From Information Clearing House, a quote:
"For in every city these two opposite parties [people vs aristocracy] are to be found, arising from the desire of the populace to avoid oppression of the great, and the desire of the great to command and oppress the people....For when the nobility see that they are unable to resist the people, they unite in exalting one of their number and creating him prince, so as to be able to carry out their own designs under the shadow of his authority." (Machiavelli, The Prince, ch. IX)
Wrap...
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Springsteen on adult perspective...
From mojo4music.com via Daily Kos:
The January 2006 issue of Mojo has a fantastic interview with Bruce Springsteen.
Here's a great quote:
... We forget that every adult was brought up on fairy tales so it's natural to go on and, politically for example, want to believe that your President is a nice, honest man. The inability to turn to an adult perspective once you get to the age where you have some political weight is a great tragedy, and this is a period of history when it seems the most obvious type of disguise is on display to the entire world and yet those are the people who are still in power.
Wrap...
The January 2006 issue of Mojo has a fantastic interview with Bruce Springsteen.
Here's a great quote:
... We forget that every adult was brought up on fairy tales so it's natural to go on and, politically for example, want to believe that your President is a nice, honest man. The inability to turn to an adult perspective once you get to the age where you have some political weight is a great tragedy, and this is a period of history when it seems the most obvious type of disguise is on display to the entire world and yet those are the people who are still in power.
Wrap...
Consider a mass murderer....
Author unknown...
Who was Adolf Eichmann?
Eyes: Medium
Hair: Medium
Weight: Medium
Height: Medium
Distinguishing Features: None
Number of Fingers: Ten
Number of Toes: Ten
Intelligence: Medium
Source of Wealth: Payments from victims of German occupation
Source of Career: Emergency Powers granted to Hitler to protect the Reich against terrorism claimed to be responsible for the Reichstag fire
Working Territory: Labor camps and prisons built throughout Europe
Defense at Trial: "Why me? Everybody killed the Jews."
No signs of madness apparent.
No indications of cruelty apparent.
No record of brutality until about 1937 when he was 31; he was arrested when he was 39.
What do we expect to see of a criminal of such magnitude?
Special features?
Special choices?
Fearsome eyes or teeth?
A history that predicts a future?
Eichmann was an ordinary man who capitalized on the largess of geopolitical circumstance in the name of what he thought patriotic. He is known for mass murder because subsequent geopolitical circumstance defined him so. It wasn't the killing that gave him his legacy; it was the circumstance.
Would he be a mass murderer still had the Third Reich lasted 75 years instead of 12?
Wrap....
Who was Adolf Eichmann?
Eyes: Medium
Hair: Medium
Weight: Medium
Height: Medium
Distinguishing Features: None
Number of Fingers: Ten
Number of Toes: Ten
Intelligence: Medium
Source of Wealth: Payments from victims of German occupation
Source of Career: Emergency Powers granted to Hitler to protect the Reich against terrorism claimed to be responsible for the Reichstag fire
Working Territory: Labor camps and prisons built throughout Europe
Defense at Trial: "Why me? Everybody killed the Jews."
No signs of madness apparent.
No indications of cruelty apparent.
No record of brutality until about 1937 when he was 31; he was arrested when he was 39.
What do we expect to see of a criminal of such magnitude?
Special features?
Special choices?
Fearsome eyes or teeth?
A history that predicts a future?
Eichmann was an ordinary man who capitalized on the largess of geopolitical circumstance in the name of what he thought patriotic. He is known for mass murder because subsequent geopolitical circumstance defined him so. It wasn't the killing that gave him his legacy; it was the circumstance.
Would he be a mass murderer still had the Third Reich lasted 75 years instead of 12?
Wrap....
Cooking, Naked Politicians, Explorer...books....
From Publishers Weekly Lunch:
FICTION:
Chandra Prasad's ONE OF THE BOYS, set in the Depression, when Yale was an all boys school, Prasad's heroine dresses as a boy and takes the place of her brother in the freshman class when he is killed in an accident right before starting college, to Greer Hendricks at Atria, by Rosalie Siegel at International Literary Agent (world).rsiegel@ix.netcom.com
Former Paramount scout and husband to agent Maria Massie, Justin Evans's A GOOD AND HAPPY CHILD, a Southern Gothic suspense "in the spirit of Donna Tartt's The Secret History," to Sally Kim of Shaye Areheart Books, at auction, by Diane Bartoli at Artists Literary Group (world).
THRILLER:
Dan Simmons's THE TERROR, which recalls Melville and Conrad and packs the the jolt of Stephen King to tell an epic story inspired by a true historical event -- the confrontation between the crews of two ice-locked 19th century British expeditionary ships and a terrifying supernatural presence, to Michael Mezzo at Little, Brown, in a pre-empt, by Richard Curtis of Richard Curtis Associates.rcurtis@curtisagency.com
UK:
Lucy Diamond's ANY WAY YOU WANT ME, about a desperate housewife who creates a fictitious on-line identity to impress former school-mates and future employees until the stark reality of what she is doing begins to collide head-on with life in general, to Imogen Taylor at Macmillan, in a very nice deal, by Simon Trewin at PFD (UK/Commonwealth). strewin@pfd.co.uk
Diane Setterfield's debut THE THIRTEENTH TALE, about a reclusive novelist, to Jane Wood at Orion, in a major deal, reportedly for about $1.4 million, for two books, for publication beginning in September 2006, by Vivien Green at Sheil Land Associates. A US auction is coming soon.
NON FICTION/GENERAL/OTHER:
Author and senior writer at Time Jeffrey Kluger's SIMPLEXITY: The Complex Guppy, The Simple Star, and Why Kicking Your Television Works, an exploration of the complicated nature of simple things, the simple nature of complicated things, and how they can both be used to improve our lives in fields as diverse as biology, economics, politics, child development, and the arts, to Kelly Notaras at Hyperion, in a pre-empt, for publication in fall 2007, by Joy Harris at the Joy Harris Agency (world English).Katie.Wainwright@abc.com
NYT bestseller Steven Johnson's untitled book on where good ideas come from and why certain environments which are often chaotic, noisy, urban, and connective foster creative thinking while others environments suppress them, drawing on brain science, urban history, sociology and personal anecdotes from creative people, again to Sean McDonald at Riverhead, by Lydia Wills at Paradigm (world).lwills@paradigmny.com
BIOGRAPHY:
Walter R. Borneman's DARK HORSE, BRIGHT LAND: James K. Polk and the Conquest of the American West, the story of how Polk unabashedly proclaimed a policy of continental expansion, welcomed Texas into the Union, bluffed the British out of the better half of Oregon, and went to war with Mexico to grab California and the Southwest, to Will Murphy at Random House, by Alexander Hoyt at Alexander Hoyt Associates (world).Rights: ctisne@randomhouse.com
COOKING:
Kelly Alexander and Cindy Harris's HOMETOWN APPETITES: The Life, Legacy, and Recipes of Clementine Paddleford, part biography, part cookbook, based on a James Beard Award-winning Saveur feature story about pioneer food writer Clementine Paddleford, who defined American cuisine by writing about what ordinary Americans were cooking at a time when most food writers were looking to European traditions, to Erin Moore at Gotham, in a pre-empt, by Michael Psaltis at Regal Literary (world).
HISTORY/POLITICS/CURRENT AFFAIRS:
Eamonn Fingleton's IN THE JAWS OF THE DRAGON: America's Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony, to Thomas Dunne at Thomas Dunne Books, by Fredrica Friedman at Fredrica S. Friedman and Company (world rights, excl. Japan).fsf10@yahoo.com
Kristen Laine's AMERICAN BAND, tracing the importance of the "band" subculture in American high schools and examine larger issues, such as the texture of life and growing influence of faith in Red State America, to William Shinker at Gotham, with Erin Moore editing, at auction, by
Robert Shepard of the Robert E. Shepard Agency (NA).robert@shepardagency.com
Pulitzer Prize-winning author of GOTHAM Edwin Burrow's PRISONERS OF NEW YORK, the history of the largely unknown prison camps in New York City where tens of thousands of Americans were imprisoned and brutally treated during the American Revolution - ultimately leading to more American deaths than all of the battles of the Revolution combined, to Lara Heimert at Basic, in a pre-empt, by Sam Stoloff at Frances Goldin Literary Agency (NA).jamie.brickhousse@perseusbooks.com
HUMOR:
Air America co-creator Shelley Lewis's NAKED POLITICIANS: A Revealing Guide to the Right-Wingers Who Want Your Vote, a humorous collection of gotchas that expose Republican hypocrisy from Tom "The Natural" Delay's corruption trial, to Bill "Disgrace Under Pressure" Frist's insider trading scandal, with a political Hall of Shame for lifetime achievers, including a special "League of Their Own" section for the Republican ladies, to Julia Cheiffetz at Villard, to be published to coincide with midterm elections in the fall, by Laurie Liss at Sterling Lord Literistic (NA).Rights: rbernstein@randomhouse.com
MEMOIR:
Club, TV and radio comedienne (and wife of Andy Richter) Sarah Thyre's DARK AT THE ROOTS, at humorous, quirky memoir about growing up in southeastern Louisiana, to Amy Scheibe at Counterpoint, for six figures, in a pre-empt, her first acquisition since joining the house, for publication in spring 2007, by Erin Hosier of The Gernert Company (world). Film rights are with Rabineau, Wachter & Sanford.Jamie.brickhouse@perseusbooks.com
NARRATIVE:
Adventurer Mike Horn's CONQUERING THE IMPOSSIBLE, an account of his record-breaking 12,000-mile, 27-month solo expedition around the globe at the Arctic Circle without motorized transportation and his ability to overcome severe frostbite, a fire that nearly burned him alive, and other near-fatal mishaps, to Tom Mercer at St. Martin's, by Susanna Lea at Susanna Lea Associates, on behalf of XO Editions (NA).
UK:
Jim Steinmeyer's THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO CHARLES FORT: Raining Fish, Talking Dogs, Dripping Blood, and the Writer who Unhinged the Cosmos, to Heinemann, by Arabella Stein at Abner Stein on behalf of Anne Garrett at James Fitzgerald Agency (UK/Com). anne@jfitzagency.com
Wrap...
FICTION:
Chandra Prasad's ONE OF THE BOYS, set in the Depression, when Yale was an all boys school, Prasad's heroine dresses as a boy and takes the place of her brother in the freshman class when he is killed in an accident right before starting college, to Greer Hendricks at Atria, by Rosalie Siegel at International Literary Agent (world).rsiegel@ix.netcom.com
Former Paramount scout and husband to agent Maria Massie, Justin Evans's A GOOD AND HAPPY CHILD, a Southern Gothic suspense "in the spirit of Donna Tartt's The Secret History," to Sally Kim of Shaye Areheart Books, at auction, by Diane Bartoli at Artists Literary Group (world).
THRILLER:
Dan Simmons's THE TERROR, which recalls Melville and Conrad and packs the the jolt of Stephen King to tell an epic story inspired by a true historical event -- the confrontation between the crews of two ice-locked 19th century British expeditionary ships and a terrifying supernatural presence, to Michael Mezzo at Little, Brown, in a pre-empt, by Richard Curtis of Richard Curtis Associates.rcurtis@curtisagency.com
UK:
Lucy Diamond's ANY WAY YOU WANT ME, about a desperate housewife who creates a fictitious on-line identity to impress former school-mates and future employees until the stark reality of what she is doing begins to collide head-on with life in general, to Imogen Taylor at Macmillan, in a very nice deal, by Simon Trewin at PFD (UK/Commonwealth). strewin@pfd.co.uk
Diane Setterfield's debut THE THIRTEENTH TALE, about a reclusive novelist, to Jane Wood at Orion, in a major deal, reportedly for about $1.4 million, for two books, for publication beginning in September 2006, by Vivien Green at Sheil Land Associates. A US auction is coming soon.
NON FICTION/GENERAL/OTHER:
Author and senior writer at Time Jeffrey Kluger's SIMPLEXITY: The Complex Guppy, The Simple Star, and Why Kicking Your Television Works, an exploration of the complicated nature of simple things, the simple nature of complicated things, and how they can both be used to improve our lives in fields as diverse as biology, economics, politics, child development, and the arts, to Kelly Notaras at Hyperion, in a pre-empt, for publication in fall 2007, by Joy Harris at the Joy Harris Agency (world English).Katie.Wainwright@abc.com
NYT bestseller Steven Johnson's untitled book on where good ideas come from and why certain environments which are often chaotic, noisy, urban, and connective foster creative thinking while others environments suppress them, drawing on brain science, urban history, sociology and personal anecdotes from creative people, again to Sean McDonald at Riverhead, by Lydia Wills at Paradigm (world).lwills@paradigmny.com
BIOGRAPHY:
Walter R. Borneman's DARK HORSE, BRIGHT LAND: James K. Polk and the Conquest of the American West, the story of how Polk unabashedly proclaimed a policy of continental expansion, welcomed Texas into the Union, bluffed the British out of the better half of Oregon, and went to war with Mexico to grab California and the Southwest, to Will Murphy at Random House, by Alexander Hoyt at Alexander Hoyt Associates (world).Rights: ctisne@randomhouse.com
COOKING:
Kelly Alexander and Cindy Harris's HOMETOWN APPETITES: The Life, Legacy, and Recipes of Clementine Paddleford, part biography, part cookbook, based on a James Beard Award-winning Saveur feature story about pioneer food writer Clementine Paddleford, who defined American cuisine by writing about what ordinary Americans were cooking at a time when most food writers were looking to European traditions, to Erin Moore at Gotham, in a pre-empt, by Michael Psaltis at Regal Literary (world).
HISTORY/POLITICS/CURRENT AFFAIRS:
Eamonn Fingleton's IN THE JAWS OF THE DRAGON: America's Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony, to Thomas Dunne at Thomas Dunne Books, by Fredrica Friedman at Fredrica S. Friedman and Company (world rights, excl. Japan).fsf10@yahoo.com
Kristen Laine's AMERICAN BAND, tracing the importance of the "band" subculture in American high schools and examine larger issues, such as the texture of life and growing influence of faith in Red State America, to William Shinker at Gotham, with Erin Moore editing, at auction, by
Robert Shepard of the Robert E. Shepard Agency (NA).robert@shepardagency.com
Pulitzer Prize-winning author of GOTHAM Edwin Burrow's PRISONERS OF NEW YORK, the history of the largely unknown prison camps in New York City where tens of thousands of Americans were imprisoned and brutally treated during the American Revolution - ultimately leading to more American deaths than all of the battles of the Revolution combined, to Lara Heimert at Basic, in a pre-empt, by Sam Stoloff at Frances Goldin Literary Agency (NA).jamie.brickhousse@perseusbooks.com
HUMOR:
Air America co-creator Shelley Lewis's NAKED POLITICIANS: A Revealing Guide to the Right-Wingers Who Want Your Vote, a humorous collection of gotchas that expose Republican hypocrisy from Tom "The Natural" Delay's corruption trial, to Bill "Disgrace Under Pressure" Frist's insider trading scandal, with a political Hall of Shame for lifetime achievers, including a special "League of Their Own" section for the Republican ladies, to Julia Cheiffetz at Villard, to be published to coincide with midterm elections in the fall, by Laurie Liss at Sterling Lord Literistic (NA).Rights: rbernstein@randomhouse.com
MEMOIR:
Club, TV and radio comedienne (and wife of Andy Richter) Sarah Thyre's DARK AT THE ROOTS, at humorous, quirky memoir about growing up in southeastern Louisiana, to Amy Scheibe at Counterpoint, for six figures, in a pre-empt, her first acquisition since joining the house, for publication in spring 2007, by Erin Hosier of The Gernert Company (world). Film rights are with Rabineau, Wachter & Sanford.Jamie.brickhouse@perseusbooks.com
NARRATIVE:
Adventurer Mike Horn's CONQUERING THE IMPOSSIBLE, an account of his record-breaking 12,000-mile, 27-month solo expedition around the globe at the Arctic Circle without motorized transportation and his ability to overcome severe frostbite, a fire that nearly burned him alive, and other near-fatal mishaps, to Tom Mercer at St. Martin's, by Susanna Lea at Susanna Lea Associates, on behalf of XO Editions (NA).
UK:
Jim Steinmeyer's THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO CHARLES FORT: Raining Fish, Talking Dogs, Dripping Blood, and the Writer who Unhinged the Cosmos, to Heinemann, by Arabella Stein at Abner Stein on behalf of Anne Garrett at James Fitzgerald Agency (UK/Com). anne@jfitzagency.com
Wrap...
Monday, December 26, 2005
Sharon in Israel...
From Reuters via yahoo news:
Sharon to have heart operation
By Corinne HellerMon Dec 26, 6:36 PM ET
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will undergo an operation to close a tiny hole in his heart which is believed to be the reason for his mild stroke last week, his doctors said on Monday.
