DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Sept 9, 2007 5:16:42 GMT 4
Michelle,my dear sister; I sure hope our "Representatives" had a restful,relaxing vacation- I've been punching a clock for about 20 years and haven't had one yet... Not a paid one,anyhow.At least no one was getting killed while I was away from the switch... Wonder if we could get any of our elected officials to take 24 minutes out of their busy schedules to check out this link: Iraq War:Legal or Illegal?youtube.com/watch?v=1Khut8xbXK8As much as I hope so,I seriously doubt it.They can't seem to be bothered with painful things like the truth... Bests; CH
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Oct 5, 2007 13:35:07 GMT 4
House Bill Would Allow Prosecution of Contractors By David Stout The New York Times Thursday 04 October 2007 Washington - Amid the fallout over the shooting of Iraqis by private American security guards, the House today overwhelmingly passed a bill to make all private contractors working in Iraq subject to prosecution in United States civilian courts. The vote was 389 to 30, with all of the "no" votes cast by Republicans. Voting for the bill were 225 Democrats and 164 Republicans. Senate Democratic leaders are expected to introduce similar legislation soon, and if the support in that chamber is similar to that in the House, President Bush would have no hope of killing the legislation with a veto. The White House and the Pentagon oppose the idea of putting contractors under the jurisdiction of civilian courts, arguing that it would insert civilian investigators into areas better covered under military law. But the recent shooting incident involving employees of Blackwater USA has exposed a loophole in current law that has left it unclear whether the security contractor's employees are now bound by any law at all. The current Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act applies to people supporting Defense Department operations overseas. But Blackwater's main mission is providing security for the State Department. Moreover, all American contractors are immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts. Blackwater's founder and chief, Erik D. Prince, told a House committee on Tuesday that his company's security guards are loyal Americans, and nothing like the trigger-happy mercenaries described in some news media reports. Many questions remain to be answered about the shooting incident, which took place on Sept. 16 in a Baghdad square. At least 17 Iraqis were killed under circumstances that some lawmakers say points to a shoot-first, ask-questions-later mentality on the part of Blackwater guards. There have also been allegations that Blackwater and the State Department have tried to cover up some shootings, or at least minimize the reaction to them, with quiet payments of money to victims' relatives. The bill's sponsor, Representative David Price, Democrat of North Carolina, said Wednesday on the House floor that objections to the measure are unfounded. He said his bill would provide accountability. "It means that we will have the tools at our disposal to ensure that the criminal behavior of the men and women working in our name and on our dime does not, in any way, damage our goals and objectives," Mr. Price said. Among the Republicans who voted for the bill were John A. Boehner of Ohio, the minority leader, and Roy Blunt of Missouri, the minority whip. Source: www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100407T.shtml------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Extra! More info on Blackwater: Blackwater Eyes Domestic Contracts in U.S. Blackwater CEO Profile GOP and Religious TiesBlackwater Eyes Domestic Contracts in U.S. by Dina Temple-Raston Morning Edition, September 28, 2007 · The first Blackwater employees arrived in New Orleans just 36 hours after the levies broke. At one point, more than 600 Blackwater employees were in the city. Some were guarding the local Sheraton hotel. Others were helping fish people out of the water or were rescuing them off rooftops. Eventually, Blackwater landed a $73 million contact to protect FEMA staff helping with the Katrina recovery operation. Nelda Davis, who worked in the FEMA center in the New Orleans public library while it was under Blackwater protection, was glad they were there. "I felt secure," she said. "The guys walked us to our vehicles in the evening and from them in the morning," Davis said, "because not everyone in the disaster area were happy with what some of the agencies were providing — there were some people who were hostile." More recently, Blackwater has stood accused of killing Iraqi civilians earlier this month during an operation to protect State Department employees. The Iraqi and U.S. governments are trying to figure out a way to investigate the incident — and a way to hold private security contractors in Iraq accountable for their actions. Right now in Iraq, they enjoy immunity from prosecution. That's likely to change. For all the criticism Blackwater is enduring now, as Davis sees it, the company's employees were a godsend after Katrina. They helped keep tempers calm during a tense situation, she said. For example, inside the recovery office, employees had a code. If workers felt uncomfortable or didn't feel safe, they were supposed to call out loudly for a "blue form." That was a signal for one of the Blackwater guys to come over and stand close by. Their mere presence did a lot to calm rattled homeowners who were frustrated with the FEMA process. Davis said it let the people coming into FEMA know they needed to keep their voices down. The company's push to work on natural disasters in this country, however, has made some people edgy. Jeffrey Walker is a former Air Force attorney who is now a fellow at Georgetown University Law School. He raised the alarm about private security contractors like Blackwater more than a decade ago when he was working in the Pentagon. His issue, among others, is the lack of accountability. "The only difference between Blackwater in Iraq and Blackwater in New Orleans is that they are mercenaries in Iraq and they are vigilantes in New Orleans," Walker said. "The only accountability these guys have right now is they get their contract cancelled, or if individual Blackwater guys go off the reservation, DOD or State Department has the right in the contract to have Blackwater order individuals home." It is that lack of oversight and accountability that has Walker and others concerned about Blackwater's intention to take their private security operation domestic. The company has met with leaders in several states to offer their security services in the event of a natural disaster. In California, they have suggested earthquake relief. In New York, they offered help in case of terrorist attack. Their thinking is simple. The Iraq war won't last forever, so if the company wants to stick around, it needs an alternate business plan. Work here at home is one solution. "From a capitalist point of view it is brilliant," said Walker. "You want to diversify your market to diversify your downside risk. But do you really want someone diversifying this service? This is hired gun service. And you are going to diversity this among the 51 jurisdictions in the U.S.? This makes me really nervous. This is not a good thing." Providing security after national emergencies is usually a function of the National Guard and local police. And during the Katrina aftermath, the Blackwater employees were paid $950 a day, or about eight times the salary of a New Orleans police officer. Nelda Davis said that she was glad they were in New Orleans to help, but that the skills they have developed in Iraq don't necessarily translate to natural disasters. Those situations require more empathy, she said. "You can't handle those people the same way you handle someone who wants to kill you," she said. "It is just totally different. They need to be a little more selective over who they choose to be in a domestic detail as opposed to international." FEMA declined to talk about its decision to hire Blackwater for its Katrina staff security. A spokesman would only say that there was indeed a contract. Similarly, the Sheraton Hotel in New Orleans, which had heralded the arrival of Blackwater in a press release in the days after the hurricane, declined to discuss the company now. The head of Blackwater's domestic operations, James Flatley, would not be interviewed. In an e-mail to NPR, he said that there was a media blackout because of the "recent visibility" the company has received — he was referring to the shooting deaths of the Iraqi civilians earlier this month. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Blackwater's Prince Has GOP, Christian Group Tiesby Corey Flintoff NPR.org, September 25, 2007 · With more than $800 million in contracts, Blackwater USA, led by Erik Prince, is among the biggest companies providing armed guards for U.S. officials and government contractors in Iraq. Prince, the heir to a Michigan auto-parts fortune, has close ties to the Republican Party and conservative Christian groups. He began his career with a stint as an officer in the U.S. Navy SEALs, and co-founded Blackwater in 1997 with other former commandos. His family's wealth made it possible for the then 27-year-old Prince to fund the Blackwater start-up with his own money. Prince and his firm have drawn scrutiny from members of Congress after Blackwater guards were accused of opening fire on civilians in Baghdad in an incident that left at least nine people dead. Blackwater has said that its employees were defending a State Department convoy and denied that they had done anything improper, though Prince has made no public statement on the issue. The Iraqi government threatened to expel the company from the country, but after four days, Blackwater was allowed to resume its activities guarding State Department personnel. Republican, Christian TiesPrince grew up in Holland, Mich., where his father, Edgar Prince, built Prince Corporation, an auto-parts company that based its success on novel products, such as the lighted vanity mirror for car window visors. The elder Prince was a close friend and supporter of Christian evangelists, such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family, as well as a contributor to the Republican Party. He was an early benefactor of the Family Research Council. Erik Prince was accepted to the U.S. Naval Academy, but dropped out after three semesters. He later told the Virginia-Pilot newspaper that he loved the Navy but disliked the academy. He finished his schooling at the Christian-oriented Hillsdale College in Michigan. Prince later rejoined the Navy through Officer Candidate School and qualified for the SEALs. He served about three years, but left the service early after his father's death in 1995. The family sold the business shortly afterward to Johnson Controls for more than $1.3 billion. Prince has rarely given interviews to the news media. In an email question-and-answer exchange with the Virginia- Pilot in 2006, he wrote that his Navy experience convinced him of the need for a company that could provide advanced training to military personnel and civilian contractors. The organization rapidly grew into nine companies, providing everything from bomb-sniffing dogs to drone reconnaissance aircraft. Some of the teams that guard U.S. officials in Iraq are provided by Blackwater Security Consultants, which backs them up with helicopters and specially built military-style armored vehicles. The company's light-weight "Little Bird" helicopters, with gunmen hanging out the side doors, are a familiar icon of Blackwater's presence in Baghdad. Prince has been a steady contributor to the Republican National Committee, giving more than $200,000 since 1998. He also has supported various conservative candidates, including President Bush, Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Rick Santorum (R-PA), Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), and indicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).Other members of Prince's family have been active in Republican politics. His sister, Betsy DeVos, has served as chair of the Michigan Republican Party, and her husband, Dick DeVos, was an unsuccessful Republican candidate for governor of Michigan in 2006. Dick DeVos, a member of the conservative family that co-founded Amway, succeeded his father as president of that company. Prince serves as a board member of Christian Freedom International, a nonprofit group that provides Bibles, food and other help to Christians in countries where they face persecution. Prince's first wife died of cancer in 2003. They had four children together. Prince also has two children with his second wife. Source for both articles:www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14707922
