First Look At 2010 Senate Election Forecasts, A Lot Of Troubling News Out Of Virginia, The Economic Struggle Continues And Secrecy And Immunity Issues Are Back.
“Those Who Make Peaceful Revolution Impossible Will Make Violent Revolution Inevitable.”
-John F. Kennedy-
One of these days Americas will be forced to wake up and reclaim control of this nation and the restoration of sane policies and policing and put an end to the paranoia power hunger driven policies leading us down the path of Fascism and Civil Insurrection as the means of correction. The lying, spying, privacy negating Constitutional negating drift of this nation must come to an end. We had thought better of the Obama Administration.
We fought; we advocated for Attorney General Eric Holder and it is impossible not to feel that we have been used, back-stabbed betrayed. We have witnessed Senator Leahy of Vermont’s momentary Judas political theater. We hear Conyers talking, but we have heard him talk, talk, talk before. We are being ignored on Constitutional Issues AGAIN!
THIS MUST COME TO AN END!
Now many supporters are beginning to ask: “Is this what we supported?”
RICHMOND, April 8 -- A divided General Assembly narrowly rejected $125 million in federal stimulus money Wednesday that would have provided additional unemployment benefits to thousands of jobless Virginians.
The Quiet Coup | by Simon Johnson
The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time.
The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump “cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.” This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression—because the world is now so much more interconnected and because the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries, a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances. If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on the banking system and a breaking of the old elite. Let us hope it is not then too late……. Pages: 1 2 3 4 Next
There are Senate seats up for election in 2010, and I do not care who is running; if they are not about to make a full public commitment to the restoration of Constitutional Government in this Nation; it our duty to see that candidates unwilling to make our issues, our desires, their Campaign Issues…never see the inside of the Senate Chamber.
And as we set about the defeat of such cowards and collaborators we need to make it very plain and public that we are defeating these candidates for those specific reasons, and we need to do it in headlines!
On the issue of Fusion Centers; They have always been suspect and what has come to light in recent days only fortifies our fears and justified concerns…Please Read! It reads like a collection of Paranoia Police in their private playroom of unfettered spy games.
| | First Open Left 2010 Senate Forecast!
CT (0.00 / 0) I suspect that Dodd will not be the Democratic candidate if his prospects remain shaky. Either he will survive being thrown under the bus for the benefit of Geithner or Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a perenial tease for Governor/Senator is basically handed the nomination. That would move it out of the "switch" bucket either way. One seat I do worry about is Mark Begich's. It is quite possible that Pallin will get a special election called for a do-over. In that case, she might run and Stevens would run for Governor. All in all, I would not be surptised at a 3-5 seat pickup. (Four or five with a downward adjustment if there is an Alaska special). When will Corzine use some of his massive money edge in NJ Gov.? Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment: Universities Possible Terror Portals 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment Posted by Lori Price, www.legitgov.org 08 April 2009 The Lowlights: Virginia's network of colleges and universities also represent a potential avenue of entry for terrorist operatives and a possible forum for recruitment of sympathizers. In addition to reviewing information directly reported to the VFC, surveys were sent to all Virginia local law enforcement agencies to determine the extent of terrorism activities throughout the state. Information of interest included not only event-specific data, but also suspicious traffic stops or activities consistent with pre-operational attack planning. Assessments of the overall threat posed by specific terror and extremist groups or movements were completed utilizing theProject SLEIPNIR: Revised Long Matrix for Criminal Extremism utilized by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. OVERVIEW OF TERRORIST AND EXTREMIST DATA IN VIRGINIA DOMESTIC TERRORISM THREAT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As with previous years, the threat from terrorist and extremist groups can be categorized as international or domestic threats. Each of these groups holds particular values and political goals and thus represents a different type of threat to Virginia and the U.S. The international terrorism threat to Virginia and the nation as a whole stems from several radical Islamic militant groups. The domestic terrorist threat is comprised of a wide variety of groups, to include special interest groups, anarchists, race-based groups, including black separatists and white supremacists, militias and sovereign citizens, and homegrown extremists. In Virginia, identified activities have been limited primarily to non-violent acts and crimes committed to raise funds to finance group activities. Some activities also relate to criminal endeavors generally used by extremists to further operational planning. The Virginia Fusion Center monitors international, national, and regional trends relating to terrorism and criminal extremism for indicators of emerging activity in the Commonwealth. Terrorism trends of greatest concern in 2009 include terrorism tradecraft, recruitment, and radicalization, terrorist use of technology, and terrorism financing. As terrorists adapt and evolve to offset existing counterterrorism measures, they have successfully exploited available technology and modified their tactics to ensure successful operations. While several of the trends noted are applicable to all terrorist and extremist groups, increasing linkages are noted to specific critical infrastructure and key resources. As such, this product highlights, where possible, connections noted between groups, their behaviors, and potentially targeted infrastructure. Based on the information gathered, the Commonwealth of Virginia could be potentially targeted for terrorist attack due to its location and proximity to Washington, D.C., its concentration of critical infrastructure, and the amount of extremist activity documented in Virginia. In order to detect and deter terrorist attacks, it is essential that information regarding suspected terrorists and suspicious activity in Virginia be closely monitored and reported in a timely manner. Additionally, it remains important to determine the extent of existing trends and to collect, analyze, and disseminate this information to law enforcement partners in Virginia. OVERVIEW In addressing the terrorism threat to Virginia, it is important to define terrorism and the scope of activities included. Terrorism can be defined as politically motivated violence or threat of violence designed to coerce others into actions they would not otherwise undertake or to refrain from actions they desired to take. Terrorism is generally directed against civilian targets and is intended to produce effects beyond immediate physical damage, to produce long-term psychological repercussions, especially fear, on a particular target audience. For the purposes of this Threat Assessment, terrorism is divided into two categories: international and domestic terrorism. International terrorism involves threats emanating primarily from the international jihad movement, foreign terrorist organizations, and state sponsors of terrorism. Domestic terrorism includes threats from special interest groups, white supremacists, black separatists, and anti-government groups. Terrorism trends included in this assessment are activities, such as recruitment, financing, training, and planning, conducted in furtherance of terrorism. Terrorism remains a threat to Virginia, not only because of its proximity to the nation's capitol, but also due to the volume of significant infrastructure. Such infrastructure includes military installations such as the Pentagon; two nuclear power plants; and a major East Coast seaport. Virginia is also home to a wide range of transportation