Sharon, 77, is already back at work after the December 18 health scare and his new Kadima party formally launched its election campaign on Monday to secure the bulky ex-general a third term with a pledge to try and end conflict with the Palestinians.
Doctors suspect a blood clot resulting from a 2 mm hole in the heart, a common birth defect, caused Sharon's stroke.
A tiny tube will be inserted to the heart via a blood vessel in a routine procedure known as Cardiac Catheterization that takes about 30 minutes. Sharon will not need to be readmitted to hospital. It should be carried out in two to three weeks.
"This will be done to prevent future blood clots," said Tamir Ben-Hur of the Hadassah hospital.
After that, the risk of a further stroke should have been removed. Strokes are caused by a lack of blood flow to the brain. Doctors emphasized that Sharon's blood pressure and cholesterol levels were normal despite his girth.
They said he had lost 3 kg (6.6 lb) since the stroke and now weighs 115 kg (254 lb).
Sharon returned to work on Sunday in a show of vigor. Polls have also showed the health scare did not harm his chances of winning a third term in a March election, but they have raised a question over how long he can dominate Israeli politics.
Wrap...
Sharon to have heart operation
By Corinne HellerMon Dec 26, 6:36 PM ET
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will undergo an operation to close a tiny hole in his heart which is believed to be the reason for his mild stroke last week, his doctors said on Monday.
Sharon, 77, is already back at work after the December 18 health scare and his new Kadima party formally launched its election campaign on Monday to secure the bulky ex-general a third term with a pledge to try and end conflict with the Palestinians.
Doctors suspect a blood clot resulting from a 2 mm hole in the heart, a common birth defect, caused Sharon's stroke.
A tiny tube will be inserted to the heart via a blood vessel in a routine procedure known as Cardiac Catheterization that takes about 30 minutes. Sharon will not need to be readmitted to hospital. It should be carried out in two to three weeks.
"This will be done to prevent future blood clots," said Tamir Ben-Hur of the Hadassah hospital.
After that, the risk of a further stroke should have been removed. Strokes are caused by a lack of blood flow to the brain. Doctors emphasized that Sharon's blood pressure and cholesterol levels were normal despite his girth.
They said he had lost 3 kg (6.6 lb) since the stroke and now weighs 115 kg (254 lb).
Sharon returned to work on Sunday in a show of vigor. Polls have also showed the health scare did not harm his chances of winning a third term in a March election, but they have raised a question over how long he can dominate Israeli politics.
Wrap...
Predictions for 2006...
From Capitol Hill Blue
Just for the Hell of It
A few predictions for 2006
By LANCE GAY
Dec 26, 2005, 00:54
Congress stays in Republican control ... the politics of scandals escalates ... China-Japan tensions worsen ... the economy chugs along. Those are some of the things our crystal ball sees ahead for 2006.
Here are our annual predictions:
Scandals rock Washington, as the federal investigation into the lobbying activities of Jack Abramoff and his associates will force the resignations of well-known politicians. But GOP efforts to revitalize the House Ethics Committee to clean up the mess in Congress will be stymied by partisan finger-pointing.
Republicans lose seats in the midterm elections but retain control of both the House and Senate with diminished majorities.
Upsets: Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., beats impossible odds to defeat Republican Bob Corker for the Senate seat. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., is defeated.
In the House, his colleagues won't approve efforts by former House Republican leader Tom DeLay of Texas to regain his post as GOP leader.
A more-active-than-usual 2006 hurricane season, but not quite as nasty as it was in 2005.
More gloom in Detroit: Geely, manufacturer of the first Chinese-made sports car, begins selling its models in the United States at bargain-basement sticker prices ranging from $7,000 to $11,000 for a fully loaded model. For the first time, Toyota will exceed General Motors in U.S. car sales.
A withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq begins, with National Guard and Reserve forces heading home and replaced by the professional units drawn from Europe and Korea.
Baghdad's fractious politics worsen, with bare-knuckle political wrangling over who controls Iraq's oil revenues, and a worsening insurgency. Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi remains at large.
The U.S. economy looks strong on paper with productivity, corporate profits and growth-gaining. Consumer spending moderates, as Americans feel uneasy with declines in real wage growth for the fifth year, increased health care costs, and cooling housing prices.
Top business growth area: Do-it-for-me services, especially for boomers, who have the bank accounts to hire someone else to do the work, such as retiling the bathroom or paving the driveway.
Another business development: Big shopping malls really feel the impact of lost business to the Internet.
No more Supreme Court retirements this year.
No bird flu pandemic this year. But bird flu continues to be a concern, and sporadic human cases still crop up.
Overseas developments:
Syria gets a new leader, and Washington doesn't like him.
Bitter midwinter elections for Canada's Liberals, who may be forced to make a coalition government with the prairie socialist New Democratic Party.
Tony Blair isn't the British prime minister by year's end, but a revolt in Labor Party ranks over replacing him with Gordon Brown may materialize
Mexicans overseas can vote for the first time in their 2006 presidential elections, but don't expect many ballots to come from the United States.
In Israel, Arial Sharon's centrist coalition wins re-election, burying the hopes of Binyamin Netanyahu and reaffirming the idea of swapping land with the Palestinians for peace.
If Iran doesn't come to an agreement over stopping its nuclear program, Israel forces it to cease.
Mardi Gras survives in New Orleans, but frivolity is as faux as the gold carnival beads. By year's end, less than a third of the city's population will be back.
Gale Norton steps down as Interior Secretary.
On the social front:
Brad and Angelina won't be a couple at year's end.
The Oscar nominees for Best Picture are "History of Violence," "Jarhead," "King Kong," "Memoirs of a Geisha" and "Walk the Line." In line for best actor is Heath Ledger for "Brokeback Mountain," while "March of the Penguins" marches off with best documentary. But watch as the Motion Picture Academy swoons for the $200 million, three-hour remake of "King Kong."
Pearl Jam, the Red Hot Chili Peppers and R.E.M. prove they are still red hot with new albums.
Watch as Canada emerges as the fertile breeding ground for alternative rock led by Arcade Fire, Wolf Parade, Feist, Broken Social Scene, New Pornographers and Hot Hot Heat.
Scandal-plagued divas Janet Jackson, Whitney Houston and Lauryn Hill experience a successful year.
TV-enabled cell phones become a plague in schools.
Fad is fading on Crocs, the light-weight plastic shoes that were big in high school corridors.
On the sports pages:
Southern Cal wins national championship Jan. 4 in Rose Bowl, but doesn't even qualify for national championship game in 2006 season.
World Baseball Classic is a success, even though the U.S. doesn't win at the inaugural event.
Indianapolis wins the Super Bowl for the first time.
Michelle Wie wins first women's tournament.
Reality bites; U.S. fails to make out of first round of soccer's World Cup draw.
For sixth year in a row, Yankees don't win World Series, and manager Joe Torre leaves.
U.S. does well at Torino Olympics, but does not match record medal count of 34 achieved at Salt Lake.
So how did we do last year?
We were on spot forecasting two Supreme Court vacancies this year, and predicted a "busier-than-average hurricane season." We told readers Republican mavericks would derail Social Security reform.
We were way off the mark when we said that Hillary Rodham Clinton would make it clear she's not running for president in '08. While we're still hopeful Lindsay Lohan might become Hollywood's reigning starlet, it didn't happen, either. "Million Dollar Baby" (which we didn't mention) was the Academy Award winner for best picture, not "The Aviator" as we had expected.
Happy New Year.
(Contact Lance Gay at GayL(at)shns.com)
© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue
Wrap...
Just for the Hell of It
A few predictions for 2006
By LANCE GAY
Dec 26, 2005, 00:54
Congress stays in Republican control ... the politics of scandals escalates ... China-Japan tensions worsen ... the economy chugs along. Those are some of the things our crystal ball sees ahead for 2006.
Here are our annual predictions:
Scandals rock Washington, as the federal investigation into the lobbying activities of Jack Abramoff and his associates will force the resignations of well-known politicians. But GOP efforts to revitalize the House Ethics Committee to clean up the mess in Congress will be stymied by partisan finger-pointing.
Republicans lose seats in the midterm elections but retain control of both the House and Senate with diminished majorities.
Upsets: Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., beats impossible odds to defeat Republican Bob Corker for the Senate seat. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., is defeated.
In the House, his colleagues won't approve efforts by former House Republican leader Tom DeLay of Texas to regain his post as GOP leader.
A more-active-than-usual 2006 hurricane season, but not quite as nasty as it was in 2005.
More gloom in Detroit: Geely, manufacturer of the first Chinese-made sports car, begins selling its models in the United States at bargain-basement sticker prices ranging from $7,000 to $11,000 for a fully loaded model. For the first time, Toyota will exceed General Motors in U.S. car sales.
A withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq begins, with National Guard and Reserve forces heading home and replaced by the professional units drawn from Europe and Korea.
Baghdad's fractious politics worsen, with bare-knuckle political wrangling over who controls Iraq's oil revenues, and a worsening insurgency. Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi remains at large.
The U.S. economy looks strong on paper with productivity, corporate profits and growth-gaining. Consumer spending moderates, as Americans feel uneasy with declines in real wage growth for the fifth year, increased health care costs, and cooling housing prices.
Top business growth area: Do-it-for-me services, especially for boomers, who have the bank accounts to hire someone else to do the work, such as retiling the bathroom or paving the driveway.
Another business development: Big shopping malls really feel the impact of lost business to the Internet.
No more Supreme Court retirements this year.
No bird flu pandemic this year. But bird flu continues to be a concern, and sporadic human cases still crop up.
Overseas developments:
Syria gets a new leader, and Washington doesn't like him.
Bitter midwinter elections for Canada's Liberals, who may be forced to make a coalition government with the prairie socialist New Democratic Party.
Tony Blair isn't the British prime minister by year's end, but a revolt in Labor Party ranks over replacing him with Gordon Brown may materialize
Mexicans overseas can vote for the first time in their 2006 presidential elections, but don't expect many ballots to come from the United States.
In Israel, Arial Sharon's centrist coalition wins re-election, burying the hopes of Binyamin Netanyahu and reaffirming the idea of swapping land with the Palestinians for peace.
If Iran doesn't come to an agreement over stopping its nuclear program, Israel forces it to cease.
Mardi Gras survives in New Orleans, but frivolity is as faux as the gold carnival beads. By year's end, less than a third of the city's population will be back.
Gale Norton steps down as Interior Secretary.
On the social front:
Brad and Angelina won't be a couple at year's end.
The Oscar nominees for Best Picture are "History of Violence," "Jarhead," "King Kong," "Memoirs of a Geisha" and "Walk the Line." In line for best actor is Heath Ledger for "Brokeback Mountain," while "March of the Penguins" marches off with best documentary. But watch as the Motion Picture Academy swoons for the $200 million, three-hour remake of "King Kong."
Pearl Jam, the Red Hot Chili Peppers and R.E.M. prove they are still red hot with new albums.
Watch as Canada emerges as the fertile breeding ground for alternative rock led by Arcade Fire, Wolf Parade, Feist, Broken Social Scene, New Pornographers and Hot Hot Heat.
Scandal-plagued divas Janet Jackson, Whitney Houston and Lauryn Hill experience a successful year.
TV-enabled cell phones become a plague in schools.
Fad is fading on Crocs, the light-weight plastic shoes that were big in high school corridors.
On the sports pages:
Southern Cal wins national championship Jan. 4 in Rose Bowl, but doesn't even qualify for national championship game in 2006 season.
World Baseball Classic is a success, even though the U.S. doesn't win at the inaugural event.
Indianapolis wins the Super Bowl for the first time.
Michelle Wie wins first women's tournament.
Reality bites; U.S. fails to make out of first round of soccer's World Cup draw.
For sixth year in a row, Yankees don't win World Series, and manager Joe Torre leaves.
U.S. does well at Torino Olympics, but does not match record medal count of 34 achieved at Salt Lake.
So how did we do last year?
We were on spot forecasting two Supreme Court vacancies this year, and predicted a "busier-than-average hurricane season." We told readers Republican mavericks would derail Social Security reform.
We were way off the mark when we said that Hillary Rodham Clinton would make it clear she's not running for president in '08. While we're still hopeful Lindsay Lohan might become Hollywood's reigning starlet, it didn't happen, either. "Million Dollar Baby" (which we didn't mention) was the Academy Award winner for best picture, not "The Aviator" as we had expected.
Happy New Year.
(Contact Lance Gay at GayL(at)shns.com)
© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue
Wrap...
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Dems: 2006 Go for it or Status Quo?
via truthout.org :
Will the Dems Step Up in the New Year?
By David Sirota
In These Times
Thursday 22 December 2005
Do the Democrats actually want to be a majority party? The answer appears to be, at best, a maybe.
As the winter holiday season blows in and 2005 begins to wane, both major political parties face big questions that will impact American politics far into the future.
The question for Republicans is simple: Are they going to continue fueling their culture of corruption and intensifying their wild-eyed ideological jihads?
The question for Democrats is also simple, but more frustrating because the answers should be obvious: Does the party really want to be a majority party?
Republicans are answering their big question with a big yes. By all indications, the GOP is going to continue down its path, with no realization that they are in a downward spiral. In recent months, we've seen no sign of remorse from the GOP for all of its corruption scandals, and a redoubled effort to gut basic government services in the name of financing new tax cuts for the wealthy. Meanwhile, Republicans have largely refused to reevaluate their disastrous Iraq policies, instead doing everything they can to label war critics "cowards," "gutless traitors," or worse.
Democrats are answering their big question in much the same sad way. As the New Republic recently reported, Democratic aides admit that some Democratic officials "simply aren't willing to really go all-out in the quest for the majority." Put more succinctly, Democrats' answer to their big question is, at best, a maybe, and more likely a big no - at least not yet.
2005 has shown that many Democratic Party leaders have made a conscious decision to take no position on almost every major challenge facing America. On the major economic issues, the party has talked a good game and lashed into the GOP - but on some of the biggest congressional votes, many Democrats have stood in lockstep with the Republicans. Just look how many Democratic senators supported the bankruptcy (18), energy (25) and class action (18) bills for proof.
There have been opportunities for Democrats to show a real contrast with the GOP's culture of corruption. But it's clear the party is still in a business-as-usual mode. For instance, Democrats all year have publicly bragged about their ties to corporate lobbyists, going out of their way to land stories in Capitol Hill publications coddling business interests. Meanwhile, most Democrats joined hands with the GOP in voting in a $3,100 raise for lawmakers at a time of massive deficits and cuts to critical programs.
And then there is Iraq. Even as Vietnam war heroes like Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) try to lead their party to reevaluate the Bush administration's destructive war policies, the party continues to stress that it does not have an official position - seemingly more concerned with the desires of the Washington cocktail party circuit and its insulated "strategic class" than with actually serving as a voice for the majority of Americans who support a withdrawal.
Perhaps most problematic for Democrats is that some of its highest-profile spokesmen seem to go out of their way to undercut the party's courageous leaders.
For every Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) or Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) fighting against the corrosive influence of corporate lobbyists, there is a Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), publicly bragging that he wants to be the first contact for K Street lobbyists.
For every Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) fighting against the latest corporate-written trade deal, there are groups of House and Senate Democrats that provide the critical votes needed to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
For every move by a Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to demand answers about prewar intelligence, or a Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to press a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, or a Murtha who says it's time for a change, there is a Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) opposing a withdrawal, a Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) saying he has no regrets about voting for a war based on lies, or a Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) actually telling reporters that the party won't have an Iraq position until "the right time."
How each party answers its big questions will not only decide the 2006 or 2008 elections but whether America will still have a political system that represents our country's people. Polls consistently show that Americans want a vastly more progressive economic policy, are concerned about Big Money's influence on our government and support bringing the troops home from Iraq within a year. In other words, what the public wants is very clear despite the political establishment's efforts to muddle the issues.
That means that while both parties face a different set of questions, their responses will give us an answer to the biggest question of all: Will the new year witness the final death throes of America's representative democracy?
David Sirota is the co-chairperson of the Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN) and a Senior Editor at In These Times. He also writes for Working Assets, and is a twice-a-week guest on the Al Franken Show. His forthcoming book Hostile Takeover will be released by Random House’s Crown Publishers in Spring 2006.
Wrap...
Will the Dems Step Up in the New Year?
By David Sirota
In These Times
Thursday 22 December 2005
Do the Democrats actually want to be a majority party? The answer appears to be, at best, a maybe.
As the winter holiday season blows in and 2005 begins to wane, both major political parties face big questions that will impact American politics far into the future.
The question for Republicans is simple: Are they going to continue fueling their culture of corruption and intensifying their wild-eyed ideological jihads?
The question for Democrats is also simple, but more frustrating because the answers should be obvious: Does the party really want to be a majority party?
Republicans are answering their big question with a big yes. By all indications, the GOP is going to continue down its path, with no realization that they are in a downward spiral. In recent months, we've seen no sign of remorse from the GOP for all of its corruption scandals, and a redoubled effort to gut basic government services in the name of financing new tax cuts for the wealthy. Meanwhile, Republicans have largely refused to reevaluate their disastrous Iraq policies, instead doing everything they can to label war critics "cowards," "gutless traitors," or worse.