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Oct 8, 2007 11:43:18 GMT 4
More on Blackwater and Other Items to Send to Your Representatives This Week
Weekly Agenda #3: Small Victories on Blackwater, Wiretapping and TortureLast week 6,532 of you sent the Democrats.com Weekly Agenda to your Representatives - and we had a pretty good week in Congress as a result! In response to Blackwater's September 16 massacre of 11 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square, the House voted overwhelmingly (389-30) for Rep. David Price's bill to bring Blackwater and other contractors under U.S. law and FBI enforcement and take away Blackwater's license to kill. On 9/27, Sen. Barack Obama's similar amendment passed the Senate by unanimous consent. And when "Bush Dog" Leader Steny Hoyer quietly tried to legalize the NSA's warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, 72 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus rose up in protest, and Hoyer suddenly cancelled the vote. And when the NY Times revealed Alberto Gonzales secretly re-authorized torture in 2005, key Democrats demanded the war crimes memos written by Steve Bradbury. But these victories were tenuous. The Blackwater bill must overcome a Bush veto. Warrantless wiretapping must be permanently ended without immunity for the telephone companies. Torture must be permanently ended without immunity for the torturers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Congress Must Take Away Blackwater's License to KillSubmitted by Bob Fertik on October 6, 2007 - 10:02am. Something remarkable happened this week - the House overwhelmingly passed Rep. David Price's bill (H.R. 2740) to bring Iraq contractors like Halliburton under the Rule Of Law. The bill would ensure that the U.S. government has the legal authority to prosecute crimes committed by U.S. contractor personnel working in war zones. The bill closes a major loophole in the law that allows thousands of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan to operate with impunity. The final vote was 389 to 30. Defense Department contractors are already covered under U.S. law, but contractors such as Blackwater USA, who work for the State Department and other agencies, are not held liable for criminal activity under current law. Price’s bill would extend the jurisdiction of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) to cover all contractors working for the government in a war zone. Price’s bill also ensures that the Administration has the tools it needs to investigate and prosecute allegations of abuse. The MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2740) would require the FBI to have investigators in place where there is a significant contractor presence, so they can investigate alleged crimes. During House debate Price noted that while the military goes to great lengths to ensure accountability, thousands of armed civilians in Iraq are not held responsible for actions that could damage the U.S. mission and our national security interests. “Our military is the best fighting force in the world today, in large part because it is structured in a way that demands accountability, discipline, and unity of action,” Price said. “But there is no clear chain of command for contractors, little in the way of standards for training and vetting personnel, and no legal accountability for misconduct.” The bill that the House approved today will now move to the Senate where leaders have announced plans to act swiftly on the measure. “This bill will improve the law, and it will improve enforcement,” Price said. “It will give our country the ability to hold contractors accountable, which will enhance our national security and the safety of our troops. And it will ensure that our country remains a model of law and integrity to the rest of the world. I applaud the solid bipartisan support for this critical measure in the House today.” Naturally this bill terrifies Blackwater because it's employees could be prosecuted for doing things like getting drunk and murdering people or freaking out and committing massacres. So to stop this bill from becoming law, Blackwater enlisted the State Department to adopt a policy of self-regulation. the State Department said yesterday that it will place its own diplomatic security agents in all Blackwater convoys, mount video cameras in Blackwater vehicles and record all radio transmissions to ensure an "objective" record of any future incident of contractor use of force. Of course this is bullshit because the Busheviks have perfected the art of scrubbing incriminating evidence, ranging from Bush's own National Guard records to the GOP's 5 million missing emails to Rush Limbaugh's doctored "phony soldiers" transcript. And just this week AP Television News had a Blackwater video confiscated by "American authorities." It is barely sufficient that Price's bill puts FBI agents in place; Bush's FBI was suddenly given the job of investigating the latest Blackwater massacre specifically so CEO Erik Price could avoid all questions about the massacre when he testified before Congress. But it's a start, and if the FBI puts politics ahead of law enforcement it can be held accountable by Congress. So it's essential that the Senate pass the same bill as the House, put it on Bush's desk, and override his veto. It's the only way to stop Blackwater from literally getting away with murder. Source: www.democrats.com/congress-must-take-away-blackwaters-license-to-kill------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Democratic Agenda for 10/8/07I support the Democrats.com Weekly Agenda for 10/8/07:democrats.com/agendaJoin the 86 Members who have signed the Progressive Caucus "Peace Pledge" to oppose any more Iraq funding except to bring our troops safely home before Bush leaves office Oppose Dick Cheney's insane plan to Bomb Iran by supporting the Byrd Amendment to require Congressional approval of any attack on Iran, and hold Congressional hearings on Cheney's secret Iran warmongering Pass H.R. 2740 to bring war mercenaries like Blackwater under U.S. law, demand prosecution of Blackwater employees under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as required by the Graham Amendment, and demand prosecution of Halliburton and other contractors who have defrauded U.S. taxpayers out of billions. Reimpose a strict ban on warrantless wiretapping of American citizens and block amnesty and immunity for telephone companies that illegally spied Oppose Michael Mukasey for Attorney General because he (a) wants to keep Guantanamo open despite the strong objections of the world (b) allow "enhanced interrogation techniques" which is just Bushspeak for torture, an international war crime, and (c) abused material-witness laws to lock up Muslims without charges Oppose Hans von Spakovsky for FEC Commissioner because of his key role in illegal voter suppression, disciminatory and illegal voter ID laws, the illegal TX redistricting engineered by Tom DeLay, and the stolen election in Florida Pass the resolution to condemn Rush Limbaugh for calling troops who are critical of the Iraq Occupation "phony soldiers" and hold Limbaugh accountable by removing his show from Armed Forces Radio Override Bush's planned veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Hold White House officials in contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas requiring their sworn testimony and documents. Since Bush's Justice Department refuses to enforce Congressional subpoenas, Congress must use its "inherent contempt" authority to put White House officials in a DC jail until they comply Investigate major news exposes: * New York Times report that Alberto Gonzales secretly authorized torture in 2005 * Newsweek report that Dick Cheney is trying to provoke a war with Iran * Rep. Jane Harman's report that the White House terrorized Congress into legalizing warrantless wiretapping with a bogus threat of an attack on Congress itself * El Pais report that George Bush rejected a plan to let Saddam Hussein go into exile one month before he invaded Iraq, which would have made an invasion unnecessary Join the 20 co-sponsors of H.Res. 333 to Impeach Dick Cheney for lying about Iraq and plotting war with Iran Together, we can and will change the Democratic Congress that we elected in 2006. So please send our Weekly Agenda for 10/8/07 to your Representatives:democrats.com/weekly-agenda------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Leading Americans Ask U.S. Military to Refuse Orders to Attack IranCountry music legend Willie Nelson, literary icon Gore Vidal, Gold Star Mother Cindy Sheehan, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, retired U.S. Army Colonel Ann Wright, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega, author and radio host Thom Hartmann, Democrats.com's Bob Fertik and David Swanson, and dozens of other prominent Americans have signed a letter asking the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all U.S. military personnel to refuse illegal orders to launch an aggressive war on Iran. The letter has been posted as a petition for everyone to sign: www.dontattackiran.org/_____________________ 10/21-23 No War No WarmingJoin a global movement rising up against war and global warming by participating in a massive intervention in Washington DC or your own community. We need to take immediate action to: STOP the war in Iraq and future resource wars by ending our addiction to fossil fuels. SHIFT government funding to rebuild New Orleans and all communities suffering from racism and corporate greed. GO green and promote environmental justice with new jobs in a clean energy economy. nowarnowarming.org/_____________________ 10/27 National Mobilization to End the War in Iraq70% of Americans want to end the U.S. Occupation of Iraq, but Bush wants to keep us there for decades - no matter how much it costs in U.S. or Iraqi lives and treasure. Regional events are planned in 11 locations around the country on October 27th. Now is the time to start planning your busses, trains, and car pools. www.oct27.org_____________________ 11/9 Warmup for 12/7 National CaucusWhen it comes to choosing our Presidential candidates, why does Iowa take priority over the rest of the country? The National Presidential Caucus was created to give citizens across the country - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents - a chance to gather in small groups (up to 50 people) to discuss the candidates and vote. Of course this vote is informal and will not choose any delegates for the convention. But it will get a lot of media coverage and will be a lot more meaningful than the polls - particularly for longer-shot candidates whose lower poll rankings reflects the Corporate Media's bias against them. The full Caucus will be held on Friday December 7, using Meetup-style tools to help citizens connect. There will also be a Preliminary Straw Poll & Caucus Warmup on Friday, November 9, 2007 Democrats.com is a co-sponsor of the National Presidential Caucus. For more details: www.nationalcaucus.com ________________________ Buy an Impeach Bush and Cheney BraceletHelp build the impeachment momentum by wearing and encouraging others to wear this symbol of commitment to restoring our Constitution. Good quality silicone, comfortable and eye-catching. As low as 75¢ each. Fund-raise by selling for $1. or $2. each. They sell like hotcakes. In a test sale at a recent rally a team of two sold 600 in just three hours. Shipped to U.S. zip codes only. $4 for shipping and handling will be added on quantities of fewer than 25. First orders will be filled from bracelets in stock, later orders may be delayed up to 3 weeks. The more you get, the cheaper they are. See large image and buy: afterdowningstreet.org/bracelet
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Oct 14, 2007 17:09:15 GMT 4
