unit were really disturbingly excited about, we were given a list of potential targets in Baghdad, and the Palestine Hotel was listed as a potential target. And I remember this specifically, because, putting one and one together, that there were journalists staying at the Palestine Hotel and this hotel was listed as a potential target,'..."
Monday, May 26, 2008
On Torture:
DOJ OIG (Unclassified): Review of the FBI's Involvement In and Observations of Detainee Interrogations in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq - "PDF (6 MB)"
DOJ OIG (Unclassified): Review of the FBI's Involvement In and Observations of Detainee Interrogations in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq - "PDF (6 MB)"
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Iran:
I fail to see how White House denials of plans to deal with Iran should be believed any more than Bush's promise to go back to the UN for a second resolution before attacking Iraq in 2003. If attacked, the Iranians would need to only use very low technology to disrupt the flow of oil - sinking one of their own large ships in the Straight of Hormuz, making it unnavigable for oil tankers from all nations that use it - Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, U.A.E. The oil market reactions would result in a least $200/bbl, if not more.
Jerusalem Post: White House denies Iran attack report
"The White House on Tuesday flatly denied an Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term. It said that while the military option had not been taken off the table, the administration preferred to resolve concerns about Iran's push for a nuclear weapon 'through peaceful diplomatic means.'
Army Radio had quoted a top official in Jerusalem claiming that a senior member in the entourage of President Bush, who visited Israel last week, had said in a closed meeting here that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.
The official reportedly went on to say that, for the time being, 'the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice' was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic.
The Army Radio report, which was quoted by The Jerusalem Post and resonated widely, stated that according to assessments in Israel, the recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah has established de facto control of the country, was advancing an American attack.
Bush, the official reportedly said, considered Hizbullah's show of strength evidence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's growing influence. In Bush's view, the official said, 'the disease must be treated - not its symptoms,'..."
Campaign 2008:
...a McCain Presidency would surely continue the Bush position of confrontation, deficit spending for never-ending war, while the rich continue to avoid contributing the share they did in the 1990s.
Robert Greenwald & Brave New Films: The REAL John McCain: Less Jobs, More Wars.
I fail to see how White House denials of plans to deal with Iran should be believed any more than Bush's promise to go back to the UN for a second resolution before attacking Iraq in 2003. If attacked, the Iranians would need to only use very low technology to disrupt the flow of oil - sinking one of their own large ships in the Straight of Hormuz, making it unnavigable for oil tankers from all nations that use it - Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, U.A.E. The oil market reactions would result in a least $200/bbl, if not more.
Jerusalem Post: White House denies Iran attack report
"The White House on Tuesday flatly denied an Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term. It said that while the military option had not been taken off the table, the administration preferred to resolve concerns about Iran's push for a nuclear weapon 'through peaceful diplomatic means.'
Army Radio had quoted a top official in Jerusalem claiming that a senior member in the entourage of President Bush, who visited Israel last week, had said in a closed meeting here that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.
The official reportedly went on to say that, for the time being, 'the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice' was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic.
The Army Radio report, which was quoted by The Jerusalem Post and resonated widely, stated that according to assessments in Israel, the recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah has established de facto control of the country, was advancing an American attack.
Bush, the official reportedly said, considered Hizbullah's show of strength evidence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's growing influence. In Bush's view, the official said, 'the disease must be treated - not its symptoms,'..."
Campaign 2008:
...a McCain Presidency would surely continue the Bush position of confrontation, deficit spending for never-ending war, while the rich continue to avoid contributing the share they did in the 1990s.
Robert Greenwald & Brave New Films: The REAL John McCain: Less Jobs, More Wars.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Privacy & Technology:
Wired Blog: Charter to Snoop on Broadband Customers' Web Histories for Ad Networks
"Charter Communications, one of the nation's largest ISPs, plans to begin eavesdropping on customers' web surfing activity, to help web advertisers deliver targeted ads.
In letters being sent to some of its 2.7 million high-speed internet customers, Charter is billing its new web-tracking program as an 'enhancement' for customers' web surfing experience. The letters were first reported by a BroadbandReports.com user on Sunday. The pilot program is set to begin next month.
'Browsing the web can become more like flipping through your favorite magazine, where you see ads that are appealing to you and enhance your enjoyment and the utility of the experience,' the company's letters read.
Charter's system appears to be similar to a targeted advertising system in the U.K. developed by Phorm, a London company with alleged spyware roots..."
Wired Blog: Charter to Snoop on Broadband Customers' Web Histories for Ad Networks
"Charter Communications, one of the nation's largest ISPs, plans to begin eavesdropping on customers' web surfing activity, to help web advertisers deliver targeted ads.
In letters being sent to some of its 2.7 million high-speed internet customers, Charter is billing its new web-tracking program as an 'enhancement' for customers' web surfing experience. The letters were first reported by a BroadbandReports.com user on Sunday. The pilot program is set to begin next month.
'Browsing the web can become more like flipping through your favorite magazine, where you see ads that are appealing to you and enhance your enjoyment and the utility of the experience,' the company's letters read.
Charter's system appears to be similar to a targeted advertising system in the U.K. developed by Phorm, a London company with alleged spyware roots..."
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Campaign 2008:
Robert Parry: McCain and the 'Unitary Executive'
"If John McCain wins the presidency and gets to appoint one or more U.S. Supreme Court justices Americas 220-year experiment as a democratic Republic living under the principle that no man is above the law may come to an end.
To put the matter differently, if a President McCain replaces one of the moderate justices with another Samuel Alito as McCain has vowed to do then Justice Department lawyer John Yoos extreme vision of an all-powerful Executive could well become the new law of the land.
On May 6 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, during a speech aimed at appeasing conservatives, McCain promised to appoint justices in the mold of George W. Bushs selections, Justice Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, expanding the courts right-wing faction that also includes Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Those four justices already have embraced the Bush administrations radical notion that at a time of war even one as vaguely defined as the war on terror the President possesses plenary or unlimited powers through his commander-in-chief authority.