Democrats are answering their big question in much the same sad way. As the New Republic recently reported, Democratic aides admit that some Democratic officials "simply aren't willing to really go all-out in the quest for the majority." Put more succinctly, Democrats' answer to their big question is, at best, a maybe, and more likely a big no - at least not yet.
2005 has shown that many Democratic Party leaders have made a conscious decision to take no position on almost every major challenge facing America. On the major economic issues, the party has talked a good game and lashed into the GOP - but on some of the biggest congressional votes, many Democrats have stood in lockstep with the Republicans. Just look how many Democratic senators supported the bankruptcy (18), energy (25) and class action (18) bills for proof.
There have been opportunities for Democrats to show a real contrast with the GOP's culture of corruption. But it's clear the party is still in a business-as-usual mode. For instance, Democrats all year have publicly bragged about their ties to corporate lobbyists, going out of their way to land stories in Capitol Hill publications coddling business interests. Meanwhile, most Democrats joined hands with the GOP in voting in a $3,100 raise for lawmakers at a time of massive deficits and cuts to critical programs.
And then there is Iraq. Even as Vietnam war heroes like Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) try to lead their party to reevaluate the Bush administration's destructive war policies, the party continues to stress that it does not have an official position - seemingly more concerned with the desires of the Washington cocktail party circuit and its insulated "strategic class" than with actually serving as a voice for the majority of Americans who support a withdrawal.
Perhaps most problematic for Democrats is that some of its highest-profile spokesmen seem to go out of their way to undercut the party's courageous leaders.
For every Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) or Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) fighting against the corrosive influence of corporate lobbyists, there is a Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), publicly bragging that he wants to be the first contact for K Street lobbyists.
For every Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) fighting against the latest corporate-written trade deal, there are groups of House and Senate Democrats that provide the critical votes needed to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
For every move by a Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to demand answers about prewar intelligence, or a Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to press a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, or a Murtha who says it's time for a change, there is a Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) opposing a withdrawal, a Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) saying he has no regrets about voting for a war based on lies, or a Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) actually telling reporters that the party won't have an Iraq position until "the right time."
How each party answers its big questions will not only decide the 2006 or 2008 elections but whether America will still have a political system that represents our country's people. Polls consistently show that Americans want a vastly more progressive economic policy, are concerned about Big Money's influence on our government and support bringing the troops home from Iraq within a year. In other words, what the public wants is very clear despite the political establishment's efforts to muddle the issues.
That means that while both parties face a different set of questions, their responses will give us an answer to the biggest question of all: Will the new year witness the final death throes of America's representative democracy?
David Sirota is the co-chairperson of the Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN) and a Senior Editor at In These Times. He also writes for Working Assets, and is a twice-a-week guest on the Al Franken Show. His forthcoming book Hostile Takeover will be released by Random House’s Crown Publishers in Spring 2006.
Wrap...
NSA...the abyss of no return...
From the NY Times via truthout.org :
NSA, the Agency That Could Be Big Brother
By James Bamford
The New York Times
Sunday 25 December 2005
Washington - Deep in a remote, fog-layered hollow near Sugar Grove, W.Va., hidden by fortress-like mountains, sits the country's largest eavesdropping bug. Located in a "radio quiet" zone, the station's large parabolic dishes secretly and silently sweep in millions of private telephone calls and e-mail messages an hour.
Run by the ultrasecret National Security Agency, the listening post intercepts all international communications entering the eastern United States. Another NSA listening post, in Yakima,Wash., eavesdrops on the western half of the country.
A hundred miles or so north of Sugar Grove, in Washington, the NSA has suddenly taken center stage in a political firestorm. The controversy over whether the president broke the law when he secretly ordered the NSA to bypass a special court and conduct warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens has even provoked some Democrats to call for his impeachment.
According to John E. McLaughlin, who as the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the fall of 2001 was among the first briefed on the program, this eavesdropping was the most secret operation in the entire intelligence network, complete with its own code word - which itself is secret.
Jokingly referred to as "No Such Agency," the NSA was created in absolute secrecy in 1952 by President Harry S. Truman. Today, it is the largest intelligence agency. It is also the most important, providing far more insight on foreign countries than the CIA and other spy organizations.
But the agency is still struggling to adjust to the war on terror, in which its job is not to monitor states, but individuals or small cells hidden all over the world. To accomplish this, the NSA has developed ever more sophisticated technology that mines vast amounts of data. But this technology may be of limited use abroad. And at home, it increases pressure on the agency to bypass civil liberties and skirt formal legal channels of criminal investigation. Originally created to spy on foreign adversaries, the NSA was never supposed to be turned inward. Thirty years ago, Senator Frank Church, the Idaho Democrat who was then chairman of the select committee on intelligence, investigated the agency and came away stunned.
"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people," he said in 1975, "and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide."
He added that if a dictator ever took over, the NSA "could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."
At the time, the agency had the ability to listen to only what people said over the telephone or wrote in an occasional telegram; they had no access to private letters. But today, with people expressing their innermost thoughts in e-mail messages, exposing their medical and financial records to the Internet, and chatting constantly on cellphones, the agency virtually has the ability to get inside a person's mind.
The NSA's original target had been the Communist bloc. The agency wrapped the Soviet Union and its satellite nations in an electronic cocoon. Anytime an aircraft, ship or military unit moved, the NSA would know. And from 22,300 miles in orbit, satellites with super-thin, football-field-sized antennas eavesdropped on Soviet communications and weapons signals.
Today, instead of eavesdropping on an enormous country that was always chattering and never moved, the NSA is trying to find small numbers of individuals who operate in closed cells, seldom communicate electronically (and when they do, use untraceable calling cards or disposable cellphones) and are constantly traveling from country to country.
During the cold war, the agency could depend on a constant flow of American-born Russian linguists from the many universities around the country with Soviet studies programs. Now the government is forced to search ethnic communities to find people who can speak Dari, Urdu or Lingala - and also pass a security clearance that frowns on people with relatives in their, or their parents', former countries.
According to an interview last year with Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then the NSA's director, intercepting calls during the war on terrorism has become a much more complex endeavor. On Sept. 10, 2001, for example, the NSA intercepted two messages. The first warned, "The match begins tomorrow," and the second said, "Tomorrow is zero hour." But even though they came from suspected al Qaeda locations in Afghanistan, the messages were never translated until after the attack on Sept. 11, and not distributed until Sept. 12.
What made the intercepts particularly difficult, General Hayden said, was that they were not "targeted" but intercepted randomly from Afghan pay phones.
This makes identification of the caller extremely difficult and slow. "Know how many international calls are made out of Afghanistan on a given day? Thousands." General Hayden said.
Still, the NSA doesn't have to go to the courts to use its electronic monitoring to snare al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. For the agency to snoop domestically on American citizens suspected of having terrorist ties, it first must to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA, make a showing of probable cause that the target is linked to a terrorist group, and obtain a warrant.
The court rarely turns the government down. Since it was established in 1978, the court has granted about 19,000 warrants; it has only rejected five. And even in those cases the government has the right to appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which in 27 years has only heard one case. And should the appeals court also reject the warrant request, the government could then appeal immediately to a closed session of the Supreme Court.
Before the Sept. 11 attacks, the NSA normally eavesdropped on a small number of American citizens or resident aliens, often a dozen or less, while the FBI, whose low-tech wiretapping was far less intrusive, requested most of the warrants from FISA.
Despite the low odds of having a request turned down, President Bush established a secret program in which the NSA would bypass the FISA court and begin eavesdropping without warrant on Americans. This decision seems to have been based on a new concept of monitoring by the agency, a way, according to the administration, to effectively handle all the data and new information.
At the time, the buzzword in national security circles was data mining: digging deep into piles of information to come up with some pattern or clue to what might happen next. Rather than monitoring a dozen or so people for months at a time, as had been the practice, the decision was made to begin secretly eavesdropping on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people for just a few days or a week at a time in order to determine who posed potential threats.
Those deemed innocent would quickly be eliminated from the watch list, while those thought suspicious would be submitted to the FISA court for a warrant.
In essence, NSA seemed to be on a classic fishing expedition, precisely the type of abuse the FISA court was put in place to stop.At a news conference, President Bush himself seemed to acknowledge this new tactic. "FISA is for long-term monitoring," he said. "There's a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring."
This eavesdropping is not the Bush administration's only attempt to expand the boundaries of what is legally permissible.
In 2002, it was revealed that the Pentagon had launched Total Information Awareness, a data mining program led by John Poindexter, a retired rear admiral who had served as national security adviser under Ronald Reagan and helped devise the plan to sell arms to Iran and illegally divert the proceeds to rebels in Nicaragua.
Total Information Awareness, known as TIA, was intended to search through vast data bases, promising to "increase the information coverage by an order-of-magnitude." According to a 2002 article in The New York Times, the program "would permit intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials to mount a vast dragnet through electronic transaction data ranging from credit card information to veterinary records, in the United States and internationally, to hunt for terrorists." After press reports, the Pentagon shut it down, and Mr. Poindexter eventually left the government.
But according to a 2004 General Accounting Office report, the Bush administration and the Pentagon continued to rely heavily on data-mining techniques. "Our survey of 128 federal departments and agencies on their use of data mining," the report said, "shows that 52 agencies are using or are planning to use data mining. These departments and agencies reported 199 data-mining efforts, of which 68 are planned and 131 are operational." Of these uses, the report continued, "the Department of Defense reported the largest number of efforts."
The administration says it needs this technology to effectively combat terrorism. But the effect on privacy has worried a number of politicians.
After he was briefed on President Bush's secret operation in 2003, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney.
"As I reflected on the meeting today and the future we face," he wrote, "John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance."
Senator Rockefeller sounds a lot like Senator Frank Church.
"I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge," Senator Church said. "I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
James Bamford is the author of Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency.
Wrap...
NSA, the Agency That Could Be Big Brother
By James Bamford
The New York Times
Sunday 25 December 2005
Washington - Deep in a remote, fog-layered hollow near Sugar Grove, W.Va., hidden by fortress-like mountains, sits the country's largest eavesdropping bug. Located in a "radio quiet" zone, the station's large parabolic dishes secretly and silently sweep in millions of private telephone calls and e-mail messages an hour.
Run by the ultrasecret National Security Agency, the listening post intercepts all international communications entering the eastern United States. Another NSA listening post, in Yakima,Wash., eavesdrops on the western half of the country.
A hundred miles or so north of Sugar Grove, in Washington, the NSA has suddenly taken center stage in a political firestorm. The controversy over whether the president broke the law when he secretly ordered the NSA to bypass a special court and conduct warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens has even provoked some Democrats to call for his impeachment.
According to John E. McLaughlin, who as the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the fall of 2001 was among the first briefed on the program, this eavesdropping was the most secret operation in the entire intelligence network, complete with its own code word - which itself is secret.
Jokingly referred to as "No Such Agency," the NSA was created in absolute secrecy in 1952 by President Harry S. Truman. Today, it is the largest intelligence agency. It is also the most important, providing far more insight on foreign countries than the CIA and other spy organizations.
But the agency is still struggling to adjust to the war on terror, in which its job is not to monitor states, but individuals or small cells hidden all over the world. To accomplish this, the NSA has developed ever more sophisticated technology that mines vast amounts of data. But this technology may be of limited use abroad. And at home, it increases pressure on the agency to bypass civil liberties and skirt formal legal channels of criminal investigation. Originally created to spy on foreign adversaries, the NSA was never supposed to be turned inward. Thirty years ago, Senator Frank Church, the Idaho Democrat who was then chairman of the select committee on intelligence, investigated the agency and came away stunned.
"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people," he said in 1975, "and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide."
He added that if a dictator ever took over, the NSA "could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."
At the time, the agency had the ability to listen to only what people said over the telephone or wrote in an occasional telegram; they had no access to private letters. But today, with people expressing their innermost thoughts in e-mail messages, exposing their medical and financial records to the Internet, and chatting constantly on cellphones, the agency virtually has the ability to get inside a person's mind.
The NSA's original target had been the Communist bloc. The agency wrapped the Soviet Union and its satellite nations in an electronic cocoon. Anytime an aircraft, ship or military unit moved, the NSA would know. And from 22,300 miles in orbit, satellites with super-thin, football-field-sized antennas eavesdropped on Soviet communications and weapons signals.
Today, instead of eavesdropping on an enormous country that was always chattering and never moved, the NSA is trying to find small numbers of individuals who operate in closed cells, seldom communicate electronically (and when they do, use untraceable calling cards or disposable cellphones) and are constantly traveling from country to country.
During the cold war, the agency could depend on a constant flow of American-born Russian linguists from the many universities around the country with Soviet studies programs. Now the government is forced to search ethnic communities to find people who can speak Dari, Urdu or Lingala - and also pass a security clearance that frowns on people with relatives in their, or their parents', former countries.
According to an interview last year with Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then the NSA's director, intercepting calls during the war on terrorism has become a much more complex endeavor. On Sept. 10, 2001, for example, the NSA intercepted two messages. The first warned, "The match begins tomorrow," and the second said, "Tomorrow is zero hour." But even though they came from suspected al Qaeda locations in Afghanistan, the messages were never translated until after the attack on Sept. 11, and not distributed until Sept. 12.
What made the intercepts particularly difficult, General Hayden said, was that they were not "targeted" but intercepted randomly from Afghan pay phones.
This makes identification of the caller extremely difficult and slow. "Know how many international calls are made out of Afghanistan on a given day? Thousands." General Hayden said.
Still, the NSA doesn't have to go to the courts to use its electronic monitoring to snare al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. For the agency to snoop domestically on American citizens suspected of having terrorist ties, it first must to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA, make a showing of probable cause that the target is linked to a terrorist group, and obtain a warrant.
The court rarely turns the government down. Since it was established in 1978, the court has granted about 19,000 warrants; it has only rejected five. And even in those cases the government has the right to appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which in 27 years has only heard one case. And should the appeals court also reject the warrant request, the government could then appeal immediately to a closed session of the Supreme Court.
Before the Sept. 11 attacks, the NSA normally eavesdropped on a small number of American citizens or resident aliens, often a dozen or less, while the FBI, whose low-tech wiretapping was far less intrusive, requested most of the warrants from FISA.
Despite the low odds of having a request turned down, President Bush established a secret program in which the NSA would bypass the FISA court and begin eavesdropping without warrant on Americans. This decision seems to have been based on a new concept of monitoring by the agency, a way, according to the administration, to effectively handle all the data and new information.
At the time, the buzzword in national security circles was data mining: digging deep into piles of information to come up with some pattern or clue to what might happen next. Rather than monitoring a dozen or so people for months at a time, as had been the practice, the decision was made to begin secretly eavesdropping on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people for just a few days or a week at a time in order to determine who posed potential threats.
Those deemed innocent would quickly be eliminated from the watch list, while those thought suspicious would be submitted to the FISA court for a warrant.
In essence, NSA seemed to be on a classic fishing expedition, precisely the type of abuse the FISA court was put in place to stop.At a news conference, President Bush himself seemed to acknowledge this new tactic. "FISA is for long-term monitoring," he said. "There's a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring."
This eavesdropping is not the Bush administration's only attempt to expand the boundaries of what is legally permissible.
In 2002, it was revealed that the Pentagon had launched Total Information Awareness, a data mining program led by John Poindexter, a retired rear admiral who had served as national security adviser under Ronald Reagan and helped devise the plan to sell arms to Iran and illegally divert the proceeds to rebels in Nicaragua.
Total Information Awareness, known as TIA, was intended to search through vast data bases, promising to "increase the information coverage by an order-of-magnitude." According to a 2002 article in The New York Times, the program "would permit intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials to mount a vast dragnet through electronic transaction data ranging from credit card information to veterinary records, in the United States and internationally, to hunt for terrorists." After press reports, the Pentagon shut it down, and Mr. Poindexter eventually left the government.
But according to a 2004 General Accounting Office report, the Bush administration and the Pentagon continued to rely heavily on data-mining techniques. "Our survey of 128 federal departments and agencies on their use of data mining," the report said, "shows that 52 agencies are using or are planning to use data mining. These departments and agencies reported 199 data-mining efforts, of which 68 are planned and 131 are operational." Of these uses, the report continued, "the Department of Defense reported the largest number of efforts."
The administration says it needs this technology to effectively combat terrorism. But the effect on privacy has worried a number of politicians.
After he was briefed on President Bush's secret operation in 2003, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney.
"As I reflected on the meeting today and the future we face," he wrote, "John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance."
Senator Rockefeller sounds a lot like Senator Frank Church.
"I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge," Senator Church said. "I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
James Bamford is the author of Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency.
Wrap...
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Repubs compassion: We don't care if poor freeze...