Dems To Let NSA Spy in U.S., But Spooks Will Hate the Fine Print - UPDATED By Ryan Singel October 10, 2007 | 12:14:17 PM A fast-tracked, House Democratic proposal to once again rewrite the nation's privacy law allows the nation's spy agencies to spy on domestic telecom networks, but does so with a twist that the Administration is not likely to embrace. Indeed, on Wednesday Bush signaled his displeasure with the bill's lack of immunity for the telecoms that secretly helped the government target its spy apparatus at American citizens without court approval. The Administration wants a bill that would protect Administration officials, including Bush, that were involved in the program, as well as the telecoms that, in contravention of federal privacy laws, turned over billions of call records to the government and allegedly wiretapped the internet on its behalf. The unfortunately named RESTORE Act (.pdf) (short for Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed and Effective Act of 2007) allows the nation's spies to capture purely international calls and emails that enter U.S. switching facilities, but only if the spooks know that both parties to the conversation are outside of the country and that neither are U.S. persons (basically meaning green card holders and U.S. citizens). That restriction severely hampers the spooks since generally they will target a foreigner's phone or emails knowing that person is outside the country, but not knowing who is on the other end of the communications. If it turns out to be an American, then the spooks have to redact or delete the communication. So the bill gives the NSA the ability to install wiretapping equipment in U.S. telecom switches or in the servers of U.S. email providers without getting a court order, but can only do so when they already know exactly what conversations they want to capture, rather than what person, email address or phone number they want to track. In other words, they have to know that known foreigner A is calling known foreigner B and that's what they get to tap without court oversight. They cannot just target every call to and from known foreigner A using spy equipment inside the United States. (Outside the U.S., there's no limits on what the NSA can listen in on.) Outside of that case, the NSA has to go to the spy court for permission to wiretap inside the U.S. If the spy agency suspects that one of the targets in this scenario is outside of the country or is a foreigner? Go to the court. If the NSA wants to get all of the communications to an email address (provided by a U.S. company) of a suspected spy or terrorist that the NSA believes is outside of the country? Go to the court. If the NSA wants to wiretap every call to known foreigner A that passes through a U.S.switch.? Go to the court. However, those court orders are different from the ones originally created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which set the rules for how the nation's spies could wiretap and search U.S. persons who were suspected of being spies. (Essentially, the spies would try to convince the court that the targets inside the United States were agents of a foreign power and thus were not protected by the Fourth Amendment. A federal district court ruling recently declared that procedure unconstitutional.) They allow for blanket warrants that can name groups to be targeted, perhaps even whole communities. The spooks don't have to say how they will search or where. And the taps last for a year. Targeting an American still requires getting an order from the FISA court. Perhaps most importantly, the bill requires the Justice Department's Inspector General Glenn Fine to investigate all of the warrantless wiretapping that has taken place post 9/11 and report them to the Senate and House Judiciary and Intelligence committees. Remember that it was Fine's Congressionally-orderd report that first showed that the FBI had abused its National Security Letter powers. Update: President Bush signalled in a press conference today that he simply wants the summer's massive, but temporary handover of domestic spying power to the NSA to be made permanent. "Keeping this authority is essential to keeping America safe," Bush said. The nation's top spook thinks the bill isn't good enough either, especially since it does not free the nation's telecoms from liability for breaking the nation's privacy laws by helping the government spy on Americans without warrants, according to DNI spokesman Ross Feinstein. Feinstein read to THREAT LEVEL the same statement he gave TPM Muckraker: Our intelligence professionals will need to review the actual text of the bill. However, clearly on a couple of the points, this legislation fails to meet some of the requirements the DNI has stated he must have in any FISA Modernization Legislation. One important point is the retroactive liability protection for the private sector, which is missing from this bill. Source:blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/dems-to-let-nsa.html#previouspost------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sure, domestic spying is for our own good; it protects us from the threat of terrorist attack, which we all know has become our way of life since 9/11.....Really.........Michelle NSA Domestic Surveillance Began 7 Months Before 9/11, Convicted Qwest CEO ClaimsBy Ryan Singel October 11, 2007 | 6:20:59 PM Did the NSA's massive call records database program pre-date the terrorist attacks of 9/11?That startling allegation is in court documents released this week which show that former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio -- the head of the only company known to have turned down the NSA's requests for Americans' phone records -- tried, unsuccessfully, to argue just that in his defense against insider trading charges. Nacchio was sentenced to 6 years in prison in 2007 after being found guilty of illegally selling shares based on insider information that the company's fortunes were declining. Nacchio unsuccessfully attempted to defend himself by arguing that he actually expected Qwest's 2001 earnings to be higher because of secret NSA contracts, which, he contends, were denied by the NSA after he declined in a February 27, 2001 meeting to give the NSA customer calling records, court documents released this week show. AT&T, Verizon and Bellsouth all agreed to turn over call records to an NSA database, according to reporting in the USA Today in 2006. At that time, Nacchio's lawyer publicly stated that Nacchio declined to participate until served with a proper legal order. The government has never confirmed or denied the existence of the program, but is trying to win legal immunity for telecoms being sued for their alleged participation in the call records program and the government's warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Turning over customer records to anyone, including the government, without proper legal orders violates federal privacy laws. Nacchio's attempt to depose witnesses and present the classified defense was declined by Colorado federal district court judge Edward Nottingham, a decision that is playing a role in Nacchio's pending appeal to the 10th Circuit Appeals court. The allegation is peppered throughout the highly redacted documents released by the lower court today, but are most clear in the introduction to this filing (.pdf) from April 2007. Defendant Joseph P. Nacchio ... respectfully renews his objection to the Court's rulings excluding testimony surrounding his February 27, 2001 meeting at Ft. Meade with representatives from the National Security Agency (NSA) as violative of his constitutional right to mount a defense. Although Mr. Nacchio is allowed to tell the jury that he and James Payne went into that meeting expecting to talk about the "Groundbreaker" project and came out of the meeting with optimism about the prospect for 2001 revenue from NSA, the Court has prohibited Mr. Nacchio from eliciting testimony regarding what also occurred at that meeting. [REDACTED] The Court has also refused to allow Mr. Nacchio to demonstrate that the agency retaliated for this refusal by denying the Groundbreaker and perhaps other work to Qwest. By being prevented from telling his full story to the jury or from fully and properly cross-examining any rebuttal witnesses, Mr. Nacchio has been deprived of the ability to explaoin why - after he came out of the February meeting with a reasonable, good faith, expectation that Qwest would be receiving significant contracts from NSA in 2001 ... Qwest was denied significant work. [ed note. James Payne, Qwest's government liason who was also at February 27, 2001 meeting, later spoke with government agents in 2006]. In the interview, Mr. Payne confirmed that, at the February 27, 2001 meeting, "[t]here was some discussion about [redacted]. Mr. Payne also stated: Subsequent to the meeting the customer came back and expressed disappointment at Qwest's decision. Payne realized at this time that "no" was not going to be enough fro them. Payne said they never actually said no and it went on for years. In meetings after meetings, they would bring it up. At one point, he suggested they just them, "no." Nacchio said it was a legal issue and that they could not do something their general counsel told them not to do. ... Nacchio projected that he might do it if they could find a way to do it legally. There was a feeling also, that the NSA acted as agents for other government agencies and if Qwest frustrated the NSA, they would also frustrate other agencies. The Groundbreaker contract, reportedly worth $2 - $5 billion dollars, outsources the NSA's IT management, but at least one lawsuit charges the project was cover for a domestic spying program. Notably, after the USA Today story ran , Nacchio's lawyer Herbert Stern, who argued his case before trial, released this statement: In light of pending litigation, I have been reluctant to issue any public statements. However, because of apparent confusion concerning Joe Nacchio and his role in refusing to make private telephone records of Qwest customers available to the NSA immediately following the Patriot Act, and in order to negate misguided attempts to relate Mr. Nacchio's conduct to present litigation, the following are the facts. In the Fall of 2001, at a time when there was no investigation of Qwest or Mr. Nacchio by the Department of Justice or the Securities and Exchange Commission, and while Mr. Nacchio was Chairman and CEO of Qwest and was serving pursuant to the President's appointment as the Chairman of the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, Qwest was approached to permit the Government access to the private telephone records of Qwest customers.Mr. Nacchio made inquiry as to whether a warrant or other legal process had been secured in support of that request. When he learned that no such authority had been granted and that there was a disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process, including the Special Court which had been established to handle such matters, Mr. Nacchio concluded that these requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act.Accordingly, Mr. Nacchio issued instructions to refuse to comply with these requests. These requests continued throughout Mr. Nacchio's tenure and until his departure in June of 2002.Note that Stern says a request was made in the Fall of 2001. Stern does not say "first approached" in the statement, though that clearly seems to be the implication. But it's not what the four corners of Stern's statement says. And finally, the redactions in the documents make it impossible to say what the February 21, 2001 requests from the NSA were. It could have been a request from NSA to do some other eavesdropping thing that Nacchio felt uncomfortable with, but I'm very doubtful. Source:blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/nsa-asked-for-p.html
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Oct 24, 2007 3:39:51 GMT 4
White House Edits CDC Climate Testimony Published: 10/23/07, 7:05 PM EDT By H. JOSEF HEBERT WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House severely edited congressional testimony given Tuesday by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the impact of climate change on health, removing specific scientific references to potential health risks, according to two sources familiar with the documents.
Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Atlanta-based CDC, the government's premier disease monitoring agency, told a Senate hearing that climate change "is anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans."
But her prepared testimony was devoted entirely to the CDC's preparation, with few details on what effects climate change could have on the spread of disease. Only during questioning did she describe some specific diseases that likely would be affected, again without elaboration.
Her testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had much less information on health risks than a much longer draft version Gerberding submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review in advance of her appearance.
"It was eviscerated," said a CDC official, familiar with both versions, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the review process.
The official said that while it is customary for testimony to be changed in a White House review, these changes were particularly "heavy-handed," with the document cut from its original 14 pages to four. It was six pages as presented to the Senate committee.
The OMB had no comment on Gerberding's testimony.
"We generally don't speculate and comment on anything until it is the final product," said OMB spokesman Sean Kevelighan. He added that OMB reviews take into consideration "whether they ... line up well with the national priorities of the administration."