As expressed in classified memos by Yoo when he was a key lawyer in the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel, there should be, in essence, no limits on what a war-time President can do as long as he is asserting his duty to protect the nation.
Alito also is associated with this concept of a unitary executive, holding that a President should control all regulatory authority, define the limits of laws via 'signing statements' and at his own discretion override treaties, the will of Congress and even the Bill of Rights and the Constitution..."
Iran:
Rep. John Conyers: Conyers Mounts Opposition to Iran Attack
"From: The office of House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr.
May 8, 2008
Join Me in Calling on President Bush to Respect Congress' Exclusive Power to Declare War
Dear Democratic Colleague:
As we mark five years of war in Iraq, I have become increasingly concerned that the President may possibly take unilateral, preemptive military action against Iran. During the last seven years, the Bush Administration has exercised unprecedented assertions of Executive Branch power and shown an unparalleled aversion to the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution's framers. The letter that follows asks President Bush to seek congressional authorization before launching any possible military strike against Iran and affirms Senator Biden's statement last year that impeachment proceedings should be considered if the President fails to do so..."
Healthcare:
Bill Moyers: Bill Moyers: Every American should have 'Cheneycare'
"...'You don't need me to tell you that 47 million Americans are uninsured, and it's not news to you that medical costs are increasing faster than the rate of inflation, or that more Americans than ever are afraid a single major illness could bankrupt them,' says Moyers. 'It's little wonder that when the Gallup poll asked people on the eve of this election year to name the most important thing that can be done to cope with health care, 63% mentioned universal coverage.'
Moyers reports that nurses are now among those at the forefront of the battle for affordable health care for all Americans.
The report cites the high quality, condition-free medical insurance enjoyed by the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney, who, despite four major heart attacks and other serious coronary issues, 'can't be denied health insurance no matter how serious his heart condition is' because he is a U.S. government employee.
The California Nurses Association (CNA) criticizes such 'Cadillac healthcare' favoritism and contrasts it to the limited options afforded to the majority of Americans. The CNA has launched an ad campaign saying that 'if Cheney were just a regular American, he'd probably be dead by now,'..."
Robert Parry: McCain and the 'Unitary Executive'
"If John McCain wins the presidency and gets to appoint one or more U.S. Supreme Court justices Americas 220-year experiment as a democratic Republic living under the principle that no man is above the law may come to an end.
To put the matter differently, if a President McCain replaces one of the moderate justices with another Samuel Alito as McCain has vowed to do then Justice Department lawyer John Yoos extreme vision of an all-powerful Executive could well become the new law of the land.
On May 6 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, during a speech aimed at appeasing conservatives, McCain promised to appoint justices in the mold of George W. Bushs selections, Justice Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, expanding the courts right-wing faction that also includes Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Those four justices already have embraced the Bush administrations radical notion that at a time of war even one as vaguely defined as the war on terror the President possesses plenary or unlimited powers through his commander-in-chief authority.
As expressed in classified memos by Yoo when he was a key lawyer in the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel, there should be, in essence, no limits on what a war-time President can do as long as he is asserting his duty to protect the nation.
Alito also is associated with this concept of a unitary executive, holding that a President should control all regulatory authority, define the limits of laws via 'signing statements' and at his own discretion override treaties, the will of Congress and even the Bill of Rights and the Constitution..."
Iran:
Rep. John Conyers: Conyers Mounts Opposition to Iran Attack
"From: The office of House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr.
May 8, 2008
Join Me in Calling on President Bush to Respect Congress' Exclusive Power to Declare War
Dear Democratic Colleague:
As we mark five years of war in Iraq, I have become increasingly concerned that the President may possibly take unilateral, preemptive military action against Iran. During the last seven years, the Bush Administration has exercised unprecedented assertions of Executive Branch power and shown an unparalleled aversion to the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution's framers. The letter that follows asks President Bush to seek congressional authorization before launching any possible military strike against Iran and affirms Senator Biden's statement last year that impeachment proceedings should be considered if the President fails to do so..."
Healthcare:
Bill Moyers: Bill Moyers: Every American should have 'Cheneycare'
"...'You don't need me to tell you that 47 million Americans are uninsured, and it's not news to you that medical costs are increasing faster than the rate of inflation, or that more Americans than ever are afraid a single major illness could bankrupt them,' says Moyers. 'It's little wonder that when the Gallup poll asked people on the eve of this election year to name the most important thing that can be done to cope with health care, 63% mentioned universal coverage.'
Moyers reports that nurses are now among those at the forefront of the battle for affordable health care for all Americans.
The report cites the high quality, condition-free medical insurance enjoyed by the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney, who, despite four major heart attacks and other serious coronary issues, 'can't be denied health insurance no matter how serious his heart condition is' because he is a U.S. government employee.
The California Nurses Association (CNA) criticizes such 'Cadillac healthcare' favoritism and contrasts it to the limited options afforded to the majority of Americans. The CNA has launched an ad campaign saying that 'if Cheney were just a regular American, he'd probably be dead by now,'..."
Monday, May 12, 2008
Food:
Dan Barber: Change We Can Stomach
"...Farming has the potential to go through the greatest upheaval since the Green Revolution, bringing harvests that are more healthful, sustainable and, yes, even more flavorful. The change is being pushed along by market forces that influence how our farmers farm.
Until now, food production has been controlled by Big Agriculture, with its macho fixation on 'average tonnage' and 'record harvests.' But there’s a cost to its breadbasket-to-the-world bragging rights. Like those big Industrial Age factories that once billowed black smoke, American agriculture is mired in a mind-set that relies on capital, chemistry and machines. Food production is dependent on oil, in the form of fertilizers and pesticides, in the distances produce travels from farm to plate and in the energy it takes to process it.