From NY Times:
December 25, 2005
Editorial
A Chilling Departure From the Capitol
One of the shabbiest shell games of the year was played out in the closing hours of Congress in its now-you-see-it, now-you-don't offering of some badly needed winter heating aid to the nation's working poor. The climactic moment occurred when Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, huckstering his most treasured goal, tried to sell oil drilling in his state's pristine wildlife preserve by promising it would help finance a long list of shoppers' bonuses for his colleagues: extra money for flu vaccine, hurricane reconstruction, first-responder radios and - if you vote yes right away - $2 billion in extra heating aid for the poor this cold winter.
Mr. Stevens's cunning warning was that all those extras would die on the vine unless Alaska drilling was approved. His cynical flimflammery was deservedly rebuffed as enough opponents stood firm against the oil drilling. And soon enough the word went round that things like flu vaccine and hurricane aid were not endangered after all.
Not so the extra fuel aid for low-income families. There was a heating supplement tied to the Alaska proposal, as Mr. Stevens promised. But there was also a separate $2 billion appropriated for the same purpose elsewhere in the legislation - unconnected to the Alaska floor machinations - that somehow was struck from the final bill as lawmakers rushed to recess. Malice? Who can say? Obviously the poor can't afford a campaign donation PAC to catch Congress's attention for an answer.
The government's home heating supplement now stands at a half or less of what the poor will need if predictions of a harsh winter pan out and fuel bills increase 25 percent. Various studies have established that, in a pinch, the poor scrimp on food purchases in order to meet heating bills. Yet Congress's stinginess is being compounded by the administration's recent decision to reject a request from New York and several other states to increase food stamp outlays to the poor as fuel bills mount.
Lawmakers insist that the $2 billion supplement technically had to be cut - but may be restored yet again next month. Believe that and we have an oil derrick to sell you in Alaska.
Wrap...
December 25, 2005
Editorial
A Chilling Departure From the Capitol
One of the shabbiest shell games of the year was played out in the closing hours of Congress in its now-you-see-it, now-you-don't offering of some badly needed winter heating aid to the nation's working poor. The climactic moment occurred when Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, huckstering his most treasured goal, tried to sell oil drilling in his state's pristine wildlife preserve by promising it would help finance a long list of shoppers' bonuses for his colleagues: extra money for flu vaccine, hurricane reconstruction, first-responder radios and - if you vote yes right away - $2 billion in extra heating aid for the poor this cold winter.
Mr. Stevens's cunning warning was that all those extras would die on the vine unless Alaska drilling was approved. His cynical flimflammery was deservedly rebuffed as enough opponents stood firm against the oil drilling. And soon enough the word went round that things like flu vaccine and hurricane aid were not endangered after all.
Not so the extra fuel aid for low-income families. There was a heating supplement tied to the Alaska proposal, as Mr. Stevens promised. But there was also a separate $2 billion appropriated for the same purpose elsewhere in the legislation - unconnected to the Alaska floor machinations - that somehow was struck from the final bill as lawmakers rushed to recess. Malice? Who can say? Obviously the poor can't afford a campaign donation PAC to catch Congress's attention for an answer.
The government's home heating supplement now stands at a half or less of what the poor will need if predictions of a harsh winter pan out and fuel bills increase 25 percent. Various studies have established that, in a pinch, the poor scrimp on food purchases in order to meet heating bills. Yet Congress's stinginess is being compounded by the administration's recent decision to reject a request from New York and several other states to increase food stamp outlays to the poor as fuel bills mount.
Lawmakers insist that the $2 billion supplement technically had to be cut - but may be restored yet again next month. Believe that and we have an oil derrick to sell you in Alaska.
Wrap...
Iraq Vets on TSA's no-fly list...
From http://veteransforcommonsense.org :
CQ HOMELAND SECURITY – INTELLIGENCE
TSA Wants Access to Veterans’ Files to Add ‘Mental Defectives’ to Watch List
By Jeff Stein, National Security Editor, Congressional Quarterly, December 9, 2005
Is there an efficient, legal way to keep crazy people off airplanes altogether, like the manic depressive man shot dead at the Miami airport last week?
As it turns out, the government was taking steps in that direction almost a month before Rigoberto Alpizar was plugged by U.S. air marshals after he ran down the Jetway with a bundle in his hands while saying, according to the government, that he had a bomb.
A Nov. 15 notice put out by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which is always thinking about new ways to keep potentially dangerous people off our airliners, states TSA is looking for contractors to add a number of new databases for screening passengers and airport workers.
Up first are the files of the Defense Department (DoD) and Veterans Administration (VA), which the TSA says it wants scoured for “mental defectives.”
As if troubled veterans didn’t have enough to worry about. According to a 2004 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study, about 15 percent of the soldiers coming home from the intense guerrilla wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to be afflicted with what was once called “combat fatigue.”
The New England Journal of Medicine also reported in 2004 that “15.6 percent to 17.1 percent of returning soldiers from Iraq exhibited signs of anxiety, major depression or other mental health problems.”
Today those symptoms are lumped together in what’s called post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, which afflicted hundreds of thousands of soldiers who came home from Vietnam combat with “a thousand-yard stare” and fell into depression, suicide, alcoholism and drug abuse.
One of them might be sitting next to you on an airplane: More than half, or 53 percent, of the 1 million combat veterans of Vietnam were afflicted to one degree or another, said a four-year, $9 million study published by the VA in 1990.
And the trend line for the new generation of veterans is going north. The number who sought help for depression at VA clinics in 2004 grew tenfold over the year before, according to the Los Angeles Times.
“In all, 23 percent of Iraq veterans treated at VA facilities have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder,” it said. The VA is struggling to keep up with services for the troubled veterans, GAO said, thus exiling many to the streets, where they could be walking time bombs.
Secret Codes
The military services used to put a secret code for “mental disorders” on veterans’ discharge papers until the practice was exposed and banned in 1974. As it turned out, the numbers weren’t secret at all to potential employers and others who knew how to decipher them.
Maybe now they won’t be secret to the airlines and the TSA, either.
But one puzzling aspect of the TSA’s plan is that DoD and the VA may not even have a classification for vets who are “mental defectives.”
A VA spokeswoman who has worked at the agency for 22 years said she had never heard of such a category, but she didn’t want her name used until she could make a thorough inquiry.
DoD spokeswoman Lt. Col. Ellen G. Krenke flatly declared, “There is no such category” in military records. But, she added by e-mail, “The only area where information such as this may be contained is in the section for standard separation program designator codes. However . . . this information is stamped ‘For Official Use Only’ and will not be furnished to any agency or individual outside the Department of Defense.”
Veterans for Common Sense board member David Addlestone, an Air Force judge advocate from 1966 to 1968 and author of “The Rights of Veterans,” said that years ago the armed services had a “personality disorder discharge” for people who couldn’t adjust to military life, but he said he wasn’t sure it still existed.
Yet the TSA notice, called a “sources sought” inquiry and first reported by Government Security News, reads: “Examples of new data sources would be DoD files for military service histories or VA files for lists of persons who have been declared mental defectives.”
TSA spokesman Darrin Kayser did not have an immediate explanation for the apparent contradiction late Friday but said he would look into it.
The prospect of a return of secret codes that could amount to a blanket flight ban against troubled veterans upsets John Terzano, vice president of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation.
If it’s true, Terzano said, “This is a really, really shameful thing. Veterans do get traumatized by war, of course. But for all their pain and sacrifice, to have the government looking over their shoulder and putting their names in a database is unconscionable.”
For TSA data-hunters, though, it’s just the beginning.
“We plan to add two new data sources per year,” its notice said.
Wrap...
CQ HOMELAND SECURITY – INTELLIGENCE
TSA Wants Access to Veterans’ Files to Add ‘Mental Defectives’ to Watch List
By Jeff Stein, National Security Editor, Congressional Quarterly, December 9, 2005
Is there an efficient, legal way to keep crazy people off airplanes altogether, like the manic depressive man shot dead at the Miami airport last week?
As it turns out, the government was taking steps in that direction almost a month before Rigoberto Alpizar was plugged by U.S. air marshals after he ran down the Jetway with a bundle in his hands while saying, according to the government, that he had a bomb.
A Nov. 15 notice put out by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which is always thinking about new ways to keep potentially dangerous people off our airliners, states TSA is looking for contractors to add a number of new databases for screening passengers and airport workers.
Up first are the files of the Defense Department (DoD) and Veterans Administration (VA), which the TSA says it wants scoured for “mental defectives.”
As if troubled veterans didn’t have enough to worry about. According to a 2004 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study, about 15 percent of the soldiers coming home from the intense guerrilla wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to be afflicted with what was once called “combat fatigue.”
The New England Journal of Medicine also reported in 2004 that “15.6 percent to 17.1 percent of returning soldiers from Iraq exhibited signs of anxiety, major depression or other mental health problems.”
Today those symptoms are lumped together in what’s called post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, which afflicted hundreds of thousands of soldiers who came home from Vietnam combat with “a thousand-yard stare” and fell into depression, suicide, alcoholism and drug abuse.
One of them might be sitting next to you on an airplane: More than half, or 53 percent, of the 1 million combat veterans of Vietnam were afflicted to one degree or another, said a four-year, $9 million study published by the VA in 1990.
And the trend line for the new generation of veterans is going north. The number who sought help for depression at VA clinics in 2004 grew tenfold over the year before, according to the Los Angeles Times.
“In all, 23 percent of Iraq veterans treated at VA facilities have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder,” it said. The VA is struggling to keep up with services for the troubled veterans, GAO said, thus exiling many to the streets, where they could be walking time bombs.
Secret Codes
The military services used to put a secret code for “mental disorders” on veterans’ discharge papers until the practice was exposed and banned in 1974. As it turned out, the numbers weren’t secret at all to potential employers and others who knew how to decipher them.
Maybe now they won’t be secret to the airlines and the TSA, either.
But one puzzling aspect of the TSA’s plan is that DoD and the VA may not even have a classification for vets who are “mental defectives.”
A VA spokeswoman who has worked at the agency for 22 years said she had never heard of such a category, but she didn’t want her name used until she could make a thorough inquiry.
DoD spokeswoman Lt. Col. Ellen G. Krenke flatly declared, “There is no such category” in military records. But, she added by e-mail, “The only area where information such as this may be contained is in the section for standard separation program designator codes. However . . . this information is stamped ‘For Official Use Only’ and will not be furnished to any agency or individual outside the Department of Defense.”
Veterans for Common Sense board member David Addlestone, an Air Force judge advocate from 1966 to 1968 and author of “The Rights of Veterans,” said that years ago the armed services had a “personality disorder discharge” for people who couldn’t adjust to military life, but he said he wasn’t sure it still existed.
Yet the TSA notice, called a “sources sought” inquiry and first reported by Government Security News, reads: “Examples of new data sources would be DoD files for military service histories or VA files for lists of persons who have been declared mental defectives.”
TSA spokesman Darrin Kayser did not have an immediate explanation for the apparent contradiction late Friday but said he would look into it.
The prospect of a return of secret codes that could amount to a blanket flight ban against troubled veterans upsets John Terzano, vice president of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation.
If it’s true, Terzano said, “This is a really, really shameful thing. Veterans do get traumatized by war, of course. But for all their pain and sacrifice, to have the government looking over their shoulder and putting their names in a database is unconscionable.”
For TSA data-hunters, though, it’s just the beginning.
“We plan to add two new data sources per year,” its notice said.
Wrap...
Friday, December 23, 2005
Torture at Ft Lewis, WA !!!!
He Dared to Challenge Power, Part Two: FT Lewis, WA. or Abu Gharib, WA.
By: Jack Dalton
5 months ago, Sgt Kevin Benderman was court-martialed by the Army at FT Stewart, GA. on the charge of “Missing a Movement to Avoid Hazardous Duty”. This was how the Army chose to handle Sgt Benderman’s Conscientious Objector application.
One major problem with this conviction: Sgt Kevin Benderman was never given orders to redeploy to Iraq. He was reassigned to a “Rear Detachment” at FT Stewart by the very same people who court-martialed him a short time later. Lawyers are working on that issue on Sgt Bendermans behalf as I write this. Full details on this can be read on the Benderman Timeline which includes letters by Sgt Benderman from FT Lewis.
It was not out of personal fear that Sgt Benderman made his decision to stand as a CO, and later in opposition to this war of choice in Iraq; his decision came behind seeing the senselessness of war; of wars absolute inhumanity; it came behind seeing good people turn into something else from what they were; it came in part behind being given illegal orders to shoot children. But that’s what war does to people, it changes them and not for the better most of the time. War is that “Heart of Darkness” that Joseph Conrad wrote about. And it was that which Sgt Benderman came to learn and understand.
It has been said that when Sgt Benderman took his public stand in opposition to war, that he “provided more moral leadership” than anyone in congress; something I am in total agreement with. I’ll just add to that by stating, the moral leadership Sgt Benderman has shown did not end when he was sent to the RCF at FT Lewis. Not by a long shot. That kind of leadership travels with a man like Sgt Kevin Benderman no matter where he finds himself.
Sgt Kevin Benderman, who is doing 15 months in the Regional Correction Facility at FT Lewis, WA, is there because as a matter of conscience, he could not obey orders to shoot children (an order that eventually led to his Conscientious Objection). Sgt Benderman’s cell mate is a 22 year old that was sent to Ft Lewis for obeying his Squad Leaders order to shoot an unarmed Iraqi civilian in his home during a midnight raid. This is the nightmare Bush/Cheney & Co. have created in Iraq; for the Iraqi people and for our own people in uniform. One man, Sgt Benderman, in prison for refusing to participate or follow illegal orders. Another man in prison for following illegal orders by killing an unarmed Iraqi in his own home in the dead of night. Led to war by a deserter (Bush) and a draft dodger (Cheney) who, as he said, "I had other priorities than military service" and as a result of them, two different men are in prison--not to mention the tens of thousands in Iraq that are dead.
The RCF at FT Lewis is an interesting place to be sure. Actually, interesting is not the correct term to describe the RCF at FT Lewis. That is due to the simple fact what I am learning, from multiple sources there, about that place makes it sound more like Guantanamo Bay, Cuba or Abu Gharib. I’ll get back to Sgt Benderman, what he has gone thru and is currently going thru at FT Lewis in a moment. Right now I want to tell you about a young man who is incarcerated there along with Sgt Benderman—Michael Levitt.
The Torturing of Michael LevittMichael Levitt had been to Iraq once, what the reason for him being incarcerated at FT Lewis I do not know, at least not as yet. Whatever the reason, it does not justify what has and is currently happening to that young man. I have learned from more than one source that he was stress chained to a “stress-chair” for 109 hours by a 1st Sgt there. A little background on this.
A lot of the men incarcerated at FT Lewis have been objecting to the fact the women guards have full access everywhere at the RCF, including the showers while the men are using them, the toilet areas also while in use by the men. Michael Levitt was one of many men who were complaining about that to one of the 1st Sgts. Levitt demanded to know the Army regulations concerning this; the 1st Sgt responded by locking Levitt in solitary confinement. Levitt got angry about that so he plugged the toilet in the solitary confinement cell, which not only flooded the cell, but the cell block as well. The 1st Sgt responded to that by shutting off the water to the cell Levitt was in, and giving him a bucket for his body waste. It really went downhill from there, fast and badly.
When the 1st Sgt went back to Levitt's cell, Levitt reached into the bucket he had been using as a toilet, grabbed a handful of "brown goo" and tossed it at the 1st Sgt striking him with the "goo". The 1st Sgt responded pulling Levitt out of the cell, taking him into a “special room” where Levitt was then stress chained to a stress-chair for the next 109 hours! Stress-Chairs are metal frame chairs with no seat. There is a metal bar where the seat once was, and that is what Levitt was sat on then chained to; with his legs folded under him, pulled back, under and up then chained to the cross bar--for 109 hours. Think Abu Gharib.
At that end of the 109 hours, Levitt was returned to the solitary confinement cell which was where he received medical treatment (?). What kind of “medical treatment” Levitt received is not certain, as no one has been able to talk with him since this took place. Just recently, Levitt was given a court-martial by the command at Ft Lewis for throwing defecation on that 1st Sgt. Levitt was found guilty and another 15 months time was tacked onto his sentence. Nothing has been said to 1st Sgt that I know of, let alone anything being done to him over this. At least not yet, but this is a long way from being over.
I wonder who that 1st Sgt plans on putting in that chair next? Or will it be Michael Levitt again?