Mod's note: My national priority is to live long enough to see JUSTICE done to these oil-soaked war criminal neo(nazi)conservatives who have sown such unspeakable discord,chaos,mayhem and suffering upon the people of this nation and the world.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Nov 1, 2007 17:39:36 GMT 4
John Edwards Statement on Peru Trade Agreement October 27, 2007 Today I am announcing my opposition to the Peru Trade Agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration and being considered for approval by Congress. Despite strong efforts by many Democrats in Congress, labor organizations and fair trade advocates to embed international labor standards into the Agreement, what resulted were references to general principles and not specific standards. And the Agreement still replicates and in fact expands all of the other most damaging aspects of past trade agreements. In short, this agreement does not meet my standard of putting American workers and communities first, ahead of the interests of the big multinational corporations, which for too long have rigged our trade policies for themselves and against American families. For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA in 1994 and the WTO in 1995, promising in each case that they would create millions of new jobs and trade surpluses. Instead, since these agreements were put into place we have lost millions of manufacturing jobs, seen wages decline, and storied U.S. firms close - and towns all over this country have been devastated. And we have run up larger and larger trade deficits. This irresponsible squandering of our national wealth now makes it increasingly difficult for us to control our own destiny. NAFTA, which was one of our worst trade agreements ever, was written by corporate interests and insiders in all three countries, and it has served them well. But it absolutely hasn't served the interests of regular workers in any of the three countries. When NAFTA was passed, the American people were promised that by 2006 U.S. exports to Mexico would exceed Mexican imports by $10 billion. But right now, hundreds of thousands of lost American jobs later, Mexican imports are $70 billion more than U.S. exports to Mexico. And Mexican workers have lost too - average wages for Mexican workers have declined since NAFTA was passed.Right now, President Bush is pushing to expand this NAFTA approach to four more countries. He has signed agreements with Peru, Panama, Korea and even Colombia, where since 1991, in this tiny country, there have been over 2100 documented cases of trade unionists being assassinated, 72 in 2006 alone. All of these agreements replicate these terrible features of NAFTA: All of these agreements provide the expansive investor rights that literally create incentives to relocate U.S. jobs overseas; All of these agreements limit our ability to inspect imported food - even as the International Trade Commission projects that these pacts will result in a new flood of imported food; All of these agreements allow foreign corporations operating here to attack our environmental, health and even local zoning laws in foreign tribunals to demand our tax dollars in compensation if following our laws undermines their expected profits. All of these agreements even limit how we can spend our own tax dollars. These deals ban many Buy America and other similar policies. Instead of your tax dollars going to support American workers, these agreements take away one the few opportunities the government has to directly create jobs here. But these four proposed agreements actually go even further than NAFTA. For instance, these deals give those foreign corporations who get contracts to rebuild our nation's bridges and highways or to operate mines or cut timber on U.S. federal land special privileges superior to the treatment of U.S. firms. U.S. firms have to meet our laws, but in contrast, these agreements let foreign corporations operating within the United States who have a gripe about their contract terms drag the U.S. government into foreign tribunals stacked with their own lawyers acting as ‘judges.' The damage threatened by these NAFTA expansion agreements extends beyond the United States. Buried deep in the 800-page text of the Peru FTA are ambiguous provisions that could allow U.S. banks to demand compensation if Peru reverses its disastrous social security privatization. That's right, the Peru FTA could lock in the misery facing millions of the elderly and ill in that extremely poor country all to ensure U.S. firms can profit on what should be a government service available to all in the first place.
The Peru, Panama and Colombia agreements are also projected to displace millions of peasant farmers. This would be a major human tragedy. We saw how NAFTA's similar agriculture rules destroyed the livelihoods of 1.3 million peasant farmers with hunger increasing and desperate migration to the United States jumping 60 percent since NAFTA.This is not just morally wrong, it is bad foreign policy. The United States needs to rebuild its friendships in Latin America, not push corporate trade agreements that undermine the livelihoods of the region's poorest residents. The presidents of Peru's labor unions oppose this NAFTA expansion. So does Peru's Archbishop Pedro Barreto, who calls the NAFTA expansion into Peru immoral - and a threat to the national security of his nation and ours.For too long, Washington has been looking at every trade deal and asking one, and only one, question - is it good for corporate profits? And they haven't looked at all at the harm it will do to workers, their wages, or to the U.S. economy. What we need instead is trade based on what is good for America. And we need to act on deeply held principles and not, as the Washington Post said in a recent editorial, on "opportunism under pressure". I believe we need to follow four principles to make sure that globalization works for everyone, starting right here at home. First, our multilateral and bilateral trade deals and unilateral trade preferences must help America. They must benefit American workers and their communities. This means they must: Stick to trade and not meddle with our domestic Buy America laws, our nation's investment policies, and our food safety and health laws; Have at their core strong protections for the global environment and basic labor standards, such as prohibiting sweatshops and child labor and protecting the right of workers to join unions; and Include prohibitions against illegal subsidies and currency manipulation and other trade cheating of the sort that is in fact encouraged under most of our current trade deals. Second, our trade policies must also lift up workers around the world. Making sure that workers around the globe are treated fairly and share in the gains of trade is the right thing to do morally, it's the right thing to do economically, and it will make us here in America safer and more secure. We can never again condone trade agreements with countries where there is violence against workers or they are denied just wages and working conditions. Third, we must understand in negotiating trade agreements that "one size does not fit all". We need to be realistic about global differences in form of government, in the rule of law, in the relative state of countries' economies, and in the day-to-day trade and business practices of potential trading partners. How utterly foolish is it that we treat China with its massive controlled and manipulated economy, Mexico with its porous three thousand mile-long border with the U.S., and developing countries in South America and Africa, as all the same when it comes to trade? Fourth, our trade deals must be fairly and fully administered. For free trade to be fair, it must be based on rules, and then those rules must be followed. The top prosecutors at the Department of Justice should be responsible for enforcing our trade agreements, and when I am president I will insist that they prosecute all cases of illegal foreign subsidies, currency manipulation, and unfair trade practices. Some of the folks who still defend our failed status quo trade policies want to avoid discussions about the vital changes that are needed. Here's a preview of what they will say about these common sense suggestions: they will attack my smart trade vision for America as being protectionist or anti-trade. They are dead wrong. I absolutely believe in fair free trade, and I always will, since fair free trade creates jobs for Americans and fairness in the global economy. I do not, however, believe in trade that only helps multinational corporations and that hurts American workers and America. And so it is that looking ahead, as I am opposed to the Peru Trade Agreement, I intend to also oppose the Colombia, Panama and South Korea Trade Agreements in their present forms. Source: www.art-us.org/node/282Well alright, Mr. Edwards!!!!....M------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stop Peru FTABy Tom Loudon, Alliance for Responsible Trade October 30, 2007 We are calling on PDA activists to act swiftly to stop the unpopular and undemocratic expansion of NAFTA called the Peru Free Trade Agreement (FTA). It is expected to come up for a vote in the next week. In spite of the widespread opposition to “free trade” policies demonstrated in the 2006 elections, key Democrats including Representatives Pelosi, Rangel and Levin have yet again betrayed the will of the electorate. Anxious to appease corporate funders, they are siding with the Bush Administration to push this agreement, which will further devastate workers and poor farmers in both countries. We must send them a clear message that their future in Congress depends on pleasing us--not ADM, Cargill, Monsanto, Dow and the pharmaceutical companies. This weekend, the corporate Democrats' strategy for a quiet passage of the Peru FTA was complicated by Senator Edwards declaration of his opposition to all four of the pending FTAs with Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea. We must take full advantage of this unexpected opening and expose all members of Congress who plan to vote for this NAFTA expansion. You can be a part of a nationwide effort to stop this from passing, but you must act quickly:
Call your representative and ask them to oppose the Peru FTA. Together we will put Congress on notice that we are watching as they choose between corporate profits and the interests of workers and the environment. PDA is joined in this effort by many organizations, including: Alliance for Responsible Trade, American Friends Service Committee, Campaign for Labor Rights, Council of Canadians, London Chapter--Canada Global Exchange, Grassroots Global Justice (see GGJ statement on trade), Jobs with Justice (Portland, OR), Maryknoll office for Global Concerns, National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights , NYC People's Referendum on Free Trade, Portland Central America Solidarity Committee, Student Trade Justice Campaign, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) Witness for Peace, World Hunger Year (WHY]Source:pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-10-30-11-51-57-news.php------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TAKE ACTION HERE. CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE:Action Alert Fair Trade NOT Free Trade--STOP Peru FTA Call Now This week Congress will likely vote to pass the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Many Democrats support this flawed legislation, which hurts workers and the environment in Peru and in the U.S. As part of the National Call-In Week to Stop the Peru FTA, Oct. 29-Nov. 2 , please call your representative, today. Use the provided script, or refer to it for talking points. If you're ready to make your call, click on call now, then insert your zip code in the box and hit go. Go To:capwiz.com/pdamerica/callalert/index.tt?alertid=10491961&PROCESS=Call+Now
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Nov 3, 2007 23:57:22 GMT 4
Breaking News:Dennis Forces Vote On Cheney Impeachment!Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) announced he would move to force a vote next week on his resolution calling for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. “The momentum is building for impeachment,” Kucinich said in a statement on his Web site. “Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress rein in the Vice President’s abuse of power. Kucinich said he plans to introduce a privileged resolution, which would have priority for a House floor vote, on Nov. 6. A vote on the measure would be required within two days. Observers expect a motion to table Kucinich's resolution, which has 21 Democratic co-sponsors. It is almost certain that such a move to kill the resolution would be successful, but activists are urging members of Congress to support Kucinich's move. "We need you to ask your representative to vote No on tabling, Yes on giving impeachment a chance," wrote David Swanson on the pro-impeachment Website AfterDowningStreet.org. "Those who vote Yes to table cannot use the excuse that 'We don't have the votes,' since others will at that same instant with exactly the same exertion be voting No. Please scroll down to contact Congress and the media right away!" Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has long said that impeachment was "off the table" and Kucinich has had little success spurring legislative action on his resolutions, despite the growing number of lawmakers who have signed on as co-sponsors since it was introduced this spring. Kucinich's full statement is reprinted below: # Kucinich Will Introduce Privileged Resolution To Force Up Or Down Vote On Cheney Impeachment WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 2, 2007) — Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) announced today that he will be offering a privileged resolution on the House floor next week that will bring articles of impeachment against the Vice President, Richard B. Cheney. “The momentum is building for impeachment,” Kucinich said. “Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress rein in the Vice President’s abuse of power. “Despite this groundswell of opposition to the unconstitutional conduct of office, Vice President Cheney continues to violate the U.S. Constitution by insisting the power of the executive branch is supreme. “ Congress must hold the Vice President accountable. The American people need to let Members of Congress know how they feel about this. The Vice President continues to use his office to advocate for a continued occupation of Iraq and prod our nation into a belligerent stance against Iran. If the Vice President is successful, his actions will ensure decades of disastrous consequences.” The privileged resolution has priority status for consideration on the House floor. Once introduced, the resolution has to be brought to the floor within two legislative days, although the House could act on it immediately. Kucinich is expected to bring it to the House floor on Tuesday, November 6. H. Res. 333, Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President, has 21 cosponsors. They are: Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Robert Brady (D-PA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Henry Johnson (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. James Moran (D-VA), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD). (Mod's note:I have just finished congratulating my rep for signing this bill and urging my other congressmen to follow suit.H.R 333 willl NOT be spoken of in the news-It's up to us to get it going. www.rallycongress.com I had so much fun at the site,I started my own petition: Whereas it is widely recognised that the Vice President,one Richard Bruce Cheney,has committed numerous High Crimes and Misdemeaors,and grave misconduct unbecoming of the Office,I demand that he should be removed.Also ,I believe the War Authorization Act signed by Congress in 2002 should be repealed.