For decades, environmentalists and small farmers have claimed that this is several kinds of madness. But industrial agriculture has simply responded that if we’re feeding more people more cheaply using less land, how terrible can our food system be?.."
Dan Barber: Change We Can Stomach
"...Farming has the potential to go through the greatest upheaval since the Green Revolution, bringing harvests that are more healthful, sustainable and, yes, even more flavorful. The change is being pushed along by market forces that influence how our farmers farm.
Until now, food production has been controlled by Big Agriculture, with its macho fixation on 'average tonnage' and 'record harvests.' But there’s a cost to its breadbasket-to-the-world bragging rights. Like those big Industrial Age factories that once billowed black smoke, American agriculture is mired in a mind-set that relies on capital, chemistry and machines. Food production is dependent on oil, in the form of fertilizers and pesticides, in the distances produce travels from farm to plate and in the energy it takes to process it.
For decades, environmentalists and small farmers have claimed that this is several kinds of madness. But industrial agriculture has simply responded that if we’re feeding more people more cheaply using less land, how terrible can our food system be?.."
Change We Can Stomach - New York Times
Food:
Dan Barber: Change We Can Stomach
"...Farming has the potential to go through the greatest upheaval since the Green Revolution, bringing harvests that are more healthful, sustainable and, yes, even more flavorful. The change is being pushed along by market forces that influence how our farmers farm.
Until now, food production has been controlled by Big Agriculture, with its macho fixation on 'average tonnage' and 'record harvests.' But there’s a cost to its breadbasket-to-the-world bragging rights. Like those big Industrial Age factories that once billowed black smoke, American agriculture is mired in a mind-set that relies on capital, chemistry and machines. Food production is dependent on oil, in the form of fertilizers and pesticides, in the distances produce travels from farm to plate and in the energy it takes to process it.
For decades, environmentalists and small farmers have claimed that this is several kinds of madness. But industrial agriculture has simply responded that if we’re feeding more people more cheaply using less land, how terrible can our food system be?.."
Dan Barber: Change We Can Stomach
"...Farming has the potential to go through the greatest upheaval since the Green Revolution, bringing harvests that are more healthful, sustainable and, yes, even more flavorful. The change is being pushed along by market forces that influence how our farmers farm.
Until now, food production has been controlled by Big Agriculture, with its macho fixation on 'average tonnage' and 'record harvests.' But there’s a cost to its breadbasket-to-the-world bragging rights. Like those big Industrial Age factories that once billowed black smoke, American agriculture is mired in a mind-set that relies on capital, chemistry and machines. Food production is dependent on oil, in the form of fertilizers and pesticides, in the distances produce travels from farm to plate and in the energy it takes to process it.
For decades, environmentalists and small farmers have claimed that this is several kinds of madness. But industrial agriculture has simply responded that if we’re feeding more people more cheaply using less land, how terrible can our food system be?.."
Iraq:
Robert Dreyfuss: Is Iran Winning the Iraq War?
"...the Iraq of 2008 is a tale of two paradoxes.
The first paradox, at once startling and ironic, is that Washington's decision to topple Saddam's government has put in place a ruling elite that is far closer to Iran than it is to the United States. As a result, the ayatollahs in Tehran have adroitly checkmated (a word derived from the Persian shah mat, 'the king is dead') US efforts to install a compliant, pro-American regime in Baghdad as the anchor of Washington's interests in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Now a proxy conflict between the United States and Iran is playing out on Iraq's complex chessboard. Depending on the course that US-Iranian relations take over the rest of Bush's tenure and the start of the next administration in Washington, Tehran has two options. If US-Iran ties improve, Tehran may try, at least in the short term, to broker a deal to stabilize Iraq, albeit one that fortifies the Shiite-led government in a way that accommodates Iran's regional interests. Or, if relations with the United States worsen, Iran can use its allies and agents in Iraq to end the relative calm and send the country tumbling back into all-out civil war.
The second paradox is that despite Iran's enormous influence in Iraq, most Iraqis--even most Iraqi Shiites--are not pro-Iran. On the contrary, underneath the ruling alliance in Baghdad, there is a fierce undercurrent of Arab nationalism in Iraq that opposes both the US occupation and Iran's support for religious parties in Iraq. In recent months, this nationalism has begun to express itself in many ways, from the national outpouring of support for the country's victorious soccer team last summer to the potent anger provoked by efforts to privatize Iraq's oil industry, by the Blackwater security firm's shooting of civilians in a Baghdad traffic circle and by suggestions in Washington that Iraq ought to be partitioned into three ministates. In addition, many Iraqi Shiites, like Iraqi Sunnis, harbor bitter feelings against their Persian neighbor left over from the bloody 1980-88 war, which left hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. 'There is such a thing as Iraqi nationalism, and the default position tends to be one of hostility toward Iran,' says Freeman. 'Removing the US occupation as the focus of nationalism will almost certainly lead to a renewal of that nationalism's focus on Iran,'..."
AP: Ex-officials: Bush admin. ignored Iraq corruption
"The Bush administration repeatedly ignored corruption at the highest levels within the Iraqi government and kept secret potentially embarrassing information so as not to undermine its relationship with Baghdad, according to two former State Department employees...
...The State Department's policies 'not only contradicted the anti-corruption mission but indirectly contributed to and has allowed corruption to fester at the highest levels of the Iraqi government,' Brennan told the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.
The U.S. embassy 'effort against corruption — including its new centerpiece, the now-defunct Office of Accountability and Transparency — was little more than 'window dressing,'' he added.
Deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the administration takes the issue of corruption seriously and pointed to its recent appointment of Lawrence Benedict as coordinator for anti-corruption initiatives at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad,'..."
Robert Dreyfuss: Is Iran Winning the Iraq War?
"...the Iraq of 2008 is a tale of two paradoxes.