There's a lot more wrong at FT Lewis and this is just a small sample:I understand that according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), the Department of Defense/Pentagon has "lost" $1.1 Trillion. Maybe that's why at Ft Lewis with over 200 people incarcerated there, they can't fix the following, no money DoD lost it;
In the tiers of Alpha and Charlie Blocks there is water leaking from sewage/drainage pipes from the blocks above...;
In Charlie 5 there is a toilet & sink that has been leaking since...March; Regulations state that there should be one shower head per eight inmates in one cell block there are four shower heads and 50 inmates (that is 12 inmates per shower head);
The shower in Charlie 4 leaks into the bay and builds up under the bunks;
In one of the 2 man cells in Charlie Block the toilet leaks so bad it floods the cell within hours and there are two people that live in there;
Inmates here are forced to sit up from 5:00 AM till 6:00PM in chairs by their bunks with no recreation(no phones, no cards, nothing but books) and then only 4 hours at night for free time to all make calls, or write home, watch TV, etc;
It is now December and the average day time temp is 50 degrees and night time temp of about 30 degrees, there is no heat and the windows do not close. This problem was reported in September and still has not been corrected;
The drains in the showers are constantly backing up and the men are forced to shower like that;
On Thanksgiving they had some big shot come to the facility for their dinner, they ordered $700.00 ice sculptures for that event. The next couple of weeks they had nothing to drink in the facility except for water.
And if that isn't enough, then wrap your mind around this: The same individuals that sit on the disciplinary boards and work with individuals from day to day also sit on the parole boards.
Welcome to the Regional Correctional Facility, FT Lewis, WA. There are multiple people willing to go on record about all of this at Ft Lewis, WA. The spotlight has not even begun to be put on that place.
Oh, let's not forget inmates bank cards being charged hundreds of dollars by who know who. And from what I understand some of the women guards are open to doing "favors"--for a price?
One of the ladies married to someone at FT Lewis said to me the other day, that her husband told her that he and the other men at Ft Lewis were told not to talk to Sgt Benderman because he is talking to journalists. The men at Ft Lewis can makes outgoing calls that charge $25 for 20 minuets to phone time--is that a racket or what? Got news for the people at Ft Lewis, especially the Commanding Office, LTC Stephanie Beavers (her contact info will be at the end of this article), none of us have to talk to Sgt Benderman to get information; there are a lot of the men incarcerated there, and their family members, who are not only willing to talk about all of this, but are searching people out to tell this too.
Just Sgt Bendermans presence alone has been more than enough for the men incarcerated at FT Lewis to start standing up to the brutality that apparently is a daily occurrence at the RCF, FT. Lewis, WA. But then that is always the way with people who are natural born leaders, that are men of principle, others look to their example and try to emulate it.
One of the biggest mistakes the Army made with Sgt Benderman, other than the fact he never should have faced a court-martial to begin with, was to send him to jail at FT Lewis. If the Army thought Sgt Bendermans refusal to go back to Iraq would get others at FT Stewart, GA to do likewise, (which was primarily why the Army court-martialed him in the first place--to make an example of him) they are in deep stuff now, as the Army's worst nightmares are about to come true! More on this shortly.
If you find all of this as outrageous as do I, then here is the contact information for the commanding Officer at the Regional Correctional Facility at FT Lewis, WA. Also, if you would address letters to Michael Levitt at the same Box number at FT Lewis (same address just change the name). The more letters that flood into Ft Lewis with Michaels name on them, LTC Beavers and all the rest of them will know that a lot of "eyes" are looking at them. And especially do not forget Sgt Benderman. He is after all a man of ethics, integrity, honor with more raw courage than most and he deserves our respect, and our total committed support.
LTC Stephanie Laverne Beavers704th MP Brigade -
Ft. Lewis RCF Commander
Box 339536
Fort Lewis Washington
98433-9536253-967-7274/4091
stephanie.beavers@us.army.mil..........
Additional InformationLetters from FT Lewis By: Sgt Kevin Bendermanhttp://www.topia.net/kbfortlewis.html
Benderman Timelinehttp://www.bendermantimeline.com/
Benderman Defense Committeehttp://www.topia.net/kevinbenderman.html
Torture and Prostitution at Ft Lewishttp://jack-dalton.blogspot.com/2005/11/torture-and-prostitution-at-ft-lewis.html
He Dared to Challenge Power and the Official Consensus: Part Onehttp://jack-dalton.blogspot.com/2005/11/he-dared-to-challange-power-and_26.html
US Treasury Missing $ Trillions:How fast does $1.1 trillion disappear in a year? http://whereisthemoney.org/
Jack Dalton is a disabled Vietnam veteran, independent writer and activist.
Jack's Straight-Speak is his blog.
He was also a contributing writer for: Neo-Conned! Again! (Light in the Darkness Publications) and his email address is: jack_dalton@comcast.net
posted by Jack Dalton at 11:13 AM
Wrap...
By: Jack Dalton
5 months ago, Sgt Kevin Benderman was court-martialed by the Army at FT Stewart, GA. on the charge of “Missing a Movement to Avoid Hazardous Duty”. This was how the Army chose to handle Sgt Benderman’s Conscientious Objector application.
One major problem with this conviction: Sgt Kevin Benderman was never given orders to redeploy to Iraq. He was reassigned to a “Rear Detachment” at FT Stewart by the very same people who court-martialed him a short time later. Lawyers are working on that issue on Sgt Bendermans behalf as I write this. Full details on this can be read on the Benderman Timeline which includes letters by Sgt Benderman from FT Lewis.
It was not out of personal fear that Sgt Benderman made his decision to stand as a CO, and later in opposition to this war of choice in Iraq; his decision came behind seeing the senselessness of war; of wars absolute inhumanity; it came behind seeing good people turn into something else from what they were; it came in part behind being given illegal orders to shoot children. But that’s what war does to people, it changes them and not for the better most of the time. War is that “Heart of Darkness” that Joseph Conrad wrote about. And it was that which Sgt Benderman came to learn and understand.
It has been said that when Sgt Benderman took his public stand in opposition to war, that he “provided more moral leadership” than anyone in congress; something I am in total agreement with. I’ll just add to that by stating, the moral leadership Sgt Benderman has shown did not end when he was sent to the RCF at FT Lewis. Not by a long shot. That kind of leadership travels with a man like Sgt Kevin Benderman no matter where he finds himself.
Sgt Kevin Benderman, who is doing 15 months in the Regional Correction Facility at FT Lewis, WA, is there because as a matter of conscience, he could not obey orders to shoot children (an order that eventually led to his Conscientious Objection). Sgt Benderman’s cell mate is a 22 year old that was sent to Ft Lewis for obeying his Squad Leaders order to shoot an unarmed Iraqi civilian in his home during a midnight raid. This is the nightmare Bush/Cheney & Co. have created in Iraq; for the Iraqi people and for our own people in uniform. One man, Sgt Benderman, in prison for refusing to participate or follow illegal orders. Another man in prison for following illegal orders by killing an unarmed Iraqi in his own home in the dead of night. Led to war by a deserter (Bush) and a draft dodger (Cheney) who, as he said, "I had other priorities than military service" and as a result of them, two different men are in prison--not to mention the tens of thousands in Iraq that are dead.
The RCF at FT Lewis is an interesting place to be sure. Actually, interesting is not the correct term to describe the RCF at FT Lewis. That is due to the simple fact what I am learning, from multiple sources there, about that place makes it sound more like Guantanamo Bay, Cuba or Abu Gharib. I’ll get back to Sgt Benderman, what he has gone thru and is currently going thru at FT Lewis in a moment. Right now I want to tell you about a young man who is incarcerated there along with Sgt Benderman—Michael Levitt.
The Torturing of Michael LevittMichael Levitt had been to Iraq once, what the reason for him being incarcerated at FT Lewis I do not know, at least not as yet. Whatever the reason, it does not justify what has and is currently happening to that young man. I have learned from more than one source that he was stress chained to a “stress-chair” for 109 hours by a 1st Sgt there. A little background on this.
A lot of the men incarcerated at FT Lewis have been objecting to the fact the women guards have full access everywhere at the RCF, including the showers while the men are using them, the toilet areas also while in use by the men. Michael Levitt was one of many men who were complaining about that to one of the 1st Sgts. Levitt demanded to know the Army regulations concerning this; the 1st Sgt responded by locking Levitt in solitary confinement. Levitt got angry about that so he plugged the toilet in the solitary confinement cell, which not only flooded the cell, but the cell block as well. The 1st Sgt responded to that by shutting off the water to the cell Levitt was in, and giving him a bucket for his body waste. It really went downhill from there, fast and badly.
When the 1st Sgt went back to Levitt's cell, Levitt reached into the bucket he had been using as a toilet, grabbed a handful of "brown goo" and tossed it at the 1st Sgt striking him with the "goo". The 1st Sgt responded pulling Levitt out of the cell, taking him into a “special room” where Levitt was then stress chained to a stress-chair for the next 109 hours! Stress-Chairs are metal frame chairs with no seat. There is a metal bar where the seat once was, and that is what Levitt was sat on then chained to; with his legs folded under him, pulled back, under and up then chained to the cross bar--for 109 hours. Think Abu Gharib.
At that end of the 109 hours, Levitt was returned to the solitary confinement cell which was where he received medical treatment (?). What kind of “medical treatment” Levitt received is not certain, as no one has been able to talk with him since this took place. Just recently, Levitt was given a court-martial by the command at Ft Lewis for throwing defecation on that 1st Sgt. Levitt was found guilty and another 15 months time was tacked onto his sentence. Nothing has been said to 1st Sgt that I know of, let alone anything being done to him over this. At least not yet, but this is a long way from being over.
I wonder who that 1st Sgt plans on putting in that chair next? Or will it be Michael Levitt again?
There's a lot more wrong at FT Lewis and this is just a small sample:I understand that according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), the Department of Defense/Pentagon has "lost" $1.1 Trillion. Maybe that's why at Ft Lewis with over 200 people incarcerated there, they can't fix the following, no money DoD lost it;
In the tiers of Alpha and Charlie Blocks there is water leaking from sewage/drainage pipes from the blocks above...;
In Charlie 5 there is a toilet & sink that has been leaking since...March; Regulations state that there should be one shower head per eight inmates in one cell block there are four shower heads and 50 inmates (that is 12 inmates per shower head);
The shower in Charlie 4 leaks into the bay and builds up under the bunks;
In one of the 2 man cells in Charlie Block the toilet leaks so bad it floods the cell within hours and there are two people that live in there;
Inmates here are forced to sit up from 5:00 AM till 6:00PM in chairs by their bunks with no recreation(no phones, no cards, nothing but books) and then only 4 hours at night for free time to all make calls, or write home, watch TV, etc;
It is now December and the average day time temp is 50 degrees and night time temp of about 30 degrees, there is no heat and the windows do not close. This problem was reported in September and still has not been corrected;
The drains in the showers are constantly backing up and the men are forced to shower like that;
On Thanksgiving they had some big shot come to the facility for their dinner, they ordered $700.00 ice sculptures for that event. The next couple of weeks they had nothing to drink in the facility except for water.
And if that isn't enough, then wrap your mind around this: The same individuals that sit on the disciplinary boards and work with individuals from day to day also sit on the parole boards.
Welcome to the Regional Correctional Facility, FT Lewis, WA. There are multiple people willing to go on record about all of this at Ft Lewis, WA. The spotlight has not even begun to be put on that place.
Oh, let's not forget inmates bank cards being charged hundreds of dollars by who know who. And from what I understand some of the women guards are open to doing "favors"--for a price?
One of the ladies married to someone at FT Lewis said to me the other day, that her husband told her that he and the other men at Ft Lewis were told not to talk to Sgt Benderman because he is talking to journalists. The men at Ft Lewis can makes outgoing calls that charge $25 for 20 minuets to phone time--is that a racket or what? Got news for the people at Ft Lewis, especially the Commanding Office, LTC Stephanie Beavers (her contact info will be at the end of this article), none of us have to talk to Sgt Benderman to get information; there are a lot of the men incarcerated there, and their family members, who are not only willing to talk about all of this, but are searching people out to tell this too.
Just Sgt Bendermans presence alone has been more than enough for the men incarcerated at FT Lewis to start standing up to the brutality that apparently is a daily occurrence at the RCF, FT. Lewis, WA. But then that is always the way with people who are natural born leaders, that are men of principle, others look to their example and try to emulate it.
One of the biggest mistakes the Army made with Sgt Benderman, other than the fact he never should have faced a court-martial to begin with, was to send him to jail at FT Lewis. If the Army thought Sgt Bendermans refusal to go back to Iraq would get others at FT Stewart, GA to do likewise, (which was primarily why the Army court-martialed him in the first place--to make an example of him) they are in deep stuff now, as the Army's worst nightmares are about to come true! More on this shortly.
If you find all of this as outrageous as do I, then here is the contact information for the commanding Officer at the Regional Correctional Facility at FT Lewis, WA. Also, if you would address letters to Michael Levitt at the same Box number at FT Lewis (same address just change the name). The more letters that flood into Ft Lewis with Michaels name on them, LTC Beavers and all the rest of them will know that a lot of "eyes" are looking at them. And especially do not forget Sgt Benderman. He is after all a man of ethics, integrity, honor with more raw courage than most and he deserves our respect, and our total committed support.
LTC Stephanie Laverne Beavers704th MP Brigade -
Ft. Lewis RCF Commander
Box 339536
Fort Lewis Washington
98433-9536253-967-7274/4091
stephanie.beavers@us.army.mil..........
Additional InformationLetters from FT Lewis By: Sgt Kevin Bendermanhttp://www.topia.net/kbfortlewis.html
Benderman Timelinehttp://www.bendermantimeline.com/
Benderman Defense Committeehttp://www.topia.net/kevinbenderman.html
Torture and Prostitution at Ft Lewishttp://jack-dalton.blogspot.com/2005/11/torture-and-prostitution-at-ft-lewis.html
He Dared to Challenge Power and the Official Consensus: Part Onehttp://jack-dalton.blogspot.com/2005/11/he-dared-to-challange-power-and_26.html
US Treasury Missing $ Trillions:How fast does $1.1 trillion disappear in a year? http://whereisthemoney.org/
Jack Dalton is a disabled Vietnam veteran, independent writer and activist.
Jack's Straight-Speak is his blog.
He was also a contributing writer for: Neo-Conned! Again! (Light in the Darkness Publications) and his email address is: jack_dalton@comcast.net
posted by Jack Dalton at 11:13 AM
Wrap...
John Yoo told Bush what he wanted to hear...
from NY Times via truthout.org :
A Junior Aide Had a Big Role in Terror Policy
By Tim Golden
The New York Times
Friday 23 December 2005
Moments after planes crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, lawyers in the Justice Department's elite Office of Legal Counsel began crowding into the office of one of the agency's newest deputies, John C. Yoo, to watch the horror unfold on his television set.
"We all stood around watching this event, and he just seemed very calm, like he wasn't going to let these terrorists stop him from doing his work," recalled Robert J. Delahunty, a friend of Mr. Yoo's who worked in the office.
Fearful of another attack and told that all "nonessential personnel" should evacuate, Mr. Delahunty and others streamed out of the department's headquarters and walked home. Mr. Yoo, then a 34-year-old former law professor whose academic work had focused on foreign affairs and war-powers issues, was asked to stay behind, and he quickly found himself in the department's command center, on the phone to lawyers at the White House.
Within weeks, Mr. Yoo had begun to establish himself as a critical player in the Bush administration's legal response to the terrorist threat, and an influential advocate for the expansive claims of presidential authority that have been a hallmark of that response.
While a mere deputy assistant attorney general in the legal counsel office, Mr. Yoo was a primary author of a series of legal opinions on the fight against terrorism, including one that said the Geneva Conventions did not apply and at least two others that countenanced the use of highly coercive interrogation techniques on terror suspects. Recently, current and former officials said he also wrote a still-secret 2002 memorandum that gave legal backing to the administration's secret program to eavesdrop on the international communications of Americans and others inside the United States without federal warrants.
A genial, soft-spoken man with what friends say is a fiercely competitive streak, Mr. Yoo built particularly strong working relationships with several key legal officials in the White House and the Pentagon. Some current and former government officials contend that those relationships were in fact so close that Mr. Yoo was able to operate with a degree of autonomy that rankled senior Justice Department officials, including John Ashcroft, then the attorney general.
More than two years after Mr. Yoo returned to teaching, controversy over some of the legal positions he staked out for the administration in his two years in government has only continued to grow. Last year, an opinion he wrote on interrogations with the head of the legal counsel office, Jay S. Bybee, was publicly disavowed by the White House, a highly unusual step. Now, the revelation of the eavesdropping program has renewed the criticism.
In the uproar, Mr. Yoo has stood fast and even smiled cheerfully. Despite occasional campus protests and calls for his resignation, he has remained - somewhat incongruously but, he says, quite happily - on the law faculty at the liberal University of California, Berkeley. He keeps a busy schedule of speeches and debates at colleges and universities around the country. He is promoting a new book, and appears frequently on television to take on legal and policy issues that many former officials will discuss only under cloak of anonymity.
"I didn't go into these subjects looking for a brawl," Mr. Yoo said in an interview. Of his work at the Justice Department he added: "I had this job, and I had these questions to answer. I think it's my responsibility to explain how I thought them through."
Mr. Yoo is often identified as the most aggressive among a group of conservative legal scholars who have challenged the importance of international law in the American legal system. But his signature contributions to the policies of the Bush administration have had more to do with his forceful assertion of wide presidential powers in wartime.