At best,this will be a step on the road to restoring the expression of common decency that is known as The Constitution Of The United States.If nothing else,we will have a list of every appeasing DINO sumbitch who would side with Cheney's unitary corporate bloodbath Mcfreedom. This is it,guys.It's way past time to start taking this country back.PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE join Dennis in support of this bill.)
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Nov 7, 2007 2:37:34 GMT 4
"Impeachment is not a Constitutional Crisis. Impeachment is the Cure for a Constitutional Crisis."-John Nichols So I have been all over the web trying to find out how it all went down concerning H.R.333,the resolution to Impeach Evil-Dick Cheney.There has been very little info to be found.As expected,the Matrix Media would not touch this with a ten foot pole...The best summary of today's events I could find comes courtresy of Kagro X over at dailykos.comOK, so did you get that? by Kagro X Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:59:01 PM PST OK, no frills here: So Dennis Kucinich offered a privileged resolution to impeach Dick Cheney. His motion entitled him to read his articles of impeachment into the record and on C-SPAN. That gave the House leadership two days to figure out what to do, and when to schedule consideration of the motion. But they decided to act almost right away, by moving to table (kill) the resolution. In order to move to kill it, it had to be read by the clerk first. So the articles of impeachment got read into the record and on C-SPAN again. Then Steny Hoyer, in his capacity as Majority Leader, moved to table the resolution. Everyone expected this to pass easily, as the Democratic leadership remains opposed to considering impeachment, and Republicans... well, they're Republicans. So they held the vote on tabling the resolution, and the vote was held open past the 15 minutes allotted for it, which is not that unusual. Only it stayed open longer, and longer, and longer. And then Republicans got mischievous. They started switching their votes from yes to no, figuring on embarrassing Democrats by forcing them to debate impeaching Dick Cheney, right on national TV in front of everyone. Republicans believe everything is good for Republicans. But for some unknown reason, the House leadership kept this vote open longer and longer and longer. Over an hour, in fact. During which time, more and more Republican votes migrated into the no column, until in the end, the motion to table was defeated by a vote of 170-242. Having lost the motion to table, Hoyer went to the next option: a motion to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee, where the leadership hopes it will die of neglect. There was a little procedural hiccup there for a moment, but Hoyer first moved to order the previous question -- a procedural device that ends debate. A yes vote on the previous question meant that Hoyer could then immediately move to refer the Kucinich resolution to committee. At that point, the expected order was restored. The previous question was ordered, Hoyer moved to refer the bill to committee, and the 80+ Democrats who earlier insisted they didn't want Kucinich's bill to die on the Speaker's table instead voted to let it die on Chairman Conyers' table instead. Got it? So the bill goes to the Judiciary Committee. Where it will sit next to Kucinich's other resolution calling for the impeachment of Cheney, which was offered through regular channels back in April. Of interest: If he wanted to, Kucinich could do this over and over and over again, as often as he wants to. Anyone who wanted to could. A motion to impeach is always highly privileged. ::
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Nov 9, 2007 15:06:38 GMT 4
House Passes Bill Against THOUGHT CRIMES! Part 1 of 2Yes folks, you read that correctly...THOUGHT CRIMES. This opens up you, me, and every US citizen who voices their dissatisfaction against the government or their actions to be labeled a domestic terrorist...and maybe prosecuted. A similar bill sits with the Senate right now and will most likely pass also. Only 6 Representatives voted Nay; 22 didn't bother to vote at all....aren't you disgusted enough yet?! Here's the 6 who voted against it:Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D, HI-1] Nay Rep. Jerry Costello [D, IL-12] Nay Rep. John Duncan [R, TN-2] Nay Rep. Jeff Flake [R, AZ-6] Nay Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10] Nay Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R, CA-46] Nay Source: www.opencongress.org/roll_call/show/2044By the way, Ron Paul abstained from voting on it; he goes down many points with me for that. I've collected a few articles on this and have picked some to post here....READ THEM! You know, the area I can stand in total freedom shrinks daily; it's about the size of a postage stamp now, inside my brain, where I can think but not speak.............. MichelleHouse Democrats Pass New Terrorism Prevention LawAlmost without notice, the House overwhelmingly (404 - 6) passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR 1955) on October 23 some are calling "the thought crime prevention bill." It now moves to the Senate where if passed and signed by George Bush will establish a commission and Center of Excellence to study and act against thought criminals. The bill's language hides its true intent as "violent radicalization" and "homegrown terrorism" are whatever the administration says they are. Violent radicalization is defined as "adopting or promoting an extremist belief system (to facilitate) ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social change." Homegrown terrorism is used to mean "the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily with the United States or any (US) possession to intimidate or coerce the (US) government, the civilian population....or any segment thereof (to further) political or social objectives." Along with other repressive laws enacted post-9/11, HR 1955 may be used against any individual or group with unpopular views - those that differ from established state policies even when they're illegal as are many under George Bush. Prosecutors henceforth will be able to target anti-war protesters, believers in Islam, web editors, internet bloggers and radio and TV show hosts and commentators with views the bill calls "terrorist-related propaganda." If this legislation becomes law, which is virtually certain, any dissenting anti-government action or opinion may henceforth be called "violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism" with stiff penalties for anyone convicted. This bill now joins the ranks of other repressive post-9/11 laws like Patriot I and II, Military Commissions and Protect America Acts that combined with this one are grievous steps toward a full-blown national security police state everyone should fear and denounce. Blame it on Congress and the 110th Democrat-led one that was elected to end these practices but just made them worse....and there's still 14 months to go to the term's end with plenty of time left to vaporize Iran and end the republic if that's the plan. Thursday, November 01, 2007 CLIP: sjlendman.blogspot.com/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thought Crimes in America by Cheryl Abraham, Steering Committee, Seattle Chapter of World Can't Wait On October 23rd, 2007, bill H.R. 1955 quietly was approved in Congress by a vote of 404 Ayes, 6 Nays, 22 Present/Not Voting. Voting was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill. The bill¡¯s name? The ¡°Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. The website (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca36_harman/Oct_23.shtml) of the bills co-author, Representative Jane Harman, states: ¡°H.R. 1955 seeks to understand the root causes of radicalization by creating a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism as well as a Center of Excellence for the Prevention of Radicalization and Home Grown Terrorism to examine the social, criminal, political, psychological and economic roots of domestic terrorism. The bill also requires the Department of Homeland Security and other Federal agencies to work with U.S. allies to learn about their experiences with homegrown terror. ¡° But what does the language of the bill state and how will this bill be acted upon if passed by the senate? Lee Rogers wrote in roguegovernment.com (a site promoting the campaign of Republican Ron Paul) that ¡°This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives form (sic) both the democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution.¡± Is this statement an overreaction? Does this bill really say that ¡°thoughts¡± are crimes? The text of the bill states in Sec. 899A. Definitions:(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. (4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs The language stated here seems vague at best. What is the definition of ¡°use, planned use, or threatened use¡± and who is in charge of interpreting this language? The bill also goes on to say in Sec. 899B: (3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens Who defines what terrorist-related propaganda is? Is the act of writing about it a crime? What about reading it? What about logging onto a website deemed ¡°violent¡± or ¡°radical¡±? What is ¡°planned use¡±? If a person blogs that he or she plans some sort of civil disobedience, (such as holding up red-stained hands in a government official¡¯s face), is this ¡°planned use¡± or a ¡°threatened use¡±? Who is interpreting and defining what ¡°radical¡± or ¡°violent¡± means? One only has to listen to a few minutes of right-wing radio to realize that the ultra conservatives of this country who continue to support the policies of the Bush Regime also believe that people who want impeachment, people who want the war to end, people who are absolutely against war with Iran are considered to be ¡°dangerous¡± and need to be ¡°watched¡±. One has to wonder whether the radical extremism of the right will be subject to this legislation, particularly given its penchant for preemptive war. Is this not the very definition of ¡°ideologically based violence¡±? Is it simple irony that the Bush Regime¡¯s justification for the continued occupation of Iraq is based solely on its use ¡°of force or violence¡± to promote ¡°individual political¡ beliefs¡± ¨C as in forcing the Bush Regime¡¯s version of democracy on the nation of Iraq? The section 899B goes on to say: (8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. Does this section bring some measure of comfort? The last six years have taught us over and over again that the constitutional, civil, and human rights of any individual, whether a lawful permanent resident or not is in continual jeopardy or has altogether been abolished. The vagueness of this bill only serves to accentuate the troubling trajectory the Bush Regime continues to take this country in. This bill is another in a long line of disturbing legislation that weakens the very democracy that it purports to protect. It is as disturbing as The Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act, The John Warner Defense Act, and the hundreds of signing statements made into law by the out of control Bush Regime and its complicit congress. Benjamin Franklin once wrote: ¡°An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.¡± Imagine if the Iraq war could have been prevented. Imagine if the Iran war could be prevented. This legislation must be prevented from being passed in the Senate because it is far too vague to be allowed into law. It seriously jeopardizes free speech. America needs and has the right to protect itself from violence and terrorism, but this legislation as it reads now is seriously flawed and it should be prevented from being passed in the Senate. The following statement from nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007/10/92275.html gets at some essential elements of the law working its way ¨C quickly ¨C through Congress: ¡°Using rather vague language, the bill justifies the investigation and suspicion of any individuals' potential "radicalization" as means to prevent possible domestically-born suicide bombers. Section 899B, "Findings", reads "Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States." Of course, no elaboration (that would construe future efforts in loose interpretation should the bill become law) of "motivational factors" inherent in radicalization are present in the language. In effect, any individual possibly thinking of or considering dissent and action could be maligned as a potential "violent" terrorist. More disturbingly, Section 899D proposes a "Center of Excellence": "It shall be the purpose of the Center to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States and methods that can be utilized by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism." Essentially, this outlines "thought crime", the bill will become "thought law". The fascist de facto metamorphoses into fascist de jure,(sic) ladies and gentlemen.¡± To read the four versions of this bill in full: thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:h1955:To read the voting record on this bill: www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-993A similar bill was also introduced into the Senate on August 2, 2007: S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007: www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1959Continued.....