sector targets of interest, including interstate highways with high-traffic bridges and tunnels; railways and subways; and aviation and port facilities. While other infrastructure sectors, such as water, energy, and information technology could be targeted, it is also possible that terrorist attention could be directed toward law enforcement at the local, state, and federal levels. Spanning 39,598 square miles, Virginia has a population of almost 7.5 million residents. Roughly half of these residents are concentrated in the northern Virginia, central Virginia, and Hampton Roads regions. All three of these regions feature ethnically diverse populations with cultural ties to the Middle East, the horn of Africa, Southeast Asia, and other areas heavily impacted by terrorist activities. While the vast majority of these individuals are law-abiding, this ethnic diversity also affords terrorist operatives the opportunity to assimilate easily into society, without arousing suspicion. Virginia's network of colleges and universities also represent a potential avenue of entry for terrorist operatives and a possible forum for recruitment of sympathizers. Additionally, Virginia’s correctional system remains an attractive venue for recruitment and radicalization relating to terror organizations and hate groups. The VFC has compiled information from local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, as well as open sources to create this Threat Assessment. In addition to reviewing information directly reported to the VFC, surveys were sent to all Virginia local law enforcement agencies to determine the extent of terrorism activities throughout the state. Information of interest included not only event-specific data, but also suspicious traffic stops or activities consistent with pre-operational attack planning. Assessments of the overall threat posed by specific terror and extremist groups or movements were completed utilizing the Project Sleipnir: Revised Long Matrix for Criminal Extremism utilized by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Although the primary objective of this report is to share valuable terrorism intelligence with public safety agencies in Virginia, a secondary goal is to highlight the types of data needed from local, state, and federal partners of the VFC. While every effort was made to ensure accurate, thorough reporting of the terrorist threat, it is expected that not every incident of possible terrorist activity will be reported or forwarded to the VFC. Click here to read the 215-page document. Virginia terror assessment targets ‘historically black colleges’ as ‘radicalization nodes’ Stephen C. Webster A newly leaked terrorism assessment from a law enforcement fusion center in Virginia shows that police and feds are targeting “historically black colleges” as “radicalization nodes” for terrorists. RAW STORY has published the entirety of the 215 page report, available here in PDF format. From page 17: A wide variety of terror or extremist groups have links to [a highlighted area of Virginia]. This area not only has a diverse population due to the strong military presence, but it is also the site of several universities. While most of these universities are considered urban, two are designated as a Historically Black Colleges and Universities, while Regent University is a private, evangelical Christian institution. While the majority of individuals associated with educational institutions do not engage in activities of interest to the VFC, it is important to note that University-based students groups are recognized as a radicalization node for almost every type of extremist group. Though the report singles out “historically black colleges” early on, it also contains an extensive list of peaceful American and International activist groups from nearly all cross-sections of political engagement, placing them side-by-side with groups that have long been known for resorting to violence. The list of groups the fusion center considers potential terrorist threats is as follows: Al-Qa’ida The memo also calls out “hacktivism” as a potential terrorist threat. “Also of note is the phenomenon of hacktivism, defined as ‘the nonviolent use of illegal or legally ambiguous digital tools in pursuit of political ends. These tools include web site defacements, redirects, denial-of-service attacks, information theft, web site parodies, virtual sit-ins, virtual sabotage, and software development,’” the memo reads. “On March 28, 2008, Wired News reported that ‘Internet griefers’—a makeshift term for people who cause grief—posted code and flashing computer animations with the intention of triggering migraine headaches and seizures. Hacktivism and griefing incidents have ranged from minor inconveniences involving modified website content and denial-of-services to potentially dangerous scenarios, such as the modification of electronic traffic safety signs.” The center’s graphic example of the “dangerous” scenario of altered traffic safety signs was culled from a Wired magazine report on an incident in Austin, Texas, where a hacker changed a sign to warn of a coming zombie infestation. The report also discusses numerous potential areas of fraud which could allow a terrorist to integrate with society, including document fraud, student visa fraud, marriage fraud and employer fraud. “If we are to believe this exaggerated threat assessment, Virginia’s learning and religious institutions must be hotbeds of terrorist activity,’ said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, in an advisory. “This document and its authors have displayed a fundamental disregard for our constitutional rights of free expression and association. Unfortunately, it’s not the first time we’ve seen such an indifference to these basic rights from local fusion centers. Congress must take the necessary steps to institute real and thorough oversight mechanisms at fusion centers before we reach a point where we are all considered potential suspects.” “There is an appalling lack of oversight at these fusion centers and they are becoming – as the ACLU has repeatedly warned – a breeding ground for overzealous police intelligence activities,” said Michael German, ACLU Policy Counsel and former FBI Agent, in a release. “The Virginia threat assessment isn’t just disturbing for encouraging police to treat education and religious practices with suspicion, it’s bad law enforcement. Lawmakers from all levels of government need to enact legislation to protect against these spying activities that threaten our democracy while doing nothing to improve security.” Recently, a Department of Homeland Security-funded fusion center in Missouri was accused of blatant disregard for the United States Constitution after one of its memos encouraged the surveillance of third party activists, Christians and supporters of Congressman Ron Paul, for their alleged potential status as illegal militia. The center retracted its memo and publicly apologized when Congressman Paul, along with former presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin and former Congressman Bob Barr, sent a letter to Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (PDF link), demanding an about-face. In 2007, the ACLU published a study called “What’s Wrong with Fusion Centers?,” exploring the troubling aspects of the post-9/11 law enforcement aparatus, which are designed to facilitate communication between local agencies. The Virginia fusion center’s memo was first published by Cryptome. This report was written in haste and should be considered incomplete until a further and more thorough analysis of the Virginia fusion center’s memo can be completed. Research related articles:
|
Jon Stewart Slams Hannity, Bachmann, And Beck: Defeat Is 'Supposed to Taste Like a Sh*t Taco'
By ZP Heller, Brave New Films
The Daily Show shreds Obama conspiracy theories. Read more »
Obama, the ICRC Report and ongoing suppression
(updated below)
Following up on the latest extremist Cheney/Addington/Yoo arguments advanced by the Obama DOJ in order to shield Bush lawbreaking from disclosure and judicial review -- an episode I wrote about in detail yesterday, here -- it's worthwhile to underscore the implications of Barack Obama's conduct. When Obama sought to placate his angry supporters after he voted for the Bush/Cheney FISA-telecom immunity bill last June (after vowingthe prior December to support a filibuster of any such legislation),this is what he said (h/t notavailable):
[The FISA bill] also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.