The first paradox, at once startling and ironic, is that Washington's decision to topple Saddam's government has put in place a ruling elite that is far closer to Iran than it is to the United States. As a result, the ayatollahs in Tehran have adroitly checkmated (a word derived from the Persian shah mat, 'the king is dead') US efforts to install a compliant, pro-American regime in Baghdad as the anchor of Washington's interests in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Now a proxy conflict between the United States and Iran is playing out on Iraq's complex chessboard. Depending on the course that US-Iranian relations take over the rest of Bush's tenure and the start of the next administration in Washington, Tehran has two options. If US-Iran ties improve, Tehran may try, at least in the short term, to broker a deal to stabilize Iraq, albeit one that fortifies the Shiite-led government in a way that accommodates Iran's regional interests. Or, if relations with the United States worsen, Iran can use its allies and agents in Iraq to end the relative calm and send the country tumbling back into all-out civil war.
The second paradox is that despite Iran's enormous influence in Iraq, most Iraqis--even most Iraqi Shiites--are not pro-Iran. On the contrary, underneath the ruling alliance in Baghdad, there is a fierce undercurrent of Arab nationalism in Iraq that opposes both the US occupation and Iran's support for religious parties in Iraq. In recent months, this nationalism has begun to express itself in many ways, from the national outpouring of support for the country's victorious soccer team last summer to the potent anger provoked by efforts to privatize Iraq's oil industry, by the Blackwater security firm's shooting of civilians in a Baghdad traffic circle and by suggestions in Washington that Iraq ought to be partitioned into three ministates. In addition, many Iraqi Shiites, like Iraqi Sunnis, harbor bitter feelings against their Persian neighbor left over from the bloody 1980-88 war, which left hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. 'There is such a thing as Iraqi nationalism, and the default position tends to be one of hostility toward Iran,' says Freeman. 'Removing the US occupation as the focus of nationalism will almost certainly lead to a renewal of that nationalism's focus on Iran,'..."
AP: Ex-officials: Bush admin. ignored Iraq corruption
"The Bush administration repeatedly ignored corruption at the highest levels within the Iraqi government and kept secret potentially embarrassing information so as not to undermine its relationship with Baghdad, according to two former State Department employees...
...The State Department's policies 'not only contradicted the anti-corruption mission but indirectly contributed to and has allowed corruption to fester at the highest levels of the Iraqi government,' Brennan told the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.
The U.S. embassy 'effort against corruption — including its new centerpiece, the now-defunct Office of Accountability and Transparency — was little more than 'window dressing,'' he added.
Deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the administration takes the issue of corruption seriously and pointed to its recent appointment of Lawrence Benedict as coordinator for anti-corruption initiatives at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad,'..."
Friday, May 09, 2008
Media:
Michael Calderone and Avi Zenilman:'Deafening' silence on analyst story
"Even with countless media outlets available these days, a Sunday New York Times cover story could always be counted on to send a jolt through the television news cycle.
But apparently that’s no longer the case. Indeed, reporter David Barstow’s 7,600-word investigation of the Pentagon’s military analyst program — whereby ex-military talking heads, often with direct ties to contractors, parroted Defense Department talking points on the air — has been noticeably absent from television airwaves since the story broke on April 20.
While bloggers have kept the story simmering, Democratic congressional leaders also are speaking out, calling for investigations that could provoke the networks to finally cover the Times story — and, in effect, themselves.
On Tuesday, Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.) sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin 'urging an investigation of the Pentagon’s propaganda program' to determine if the networks or analysts violated federal law.
FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps, a Democrat, applauded their efforts. 'President Eisenhower warned against the excesses of a military-industrial complex,' Copps said in a statement. 'I’d like to think that hasn’t morphed into a military-industrial-media complex, but reports of spinning the news through a program of favored insiders don’t inspire a lot of confidence.'
DeLauro said by phone that the Pentagon’s program was 'created in order to give military analysts access in exchange for positive coverage of the Iraq war.'
The FCC request follows DeLauro’s April 24 letters to five of the most powerful network executives: NBC News President Steve Capus, ABC News President David Westin, CBS News President Sean McManus, FOX News chief executive Roger Ailes and CNN News Group President Jim Walton..."
On Torture:
Top down authorization is a far different matter than the White House's absurd allegation that 'a few bad apples' were responsible.
Democracy Now! - 'Torture Team' British Attorney Philippe Sands on the White House Role in Sanctioning Torture
"...AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers?
PHILIPPE SANDS: I had one lengthy and fascinating conversation with General Myers. I thought he was a decent man of integrity, but out of his depth. And on two issues, I was staggered, so staggered, in fact, that when I came home to London from my trip to the United States, I told my wife what I discovered in conversation with him, which I’m about to share with you, and she was disbelieving—she listened to the tapes—and said absolutely.
There were two points. Firstly, as everyone knows, the President took a decision that none of the detainees at Guantanamo would have any rights under the Geneva Conventions. It seems that General Myers was unaware of that. He was under the impression they had decided that Geneva would apply. So that was a fairly staggering discovery. But it was as nothing compared to the discovery, as we went through the techniques of interrogation one by one, that he had thought that these came out of the US Field Manual guide for interrogations. They were all prohibited. And as we went down the list, his jaw literally dropped. So I got the sense that the most powerful military man in the United States, indeed probably in the world, was blissfully unaware of what had been decided..."
Our (Fleeting) Constitutional Rights:
The Raw Story: Watchdogs prompt FBI to withdraw 'unconstitutional' National Security Letter
"The FBI has withdrawn an illegal National Security Letter seeking information from an online library and has lifted a gag order that until Wednesday prevented any discussion of the information request.
Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation helped the Internet Archive push back against what they say was an overly broad and unlawful request for information on one of its users. The FBI issued its National Security Letter in November, but ACLU, EFF and Archive officials were precluded from discussing it with anyone because of a gag order they say was unconstitutional..."