While Mr. Yoo has become almost famous for some of his writings - the refutation of both his academic and government work has become almost a cottage industry among more liberal legal scholars and human rights lawyers - much less is known about how he came to wield the remarkable influence he had after Sept. 11 on issues related to terrorism.
That Washington tale began about a decade before Mr. Yoo joined the administration in July 2001, when he finished at Yale Law School and won a clerkship with Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a keen spotter of young legal talent and a patriarch of the network of conservative lawyers who have occupied key positions throughout the Bush administration.
By then, Mr. Yoo already thought of himself as solidly conservative. He had grown up with anticommunist parents who left their native South Korea for Philadelphia shortly after Mr. Yoo was born in 1967, and had honed his political views while an undergraduate at Harvard.
From the chambers of Judge Silberman, Mr. Yoo moved on to a clerkship with Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, stopping briefly at Berkeley. Justice Thomas helped place him with Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, as general counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Along the way, Mr. Yoo passed up a chance to work in the Washington office of the law firm Jones Day, where he caught the eye of a senior partner, Timothy E. Flanigan. After five years that Mr. Yoo spent at Berkeley, writing on legal aspects of foreign affairs, war powers and presidential authority, the two men met up again when Mr. Yoo joined the Bush campaign's legal team, where Mr. Flanigan was a key lieutenant.
Mr. Flanigan became the deputy White House counsel under Alberto R. Gonzales. Mr. Yoo ended up as a deputy in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, or the OLC, a small unit of lawyers that advises the executive branch on constitutional questions and on the legality of complex or disputed policy issues.
After the attacks of Sept. 11, Mr. Yoo - the only deputy with much expertise on foreign policy and war powers - began dealing with the White House and other agencies more directly than he might have otherwise.
Mr. Flanigan, who had led the legal counsel office himself at the end of the first Bush administration, was acutely aware of its role in providing a legal grounding for the kinds of policy decisions the White House faced. He called over for advice soon after the World Trade Center towers fell.
"John Yoo, given his academic background and interests, was sort of the go-to guy on foreign affairs and military power issues," Mr. Flanigan said in an interview, referring to the legal counsel office staff. "He was the one that Gonzales and I went to to get advice on those issues on 9/11, and it just continued."
The torrent of opinions that Mr. Yoo churned out in the months that followed was striking, notwithstanding the research and writing assistance he had from lawyers on the office staff. Although only a portion of those documents have become public, copies of some still-confidential memorandums reviewed by The New York Times give a flavor of their sweeping language.
On Sept. 20, Mr. Yoo wrote to Mr. Flanigan about the president's constitutional authority to conduct military operations against terrorists and nations that support them. He noted that two Congressional resolutions recognized the president's authority to use force in such circumstances.
"Neither, however, can place any limits on the president's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing and nature of the response," he wrote. Similar language concludes a memo written by Mr. Yoo on Sept. 25, only a week after Congress authorized President Bush to use military force against Al Qaeda and its supporters.
"One concern that people have raised is that John had a lot of these views going into the government and was perhaps overeager to write them," said Curtis A. Bradley, a law professor at Duke University who, like Mr. Yoo, has written skeptically about the import of international law. "In terms of war powers, you won't find a tremendous number of scholars who will go as far as he does."
Mr. Yoo's belief in the wide inherent powers of the president as commander in chief was strongly shared by one of the most influential legal voices in the administration's policy debates on terrorism, David S. Addington, then the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney. Documents and interviews suggest that those views have been part of the legal arguments underpinning not only coercive interrogation and the prosecution of terrorism suspects before military tribunals but also the eavesdropping program.
Some current and former officials said the urgency of events after Sept. 11 and the close ties that Mr. Yoo developed with Mr. Addington (who is now Mr. Cheney's chief of staff), Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Flanigan and the general counsel of the Defense Department, William J. Haynes II, had sometimes led him to bypass the elaborate clearance process to which opinions from the legal counsel office were normally subjected.
Mr. Yoo's January 2002 conclusions that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan and that the conventions' minimum standards did not cover terrorists touched off a long, hard-fought battle within the administration, in which lawyers for the State Department and the military services strongly disputed his views. Thereafter, several senior officials said, those lawyers were sometimes excluded from the drafting of more delicate opinions.
For example, they said, Mr. Yoo's much-criticized 2002 memorandum with Mr. Bybee on interrogations - which said that United States law prohibited only methods that would cause "lasting psychological harm" or pain "akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure" - was not shared with either State Department or military lawyers, despite its implications for their agencies.
"They were not getting enough critical feedback from within OLC, or from within the Justice Department, or from other agencies," one former official said of Mr. Yoo's opinions. Officials said senior aides to Attorney General Ashcroft also complained that they were not adequately informed about some of the Mr. Yoo's frequent discussions with the White House.
Mr. Yoo said he had always duly notified Justice Department officials or other agencies about the opinions he provided except when "I was told by people very high in the government not to for classification reasons."
Yesterday, with controversy brewing again about some of the policies on which Mr. Yoo worked, he said he was unmoved.
"If you're being criticized for what you did and you believe that what you did was right, you shouldn't take it lying down," he said. "You should go out and defend yourself."
Wrap...
A Junior Aide Had a Big Role in Terror Policy
By Tim Golden
The New York Times
Friday 23 December 2005
Moments after planes crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, lawyers in the Justice Department's elite Office of Legal Counsel began crowding into the office of one of the agency's newest deputies, John C. Yoo, to watch the horror unfold on his television set.
"We all stood around watching this event, and he just seemed very calm, like he wasn't going to let these terrorists stop him from doing his work," recalled Robert J. Delahunty, a friend of Mr. Yoo's who worked in the office.
Fearful of another attack and told that all "nonessential personnel" should evacuate, Mr. Delahunty and others streamed out of the department's headquarters and walked home. Mr. Yoo, then a 34-year-old former law professor whose academic work had focused on foreign affairs and war-powers issues, was asked to stay behind, and he quickly found himself in the department's command center, on the phone to lawyers at the White House.
Within weeks, Mr. Yoo had begun to establish himself as a critical player in the Bush administration's legal response to the terrorist threat, and an influential advocate for the expansive claims of presidential authority that have been a hallmark of that response.
While a mere deputy assistant attorney general in the legal counsel office, Mr. Yoo was a primary author of a series of legal opinions on the fight against terrorism, including one that said the Geneva Conventions did not apply and at least two others that countenanced the use of highly coercive interrogation techniques on terror suspects. Recently, current and former officials said he also wrote a still-secret 2002 memorandum that gave legal backing to the administration's secret program to eavesdrop on the international communications of Americans and others inside the United States without federal warrants.
A genial, soft-spoken man with what friends say is a fiercely competitive streak, Mr. Yoo built particularly strong working relationships with several key legal officials in the White House and the Pentagon. Some current and former government officials contend that those relationships were in fact so close that Mr. Yoo was able to operate with a degree of autonomy that rankled senior Justice Department officials, including John Ashcroft, then the attorney general.
More than two years after Mr. Yoo returned to teaching, controversy over some of the legal positions he staked out for the administration in his two years in government has only continued to grow. Last year, an opinion he wrote on interrogations with the head of the legal counsel office, Jay S. Bybee, was publicly disavowed by the White House, a highly unusual step. Now, the revelation of the eavesdropping program has renewed the criticism.
In the uproar, Mr. Yoo has stood fast and even smiled cheerfully. Despite occasional campus protests and calls for his resignation, he has remained - somewhat incongruously but, he says, quite happily - on the law faculty at the liberal University of California, Berkeley. He keeps a busy schedule of speeches and debates at colleges and universities around the country. He is promoting a new book, and appears frequently on television to take on legal and policy issues that many former officials will discuss only under cloak of anonymity.
"I didn't go into these subjects looking for a brawl," Mr. Yoo said in an interview. Of his work at the Justice Department he added: "I had this job, and I had these questions to answer. I think it's my responsibility to explain how I thought them through."
Mr. Yoo is often identified as the most aggressive among a group of conservative legal scholars who have challenged the importance of international law in the American legal system. But his signature contributions to the policies of the Bush administration have had more to do with his forceful assertion of wide presidential powers in wartime.
While Mr. Yoo has become almost famous for some of his writings - the refutation of both his academic and government work has become almost a cottage industry among more liberal legal scholars and human rights lawyers - much less is known about how he came to wield the remarkable influence he had after Sept. 11 on issues related to terrorism.
That Washington tale began about a decade before Mr. Yoo joined the administration in July 2001, when he finished at Yale Law School and won a clerkship with Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a keen spotter of young legal talent and a patriarch of the network of conservative lawyers who have occupied key positions throughout the Bush administration.
By then, Mr. Yoo already thought of himself as solidly conservative. He had grown up with anticommunist parents who left their native South Korea for Philadelphia shortly after Mr. Yoo was born in 1967, and had honed his political views while an undergraduate at Harvard.
From the chambers of Judge Silberman, Mr. Yoo moved on to a clerkship with Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, stopping briefly at Berkeley. Justice Thomas helped place him with Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, as general counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Along the way, Mr. Yoo passed up a chance to work in the Washington office of the law firm Jones Day, where he caught the eye of a senior partner, Timothy E. Flanigan. After five years that Mr. Yoo spent at Berkeley, writing on legal aspects of foreign affairs, war powers and presidential authority, the two men met up again when Mr. Yoo joined the Bush campaign's legal team, where Mr. Flanigan was a key lieutenant.
Mr. Flanigan became the deputy White House counsel under Alberto R. Gonzales. Mr. Yoo ended up as a deputy in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, or the OLC, a small unit of lawyers that advises the executive branch on constitutional questions and on the legality of complex or disputed policy issues.
After the attacks of Sept. 11, Mr. Yoo - the only deputy with much expertise on foreign policy and war powers - began dealing with the White House and other agencies more directly than he might have otherwise.
Mr. Flanigan, who had led the legal counsel office himself at the end of the first Bush administration, was acutely aware of its role in providing a legal grounding for the kinds of policy decisions the White House faced. He called over for advice soon after the World Trade Center towers fell.
"John Yoo, given his academic background and interests, was sort of the go-to guy on foreign affairs and military power issues," Mr. Flanigan said in an interview, referring to the legal counsel office staff. "He was the one that Gonzales and I went to to get advice on those issues on 9/11, and it just continued."
The torrent of opinions that Mr. Yoo churned out in the months that followed was striking, notwithstanding the research and writing assistance he had from lawyers on the office staff. Although only a portion of those documents have become public, copies of some still-confidential memorandums reviewed by The New York Times give a flavor of their sweeping language.
On Sept. 20, Mr. Yoo wrote to Mr. Flanigan about the president's constitutional authority to conduct military operations against terrorists and nations that support them. He noted that two Congressional resolutions recognized the president's authority to use force in such circumstances.
"Neither, however, can place any limits on the president's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing and nature of the response," he wrote. Similar language concludes a memo written by Mr. Yoo on Sept. 25, only a week after Congress authorized President Bush to use military force against Al Qaeda and its supporters.
"One concern that people have raised is that John had a lot of these views going into the government and was perhaps overeager to write them," said Curtis A. Bradley, a law professor at Duke University who, like Mr. Yoo, has written skeptically about the import of international law. "In terms of war powers, you won't find a tremendous number of scholars who will go as far as he does."
Mr. Yoo's belief in the wide inherent powers of the president as commander in chief was strongly shared by one of the most influential legal voices in the administration's policy debates on terrorism, David S. Addington, then the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney. Documents and interviews suggest that those views have been part of the legal arguments underpinning not only coercive interrogation and the prosecution of terrorism suspects before military tribunals but also the eavesdropping program.
Some current and former officials said the urgency of events after Sept. 11 and the close ties that Mr. Yoo developed with Mr. Addington (who is now Mr. Cheney's chief of staff), Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Flanigan and the general counsel of the Defense Department, William J. Haynes II, had sometimes led him to bypass the elaborate clearance process to which opinions from the legal counsel office were normally subjected.
Mr. Yoo's January 2002 conclusions that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan and that the conventions' minimum standards did not cover terrorists touched off a long, hard-fought battle within the administration, in which lawyers for the State Department and the military services strongly disputed his views. Thereafter, several senior officials said, those lawyers were sometimes excluded from the drafting of more delicate opinions.
For example, they said, Mr. Yoo's much-criticized 2002 memorandum with Mr. Bybee on interrogations - which said that United States law prohibited only methods that would cause "lasting psychological harm" or pain "akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure" - was not shared with either State Department or military lawyers, despite its implications for their agencies.
"They were not getting enough critical feedback from within OLC, or from within the Justice Department, or from other agencies," one former official said of Mr. Yoo's opinions. Officials said senior aides to Attorney General Ashcroft also complained that they were not adequately informed about some of the Mr. Yoo's frequent discussions with the White House.
Mr. Yoo said he had always duly notified Justice Department officials or other agencies about the opinions he provided except when "I was told by people very high in the government not to for classification reasons."
Yesterday, with controversy brewing again about some of the policies on which Mr. Yoo worked, he said he was unmoved.
"If you're being criticized for what you did and you believe that what you did was right, you shouldn't take it lying down," he said. "You should go out and defend yourself."
Wrap...
Nuclear monitoring?!!!
From US News via truthout.org :
Exclusive: Nuclear Monitoring of Muslims Done without Search Warrants
By David E. Kaplan
US News
Thursday 22 December 2005
In search of a terrorist nuclear bomb, the federal government since 9/11 has run a far-reaching, top secret program to monitor radiation levels at over a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, including mosques, homes, businesses, and warehouses, plus similar sites in at least five other cities, US News has learned. In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the program. Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts.
Federal officials familiar with the program maintain that warrants are unneeded for the kind of radiation sampling the operation entails, but some legal scholars disagree. News of the program comes in the wake of revelations last week that, after 9/11, the Bush White House approved electronic surveillance of US targets by the National Security Agency without court orders.
These and other developments suggest that the federal government's domestic spying programs since 9/11 have been far broader than previously thought.
The nuclear surveillance program began in early 2002 and has been run by the FBI and the Department of Energy's Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST). Two individuals, who declined to be named because the program is highly classified, spoke to US News because of their concerns about the legality of the program. At its peak, they say, the effort involved three vehicles in Washington, D.C., monitoring 120 sites per day, nearly all of them Muslim targets drawn up by the FBI. For some ten months, officials conducted daily monitoring, and they have resumed daily checks during periods of high threat. The program has also operated in at least five other cities when threat levels there have risen: Chicago, Detroit, Las Vegas, New York, and Seattle.
FBI officials expressed concern that discussion of the program would expose sensitive methods used in counterterrorism. Although NEST staffers have demonstrated their techniques on national television as recently as October, US News has omitted details of how the monitoring is conducted. Officials from four different agencies declined to respond on the record about the classified program: the FBI, Energy Department, Justice Department, and National Security Council. "We don't ever comment on deployments," said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages NEST.
In Washington, the sites monitored have included prominent mosques and office buildings in suburban Maryland and Virginia. One source close to the program said that participants "were tasked on a daily and nightly basis," and that FBI and Energy Department officials held regular meetings to update the monitoring list. "The targets were almost all US citizens," says the source. "A lot of us thought it was questionable, but people who complained nearly lost their jobs. We were told it was perfectly legal."
The question of search warrants is controversial, however. To ensure accurate readings, in up to 15 percent of the cases the monitoring needed to take place on private property, sources say, such as on mosque parking lots and private driveways. Government officials familiar with the program insist it is legal; warrants are unneeded for monitoring from public property, they say, as well as from publicly accessible driveways and parking lots. "If a delivery man can access it, so can we," says one.
Georgetown University Professor David Cole, a constitutional law expert, disagrees. Surveillance of public spaces such as mosques or public businesses might well be allowable without a court order, he argues, but not private offices or homes: "They don't need a warrant to drive onto the property - the issue isn't where they are, but whether they're using a tactic to intrude on privacy. It seems to me that they are, and that they would need a warrant or probable cause."
Cole points to a 2001 Supreme Court decision, US vs. Kyllo, which looked at police use - without a search warrant - of thermal imaging technology to search for marijuana-growing lamps in a home. The court, in a ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled that authorities did in fact need a warrant - that the heat sensors violated the Fourth Amendment's clause against unreasonable search and seizure. But officials familiar with the FBI/NEST program say the radiation sensors are different and are only sampling the surrounding air. "This kind of program only detects particles in the air, it's non directional," says one knowledgeable official. "It's not a whole lot different from smelling marijuana."
Officials also reject any notion that the program specifically has targeted Muslims. "We categorically do not target places of worship or entitles solely based on ethnicity or religious affiliation," says one. "Our investigations are intelligence driven and based on a criminal predicate."