So candidate Obama unambiguously vowed to his supporters that he would work to ensure "full accountability" for "past offenses" in surveillance lawbreaking. President Obama, however, has now become the prime impediment to precisely that accountability,repeatedly engaging in extraordinary legal maneuvers to ensure that "past offenses" -- both in the surveillance and torture/rendition realm -- remain secret and forever immunized from judicial review. Put another way, Obama has repeatedly done the exact opposite of what he vowed he would do: rather than "seek full accountability for past offenses," he has been working feverishly to block such accountability, by embracing the same radical Bush/Cheney views and rhetoric regarding presidential secrecy powers that caused so much controversy and anger for the last several years.
And note the pure deceit on the part of Senate Democrats who justified telecom immunity by continuously assuring the public that the Bush officials who ordered the illegal surveillance (as opposed to the telecoms who broke the law by enabling it) would still be subject to legal accountability even once the Congress immunized telecoms. It was obvious at the time (as was often pointed out) that they were outright lying when they said this -- because all sorts of legal instruments had been invoked by the Bush DOJ (such as "state secrets" and "standing" arguments) to protect those government officials from that accountability (legal instruments Democrats knowingly left in place). And now it is Barack Obama, by employing those very same instruments, who is leading the way in making a mockery of the assurances given by Senate Democrats -- don't worry that we immunized the phone companies because Bush officials, who were the truly guilty parties in the illegal spying, will still be subject to legal accountability.
On a very related note: last night, The New York Review of Bookspublished the full report of the International Committee of the Red Cross (.pdf), which documented in detail the brutal torture to which the 14 "high-value" detainees whom we disappeared into our CIA "black sites" were subjected and demanded "that the US authorities investigate all allegations of ill-treatment and take steps to punish the perpetrators, where appropriate." AsScott Horton notes, the ICRC does not call for investigations and prosecutions easily, but rather, "only where the evidence of criminal conduct is manifest." Yet Obama's handpicked CIA Director, Leon Panetta, continues to demand that there be no investigations of any kind, let alone prosecutions. As a CIA spokesperson told the New York Times yesterday in response to the ICRC report:
Mr. Panetta "has stated repeatedly that no one who took actions based on legal guidance from the Department of Justice at the time should be investigated, let alone punished." The C.I.A.'s interrogation methods were declared legal by the Justice Department under President George W. Bush.
[It should be noted, however, that many of the torture techniques authorized by the White House Principals Group -- chaired by Condoleezza Rice -- were explicitly declared legal by the DOJ onlyafter they were authorized; at the time, "the Principals also approved interrogations that combined different methods,pushing the limits of international law and even the Justice Department's own legal approval in the 2002 memo"].
Accompanying the ICRC report was an article by Mark Danner, the superb journalist who obtained the ICRC Report and disclosed it. In his article, Danner describes the grave dangers from preserving ongoing secrecy surrounding Bush/Cheney crimes (h/t bystander; emphasis added):
Barack Obama may well assert that "the facts don't bear [Cheney] out," but as long as the "details of it" cannot be revealed "without violating classification,"as long as secrecy can be wielded as the dark and potent weapon it remains, Cheney's politics of torture will remain a powerful if half-submerged counter-story, waiting for the next attack to spark it into vibrant life.
As Danner suggests, it is simply impossible for Obama to "turn the page" on (let alone reverse) the dark Bush/Cheney era of profound crimes while he simultaneously turns himself into the prime agent suppressing the facts surrounding those crimes and vigorously shielding the criminals from all investigation and accountability.
UPDATE: I could literally spend all day highlighting passages from the ICRC Report that will turn the stomach of any minimally decent human being. Those morally depraved individuals who continue to mock and dismiss the notion that the U.S. Government, at the highest level, ordered the most brutal and inhumane torture should be compelled to read the Report in its entirety (and the Report is confined to 14 individual "black site" prisoners; it says nothing about what was done to the tens of thousands of other detainees at Guantanamo, Bagram, in Iraq and elsewhere -- many of whom died in our custody).
Andrew Sullivan highlights but one of the key passagesfrom Mark Danner's article demonstrating the similarities between standard Soviet torture techniques and the ones the U.S. used repeatedly on our detainees. Note how warped our political culture is: Sen. Dick Durbin was forced to tearfully apologize on the Senate floor for accurately comparing our treatment of detainees at Guantanamo to the techniques used in Soviet gulags and by Gestapo interrogation squads, but those who perpetrated these war crimes have apologized for nothing, remain welcome in decent company, and are still shielded by our Government from all accountability.