Michael Calderone and Avi Zenilman:'Deafening' silence on analyst story
"Even with countless media outlets available these days, a Sunday New York Times cover story could always be counted on to send a jolt through the television news cycle.
But apparently that’s no longer the case. Indeed, reporter David Barstow’s 7,600-word investigation of the Pentagon’s military analyst program — whereby ex-military talking heads, often with direct ties to contractors, parroted Defense Department talking points on the air — has been noticeably absent from television airwaves since the story broke on April 20.
While bloggers have kept the story simmering, Democratic congressional leaders also are speaking out, calling for investigations that could provoke the networks to finally cover the Times story — and, in effect, themselves.
On Tuesday, Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.) sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin 'urging an investigation of the Pentagon’s propaganda program' to determine if the networks or analysts violated federal law.
FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps, a Democrat, applauded their efforts. 'President Eisenhower warned against the excesses of a military-industrial complex,' Copps said in a statement. 'I’d like to think that hasn’t morphed into a military-industrial-media complex, but reports of spinning the news through a program of favored insiders don’t inspire a lot of confidence.'
DeLauro said by phone that the Pentagon’s program was 'created in order to give military analysts access in exchange for positive coverage of the Iraq war.'
The FCC request follows DeLauro’s April 24 letters to five of the most powerful network executives: NBC News President Steve Capus, ABC News President David Westin, CBS News President Sean McManus, FOX News chief executive Roger Ailes and CNN News Group President Jim Walton..."
On Torture:
Top down authorization is a far different matter than the White House's absurd allegation that 'a few bad apples' were responsible.
Democracy Now! - 'Torture Team' British Attorney Philippe Sands on the White House Role in Sanctioning Torture
"...AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers?
PHILIPPE SANDS: I had one lengthy and fascinating conversation with General Myers. I thought he was a decent man of integrity, but out of his depth. And on two issues, I was staggered, so staggered, in fact, that when I came home to London from my trip to the United States, I told my wife what I discovered in conversation with him, which I’m about to share with you, and she was disbelieving—she listened to the tapes—and said absolutely.
There were two points. Firstly, as everyone knows, the President took a decision that none of the detainees at Guantanamo would have any rights under the Geneva Conventions. It seems that General Myers was unaware of that. He was under the impression they had decided that Geneva would apply. So that was a fairly staggering discovery. But it was as nothing compared to the discovery, as we went through the techniques of interrogation one by one, that he had thought that these came out of the US Field Manual guide for interrogations. They were all prohibited. And as we went down the list, his jaw literally dropped. So I got the sense that the most powerful military man in the United States, indeed probably in the world, was blissfully unaware of what had been decided..."
Our (Fleeting) Constitutional Rights:
The Raw Story: Watchdogs prompt FBI to withdraw 'unconstitutional' National Security Letter
"The FBI has withdrawn an illegal National Security Letter seeking information from an online library and has lifted a gag order that until Wednesday prevented any discussion of the information request.
Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation helped the Internet Archive push back against what they say was an overly broad and unlawful request for information on one of its users. The FBI issued its National Security Letter in November, but ACLU, EFF and Archive officials were precluded from discussing it with anyone because of a gag order they say was unconstitutional..."
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Energy:
KOMU (TV) - Wind Energy In Rock Port
"...Rock Port only has a population of 1,316 but last week they threw the switch as America's first ever community completely powered by the wind.
'With wind you need a windy area. Fortunately for northwest Missouri, the bulk of it is here, but there are other places where this can be done, ' Carnahan said.
Yes, northwest Missouri is windier than central Missouri. It takes winds of up to 9-miles per hour to get those blades spinning. Rock Port is now powered by four wind turbines. In all, 79 turbines are operational in northwest Missouri..."
Christian Parenti: What Nuclear Renaissance?
"...In the popular press, discussion of nuclear energy is dominated by its boosters, thanks in part to sophisticated industry PR.
In an effort to jump-start a 'nuclear renaissance,' the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another. For the past two years a program of federal loan guarantees has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes. Last year's appropriations bill set the total amount on offer at $18.5 billion. And now the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is gaining momentum and will likely accrue amendments that will offer yet more money.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects up to thirty applications to be filed to build atomic plants; five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process. But no new atomic power stations have been fully licensed or have broken ground. And two newly proposed projects have just been shelved.
The fact is, nuclear power has not recovered from the crisis that hit it three decades ago with the reactor fire at Browns Ferry, Alabama, in 1975 and the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. Then came what seemed to be the coup de grâce: Chernobyl in 1986. The last nuclear power plant ordered by a US utility, the TVA's Watts Bar 1, began construction in 1973 and took twenty-three years to complete. Nuclear power has been in steady decline worldwide since 1984, with almost as many plants canceled as completed since then.
All of which raises the question: why is the much-storied 'nuclear renaissance' so slow to get rolling? Who is holding up the show? In a nutshell, blame Warren Buffett and the banks--they won't put up the cash...
...the sputtering decline of nuclear power has been one of the greatest industrial failures of modern times. In 1985 Forbes called the nuke industry 'the largest managerial disaster in history.'
Atomic optimism run amok caused the largest municipal bond default in US history. In 1983 Washington Public Power Supply System abandoned three nuke plants in midconstruction. The projects were plagued by massive cost overruns--one infamous section of piping was reinstalled seventeen times, safety inspections were blatantly ignored, incompetent contractors were allowed to continue work and on and on. When the project finally died, unfinished costs had ballooned to $24 billion, and the utility walked away from $2.25 billion worth of bonds...
...The fact that new nukes make little economic sense does not mean that old nukes are not profitable. In fact, these nightmarishly complex radioactive boondoggles have recently been turned into cash cows. Utilities achieved this remarkable transformation the old-fashioned way--they used socialism.