Among those said to be briefed on the monitoring program were Vice President Richard Cheney; Michael Brown, then-director of the Federal Emergency Management Administration; and Richard Clarke, then a top counterterrorism official at the National Security Council. After 9/11, top officials grew increasingly concerned over the prospect of nuclear terrorism. Just weeks after the World Trade Center attacks, a dubious informant named Dragonfire warned that al Qaeda had smuggled a nuclear device into New York City; NEST teams swept the city and found nothing. But as evidence seized from Afghan camps confirmed al Qaeda's interest in nuclear technology, radiation detectors were temporarily installed along Washington, D.C., highways and the Muslim monitoring program began.
Most staff for the monitoring came from NEST, which draws from nearly 1,000 nuclear scientists and technicians based largely at the country's national laboratories. For 30 years, NEST undercover teams have combed suspected sites looking for radioactive material, using high-tech detection gear fitted onto various aircraft, vehicles, and even backpacks and attaché cases. No dirty bombs or nuclear devices have ever been found - and that includes the post-9/11 program. "There were a lot of false positives, and one or two were alarming," says one source. "But in the end we found nothing."
Wrap...
Exclusive: Nuclear Monitoring of Muslims Done without Search Warrants
By David E. Kaplan
US News
Thursday 22 December 2005
In search of a terrorist nuclear bomb, the federal government since 9/11 has run a far-reaching, top secret program to monitor radiation levels at over a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, including mosques, homes, businesses, and warehouses, plus similar sites in at least five other cities, US News has learned. In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the program. Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts.
Federal officials familiar with the program maintain that warrants are unneeded for the kind of radiation sampling the operation entails, but some legal scholars disagree. News of the program comes in the wake of revelations last week that, after 9/11, the Bush White House approved electronic surveillance of US targets by the National Security Agency without court orders.
These and other developments suggest that the federal government's domestic spying programs since 9/11 have been far broader than previously thought.
The nuclear surveillance program began in early 2002 and has been run by the FBI and the Department of Energy's Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST). Two individuals, who declined to be named because the program is highly classified, spoke to US News because of their concerns about the legality of the program. At its peak, they say, the effort involved three vehicles in Washington, D.C., monitoring 120 sites per day, nearly all of them Muslim targets drawn up by the FBI. For some ten months, officials conducted daily monitoring, and they have resumed daily checks during periods of high threat. The program has also operated in at least five other cities when threat levels there have risen: Chicago, Detroit, Las Vegas, New York, and Seattle.
FBI officials expressed concern that discussion of the program would expose sensitive methods used in counterterrorism. Although NEST staffers have demonstrated their techniques on national television as recently as October, US News has omitted details of how the monitoring is conducted. Officials from four different agencies declined to respond on the record about the classified program: the FBI, Energy Department, Justice Department, and National Security Council. "We don't ever comment on deployments," said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages NEST.
In Washington, the sites monitored have included prominent mosques and office buildings in suburban Maryland and Virginia. One source close to the program said that participants "were tasked on a daily and nightly basis," and that FBI and Energy Department officials held regular meetings to update the monitoring list. "The targets were almost all US citizens," says the source. "A lot of us thought it was questionable, but people who complained nearly lost their jobs. We were told it was perfectly legal."
The question of search warrants is controversial, however. To ensure accurate readings, in up to 15 percent of the cases the monitoring needed to take place on private property, sources say, such as on mosque parking lots and private driveways. Government officials familiar with the program insist it is legal; warrants are unneeded for monitoring from public property, they say, as well as from publicly accessible driveways and parking lots. "If a delivery man can access it, so can we," says one.
Georgetown University Professor David Cole, a constitutional law expert, disagrees. Surveillance of public spaces such as mosques or public businesses might well be allowable without a court order, he argues, but not private offices or homes: "They don't need a warrant to drive onto the property - the issue isn't where they are, but whether they're using a tactic to intrude on privacy. It seems to me that they are, and that they would need a warrant or probable cause."
Cole points to a 2001 Supreme Court decision, US vs. Kyllo, which looked at police use - without a search warrant - of thermal imaging technology to search for marijuana-growing lamps in a home. The court, in a ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled that authorities did in fact need a warrant - that the heat sensors violated the Fourth Amendment's clause against unreasonable search and seizure. But officials familiar with the FBI/NEST program say the radiation sensors are different and are only sampling the surrounding air. "This kind of program only detects particles in the air, it's non directional," says one knowledgeable official. "It's not a whole lot different from smelling marijuana."
Officials also reject any notion that the program specifically has targeted Muslims. "We categorically do not target places of worship or entitles solely based on ethnicity or religious affiliation," says one. "Our investigations are intelligence driven and based on a criminal predicate."
Among those said to be briefed on the monitoring program were Vice President Richard Cheney; Michael Brown, then-director of the Federal Emergency Management Administration; and Richard Clarke, then a top counterterrorism official at the National Security Council. After 9/11, top officials grew increasingly concerned over the prospect of nuclear terrorism. Just weeks after the World Trade Center attacks, a dubious informant named Dragonfire warned that al Qaeda had smuggled a nuclear device into New York City; NEST teams swept the city and found nothing. But as evidence seized from Afghan camps confirmed al Qaeda's interest in nuclear technology, radiation detectors were temporarily installed along Washington, D.C., highways and the Muslim monitoring program began.
Most staff for the monitoring came from NEST, which draws from nearly 1,000 nuclear scientists and technicians based largely at the country's national laboratories. For 30 years, NEST undercover teams have combed suspected sites looking for radioactive material, using high-tech detection gear fitted onto various aircraft, vehicles, and even backpacks and attaché cases. No dirty bombs or nuclear devices have ever been found - and that includes the post-9/11 program. "There were a lot of false positives, and one or two were alarming," says one source. "But in the end we found nothing."
Wrap...
What'd we do? Nuthin'...as usual...
Letter to the Editor, LA Times, 12/22/05 :
"So what are Americans to do if, in 2008, George Bush says, "Due to the continued terrorist threat against this country, I have decided that it is not safe for America to undergo a change of leadership. Therefore, under my constitutional powers as commander in chief, I am cancelling this year's presidential election"?
ERW
Wrap...
"So what are Americans to do if, in 2008, George Bush says, "Due to the continued terrorist threat against this country, I have decided that it is not safe for America to undergo a change of leadership. Therefore, under my constitutional powers as commander in chief, I am cancelling this year's presidential election"?
ERW
Wrap...
Bomb Iran?!!!
From Turkish Press.com :
CIA’s Goss Reportedly Warned Ankara Of Iranian Threat
Published: 12/13/2005
Cumhuriyet - During his recent visit to Ankara, CIA Director Porter Goss reportedly brought three dossiers on Iran to Ankara.
Goss is said to have asked for Turkey’s support for Washington’s policy against Iran’s nuclear activities, charging that Tehran had supported terrorism and taken part in activities against Turkey.
Goss also asked Ankara to be ready for a possible US air operation against Iran and Syria.
Goss, who came to Ankara just after FBI Director Robert Mueller’s visit, brought up Iran’s alleged attempts to develop nuclear weapons. It was said that Goss first told Ankara that Iran has nuclear weapons and this situation was creating a huge threat for both Turkey and other states in the region. Diplomatic sources say that Washington wants Turkey to coordinate with its Iran policies.
The second dossier is about Iran’s stance on terrorism. The CIA argued that Iran was supporting terrorism, the PKK and al-Qaeda.
The third had to do with Iran’s alleged stance against Ankara. Goss said that Tehran sees Turkey as an enemy and would try to “export its regime.”
Wrap...
CIA’s Goss Reportedly Warned Ankara Of Iranian Threat
Published: 12/13/2005
Cumhuriyet - During his recent visit to Ankara, CIA Director Porter Goss reportedly brought three dossiers on Iran to Ankara.
Goss is said to have asked for Turkey’s support for Washington’s policy against Iran’s nuclear activities, charging that Tehran had supported terrorism and taken part in activities against Turkey.
Goss also asked Ankara to be ready for a possible US air operation against Iran and Syria.
Goss, who came to Ankara just after FBI Director Robert Mueller’s visit, brought up Iran’s alleged attempts to develop nuclear weapons. It was said that Goss first told Ankara that Iran has nuclear weapons and this situation was creating a huge threat for both Turkey and other states in the region. Diplomatic sources say that Washington wants Turkey to coordinate with its Iran policies.
The second dossier is about Iran’s stance on terrorism. The CIA argued that Iran was supporting terrorism, the PKK and al-Qaeda.
The third had to do with Iran’s alleged stance against Ankara. Goss said that Tehran sees Turkey as an enemy and would try to “export its regime.”
Wrap...
Doug Thompson: BushCo is our own damned fault.
From Capitol Hill Blue
The Rant
For Christmas, let's give ourselves a present: A new government
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 23, 2005, 06:24
Congress gave the nation a Christmas present Thursday, adjourning for the year and getting the hell out of Dodge with most of its business unfinished.
President George W. Bush did the same, hightailing it to Crawford for yet another vacation.
Yes, the nation and world are much safer places when these clowns leave town. For a few weeks, we can breathe easier, content in knowing that members of Congress are off junketing at some lobbyist’s expense and our phony cowboy President is in Texas pretending, once again, to be something that he is not.
Which leaves the rest of us to wonder just how in the hell we got into this mess?
How, for example, did the world’s oldest surviving Republic end up with a government so scandal-ridden, so ineffective and so reviled by both its own citizens and the rest of mankind?
How did this nation re-elect a President who lies to justify an illegal invasion of another country, ignores the Constitution that is supposed to provide the foundation for our freedoms, orders spying on Americans by our own government and sends thousands of American soldiers as well as countless numbers of innocent civilians of other countries to their deaths?
How did we end up with a Congress so corrupt that lobbyists roam the halls like predators, buying favor and access with big campaign donations, securing votes with lavish vacations and perks and subverting the sadly outmoded idea that our elected representatives are supposed to serve the will of the people?
How we got into this mess is easy to explain. We, as Americans, sat on our collective asses and let it happen. As long as we had two cars in the garage, a Tivo recording shows for our high-definition plasma TVs and junior occupied by a Gameboy, we didn’t really give a damn what was happening in Washington. We might bitch and moan about the cost of filling the tank on our SUVs but, hey, life is good and who cares what those morons are Washington are doing as long as it doesn’t affect us?
Well it was affecting us then and it is affecting us more than ever now. While we sat on our couches and watched reality shows until our brains fried, our government – the one that is supposed to be “of the people and for the people” – turned into an all-powerful monster that snoops into our private lives, lives large at our expense and drives this nation into bankruptcy with mounting deficits and out-of-control spending.
When it came time to speak as voters, too many of us stayed home, allowing a minority of those who actually voted to decide who runs the country and our lives. Those who did vote did so mostly to support the status quo and it is that status quo that is destroying a once-great nation called America.
Yes, our nation and the government that controls it are out of control. It got there because, in the end, the final check and balance is us – the people who vote these clowns in and out of office. Had we been paying attention and doing our jobs, we might not be in the mess we have right now.
As a journalist, I can rant and rave about the injustices and scandals and misuse of power until the cows come home but, in the end, that’s all I can do. I can shine the light of truth on these miscreants but the truth cannot set anyone free unless they seek the freedom.
In the end, the voters hire these morons and only the voters can fire them. Given the poor turnout of past elections, it is also the voters who chose not to vote who share most of the blame. If we don’t do our jobs, then we have no one but ourselves to blame if the turkeys that make it into office don’t do theirs.
Because of our action, or inaction, we are saddled with a government that can’t get the job done.
So it’s time for us to do our jobs and find someone who can.
© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue
Wrap...
The Rant
For Christmas, let's give ourselves a present: A new government
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 23, 2005, 06:24
Congress gave the nation a Christmas present Thursday, adjourning for the year and getting the hell out of Dodge with most of its business unfinished.
President George W. Bush did the same, hightailing it to Crawford for yet another vacation.
Yes, the nation and world are much safer places when these clowns leave town. For a few weeks, we can breathe easier, content in knowing that members of Congress are off junketing at some lobbyist’s expense and our phony cowboy President is in Texas pretending, once again, to be something that he is not.
Which leaves the rest of us to wonder just how in the hell we got into this mess?
How, for example, did the world’s oldest surviving Republic end up with a government so scandal-ridden, so ineffective and so reviled by both its own citizens and the rest of mankind?
How did this nation re-elect a President who lies to justify an illegal invasion of another country, ignores the Constitution that is supposed to provide the foundation for our freedoms, orders spying on Americans by our own government and sends thousands of American soldiers as well as countless numbers of innocent civilians of other countries to their deaths?
How did we end up with a Congress so corrupt that lobbyists roam the halls like predators, buying favor and access with big campaign donations, securing votes with lavish vacations and perks and subverting the sadly outmoded idea that our elected representatives are supposed to serve the will of the people?
How we got into this mess is easy to explain. We, as Americans, sat on our collective asses and let it happen. As long as we had two cars in the garage, a Tivo recording shows for our high-definition plasma TVs and junior occupied by a Gameboy, we didn’t really give a damn what was happening in Washington. We might bitch and moan about the cost of filling the tank on our SUVs but, hey, life is good and who cares what those morons are Washington are doing as long as it doesn’t affect us?
Well it was affecting us then and it is affecting us more than ever now. While we sat on our couches and watched reality shows until our brains fried, our government – the one that is supposed to be “of the people and for the people” – turned into an all-powerful monster that snoops into our private lives, lives large at our expense and drives this nation into bankruptcy with mounting deficits and out-of-control spending.
When it came time to speak as voters, too many of us stayed home, allowing a minority of those who actually voted to decide who runs the country and our lives. Those who did vote did so mostly to support the status quo and it is that status quo that is destroying a once-great nation called America.
Yes, our nation and the government that controls it are out of control. It got there because, in the end, the final check and balance is us – the people who vote these clowns in and out of office. Had we been paying attention and doing our jobs, we might not be in the mess we have right now.
As a journalist, I can rant and rave about the injustices and scandals and misuse of power until the cows come home but, in the end, that’s all I can do. I can shine the light of truth on these miscreants but the truth cannot set anyone free unless they seek the freedom.
In the end, the voters hire these morons and only the voters can fire them. Given the poor turnout of past elections, it is also the voters who chose not to vote who share most of the blame. If we don’t do our jobs, then we have no one but ourselves to blame if the turkeys that make it into office don’t do theirs.
Because of our action, or inaction, we are saddled with a government that can’t get the job done.
So it’s time for us to do our jobs and find someone who can.
© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue
Wrap...
Daschle says no way in hell did Bush get okay...
From the Washington Post:
Power We Didn't Grant
By Tom Daschle
Friday, December 23, 2005
In the face of mounting questions about news stories saying that President Bush approved a program to wiretap American citizens without getting warrants, the White House argues that Congress granted it authority for such surveillance in the 2001 legislation authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda. On Tuesday, Vice President Cheney said the president "was granted authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the terrorists, and that's what we've done."
As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.
On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.
The shock and rage we all felt in the hours after the attack were still fresh. America was reeling from the first attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor. We suspected thousands had been killed, and many who worked in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were not yet accounted for. Even so, a strong bipartisan majority could not agree to the administration's request for an unprecedented grant of authority.
The Bush administration now argues those powers were inherently contained in the resolution adopted by Congress -- but at the time, the administration clearly felt they weren't or it wouldn't have tried to insert the additional language.
All Americans agree that keeping our nation safe from terrorists demands aggressive and innovative tactics. This unity was reflected in the near-unanimous support for the original resolution and the Patriot Act in those harrowing days after Sept. 11. But there are right and wrong ways to defeat terrorists, and that is a distinction this administration has never seemed to accept. Instead of employing tactics that preserve Americans' freedoms and inspire the faith and confidence of the American people, the White House seems to have chosen methods that can only breed fear and suspicion.
If the stories in the media over the past week are accurate, the president has exercised authority that I do not believe is granted to him in the Constitution, and that I know is not granted to him in the law that I helped negotiate with his counsel and that Congress approved in the days after Sept. 11. For that reason, the president should explain the specific legal justification for his authorization of these actions, Congress should fully investigate these actions and the president's justification for them, and the administration should cooperate fully with that investigation.
In the meantime, if the president believes the current legal architecture of our country is insufficient for the fight against terrorism, he should propose changes to our laws in the light of day.
That is how a great democracy operates. And that is how this great democracy will defeat
terrorism.
The writer, a former Democratic senator from South Dakota, was Senate majority leader in 2001-02. He is now distinguished senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Wrap...
Power We Didn't Grant
By Tom Daschle
Friday, December 23, 2005
In the face of mounting questions about news stories saying that President Bush approved a program to wiretap American citizens without getting warrants, the White House argues that Congress granted it authority for such surveillance in the 2001 legislation authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda. On Tuesday, Vice President Cheney said the president "was granted authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the terrorists, and that's what we've done."
As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.
On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.
The shock and rage we all felt in the hours after the attack were still fresh. America was reeling from the first attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor. We suspected thousands had been killed, and many who worked in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were not yet accounted for. Even so, a strong bipartisan majority could not agree to the administration's request for an unprecedented grant of authority.