-- Glenn Greenwald
New And Worse Secrecy And Immunity Claims From The Obama DOJ
When Congress immunized telecoms last August for their illegal participation in Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program, Senate Democratic apologists for telecom immunity repeatedly justified that action by pointing out that Bush officials who broke the law were not immunized -- only the telecoms. Here, for instance, is how Sen. Jay Rockefeller justified telecom immunity in a Washington Post Op-Ed:
Second, lawsuits against the government can go forward. There is little doubt that the government was operating in, at best, a legal gray area. If administration officials abused their power or improperly violated the privacy of innocent people,they must be held accountable. That is exactly why we rejected the White House's year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials.
Taking them at their word, EFF -- which was the lead counsel in the lawsuits against the telecoms -- thereafter filed suit, in October, 2008, against the Bush administration and various Bush officials for illegally spying on the communications of Americans. They were seeking to make good on the promise made by Congressional Democrats: namely, that even though lawsuits against telecoms for illegal spying will not be allowed any longer, government officials who broke the law can still be held accountable.
But late Friday afternoon, the Obama DOJ filed the government's first response to EFF's lawsuit (.pdf), the first of its kind to seek damages against government officials under FISA, the Wiretap Act and other statutes, arising out of Bush's NSA program. But the Obama DOJ demanded dismissal of the entire lawsuitbased on (1) its Bush-mimicking claim that the "state secrets" privilege bars any lawsuits against the Bush administration for illegal spying, and (2) a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim of breathtaking scope -- never before advanced even by the Bush administration -- that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications.
In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.
There are several notable aspects to what happened here with this new court filing from Obama:
(1) Unlike in the prior cases where the Obama DOJ embraced the Bush theory of state secrets -- in which the Obama DOJ was simply maintaining already-asserted arguments in those lawsuits by the Bush DOJ -- the motion filed on Friday was the first response of any kind to this lawsuit by the Government. Indeed, EFF filed the lawsuit in October but purposely agreed with Bush lawyers to an extension of the time to respond until April, in the hope that by making this Obama's case, and giving his DOJ officials months to consider what to do when first responding, they would receive a different response than the one they would have gotten from the Bush DOJ.
That didn't happen. This brief and this case are exclusively the Obama DOJ's, and the ample time that elapsed -- almost three full months -- makes clear that it was fully considered by Obama officials. Yet they responded exactly as the Bush DOJ would have. This demonstrates that the Obama DOJ plans to invoke the exact radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used -- not only when the Obama DOJ is taking over a case from the Bush DOJ, but even when they are deciding what response should be made in the first instance. Everything for which Bush critics excoriated the Bush DOJ -- using an absurdly broad rendition of "state secrets" to block entire lawsuits from proceeding even where they allege radical lawbreaking by the President and inventing new claims of absolute legal immunity -- are now things the Obama DOJ has left no doubt it intends to embrace itself.
(2) It is hard to overstate how extremist is the "soverign immunity" argument which the Obama DOJ invented here in order to get rid of this lawsuit. I confirmed with both ACLU and EFF lawyers involved in numerous prior surveillance cases with the Bush administration that the Bush DOJ had never previously argued in any context that the Patriot Act bars all causes of action for any illegal surveillance in the absence of "willful disclosure." This is a brand new, extraordinarily broad claim of government immunity made for the first time ever by the Obama DOJ -- all in service of blocking EFF's lawsuit against Bush officials for illegal spying. As EFF's Kevin Bankston put it:
This is the first time [the DOJ] claimed sovereign immunity against Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act claims. In other words, the administration is arguing that the U.S. can never be sued for spying that violates federal surveillance statutes, whether FISA, the Wiretap Act or the SCA.
Since EFF's lawsuit is the first to sue for actual damages under FISA and the Wiretap Act, it's arguable whether this immunity argument applied to any of the previous lawsuits. What is clear, though, is that the Bush DOJ, in any context, never articulated this bizarre view that all claims of illegal government surveillance are immunized in the absence of "willful disclosure" to the public of the intercepted communications. This is a brand new Obama DOJ invention to blanket themselves (and Bush officials) with extraordinary immunity even when they knowingly break our country's surveillance laws.
(3) Equally difficult to overstate is how identical the Obama DOJ now is to the Bush DOJ when it comes to its claims of executive secrecy -- not merely in substance but also tone and rhetoric (at least in the area of secrecy; there are still important differences -- no sweeping Article II lawbreaking powers and the like -- which shouldn't be overlooked). I defy anyone to read the Obama DOJ's brief here and identify even a single difference between what it says and what the Bush DOJ routinely said in the era of Cheney/Addington (other than the fact that Bush used to rely on secret claims of national security harm from Michael McConnell whereas Obama relies on secret claims filed by Dennis Blair). Even for those most cynical about what Obama was likely to do or not do in the civil liberties realm, reading this brief from the Obama DOJ is so striking -- and more than a little depressing -- given how indistinguishable it is from everything that poured out of the Bush DOJ regarding secrecy powers in order to evade all legal accountability.