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Nov 9, 2007 15:08:56 GMT 4
....continued from previous post:House Passes Bill Against THOUGHT CRIMES! Part 2 of 2One prominent critic of the bill has been the academic and author Ward Churchill.Ward Churchill: ¡°HR 1955, as I understand it, provides a basis for subjective interpretation of dissident speech that allows those in power to criminally penalize anything they considered to be particularly effective in terms of galvanizing an opposition that might conceivably in some sense disrupt or destabilized the status quo, so it¡¯s to keep everything in that nice sanitized arena that I was just talking about where you¡¯re actually a collateral functionary of the state by participating.¡±Source:stimulator.gnn.tv/blogs/25574/Ward_Churchill_on_HR_1955------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In Newspeak, it¡¯s called ¡°crimethink¡±¡.The Patriot Act has been the most widely known add-on to the general powers of law enforcement in the United States, the most touted amongst said law enforcement as well as government, and the most panned by the majority. What¡¯s coming is far more frightening.Bill H.R. 1955, entitled the ¡°Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007¡å has passed it¡¯s vote in the House, and is now on its way to a vote in the Senate. Given that it passed in the House by a vote of 404-6, it seems it¡¯s now in the express lane to being signed into law by George himself. Here are the definitions as expressed in the bill: (1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission¡¯ means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C. (2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization¡¯ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change. (3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism¡¯ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. (4) IDEOLOGICALLY-BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically-based violence¡¯ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual¡¯s political, religious, or social beliefs. From the very beginning of this bill, the language set out is extremely vague. According to these definitions, if I lived in the US, I believed strongly in something and joked with you at the local pub that I was going to kill you if you didn¡¯t believe the same thing¡.well, same kind of idea as joking about bombs in an airport¨Cthey¡¯re going to take you extremely seriously if they hear it. The definition of ¡°homegrown terrorism¡± is similarily broad, but a little more frightening¨Call you have to do is start sounding like you¡¯re getting passionate about a belief and it qualifies. The premise is simple: the first thought that comes to mind when I consider the phrase ¡°homegrown terrorist¡± is a US-born citizen, living in the US, stockpiling weapons in his basement in order to carry out direct acts of violence. The media outlets in the US focus on religious extremism, because that is in essence what the main focus of the so-called ¡°war on terrorism¡± is about, at least on the surface. Break down the literal semantics of the language used, and it paints a different picture. A US citizen can be deemed to be a ¡°homegrown terrorist¡± for literally any strong belief. What is the measuring stick by which the United States government will determine that they¡¯re being ¡°intimidated¡± or ¡°coerced¡± by a particular belief system? Quite simple: if they say they are. By this language, I could say that the American government is corrupt, they could turn around and say that the belief system I¡¯ve adopted is meant to intimidate the government and/or civilian population. It¡¯s as simple as that. No clearly defined measuring stick leaves things wide open for just about anything to be defined as violent radicalization or homegrown terrorism, and there is no measuring stick anywhere in the bill so far as I¡¯ve been able to decipher. The findings of Congress are also interesting. Particularly of note: (3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.Align this with the purpose of the bill as stated on the title page: To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes. Can we assume, then, that the American government considers the Internet a threat not only because of how easy it is to access real terrorist propaganda, but also because of how easily it is to publicize dissenting viewpoints on a broader scale? So far, ¡°terrorist related-propaganda¡± as logically deduced from the various definitions in the bill so far could include any blog that contradicts the will of the American government. Guess I¡¯m a terrorist¨Cnot a homegrown one because I am a Canadian citizen¡.but, I¡¯m sure our government will fall in line all too quickly. (5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States. So, we need to understand what motivates dissent. What¡¯s causing those of us who are pissed off enough at the status quo to speak out or act out about it to reach that point, and why are we brought to the level we¡¯re at? (6) The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions. Translation: We can¡¯t keep track of everyone who is a dissenting factor by already-established means, so we have to create a new model in order to eradicate the threat. (9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations. Okay, I admit¨CI find this one more humourous than threatening. The US government has been saying for years that Canada is the #1 major exporter of terrorists to the United States, and yet they haven¡¯t invaded or even threatened us. Their solution¨Cmake ¡®em get passports. Interesting that we get named, and that the US government says internally that they could learn from us, while badmouthing us in the press. Comic relief at its best. The rest of the bill can be broken down to a few simple premises: that they intend to form a national commission to look at ways to combat the threat, get some university studies going to find out where it all comes from, and make recommendations. The fact that all of this will fall under the Department of Homeland Security is when we know that something is up. The effect this would have on American society is somewhat clear. At this point, terrorist groups are no longer the prime target¨Cit shows that the US government now wishes to target individuals, anyone who crosses the imaginary line into radical thought. We¡¯ve gone beyond wiretaps for security purposes and into the realm of ideology¨Cpersonal belief systems, thought. While the bill says any measures must be constitutional, every bill says this¨Chowever, there are enough loopholes in the US Constitution when it comes to threats to the State that the gesture is worthless. In a country that has already screwed up the lives of non-US citizens in the name of terrorism (such as Mr. Arar), where there is direct proof that the US is using torture with prisoners who can be held indefinitely for no stated reason in the name of terrorism, American citizens, and the rest of the world, should be incredibly worried about this one.One small step for homeland security, one larger step towards martial law, the criminalization of free speech and thought, and dictatorship. Further reading: www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955 ¡ª The full text of the H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 Source:jasonmnorwood.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/in-newspeak-its-called-crimethink/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It¡¯s Time to Fire Washington! by Debbie Lewis Global Research, November 2, 2007 When will United States Citizens ever decide enough is enough and fire Washington? Congress is pulling another fast one and no one is paying attention. As if wanting to control the entire population via the latest proposed commission, H.R. 1955, otherwise known as the ¡°Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,¡± is a slick piece of legislation. The way it reads, we are heading straight for an Authoritarian style government (like we are not in one already!). This new bill is to be added to Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, another questionable piece of legislation. Where, may one ask, is representation for ¡°We the People?¡± The vote for passage in the House of Representatives was 404 ayes to 6 nays and 22 representatives not voting. People on the right or the left think their representation is the best, but quite frankly, there is clearly little difference. Of the fifteen sponsors for this bill, eleven of them are Democrats. The bill has now moved to the Senate for approval, with its two sponsors being Republican. The title, alone, is offensive. ¡°Homegrown Terrorism?¡± It will come as no surprise, but the language is also extremely vague. Take the very first line: ¡°To prevent homegrown terrorism and for other purposes.¡± The Senate version has similar language: ¡°To establish the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, and for other purposes.¡± Honestly, ¡°¡for other purposes?¡± We pay these people how much and we get ¡°¡for other purposes¡± in a piece of legislation governing the United States of America? Can they be more vague? Furthermore, why aren¡¯t more US citizens outraged at such unclear language? The definitions for the phrases ¡°violent radicalization,¡± ¡°homegrown terrorism,¡± as well as ¡°ideologically based violence¡± are almost as interesting as the terminology ¡°¡for other purposes.¡± To radicalize means to go through sweeping change, while radicalization means to go from an active or passive stance to one of a more militaristic or intense stance. Are they talking about the United States citizens or the US government? Our government has taken on a vastly more violently radicalized stance in this War on Terror, but, so far, the citizens are taking a more peaceful approach, that of public protests. Do they mean to say that these protests are somehow violently radicalizing? I attended the rather large End the War rally in Washington DC on September 15, 2007, and it wasn¡¯t violent at all. In fact, it was inspiring! What about the oh-so-cleverly coined phrase ¡°ideologically based violence?¡± According to the framers of this piece of legislation, this string of words is to mean the ¡°use, planned use or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual¡¯s political, religious or social belief.