The Bush administration now argues those powers were inherently contained in the resolution adopted by Congress -- but at the time, the administration clearly felt they weren't or it wouldn't have tried to insert the additional language.
All Americans agree that keeping our nation safe from terrorists demands aggressive and innovative tactics. This unity was reflected in the near-unanimous support for the original resolution and the Patriot Act in those harrowing days after Sept. 11. But there are right and wrong ways to defeat terrorists, and that is a distinction this administration has never seemed to accept. Instead of employing tactics that preserve Americans' freedoms and inspire the faith and confidence of the American people, the White House seems to have chosen methods that can only breed fear and suspicion.
If the stories in the media over the past week are accurate, the president has exercised authority that I do not believe is granted to him in the Constitution, and that I know is not granted to him in the law that I helped negotiate with his counsel and that Congress approved in the days after Sept. 11. For that reason, the president should explain the specific legal justification for his authorization of these actions, Congress should fully investigate these actions and the president's justification for them, and the administration should cooperate fully with that investigation.
In the meantime, if the president believes the current legal architecture of our country is insufficient for the fight against terrorism, he should propose changes to our laws in the light of day.
That is how a great democracy operates. And that is how this great democracy will defeat
terrorism.
The writer, a former Democratic senator from South Dakota, was Senate majority leader in 2001-02. He is now distinguished senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Wrap...
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Fox News links with former KKK white supremacist..
From American Progress :
MEDIA -- FOX NEWS PROMOTES WHITE SUPREMACIST ORGANIZATION:
Stormfront.org's top logo boasts "White Pride Worldwide" and features a town hall radio discussion with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. But a FOX News affiliate ran a story promoting it as "a web site with everything from dating advice and homemaking threads, to discussion boards that focus on news that white activists want to know."
FOX's coverage hasn't gone unnoticed; on a Nov. 9 comment on the site's forums, Senior Moderator James Kelso writes, "Thanks to all for the positive assessments of this Stormfront.org interview with Fox TV. The Fox TV Carolina staff was very professional and made it easy for...me. One detail that I forgot (until just yesterday) was to unmoderate our new Stormfront Member, FOXSC, so that Fox could post more easily on Stormfront. We've also got Fox5News and Fox-News as Stormfront Members."
So much for "fair and balanced."
Wrap...
MEDIA -- FOX NEWS PROMOTES WHITE SUPREMACIST ORGANIZATION:
Stormfront.org's top logo boasts "White Pride Worldwide" and features a town hall radio discussion with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. But a FOX News affiliate ran a story promoting it as "a web site with everything from dating advice and homemaking threads, to discussion boards that focus on news that white activists want to know."
FOX's coverage hasn't gone unnoticed; on a Nov. 9 comment on the site's forums, Senior Moderator James Kelso writes, "Thanks to all for the positive assessments of this Stormfront.org interview with Fox TV. The Fox TV Carolina staff was very professional and made it easy for...me. One detail that I forgot (until just yesterday) was to unmoderate our new Stormfront Member, FOXSC, so that Fox could post more easily on Stormfront. We've also got Fox5News and Fox-News as Stormfront Members."
So much for "fair and balanced."
Wrap...
Rumsfeld downsizes forces, forces go private...
From Reuters via truthout.org :
US Lawsuit Could Dent Global War-Contractor Boom
By Bernd Debusmann
Reuters
Thursday 22 December 2005
Washington - An unprecedented lawsuit stemming from the gruesome killing of four American civilians in Iraq is slowly making its way through the US legal system, closely watched by companies estimated to field up to 100,000 contractors alongside the US military.
Lawyers and military experts say the case highlights legal gray zones, a lack of regulation and little oversight of a booming global industry believed to bring in more than $150 billion annually. Civilian military contractors now perform scores of functions once restricted to regular troops, and a trend toward "privatizing war" has been accelerating steadily.
The suit was brought by the families of four civilian contractors shot last year by Iraqi insurgents, who burned their bodies and hung the charred remains from a bridge across the Euphrates river in the city of Falluja.
The four - Stephen Helveston, Mike Teague, Jerko Zovko and Wesley Batalona - worked for Blackwater Security Consulting LLC, one of the companies fielding armed civilians in Iraq under contract with the Pentagon. All four had military experience and signed contracts assuming all risks and waiving their right to sue.
The suit against Blackwater says the company broke explicit terms of its contract with the men by sending them to escort a food convoy in unarmored cars, without heavy machine guns, proper briefings, advance notice or pre-mission reconnaissance, in teams that were understaffed and lacked even a map.
"Sending four men out on the security mission instead of the required six essentially took away the team's ability to defend itself," the suit says. "Not having one driver, one navigator and a rear-gunner with a 180 degree field of fire, the team never had a chance ... the insurgents were literally able to walk up behind the vehicles and open fire upon them at close range."
Alleging wrongful death and fraud, the suit is the first of its kind in the US. The way it is resolved, experts say, could have major implications for the future of military contracting and result in more rules and regulations.
Blackwater, which declines comment on the suit, filed motions this week to have the case moved to a federal court from a state court in North Carolina where it originated in January. Blackwater's headquarters are in Moycock, North Carolina.
Marc Miles, an attorney for the families, said he expected the suit to come to trial next year.
Wild West
"This is an important case," said Jeffrey Addicott, director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio. "While the volume of contractors pouring into Iraq has been enormous, there has been very little effort at regulation or standardizing training. It's the Wild West out there."
Addicott, a retired Special Forces officer, estimates that the number of civilian contractors in Iraq surpassed 100,000 this year. "That takes into account not only people specifically hired to provide armed security, but also those in transportation, construction, food services, housing, laundry etc. Americans and non-Americans."
Other experts agree with that estimate.
Despite the large sums of money and large numbers of civilians paid by the Department of Defense, the Pentagon does not have a precise tally of either. The estimate of contractors it gives - around 20,000 - dates back to a remark by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld almost two years ago.
Such estimates cover what is known as "arms-bearing contractors" who work for firms including Blackwater, Triple Canopy, Aegis Defense Services and Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI) - all run by retired military officers.
There are about 173,000 US and allied troops now in Iraq, led by the United States with 155,000.
Army Depends on Civilian Contractors
US armed forces can no longer function without civilian contractors, neither in combat nor in the post-combat stability and reconstruction operations that the Pentagon last month declared a "core mission," experts say.
According to Peter Singer of Washington's Brookings Institution, private companies that sell warfare-linked services to governments represent "the corporate evolution of the age-old profession of mercenaries."
The firms involved bristle at the term "mercenary," which evokes images of white guns-for-hire working for African dictators and staging coups and countercoups on behalf of the highest bidder.
Civilian contractors say they provide protection and support personnel rather than war fighters, but the line is often thin. Some of the most advanced weapons systems used in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq were manned by civilians.
But while "mercenary" has been replaced by "private military firms" or "private military companies" - PMFs or PMCs - there is no doubt that the driving force is money.
PMFs have operated in more than 100 countries. In 1990, revenues from their activities were estimated at around $55 billion, a sum thought to have tripled by this year.
Outsourcing
The government's rationale for outsourcing military services is that it saves cost and increases flexibility - similar to corporations which cut their work forces then outsource functions to contractors working without health or pension benefits.
There are no recent studies, however, on the long-term cost benefit of replacing regular troops with contractors.
The downsizing of the US armed forces has been substantial and relentless - from 2.1 million when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and the Cold War ended to 1.4 million today. More cuts are under consideration.
One tricky consequence is the free-market competition between the military and the private sector for people who have been trained - often at considerable cost - by the military. PMFs pay up to 10 times more than the military for very similar functions.
Special Forces expertise is in particular demand, and operators can make more than $200,000 a year, a good part of it not subject to US income taxes.
To counter the lure of private contractors, the army has begun to offer re-enlistment bonuses of $150,000 for special forces soldiers who agree to stay on an additional six years.
Wrap...
US Lawsuit Could Dent Global War-Contractor Boom
By Bernd Debusmann
Reuters
Thursday 22 December 2005
Washington - An unprecedented lawsuit stemming from the gruesome killing of four American civilians in Iraq is slowly making its way through the US legal system, closely watched by companies estimated to field up to 100,000 contractors alongside the US military.
Lawyers and military experts say the case highlights legal gray zones, a lack of regulation and little oversight of a booming global industry believed to bring in more than $150 billion annually. Civilian military contractors now perform scores of functions once restricted to regular troops, and a trend toward "privatizing war" has been accelerating steadily.
The suit was brought by the families of four civilian contractors shot last year by Iraqi insurgents, who burned their bodies and hung the charred remains from a bridge across the Euphrates river in the city of Falluja.
The four - Stephen Helveston, Mike Teague, Jerko Zovko and Wesley Batalona - worked for Blackwater Security Consulting LLC, one of the companies fielding armed civilians in Iraq under contract with the Pentagon. All four had military experience and signed contracts assuming all risks and waiving their right to sue.
The suit against Blackwater says the company broke explicit terms of its contract with the men by sending them to escort a food convoy in unarmored cars, without heavy machine guns, proper briefings, advance notice or pre-mission reconnaissance, in teams that were understaffed and lacked even a map.
"Sending four men out on the security mission instead of the required six essentially took away the team's ability to defend itself," the suit says. "Not having one driver, one navigator and a rear-gunner with a 180 degree field of fire, the team never had a chance ... the insurgents were literally able to walk up behind the vehicles and open fire upon them at close range."
Alleging wrongful death and fraud, the suit is the first of its kind in the US. The way it is resolved, experts say, could have major implications for the future of military contracting and result in more rules and regulations.
Blackwater, which declines comment on the suit, filed motions this week to have the case moved to a federal court from a state court in North Carolina where it originated in January. Blackwater's headquarters are in Moycock, North Carolina.
Marc Miles, an attorney for the families, said he expected the suit to come to trial next year.
Wild West
"This is an important case," said Jeffrey Addicott, director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio. "While the volume of contractors pouring into Iraq has been enormous, there has been very little effort at regulation or standardizing training. It's the Wild West out there."
Addicott, a retired Special Forces officer, estimates that the number of civilian contractors in Iraq surpassed 100,000 this year. "That takes into account not only people specifically hired to provide armed security, but also those in transportation, construction, food services, housing, laundry etc. Americans and non-Americans."
Other experts agree with that estimate.
Despite the large sums of money and large numbers of civilians paid by the Department of Defense, the Pentagon does not have a precise tally of either. The estimate of contractors it gives - around 20,000 - dates back to a remark by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld almost two years ago.
Such estimates cover what is known as "arms-bearing contractors" who work for firms including Blackwater, Triple Canopy, Aegis Defense Services and Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI) - all run by retired military officers.
There are about 173,000 US and allied troops now in Iraq, led by the United States with 155,000.
Army Depends on Civilian Contractors
US armed forces can no longer function without civilian contractors, neither in combat nor in the post-combat stability and reconstruction operations that the Pentagon last month declared a "core mission," experts say.
According to Peter Singer of Washington's Brookings Institution, private companies that sell warfare-linked services to governments represent "the corporate evolution of the age-old profession of mercenaries."
The firms involved bristle at the term "mercenary," which evokes images of white guns-for-hire working for African dictators and staging coups and countercoups on behalf of the highest bidder.
Civilian contractors say they provide protection and support personnel rather than war fighters, but the line is often thin. Some of the most advanced weapons systems used in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq were manned by civilians.
But while "mercenary" has been replaced by "private military firms" or "private military companies" - PMFs or PMCs - there is no doubt that the driving force is money.
PMFs have operated in more than 100 countries. In 1990, revenues from their activities were estimated at around $55 billion, a sum thought to have tripled by this year.
Outsourcing
The government's rationale for outsourcing military services is that it saves cost and increases flexibility - similar to corporations which cut their work forces then outsource functions to contractors working without health or pension benefits.
There are no recent studies, however, on the long-term cost benefit of replacing regular troops with contractors.
The downsizing of the US armed forces has been substantial and relentless - from 2.1 million when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and the Cold War ended to 1.4 million today. More cuts are under consideration.
One tricky consequence is the free-market competition between the military and the private sector for people who have been trained - often at considerable cost - by the military. PMFs pay up to 10 times more than the military for very similar functions.
Special Forces expertise is in particular demand, and operators can make more than $200,000 a year, a good part of it not subject to US income taxes.
To counter the lure of private contractors, the army has begun to offer re-enlistment bonuses of $150,000 for special forces soldiers who agree to stay on an additional six years.
Wrap...
Population leaving East & West Coasts...
From USA Today:
People fleeing pricey coastal states for South, West
By Haya El Nasser and Paul Overberg
USA TODAY
The quest for affordable housing and jobs is driving Americans from expensive coastal states to more moderately priced parts of the country, according to an analysis of Census population estimates out Thursday.
Halfway through the decade, people continue to leave states such as New York and California and spill into parts of the Southwest, Southeast and Rocky Mountains.
In the 12 months ending July 1, Florida gained more people (404,434) than any other state for the first time in at least 15 years. Despite four hurricanes that hit the state last year, Florida added an average 1,100 people a day, bringing its population to almost 18 million. If that pace continues, Florida will overtake New York as the third-most-populous state by 2010.
Other highlights in the data:
• New York lost people for the first time since 1980. "New York state's losses were masked in the boom of New York City and its suburbs in the '90s," says Robert Lang, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech. "Once they slow down, even slightly, the decline Upstate becomes very apparent."
• California was not the top gainer for the first time since 1995. Most of the state's net gain of 290,109 came from births. The data show that 239,417 more people left California for other parts of the USA than moved in.
"It's a symptom of the new divide in housing costs between the expensive, congested, urbanized states such as California and New York and newly sprawling suburban states on both coasts," says William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
"This whole half of the decade, housing has been an issue. ... The question is: Will it continue?"
• Largely because of strong job growth, Virginia gained more people (86,133) than the nine Northeastern states combined (59,880).
Population shifts ultimately have political consequences because seats in the House of Representatives are reallocated after the full Census every 10 years. Based on the latest estimates, five states would lose a seat, according to Kim Brace, president of Election Data Services, a Washington consulting company.
Texas and four other states would gain a seat. Texas could gain a second seat because Louisiana is likely to lose one once hundreds of thousands of residents displaced by Hurricane Katrina are reflected in Census counts, Brace says. Many evacuees moved to Texas.
The U.S. population's growth rate has slowed slightly since record growth in the 1990s. As of July 1, the population was at 296.4 million, but it may hit 300 million in 2007.
"The decade began with the economy off track, but the population boom kept rolling along and is on track to nearly match the record 1990s," Lang says. "The country found places to keep booming, shying away from the high-cost coasts and seeking the South and the mountain West."
Wrap...
People fleeing pricey coastal states for South, West
By Haya El Nasser and Paul Overberg
USA TODAY
The quest for affordable housing and jobs is driving Americans from expensive coastal states to more moderately priced parts of the country, according to an analysis of Census population estimates out Thursday.
Halfway through the decade, people continue to leave states such as New York and California and spill into parts of the Southwest, Southeast and Rocky Mountains.
In the 12 months ending July 1, Florida gained more people (404,434) than any other state for the first time in at least 15 years. Despite four hurricanes that hit the state last year, Florida added an average 1,100 people a day, bringing its population to almost 18 million. If that pace continues, Florida will overtake New York as the third-most-populous state by 2010.
Other highlights in the data:
• New York lost people for the first time since 1980. "New York state's losses were masked in the boom of New York City and its suburbs in the '90s," says Robert Lang, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech. "Once they slow down, even slightly, the decline Upstate becomes very apparent."
• California was not the top gainer for the first time since 1995. Most of the state's net gain of 290,109 came from births. The data show that 239,417 more people left California for other parts of the USA than moved in.
"It's a symptom of the new divide in housing costs between the expensive, congested, urbanized states such as California and New York and newly sprawling suburban states on both coasts," says William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
"This whole half of the decade, housing has been an issue. ... The question is: Will it continue?"
• Largely because of strong job growth, Virginia gained more people (86,133) than the nine Northeastern states combined (59,880).
Population shifts ultimately have political consequences because seats in the House of Representatives are reallocated after the full Census every 10 years. Based on the latest estimates, five states would lose a seat, according to Kim Brace, president of Election Data Services, a Washington consulting company.
Texas and four other states would gain a seat. Texas could gain a second seat because Louisiana is likely to lose one once hundreds of thousands of residents displaced by Hurricane Katrina are reflected in Census counts, Brace says. Many evacuees moved to Texas.
The U.S. population's growth rate has slowed slightly since record growth in the 1990s. As of July 1, the population was at 296.4 million, but it may hit 300 million in 2007.
"The decade began with the economy off track, but the population boom kept rolling along and is on track to nearly match the record 1990s," Lang says. "The country found places to keep booming, shying away from the high-cost coasts and seeking the South and the mountain West."
Wrap...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)