Don't take my word for that. I mean: really, don't. Instead, I'm going to excerpt just a few of the key passages from the Obama DOJ's brief to convey a sense of how absolute is the Obama administration's claims of executive power and secrecy rights -- remember: all advanced in order to demand that courts not consider any claims that the Bush administration broke the law in how it spied on Americans (click on image panels to view and enlarge):
Obama DOJ Brief - Page 2:
Obama DOJ Brief - Page 12:
Obama DOJ Brief - Page 13:
Obama DOJ Brief - Page 15:
Obama DOJ Brief - Page 16:
Obama DOJ Brief - Page 18:
Every defining attribute of Bush's radical secrecy powers -- every one -- is found here, and in exactly the same tone and with the exact same mindset. Thus: how the U.S. government eavesdrops on its citizens is too secret to allow a court to determine its legality. We must just blindly accept the claims from the President's DNI that we will all be endangered if we allow courts to determine the legality of the President's actions. Even confirming or denying already publicly known facts -- such as the involvement of the telecoms and the massive data-mining programs -- would be too damaging to national security. Why? Because the DNI says so. It is not merely specific documents, but entire lawsuits, that must be dismissed in advance as soon as the privilege is asserted because "its very subject matter would inherently risk or require the disclosure of state secrets."
What's being asserted here by the Obama DOJ is the virtually absolute power of presidential secrecy, the right to break the law with no consequences, and immunity from surveillance lawsuits so sweeping that one can hardly believe that it's being claimed with a straight face. It is simply inexcusable for those who spent the last several years screaming when the Bush administration did exactly this to remain silent now or, worse, to search for excuses to justify this behavior. As EFF's Bankston put it:
President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.
This is the Obama DOJ's work and only its work, and it is equal to, and in some senses surpasses, the radical secrecy and immunity claims of the Bush administration.
-- Glenn Greenwald
THIS IS A TOTAL OUT RAGE! Obama DOJ Embraces BushCo FISA Argument - And Takes It Even Further
[...] Late Friday afternoon, the Obama DOJ filed the government's first response to EFF's lawsuit (.pdf), the first of its kind to seek damages against government officials under FISA, the Wiretap Act and other statutes, arising out of Bush's NSA program. But the Obama DOJ demanded dismissal of the entire lawsuit based on (1) its Bush-mimicking claim that the "state secrets" privilege bars any lawsuits against the Bush administration for illegal spying, and (2) a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim of breathtaking scope -- never before advanced even by the Bush administration -- that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications.
In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.
There are several notable aspects to what happened here with this new court filing from Obama:
(1) Unlike in the prior cases where the Obama DOJ embraced the Bush theory of state secrets -- in which the Obama DOJ was simply maintaining already-asserted arguments in those lawsuits by the Bush DOJ -- the motion filed on Friday was the first response of any kind to this lawsuit by the Government. Indeed, EFF filed the lawsuit in October but purposely agreed with Bush lawyers to an extension of the time to respond until April, in the hope that by making this Obama's case, and giving his DOJ officials months to consider what to do when first responding, they would receive a different response than the one they would have gotten from the Bush DOJ.
That didn't happen. This brief and this case are exclusively the Obama DOJ's, and the ample time that elapsed -- almost three full months -- makes clear that it was fully considered by Obama officials. Yet they responded exactly as the Bush DOJ would have. This demonstrates that the Obama DOJ plans to invoke the exact radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used -- not only when the Obama DOJ is taking over a case from the Bush DOJ, but even when they are deciding what response should be made in the first instance. Everything for which Bush critics excoriated the Bush DOJ -- using an absurdly broad rendition of "state secrets" to block entire lawsuits from proceeding even where they allege radical lawbreaking by the President and inventing new claims of absolute legal immunity -- are now things the Obama DOJ has left no doubt it intends to embrace itself.
(2) It is hard to overstate how extremist is the "sovereign immunity" argument which the Obama DOJ invented here in order to get rid of this lawsuit. I confirmed with both ACLU and EFF lawyers involved in numerous prior surveillance cases with the Bush administration that the Bush DOJ had never previously argued in any context that the Patriot Act bars all causes of action for any illegal surveillance in the absence of "willful disclosure." This is a brand new, extraordinarily broad claim of government immunity made for the first time ever by the Obama DOJ -- all in service of blocking EFF's lawsuit against Bush officials for illegal spying.
As EFF's Kevin Bankston puts it:
This is the first time [the DOJ] claimed sovereign immunity against Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act claims. In other words, the administration is arguing that the U.S. can never be sued for spying that violates federal surveillance statutes, whether FISA, the Wiretap Act or the SCA.
| |
Pelosi Splits With Obama On State Secrets, Bush Investigations
Huffington Post - New York,NY,USA
Speaker Nancy Pelosi struck a discordant chord with the White House on Wednesday, claiming a "difference of opinion" with the administration's approach to ...
Nancy Pelosi on Keith Olbermann...regarding the FISA ...
By anhailla
"I trust Barrack Obama, we will come to an agreement...the Courts and the Congress are reviewing it" As I said last night, let Obama get his.
PoliticalGroove Forums - http://www.politicalgroove.com/
Nancy Pelosi on President's Agenda | AfterDowningStreet.org
By Chip
Nancy Pelosi on President's Agenda. Submitted by Chip on Thu, 2009-04-09 02:48. Congress · Criminal Prosecution and Accountability · Obama Administration. Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy ...
AfterDowningStreet.org - Bush-Cheney... - http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
RealClearPolitics - Video - Nancy Pelosi Talks Policy, GOP Outrage ...
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi discusses policy, the budget and GOP outrage on "Countdown." Pelosi says and criticized Republicans for talking against Obama's policies while he was away. Speaker Pelosi adds Republicans have nothing to offer ...