¡± First of all, planned use? Are they now referring to thought crimes? Secondly, what about the threats of government to try and force the Real ID card on us, or vaccines, or the loss of our civil liberties? Would that not fall under this same category? If so, it appears to me the first casualty of this new legislation should be¡The USA PATRIOT Act! In light of these definitions, one must wonder if the current Congress would see our founding father¡¯s actions as homegrown terrorism using violent radicalization and ideologically based violence to set our country free from the tyrannical government of England. Better yet, can the citizens of the United States consider the current administration as using violent radicalization and ideologically based violence to promote their agenda around the world or promote an idea, here at home? This is sounding more and more like the War on Terror is coming home, and not in a good way! The internet has been sited as an aid in ¡°facilitating violent radicalization¡.¡± (Our government hasn¡¯t figured out a way to take a controlling interest in the internet yet, now have they?) Also, according to HR 1955, preventing such behavior cannot be readily brought about by the ¡°traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts.¡± They plan to include state and local efforts, as well as including the US Postal Service and university-based Centers of Excellence, these latter being established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. This Commission sounds like it is being governed by¡The USA PATRIOT Act! If I¡¯m not mistaken, though, I do believe President Bush did say, ¡°¡either you are with us, you are with the terrorists.¡± In light of the growing disenchantment of the US citizens with regards to this illegal war, does that make United States citizens the enemy of the United States government it elects? Apparently so, hence the need for this commission and legislation! This newly proposed ten member Commission for the prevention of these so-called violent radicalizations, homegrown terrorists, and ideologically based violent groups and individuals is going to look toward governments in other countries that have knowledge and ¡°significant experience¡± in dealing with such behavior, such as the UK, Canada and Australia. We know that the UK is one of the most surveilled countries on the planet and Canada was financially worse off than the US, until recently. I guess I didn¡¯t realize the UK, Canada, and Australia had such problems with their citizens behaving so badly! It is past time for us, as good US Citizens, to hold our elected officials responsible for the shoddy legislation they are enacting, especially since they are enacting it on our behalf! When will we learn? When will we take up the fight for our own freedoms? When will we be educated enough to realize we need to fire our representatives in Washington and find a better way to preserve our way of life that doesn¡¯t include thousands of pieces of unnecessary legislation? Endnotes: www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955 House of Representatives Text of H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-993 House Vote for HR 1955 www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1959 Senate Text of S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalization Radicalization is the transformation from passiveness or activism to more revolutionary, militant or extreme postures. Radicalization is often associated with youth, adversity, alienation, social exclusion, poverty or the perception of injustice to self or others. encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/radicalization.html Radicalize-change fundamentally: to undergo fundamental change, or introduce sweeping change in something. Make or become politically radical: to adopt politically radical views or cause somebody to do this. www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People www.undersiegemovie.com/moreinfo.html Documentary ¡°One Nation Under Siege¡± www.dhs.gov/xres/programs/editorial_0498.shtm Homeland Security Centers of Excellence www.washingtonyourefired.com/ Source: globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7242
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Nov 23, 2007 14:01:04 GMT 4
ECONOMY-US: Hunger Stalks World's Wealthiest CountryBy Abid Aslam WASHINGTON, Nov 15 (IPS) - More than one in 10 people in the United States go hungry, according to new official figures that suggest government food programmes are falling short in the world's wealthiest country. More than 35 million people in a country of some 294 million went hungry last year, 390,000 more than in 2005, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's latest Household Food Security report. Of the total, 12.63 million were children. Put another way, nearly one in five U.S. children either went without enough food during the course of the year or had food but could never take future meals for granted. The report, released Wednesday, comes as Congress debates the 2007 Farm Bill, a five-year piece of legislation affecting everything from agricultural subsidies to nutritional programmes for the poor. Anti-hunger activists lamented the findings. "The U.S. is the only industrialised nation that still allows hunger within its borders," said David Beckmann, president of the advocacy group Bread for the World. Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Centre, warned the situation likely has worsened since the agriculture department surveyed the populace in December 2006. "As costs for food, energy, and housing continue to rise and wages stagnate or decline, households are finding themselves increasingly strapped," Weill said. "This may mean even worse numbers in 2007. We need to do more to make sure that households have access to healthy food by improving and expanding proven programmes that help." The advocates highlighted the federal government's Food Stamp Programme, which Beckmann called "the flagship nutrition safety net for Americans", as needed an upgrade. The programme provides food stamps to more than 26 million people every month, enabling them to use the tokens in place of cash to purchase specified foodstuffs. According to Beckmann and Weill, the relief is insufficient. "The average benefit of one dollar per meal per person is just not enough to buy adequate, nutritious food," said Beckmann, whose group plans to launch its own hunger report Nov. 19. Added Weill: "Congress is considering the farm bill, which includes the food stamp programme. They have the chance to make it easier for households to access the programme, keep benefits growing with the cost of living rather than losing ground to inflation, and raise the allowable asset and minimum benefit levels for the first time in decades." According to the food security report, the latest in a series begun in 1995, 10.4 percent of all U.S. adults and 17.2 percent of all children suffered food insecurity in 2006. Of the 35.52 million food insecure U.S. residents, 11.1 million lived in households marked by "very low food security," a new term for what the government used to call "food insecurity with hunger". The figure rose from 10.8 million in 2005, consistent with other surveys showing worsening conditions among the poorest. Black and Hispanic households suffered the most, with food insecurity rates of 21.8 percent and 19.5 percent respectively. The latest findings chime with recent government reports showing poverty was largely unchanged five years after the U.S. economy began clawing its way back from recession. Modest gains in household income have failed to lift significant numbers out of poverty, the U.S. Census Bureau reported in August. The national poverty rate fell to 12.3 percent in 2006, down from 12.6 percent the year before, but remained well above the 11.3 percent mark recorded in 2000, the last year in which it dropped. The census bureau said family earnings had risen modestly because more members were working and contributing to household income but that not everyone had benefited. In the countryside, poverty had stagnated at 15.2 percent, three percentage points above the national average. In all, nearly 7.2 million inhabitants of rural areas fell below the poverty line last year despite rising agricultural prices. The elderly accounted for much of last year's improvement and, as a group, were better off than they were in 2001. By contrast, poverty rates for children and for adults of working age remained statistically unchanged from 2005 and higher than in 2001, when the last recession bottomed out. Overall, some 36.5 million people were deemed poor in 2006, about as many as in 2005, the census bureau said. (END/2007) Source:www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40078
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 11, 2008 17:36:43 GMT 4
Today, it's a national day to wear orange. Friday: Actions against torture. Shut down Guantanamo. The administration cannot investigate itself! Six years ago tomorrow, the first prisoners arrived at the prison at Guantánamo Bay. Since then, we’ve seen revelations of horrible abuses, the Military Commissions Act signed into law and people stripped of their most fundamental rights. Most recently, we learned that the CIA destroyed tapes of “harsh interrogation techniques” -- what you and I would call torture.
It is time to reclaim our nation’s place as a standard bearer for justice and human rights.You can start by taking two immediate actions: Demand your members of Congress pressure Attorney General Mukasey to appoint a special counsel -- someone independent who can expose the full truth behind the destruction of the CIA tapes. Remember to wear orange today, January 11, to demand an immediate end to the injustice at Guantánamo Bay. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Half-steps Date: 1/10/2008 4:30:22 PM Eastern Standard Time From: Executive_Director@aclu.org Dear Friend,Last week, Attorney General Michael Mukasey opened a narrow investigation into the CIA's destruction of videotapes depicting the "harsh" interrogation of detainees in its custody. But half-steps don't get at hard truths. Like most Bush administration actions, this limited investigation will only prevent vital questions from being asked -- it will not get key answers that America needs. Michael Mukasey has decided to keep control of his prosecutor, and only allow a narrow probe into the destruction of evidence, not the illegal activities by our government that reportedly were filmed on the CIA’s torture tapes in the first place. Because the Attorney General won't investigate the shameful conduct that is at the heart of the matter on his own, Congress needs to turn up the heat. Tell your members of Congress: Mukasey must appoint a special counsel -- someone with real independence and transparency:tinyurl.com/37mcz5It's a sign of progress that the Attorney General felt enough pressure that he was forced to take some action. But, hopes for a fair and thorough investigation have been thwarted by Mukasey’s insistence that the investigation remain within the control of the Bush administration. The administration cannot investigate itself!