Beginning in the 1990s, most American energy markets were deregulated one state, one region at a time. In the process many old utilities were broken up into different firms: some generated power, others sold it, still others handled transmission. One of the crucial details of deregulation was allowing utilities to pass on to rate payers the 'stranded costs'--the outstanding mortgage payments of their nuclear power plants.
Perhaps the most egregious example of this occurred in California. In 1996 the State Assembly passed legislation--written by utility lobbyists--that allowed Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric to hold rates high as prices dropped nationally. The two utilities were on target to receive $28 billion over four years. This money would pay off the stranded costs of the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre atomic plants. Halfway through the deal the California power crisis hit and deregulation was put on hold--utilities were forced to stop selling off their assets, and third-party speculation in energy markets was halted. But the state floated bonds to mop up the remaining stranded costs..."
KOMU (TV) - Wind Energy In Rock Port
"...Rock Port only has a population of 1,316 but last week they threw the switch as America's first ever community completely powered by the wind.
'With wind you need a windy area. Fortunately for northwest Missouri, the bulk of it is here, but there are other places where this can be done, ' Carnahan said.
Yes, northwest Missouri is windier than central Missouri. It takes winds of up to 9-miles per hour to get those blades spinning. Rock Port is now powered by four wind turbines. In all, 79 turbines are operational in northwest Missouri..."
Christian Parenti: What Nuclear Renaissance?
"...In the popular press, discussion of nuclear energy is dominated by its boosters, thanks in part to sophisticated industry PR.
In an effort to jump-start a 'nuclear renaissance,' the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another. For the past two years a program of federal loan guarantees has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes. Last year's appropriations bill set the total amount on offer at $18.5 billion. And now the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is gaining momentum and will likely accrue amendments that will offer yet more money.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects up to thirty applications to be filed to build atomic plants; five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process. But no new atomic power stations have been fully licensed or have broken ground. And two newly proposed projects have just been shelved.
The fact is, nuclear power has not recovered from the crisis that hit it three decades ago with the reactor fire at Browns Ferry, Alabama, in 1975 and the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. Then came what seemed to be the coup de grâce: Chernobyl in 1986. The last nuclear power plant ordered by a US utility, the TVA's Watts Bar 1, began construction in 1973 and took twenty-three years to complete. Nuclear power has been in steady decline worldwide since 1984, with almost as many plants canceled as completed since then.
All of which raises the question: why is the much-storied 'nuclear renaissance' so slow to get rolling? Who is holding up the show? In a nutshell, blame Warren Buffett and the banks--they won't put up the cash...
...the sputtering decline of nuclear power has been one of the greatest industrial failures of modern times. In 1985 Forbes called the nuke industry 'the largest managerial disaster in history.'
Atomic optimism run amok caused the largest municipal bond default in US history. In 1983 Washington Public Power Supply System abandoned three nuke plants in midconstruction. The projects were plagued by massive cost overruns--one infamous section of piping was reinstalled seventeen times, safety inspections were blatantly ignored, incompetent contractors were allowed to continue work and on and on. When the project finally died, unfinished costs had ballooned to $24 billion, and the utility walked away from $2.25 billion worth of bonds...
...The fact that new nukes make little economic sense does not mean that old nukes are not profitable. In fact, these nightmarishly complex radioactive boondoggles have recently been turned into cash cows. Utilities achieved this remarkable transformation the old-fashioned way--they used socialism.
Beginning in the 1990s, most American energy markets were deregulated one state, one region at a time. In the process many old utilities were broken up into different firms: some generated power, others sold it, still others handled transmission. One of the crucial details of deregulation was allowing utilities to pass on to rate payers the 'stranded costs'--the outstanding mortgage payments of their nuclear power plants.
Perhaps the most egregious example of this occurred in California. In 1996 the State Assembly passed legislation--written by utility lobbyists--that allowed Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric to hold rates high as prices dropped nationally. The two utilities were on target to receive $28 billion over four years. This money would pay off the stranded costs of the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre atomic plants. Halfway through the deal the California power crisis hit and deregulation was put on hold--utilities were forced to stop selling off their assets, and third-party speculation in energy markets was halted. But the state floated bonds to mop up the remaining stranded costs..."
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Iran:
Andrew Cockburn: Secret Bush 'Finding' Widens Covert War on Iran
"Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, 'unprecedented in its scope.'
Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department's list of terrorist groups...
...Further afield, operations against Iran's Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime.
All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy.
Until recently, the administration faced a serious obstacle to action against Iran in the form of Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon, who made no secret of his contempt for official determination to take us to war. In a widely publicized incident last January, Iranian patrol boats approached a U.S. ship in what the Pentagon described as a 'taunting' manner. According to Centcom staff officers, the American commander on the spot was about to open fire. At that point, the U.S. was close to war. He desisted only when Fallon personally and explicitly ordered him not to shoot. The White House, according to the staff officers, was 'absolutely furious' with Fallon for defusing the incident.
Fallon has since departed. His abrupt resignation in early March followed the publication of his unvarnished views on our policy of confrontation with Iran, something that is unlikely to happen to his replacement, George Bush's favorite general, David Petraeus.
Though Petraeus is not due to take formal command at Centcom until late summer, there are abundant signs that something may happen before then. A Marine amphibious force, originally due to leave San Diego for the Persian Gulf in mid June, has had its sailing date abruptly moved up to May 4. A scheduled meeting in Europe between French diplomats acting as intermediaries for the U.S. and Iranian representatives has been abruptly cancelled in the last two weeks. Petraeus is said to be at work on a master briefing for congress to demonstrate conclusively that the Iranians are the source of our current troubles in Iraq, thanks to their support for the Shia militia currently under attack by U.S. forces in Baghdad..."
The Corporation:
Russell Mokhiber: Corporations Bad for Public Health
"You hear that cigarettes are bad for public health.
And that asbestos is bad for public health.