RealClearPolitics Video Log - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/
Schneider: Americans less pessimistic about the economy
CNN Political Ticker - USA
cnn's Larry King asked House speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday if the economy is turning around. WASHINGTON (CNN) — There is evidence that the country's ...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200904090005
In an April 9 article about Democrats' legislative priorities, The Washington Post wrote, "Democrats are sure to incite Republicans if they adopt a shortcut that would allow them to pass major health-care and education bills with just 51 votes in the Senate, where Democrats are two seats shy of the filibuster-proof margin of 60 seats. The rule, known as 'reconciliation,' would fuel GOP charges that [President] Obama has ditched bipartisanship." The article, by Paul Kane and Shailagh Murray, then quoted Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) saying, "If they exercise that tool, it's going to be infinitely more difficult to bridge the partisan divide." However, Kane and Murray did not mention that congressional Republicans -- including Snowe herself -- voted to allow the use of the budget reconciliation process to pass major Bush administration initiatives. Indeed, Murray herself noted in an April 1 article that "[a]dvocates defend reconciliation as a legitimate tool used more often by Republicans in recent years, most notably to pass President George W. Bush's tax cuts."
As Media Matters for America has noted, Republicans used the reconciliation process to pass legislation including the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, and the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. In a March 28 article, The New York Times reported: "[T]here are a couple of problems for Republicans as they push back furiously against the idea, chief of which is the fact that they used the process themselves on several occasions, notably when enacting more than $1 trillion in tax cuts in 2001." The article continued:
"That means critics can have a field day lampooning Republicans and asking them -- as Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, did repeatedly the other day -- why reconciliation was such a good idea when it came to giving tax cuts to millionaires but such a bad one when it comes to trying to provide health care to average Americans."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200904090004
During the April 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, contributor Dick Morris falsely claimed that "in the 2000s, when Bush proposed measures to rein in Fannie Mae, [Rep.] Barney Frank [D-MA] killed them." In fact, for much of the 2000s, Frank had no power to "kill[]" measures -- Republicans controlled the House and could have passed legislation regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the House without any Democratic support. Yet during President Bush's tenure, Congress did not pass oversight legislation for Fannie and Freddie until after Democrats gained a majority in both houses of Congress in 2007. Moreover, Frank supported efforts to enhance regulatory oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005 and passed regulatory oversight reform after becoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in 2007.
Previously, O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly similarly falsely claimed that "the Democrats in charge of the finance committees" resisted efforts by the Bush administration to regulate the mortgage industry and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in particular.
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, in early 2007, as the new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank sponsored H.R. 1427, a bill to create the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), granting that agency "general supervisory and regulatory authority over" Fannie and Freddie and directing it to reform the companies' business practices and regulate their exposure to credit and market risk. The FHFA was eventually created after Congress incorporated provisions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said were "similar" to those of H.R. 1427 into the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which Bush signed into law on July 30, 2008.
Furthermore, before taking over the House Financial Services Committee chairmanship, Frank worked with committee chairman Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which would have established the FHFA to replace the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) as overseer of the activities of Fannie and Freddie. Aftervoting for the bill in committee, Frank voted against final passage of the bill on the House floor,stating that he was doing so because an amendment added to the bill on the House floorimposed restrictions on the kinds of nonprofit organizations that could receive funding under the bill.
| | | | |
‘Progressive’ Warmongers: Liberals rally 'round Obama's war
by Justin Raimondo, April 08, 2009
As President Barack Obama launches a military effort that promises to dwarf the Bush administration’s Iraqi adventure in scope and intensity, the "progressive" community is rallying around their commander in chief as obediently and reflexively as the neocon-dominated GOP did when we invaded Iraq. As John Stauber points outover at the Center for Media and Democracy Web site, the takeover of the antiwar movement by the Obamaites is nearly complete. He cites MoveOn.org as a prime but not sole example:
"MoveOn built its list by organizing vigils and ads for peace and by then supporting Obama for president; today it operates as a full-time cheerleader supporting Obama’s policy agenda. Some of us saw this unfolding years ago. Others are probably shocked watching their peace candidate escalating a war and sounding so much like the previous administration in his rationale for doing so."
Picking up on this in The Nation, John Nichols avers that several antiwar groups arenot toeing the Afghanistan-is-a-war-of-necessity line, including Peace Action, United for Peace and Justice, and the American Friends Service Committee, yet there is less to this than meets the eye. Naturally, the Friends, being pacifists, are going to oppose the Afghan "surge" and the provocative incursions into Pakistan: no surprise there. Peace Action is not making a whole lot of noise about this, in spite of the issue’s relative importance. They are confining their opposition to an online petition. As for UFPJ, their alleged opposition to Obama’s war is couched in all kinds of contingencies and ambiguous formulations. Their most recent public pronouncement, calling for local actions against the Af-Pak offensive, praises Obama for "good statements on increasing diplomacy and economic aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan." Really? So far, this "diplomacy" consists of unsuccessfully finagling the Europeans and Canada toincrease their "contributions" to the Afghan front – and selling the American people on an escalation of the conflict.
Although energized and given a local presence nationwide by a significant pacifist and youth contingent, UFPJ is organizationally dominated by current and former members of the Communist Party, USA, and allied organizations, and you have toremember that Afghanistan is a bit of a sore spot for them. That’s because the Kremlinpreceded us in our folly of attempting to tame the wild warrior tribes of the Hindu Kush and was soundly defeated.
The Soviet Union did its level best in trying to accomplish what a number of liberal think-tanks with ambitious agendas are today busily concerning themselves with solving the problem of constructing a working central government, centered in Kabul, which would improve the lot of the average Afghan, liberate women from their legally and socially subordinate role, eliminate the drug trade, and provide a minimal amount of security outside the confines of Kabul – in short, the very same goals enunciated by the Bush administration and now the Obama administration. The Kremlin failed miserably in achieving its objectives, and there is little reason to believe the Americans will have better luck.
In retrospect, the Soviet decision to invade and create a puppet government propped up by the Red Army was arguably a fatal error, one that delivered the final crushing blow to a system already moribund and brittle enough to break. The domestic consequences inside the Soviet Union – the blowback, if you will – sounded the death knell of the Communist system and revealed the Kremlin’s ramshackle empire in all its military and moral bankruptcy.