The prosecutor he appointed reports directly to the Deputy Attorney General. The current nominee for Deputy Attorney General refuses to say that waterboarding is illegal. The Deputy Attorney General reports to Mukasey, who also refuses to say that waterboarding is illegal. And, Mukasey can stop the prosecutor from filing charges. Not only that, but by limiting the investigation only to the destruction of the tapes, Mukasey can stop the prosecutor from addressing other questions that must be asked, including whether what was being videotaped was a crime or whether failing to disclose the existence of the tapes to the 9/11 commission or the courts violated the law. Tell your members of Congress: Mukasey must appoint a special counsel: tinyurl.com/2azgf6With our nation’s reputation and the rule of law at stake, we need a complete and independent investigation not only of who destroyed CIA tapes of interrogations, but also of who authorized, ordered and carried out any criminal acts of torture and abuse. That’s why the ACLU has called on Mukasey to appoint a special counsel -- one with real independence and transparency. Mukasey hasn’t listened yet. But if enough people write their members of Congress, he will be forced to pay attention. And if enough of our senators and representatives keep the pressure on, Mukasey will be forced to act. Thank you for your voice in this critical fight. Thank you, Anthony D. Romero Executive Director, ACLU P.S. Friday, January 11th is the sixth anniversary of the opening of the prison at Guantánamo Bay. That’s why the ACLU has joined with dozens of other organizations and is asking all our members to wear orange to protest this stain on America’s reputation. Closing the prison and ending torture and indefinite detention without charge is a first step towards restoring our reputation in the world. Please remember to wear orange this Friday. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ACLU Letter to Senate Calling for Independent Prosecutor (12/13/2007) Investigation of CIA Destruction of Interrogation Tape is Warranted File Attached - click here for more info: www.aclu.org/safefree/general/33202leg20071213.html*********************** [glow=red,2,300]UPDATE: Friday 01/11/08[/glow] Eighty Arrested at Protests Calling for Closure of Gitmo The Associated Press Friday 11 January 2008 Washington - Eighty people were arrested at the Supreme Court Friday in a protest calling for the shutdown of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Demonstrators wearing orange jump suits intended to simulate prison garb were arrested inside and outside the building in the early afternoon. "Shut it down," protesters chanted as others kneeled on the plaza in front of the court. They were charged with violating an ordinance that prohibits demonstrations of any kind on court grounds. Those arrested inside the building also were charged under a provision that makes it a crime to give "a harangue or oration" in the Supreme Court building. The maximum penalty is 60 days in jail, a fine or both. The court is considering whether prisoners still detained at Guantanamo Bay have a right to challenge their confinement in U.S. courts. Officials briefly closed the court building during the protest. It reopened around 2 p.m. EST. Source: www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108R.shtml
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Mar 11, 2008 12:58:00 GMT 4
Subject: Join our team to fix FISA Date: 3/10/2008 10:12:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time Make sure your neighbors & Members of Congress know the truth about FISA. Send a letter to the editor to your hometown paper now.As the chairmen of the U.S. House and Senate Judiciary Committees tasked with modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), we are working hard in Congress to pass a FISA bill that protects our national security, preserves our civil liberties, and denies the Senate's retroactive immunity to phone companies that participated in the Bush-Cheney Administration warrantless surveillance program. Now we're at a critical juncture. The House and Senate have passed different versions of the new FISA legislation, and we are meeting to resolve those differences. The president and his Republican allies are using this opportunity to pressure our colleagues to give in and grant retroactive immunity. President Bush has been irresponsibly making false claims that we are more vulnerable to terrorism while this bill remains. That's why we need your help, right now, to push back against the White House while the final FISA bill is being negotiated. Will you write a letter-to-the-editor of your local newspaper to speak out and build grassroots support for fixing FISA the right way? Help us respond to White House scare tactics, preserve our civil liberties, and reject the Senate's telecom immunity.Click here to send a FISA letter-to-the-editor to your hometown paper now.ga3.org/campaign/fixfisa/search-zip?rk=&preview=fWe're pushing back against right-wing pressure. So now the Bush-Cheney Administration is ratcheting up their scare tactics and suggesting that congressional Democrats' efforts to get the FISA bill right this time will invite another terrorist attack. They are trying to scare Congress and the American people into accepting a FISA bill that includes the Senate-passed retroactive telecom immunity and erodes our privacy rights. They've even launched a controversial television ad evoking ticking time-bomb imagery straight out of primetime's 24 to shock the American people into supporting another flawed FISA law. We've seen these tactics before, but we can't let them get away with it this time. We are pushing for a better FISA bill in Congress, but a few loud voices in Washington are more determined than ever to ram through another flawed piece of legislation. Help build grassroots support across America and fight back against the right-wing fear machine: Visit FixFISA now. Your letter-to-the-editor will ensure that friends and neighbors in your own community see past the Bush-Cheney Administration's fear-mongering. And when your Members of Congress turn to the editorial page in their hometown newspaper, they'll know where you stand on siding with those who conducted illegal warrantless surveillance. We have teamed up to push for a final FISA bill that protects our national security, preserves our civil liberties, and refuses the Senate-passed retroactive immunity for telecom companies. But we need your support to get this bill passed. Thank you for taking the time to write a letter-to-the-editor of your local newspaper and for working with us to get FISA right this time. Sincerely,John ConyersChairman House Judiciary Committee Patrick LeahyChairman Senate Judiciary Committee
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Mar 15, 2008 14:34:18 GMT 4
Current news of previous post:Thank you for helping to fix FISA 3/14/2008 6:34:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time Earlier this week, I asked you to join Senator Leahy and me to make your voices heard on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) legislation in the House. The right-wing attack machine had targeted a number of our Democratic Members with misleading ads that substituted fear-mongering for facts. We needed your help to push back against this campaign of misinformation before today's vote on the floor of the House. And you helped out tremendously.Over 1,600 of you submitted editorials to your local papers. You sent the message to your Members of Congress that our surveillance of suspected terrorists has not wavered and that telecommunications companies do not need blanket retroactive immunity to help our intelligence services with these activities. Your voices were heard. The House today passed its FISA bill. This bill allows us to aggressively pursue terrorists while protecting the civil rights and liberties of all Americans. Most of the Members of Congress targeted by the right-wing ads rejected its scare tactics and joined us on this crucial vote. Thank you for your help this week. You made a difference.Sincerely,
John ConyersChairman House Judiciary Committee ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ House Approves FISA Bill; Strips Telco Immunity 03.14.08 by Chloe Albanesius After several hours of contentious debate, the House on Friday narrowly passed a version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that removes prosecutorial immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the government's warrantless wiretap program. Members approved H.R. 3773 by a vote of 213 to 197 Friday afternoon after a battle over whether members should vote on a House or Senate version of the bill.At issue is a warrantless surveillance program that helped the government more easily eavesdrop on suspected terrorists after Sept. 11. Telecommunications companies cooperated with the government, and allowed the National Security Agency access to their networks without any court intervention. The Senate passed a FISA bill recently that would grant telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for participating in the program, but the House version would requires those companies to face the music in the courtroom.President Bush has for weeks pressured the House to adopt the Senate version of the bill, and has pledged to veto any bill that does not include retroactive immunity. A temporary FISA extension expired on February 16. "There are few rights that are more fundamental to our democracy than the right to have protections against reasonable search and seizure, and there are few responsibilities that are more important than the government protecting us from foreign threats," House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers said during the floor debate. "I submit that the [House] measure before us does both of those and regard them as the two most important acts that we can pursue as responsible members of the Congress." "We have a well-structured bill in front of us," Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., said of the House version. "It gives the telecom companies the opportunity to defends themselves in court" rather than granting immunity. The House version provides the intelligence community with more than enough tools to adequately monitor terrorist activity, Holt said, before slamming the "relentless drum beat of propaganda … orchestrated by the administration." Rep. Ed Royce, a California Republican, was not convinced. "We're going to end up in a circumstance here where for the first time, frankly, this refusal to protect our telecom companies … will end up stopping the intelligence professionals from conducting surveillance of foreign persons in foreign countries," Royce said. "Radical jihadists are physically dispersed, but they're united through the Internet." Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-N.Y., countered that the House version does in fact allow the government to wiretap any foreign national whether they're overseas or in the United States. Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, called for a vote on the Senate version of the bill because the House version will "handcuff our intelligence officials," he said. "It will open up a wide avenue for trial lawyers to hold communication companies at bay and threaten their very willingness to help us in this very serious business of tracking down those who would do us harm." Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, accused Boehner of wanting to "put the engine in neutral and just vote on what the Senate has sent over. In other words, we want to rush what the administration wants." "That's not going to happen," Reyes pledged. Reyes also accused supporters of the Senate bill of being uncooperative and unwilling to come to a compromise, which Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Washington, later denied. "There has never been a motion to go to conference on these two bills," Hastings said. "That hasn't happened!" According to U.S. Code, telecom companies already have immunity, said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. "The only question is, do they have their day in court to say that they have immunity?" she asked. "This bill provides for that. I think the administration is more concerned about their liability than the phone companies." Source: www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2276225,00.asp ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ House Passes Spy Bill and Rejects Phone Immunity By Thomas Ferraro Reuters Friday 14 March 2008 Washington - The Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives defied President George W. Bush on Friday and passed an anti-terrorism spy bill that permits lawsuits against phone companies. But the 213-197 vote was far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised veto by Bush. He has demanded that any telecommunication company that participated in his warrantless domestic spying program secretly begun after the September 11 attacks receive retroactive immunity. The battle over whether to shield companies has been a key reason why the House and Senate have been unable to agree on a bill to replace a law that expired last month that expanded U.S. authority to track enemy targets without a court order. It has also prompted Republicans to accuse Democrats of undermining national security, while Democrats have accused Bush and his fellow Republicans of election-year fear mongering. "It is time to reject the scare tactics of the Bush administration and enact this carefully crafted legislation," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat. White House spokesman Tony Fratto fired back: "Their bill would make it easier for class-action trial lawyers to sue companies whose only offense is that they are alleged to have assisted in efforts to protect the country after the attacks of September 11." About 40 lawsuits have accused AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc and Sprint Nextel Corp of violating the privacy rights of law-abiding Americans swept up in the electronic surveillance of phone calls and e-mails. Damages could total in the billions of dollars. Closed-Door Court While the House-passed bill would not grant immunity, it would allow phone companies to present their cases in a closed-door court, with the judge given access to confidential documents about the surveillance and the authorization for it. The bill would revamp the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to keep up with ever-changing technology, like e-mails, which didn't exist when the law was written. The measure would also expand U.S. spy power, but not as much as the administration has demanded. In addition, it would increase congressional and judicial oversight. Bush has backed a competing bill overwhelmingly approved by the Senate last month that would bolster U.S. electronic surveillance and grant phone companies retroactive immunity. The House bill was approved shortly before lawmakers left for a two-week recess, leaving behind questions about if and when the House and Senate can agree on a measure to send Bush to sign into law. House Republican Whip Roy Blunt said, "The security of the country over the next two weeks while we're gone will not be what it would have been if we would have passed the (Senate) bill today in a bipartisan majority." House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer accused the administration of "trying to stampede this Congress into passing the Senate bill. This Congress owes the American people more than blind obeisance to the executive branch." Shortly after the September 11 attacks, Bush authorized warrantless surveillance. Critics charged he broke the law, while Bush says he had the war-time power to do it. He later put the program under FISA court supervision. Terms remain secret. Additional reporting by Richard Cowan and David Alexander. Editing by Lori Santos. Source:www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031408R.shtml
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Mar 16, 2008 9:03:28 GMT 4
White House response to the House of Representatives passing of FISA Bill, H.R. 3773 that removes prosecutorial immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the government's warrantless wiretap program:For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary March 14, 2008 Statement by Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto on Partisan House Bill White House News Today, the House of Representatives took a significant step backward in defending our country against terrorism and passed a partisan bill that will please class-action trial lawyers at the expense of our national security. Their bill would make it easier for class-action trial lawyers to sue companies whose only "offense" is that they are alleged to have assisted in efforts to protect the country after the attacks of September 11. These companies already face multibillion-dollar lawsuits, but even the status quo -- which our intelligence professionals have said is undermining our ability to get cooperation from the private sector -- is better than the alternative proposed in the House bill, which would preserve these lawsuits and give trial lawyers more weapons to attack companies for doing their patriotic service. The good news is that the House bill will be dead on arrival in the Senate and, in any event, would be vetoed by the President if it ever got to his desk. The House bill is not a serious effort to move the legislative process forward, nor is it a serious effort to protect our national security. It is a partisan bill designed to give the House Democratic leadership cover for their failure to act responsibly and vote on the bipartisan Senate bill. The President trusts that Senate leaders, who have acted in a far more bipartisan and responsible way than their colleagues in the House, will see the House bill for the political ploy that it is, reject it, and send back to the House the strong bill the Senate has already passed. Source:www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080314-7.html
|
|