And that guns are bad for public health.
And that pollution is bad for public health.
That junk food is bad for public health.
But you rarely hear that corporations themselves are bad for public health.
That’s about to change.
A group of academics and activists are starting to push the idea that corporations are bad for public health.
At Hunter College, Nicholas Freudenberg has set up a web site to discuss the issue.
And now comes William Wiist.
Wiist is chair of the Health Sciences Department at Northern Arizona University.
Last year, he authored
an article for the American Journal of Public Health titled [links to a PDF] 'Public Health and the Anti-Corporate Movement.'
And now he’s working on a book for Oxford University Press tentatively titled Bottom Line or Public Health.
'There is a large contingent of people who believe there needs to be reform of corporations,' Wiist told Corporate Crime Reporter in an interview last week. 'There are many campaigns against individual corporations - trying to get them to behave in a more socially responsible manner. But corporations operate the way they are supposed to operate - the way the laws were set up for them to operate. Any particular corporation may be operating in a way that we may consider egregious. But they are operating to produce a profit, to externalize the costs, as they are supposed to, to bring maximum profit. Their officers are supposed to act in the best interests of the corporation and its investors. So, all corporations are operating the way they are supposed to. And they operate in similar ways. So, why attack one corporation for doing this poorly, or that poorly? We need to look at the underlying foundations of the corporation and how they operate under the law,'..."
Taxing Income:
David Sirota: The Capital Gains Tax Question Charlie Gibson Should Have Asked - Politics on The Huffington Post
"My column last week criticizes ABC's Charlie Gibson for using his position as debate moderator to focus the presidential discourse on the supposed unfairness of asking very wealthy people to pay the same tax rate on their stock profits as their servants pay on hard earned wages. Gibson led us to believe raising the capital gains tax rate would severely harm most Americans, when the hard data shows that the richest 1 percent pays most of this tax (not surprising, considering the richest 1 percent own most of the stock).
So what should Gibson have asked when it comes to capital gains taxes? How about asking the candidates whether they are serious about ending the situation whereby their wealthy donors in the private equity industry are being allowed to bilk American taxpayers?
Specifically, these private equity billionaires are permitted to declare their seven and eight-figure incomes as capital gains, thereby avoiding the standard income tax rates the rest of us have to pay. As you can see at Brave New Films' terrific War on Greed website, private equity sharks like Henry Kravis (who I've written
a column about before) are being allowed to avoid the tax rates the rest of the country has to pay - at a huge cost to the federal treasury (ie. schools, roads, bridges, health care, etc.).
This kind of question would truly make the Democratic candidates uncomfortable. Certainly, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have said they support ending the Henry Kravis Loophole - and that is, indeed, a good thing. But both candidates are also surrounded by an army of private equity mavens, and have taken a huge amount of money from the very fat cats that benefit from this tax code sleight-of-hand.
This, of course, says nothing of John McCain, who -- as far as I can tell through a Lexis-Nexis search -- hasn't even been asked about his position on the Henry Kravis Loophole, despite his own pandering to the hedge fund and private equity industry..."
On Torture:
Helen Thomas: Bush Admits He Approved Torture
"...We expected the usual cast of characters including Vice President Dick Cheney to be in on the sinister torture-planning sessions.
But it came as a shock that Gen. Colin Powell, then secretary of state, sat in on the meetings and went along with the planning. Powell had been on record warning against U.S. torture policies on the basis that if we mistreat our prisoners, foreign countries will feel no qualms about abusing American captives in wartime.
Once revered for his integrity, Powell has lost his halo.
Now we have this week’s testimony of Air Force Col. Morris Davis, a former chief prosecutor, who took the witness stand at Guantanamo Bay on behalf of a prisoner. Davis told how top Pentagon officials had pressured him on sensitive prosecutorial decisions for political reasons. He said he was told that the charges against well-known detainees 'could have real strategic value' and that there could be no acquittals.
Davis also testified Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann reversed a decision he made and insisted prosecutors proceed with evidence they obtained through waterboarding and other methods of torture.
Davis also testified he was told to speed up the cases to give the system legitimacy before a new president takes over in January.
Is Congress so cowed that it accepts the statements of a president who has little regard for the truth?
Is there no lawmaker who is appalled about the tarnishing of our image in world opinion? And where are the voices of the other presidential candidates who will inherit the Bush legacy of torture? Why the silence?
I count on the American people to refuse to be shamed any more."
Campaign 2008:
Bill Moyers: Beware The Simplifiers
"...Behold the double standard: John McCain sought out the endorsement of John Hagee, the war-mongering Catholic-bashing Texas preacher who said the people of New Orleans got what they deserved for their sins. But no one suggests McCain shares Hagee’s delusions, or thinks AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a foreign head of state and asked God to remove Supreme Court justices, yet he remains a force in the Republican religious right. After 9/11 Jerry Falwell said the attack was God’s judgment on America for having been driven out of our schools and the public square, but when McCain goes after the endorsement of the preacher he once condemned as an agent of intolerance, the press gives him a pass..."
Andrew Cockburn: Secret Bush 'Finding' Widens Covert War on Iran
"Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, 'unprecedented in its scope.'
Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department's list of terrorist groups...
...Further afield, operations against Iran's Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime.
All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy.
Until recently, the administration faced a serious obstacle to action against Iran in the form of Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon, who made no secret of his contempt for official determination to take us to war. In a widely publicized incident last January, Iranian patrol boats approached a U.S. ship in what the Pentagon described as a 'taunting' manner. According to Centcom staff officers, the American commander on the spot was about to open fire. At that point, the U.S. was close to war. He desisted only when Fallon personally and explicitly ordered him not to shoot. The White House, according to the staff officers, was 'absolutely furious' with Fallon for defusing the incident.
Fallon has since departed. His abrupt resignation in early March followed the publication of his unvarnished views on our policy of confrontation with Iran, something that is unlikely to happen to his replacement, George Bush's favorite general, David Petraeus.