What is to prevent the U.S. from courting a similar fate, at a time when our economy is melting down and the domestic crisis makes such grandiose "nation-building" schemes seem like bubble-think at its most hubristic?
That’s where the pro-war progressive think-tanks come in: their role is to forge a new pro-war consensus, one that commits us to a long-range "nation-building" strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These are the Center for a New American Security, explicitly set up as home base for the "national security Democrats" who make up the party’s hawkish faction; Brookings; and, last but not least, the Center for American Progress, which was an oasis of skepticism when Team Bush was "liberating" Iraq, and a major critic of the occupation. Now the leadership of CAP is making joint appearances with the neocons over at the newly christened Foreign Policy Initiative and issuing lengthy white papers outlining their Ten Year Plan [.pdf] for the military occupation of Afghanistan.
Not only that, but they are moving to the front lines in a battle against Obama’s antiwar opponents, with the Nichols piece – which merely reported growing opposition to Obama’s war on the Left – eliciting a testy response from CAP honchoLawrence Korb and one of his apparatchiks. In it, the CAPsters aver, wearily, that none of this is new – the "schism" within the "progressive community" over Afghanistan is "long-standing" – and they remind their audience that the release of CAP’s latest apologia for occupying Afghanistan is hardly precedent-setting. After all, their two previous reports supported precisely the same position, which was taken upby Obama during the 2008 campaign: Iraq was the wrong war, Afghanistan is the "right" war, and the Bush administration diverted vital resources away from the latter to fight the former. Now that Obama is doing what he said he’d do all along – escalating and extending the Long War on the Afghan front – CAP is supporting him. It’s as simple as that.
Still, it’s perhaps perplexing to those who followed the debate over the Iraq war to see CAP in the vanguard of the War Party. Or, as Korb & Co. put it:
"Given our organization’s (and our personal) long-standing assertion that a U.S. military withdrawal from the war in Iraq was and is a necessary precondition for Iraq’s competing parties to find a stable power-sharing equilibrium, perhaps it comes as a surprise to some that we would ‘now’ call for such a renewed U.S. military, economic, and political commitment to the war in Afghanistan."
Well, yes, now that you mention it, this cheerleading for Obama’s war is a bit of a turnaround for CAP and the Washington "progressive" community. Their Stalinesque about-face – which recalls the disciplined hypocrisy of Communist cadre who were just as fervently antiwar in the moments before Hitler invaded Russia as they were pro-war every moment since – requires some explanation. Korb, however, is not very forthcoming. He does little to refute objections to the occupation of Afghanistan, which would seem to reflect the very same critique leveled at Bush’s conquest of Iraq. Yet we get relatively little out of him, except the bland assertion that "Afghanistan is not Iraq." Not convinced yet? Well then, listen to this: "Unlike the war in Iraq, which was always a war of choice, Afghanistan was and still is a war of necessity."
There, that ought to quiet any qualms about embarking on a 10-year or more military occupation and a hideously expensive "nation-building" effort in a country that has defied would-be occupiers for most of its history.
One searches in vain for a reasoned rationale for the Afghan escalation, or even a halfway plausible justification for lurching into Pakistan, either in Korb’s brief and dismissive piece for The Nation or in CAP’s latest [pdf.] 40-plus page defense of the administration’s war plans. The latter is long on sober assessments of how difficult it will be to double-talk the American people into supporting another futile crusade on the Asian landmass, and it has plenty of colorful graphics, including one showing how much they want the U.S. troop presence to increase over the next few years. Yet this "war of necessity" concept is never explained beyond mere reiteration, although there are a few subtle hints. At one point, the CAP document, "Sustainable Security in Afghanistan," declares:
"Al-Qaeda poses a clear and present danger to American interests and its allies throughout the world and must be dealt with by using all the instruments in our national security arsenal in an integrated manner. The terrorist organization’s deep historical roots in Afghanistan and its neighbor Pakistan place it at the center of an ‘arc of instability’ through South and Central Asia and the greater Middle East that requires a sustained international response."
If al-Qaeda has "deep historical roots" in Afghanistan and Pakistan, then they run far deeper in, say, Saudi Arabia – where most of the 9/11 hijackers were from. If we go by Korbian logic, that merits a U.S. invasion and decade-long military occupation of the Kingdom.
Is it something in the water in Washington, or is it just the water-cooler in CAP’s D.C. offices?
Yes, by all means, let us examine the "deep historical roots" of al-Qaeda, which originated in what Korb obliquely refers to as "the anti-Soviet campaign." Thiscampaign was conducted by the U.S. government, which armed, aided, and gave open political support to the Afghan "mujahedin," who were feted at the Reagan White House. Supplied with Stinger missiles and other weaponry, which enabled them to drive the Red Army out, al-Qaeda developed as an international jihadist network in the course of this struggle, which later turned on its principal sponsor and enabler. None of this, of course, is mentioned by the authors of the CAP report.
Shorn of sanctimony and partisan rhetoric, what the advocates of Obama’s war are saying is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are Osama bin Laden’s home turf, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks give us the right to militarily occupy the country, in perpetuity if necessary, in order to prevent a repeat.
This argument lacks all proportion and belies the Obamaites’ appeals to "pragmatism" and "realism" as the alleged hallmarks of the new administration. Beneath the unemotional language of faux-expertise – the technical analyses of troop strength and abstruse discussions of counterinsurgency doctrine – a dark undercurrent of primordialism flows through the "progressive" case for a 10-year war in the wilds of Central Asia. The unspoken but painfully obvious motive for Obama’s war is simply satisfying the desire of the American people for revenge.