Though Petraeus is not due to take formal command at Centcom until late summer, there are abundant signs that something may happen before then. A Marine amphibious force, originally due to leave San Diego for the Persian Gulf in mid June, has had its sailing date abruptly moved up to May 4. A scheduled meeting in Europe between French diplomats acting as intermediaries for the U.S. and Iranian representatives has been abruptly cancelled in the last two weeks. Petraeus is said to be at work on a master briefing for congress to demonstrate conclusively that the Iranians are the source of our current troubles in Iraq, thanks to their support for the Shia militia currently under attack by U.S. forces in Baghdad..."
The Corporation:
Russell Mokhiber: Corporations Bad for Public Health
"You hear that cigarettes are bad for public health.
And that asbestos is bad for public health.
And that guns are bad for public health.
And that pollution is bad for public health.
That junk food is bad for public health.
But you rarely hear that corporations themselves are bad for public health.
That’s about to change.
A group of academics and activists are starting to push the idea that corporations are bad for public health.
At Hunter College, Nicholas Freudenberg has set up a web site to discuss the issue.
And now comes William Wiist.
Wiist is chair of the Health Sciences Department at Northern Arizona University.
Last year, he authored
an article for the American Journal of Public Health titled [links to a PDF] 'Public Health and the Anti-Corporate Movement.'
And now he’s working on a book for Oxford University Press tentatively titled Bottom Line or Public Health.
'There is a large contingent of people who believe there needs to be reform of corporations,' Wiist told Corporate Crime Reporter in an interview last week. 'There are many campaigns against individual corporations - trying to get them to behave in a more socially responsible manner. But corporations operate the way they are supposed to operate - the way the laws were set up for them to operate. Any particular corporation may be operating in a way that we may consider egregious. But they are operating to produce a profit, to externalize the costs, as they are supposed to, to bring maximum profit. Their officers are supposed to act in the best interests of the corporation and its investors. So, all corporations are operating the way they are supposed to. And they operate in similar ways. So, why attack one corporation for doing this poorly, or that poorly? We need to look at the underlying foundations of the corporation and how they operate under the law,'..."
Taxing Income:
David Sirota: The Capital Gains Tax Question Charlie Gibson Should Have Asked - Politics on The Huffington Post
"My column last week criticizes ABC's Charlie Gibson for using his position as debate moderator to focus the presidential discourse on the supposed unfairness of asking very wealthy people to pay the same tax rate on their stock profits as their servants pay on hard earned wages. Gibson led us to believe raising the capital gains tax rate would severely harm most Americans, when the hard data shows that the richest 1 percent pays most of this tax (not surprising, considering the richest 1 percent own most of the stock).
So what should Gibson have asked when it comes to capital gains taxes? How about asking the candidates whether they are serious about ending the situation whereby their wealthy donors in the private equity industry are being allowed to bilk American taxpayers?
Specifically, these private equity billionaires are permitted to declare their seven and eight-figure incomes as capital gains, thereby avoiding the standard income tax rates the rest of us have to pay. As you can see at Brave New Films' terrific War on Greed website, private equity sharks like Henry Kravis (who I've written
a column about before) are being allowed to avoid the tax rates the rest of the country has to pay - at a huge cost to the federal treasury (ie. schools, roads, bridges, health care, etc.).
This kind of question would truly make the Democratic candidates uncomfortable. Certainly, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have said they support ending the Henry Kravis Loophole - and that is, indeed, a good thing. But both candidates are also surrounded by an army of private equity mavens, and have taken a huge amount of money from the very fat cats that benefit from this tax code sleight-of-hand.
This, of course, says nothing of John McCain, who -- as far as I can tell through a Lexis-Nexis search -- hasn't even been asked about his position on the Henry Kravis Loophole, despite his own pandering to the hedge fund and private equity industry..."
On Torture:
Helen Thomas: Bush Admits He Approved Torture
"...We expected the usual cast of characters including Vice President Dick Cheney to be in on the sinister torture-planning sessions.
But it came as a shock that Gen. Colin Powell, then secretary of state, sat in on the meetings and went along with the planning. Powell had been on record warning against U.S. torture policies on the basis that if we mistreat our prisoners, foreign countries will feel no qualms about abusing American captives in wartime.
Once revered for his integrity, Powell has lost his halo.
Now we have this week’s testimony of Air Force Col. Morris Davis, a former chief prosecutor, who took the witness stand at Guantanamo Bay on behalf of a prisoner. Davis told how top Pentagon officials had pressured him on sensitive prosecutorial decisions for political reasons. He said he was told that the charges against well-known detainees 'could have real strategic value' and that there could be no acquittals.
Davis also testified Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann reversed a decision he made and insisted prosecutors proceed with evidence they obtained through waterboarding and other methods of torture.
Davis also testified he was told to speed up the cases to give the system legitimacy before a new president takes over in January.
Is Congress so cowed that it accepts the statements of a president who has little regard for the truth?
Is there no lawmaker who is appalled about the tarnishing of our image in world opinion? And where are the voices of the other presidential candidates who will inherit the Bush legacy of torture? Why the silence?
I count on the American people to refuse to be shamed any more."
Campaign 2008:
Bill Moyers: Beware The Simplifiers
"...Behold the double standard: John McCain sought out the endorsement of John Hagee, the war-mongering Catholic-bashing Texas preacher who said the people of New Orleans got what they deserved for their sins. But no one suggests McCain shares Hagee’s delusions, or thinks AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a foreign head of state and asked God to remove Supreme Court justices, yet he remains a force in the Republican religious right. After 9/11 Jerry Falwell said the attack was God’s judgment on America for having been driven out of our schools and the public square, but when McCain goes after the endorsement of the preacher he once condemned as an agent of intolerance, the press gives him a pass..."