It is certainly not about preventing another 9/11. The biggest and deadliest terrorist attack in our history was for the most part plotted and carried out here in the U.S., right under the noses of the FBI, the CIA, and all the "anti-terrorist" agencies and initiatives that had been created during the Clinton years. Earlier, it was plotted inHamburg, Germany, and Malaysia, and the plot advanced further still in a small town in south Florida.
Having concluded that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil is for all intents and purposes practically inevitable, the U.S. government during the Bush era decided to take up an offensive strategy, to go after the terrorist leadership in their "safe havens." The Obamaites, likewise disdaining a defensive strategy, have continued this policy, albeit with a simple switch in locations and the application of greater resources. They have furthermore determined – without making public any supporting evidence – that these alleged terrorist sanctuaries are located in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The president has even broadly hinted that Osama bin Laden himself is in Pakistan’s tribal area. One presumes we are supposed to take this on faith: after all, the U.S. government would never lie to us, or exaggerate the known facts – would they?
The CAP report is mostly a rehash of liberal interventionist bromides, paeans to multilateralism (which ring particularly hollow in view of Obama’s recent failure to get more than a measly 5,000 European troops out of NATO), and pious pledges to build clinics, schools, and walk little old ladies across crowded streets even as our soulless armies of drones wreak death and devastation.
This use of robots to do our dirty work recalls the bombing of the former Yugoslavia, during which American pilots dropped their deadly payloads from a height of 20,000 feet. Sure, it made for somewhat dicey accuracy, but better Serbian "collateral damage" than American casualties. The same lesson applies to the Af-Pak war: better a lot of dead Pakistanis than a few downed American pilots. The U.S. death toll is already rising rapidly enough, and the shooting down of an American pilot over Pakistani territory would surely draw unwelcome attention on the home front, as well as cause an international incident. We can’t have that.
I am truly at a loss to describe, in suitably pungent terms, the contempt in which I hold the "progressive" wing of the War Party, which is now enjoying its moment in the sun. These people have no principles: it’s all about power at the court of King Obama, and these court policy wonks are good for nothing but apologias for the king’s wars.
They are, however, good for an occasional laugh. I had to guffaw when I read the phrase "arc of instability." This is supposed to be a reason – nay, the reason – for a military and political campaign scheduled to continue for at least the next 10 years. Well, then, let’s take a good look at this "arc," which, we are told, extends "through South and Central Asia and the greater Middle East." From the shores of Lebanon to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan, and most places in between, that "arc of instability" defines the geographical extent of U.S. intervention in the region from the end of World War II to the present. If any single factor contributed to the instability permeating this arc, then it is the one constant factor in the equation, which has been the U.S. presence and efforts to dominate the region.
What is Korb’s – and CAP’s – solution to the problem of regional instability? Why, more of the same. This will lead, as it has in the past, to more blowback and an increase in the support and capabilities of the worldwide Islamist insurgency we are pledged to defeat.
'Fix CNBC' Campaign Takes the Fight to Wall Street, Network Headquarters
By Sam Stein, Huffington Post
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has released a genuinely funny video of the group taking its FixCNBC.com campaign to the streets. Read more »
Military 'Researchers' Strapped Pigs in Body Armor and Blew Them Up, All in the Name of Science
By Liliana Segura, AlterNet
The 'study' was conducted last year in an undisclosed location, with the supposed goal of linking bomb blasts and brain injuries. Read more »
Rush Called "Brain-Washed"; Left Stammering by Caller
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Funny stuff. Read more »
Massive Protests Organized Through Twitter and Facebook
By Tana Ganeva, AlterNet
Young Moldovans used the online tools to stay ahead of the government and keep the rest of the world apprised of the situation. Read more »
Fox Hits New Low: Reality TV Show Makes Game of Lay-offs
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
When Rupert Murdoch attacks! Read more »
Crazy Conservatives Worry About Gay Marriage (and the End of Civilization)
By Steve Benen, Washington Monthly
What I find especially amusing about this is the notion that men and women will stop getting married if same-sex couples start getting married. Read more »
A New Darling of the Right: African Author Pans Foreign Aid to Africa
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
She's attractive, articulate, and says what they want to hear, but her argument misses some vital points. Read more »
Missing Charles Goyette
April 8, 2009 in News by Scott Horton | No comments
I’m always getting emails that go something like this:
“Hey Scott, what the heck ever happened to Charles Goyette?! We’re sick and tired of you, yada, yada, yada…”
Well a blogger named Mark Yannone has outdone all of you:
October 11, 2005: A year into his award-winning stint at KXXT 1010 AM, Charles Goyette reviewed highlights of some of the accumulated evidence of the criminal behavior of the Bush administration. It was seditious talk like this that had gotten this truth-seeking gentleman of peace and reason removed from KFYI 550 AM the year before.“Charles Goyette presents Bush administration crimes”
June 13, 2008: Charles Goyette completed his last day at KFNX 1100 AM, the fourth and final radio station in the Phoenix, Arizona, market to “kick the commie bastard off the air.” That was the best description my neighbors could come up with when they heard this internationally acclaimed talk show host reveal the truth about the lying warmonger in the White House and his lying enablers in Washington. In contrast, Cindy Sheehan called to thank him and to bid him farewell. Charles asks once again that we “bring ‘em home.”Charles Goyette: Bring ‘Em Home”
Today Americans, Iraqis, Afghans, Brits, and other coalition forces are still fighting and dying, and Americans are paying hundreds of billions of dollars annually for it — priceless lives, and money we don’t have — spent for nothing.
I’m in agreement with Mr. Yannone. Goyette show rules.
For the record, Charles is still doing great and is dying to get back into the radio game. The only trouble is that he’s spent much of the last year putting together a new book explaining what the government has done to our money.
And I don’t imagine it will be much longer before we can again post his great interviews at Antiwar Radio…
No comments:
Post a Comment