Saturday, April 12, 2008

NYT Op/Ed: War rages on as America collapses

Losing Our Will

Published: April 12, 2008

I wonder what the answers would be if each American asked himself or herself the question: “How is the war in Iraq helping me?”

While the U.S. government continues to pour precious human treasure and vast financial resources into this ugly war without end, it is all but ignoring deeply entrenched problems that are weakening the country here at home.

On the same day that President Bush was announcing an indefinite suspension of troop withdrawals from Iraq, the New York Times columnist David Leonhardt was telling us a sad story about how the middle class has fared during the Bush years.

The economic boom so highly touted by the president and his supporters “was, for most Americans,” said Mr. Leonhardt, “nothing of the sort.” Despite the sustained expansion of the past few years, the middle class — for the first time on record — failed to grow with the economy.

And now, of course, we’re sinking into a nasty recession.

The U.S., once the greatest can-do country on the planet, now can’t seem to do anything right. The great middle class has maxed out its credit cards and drained dangerous amounts of equity from family homes. No one can seem to figure out how to generate the growth in good-paying jobs that is the only legitimate way of putting strapped families back on their feet.

The nation’s infrastructure is aging and in many places decrepit. Rebuilding it would be an important source of job creation, but nothing on the scale that is needed is in sight. To get a sense of how important an issue this is, consider New Orleans.

The historian Douglas Brinkley, who lives in New Orleans, has written: “What people didn’t yet fully comprehend was that the overall disaster, the sinking of New Orleans, was a man-made debacle, resulting from poorly designed levees and floodwalls.”

We could have saved the victims of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, but we didn’t. And now, more than 2 ½ years after the tragedy, we are still unable to lift the stricken city off its knees.

Other nations can provide health care for everyone. The United States cannot. In an era in which a college degree is becoming a prerequisite for a middle-class quality of life, we are having big trouble getting our kids through high school. And despite being the wealthiest of all nations, nearly 10 percent of Americans are resorting to food stamps to maintain an adequate diet, and 4 in every 10 American children are growing up in families that are poor or near-poor.

The U.S. seems almost paralyzed, mesmerized by Iraq and unable to generate the energy or the will to handle the myriad problems festering at home. The war will eventually cost a staggering $3 trillion or more, according to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. When he was asked on “Democracy Now!” about who is profiting from the war, he said the two big gainers were the oil companies and the defense contractors.

This is the pathetic state of affairs in the U.S. as we approach the end of the first decade of the 21st century. Whatever happened to the dynamic country that flexed its muscles after World War II and gave us the G.I. Bill, the Marshall Plan, the United Nations (in a quest for peace, not war), the interstate highway system, the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the finest higher education system the world has known, and a standard of living that was the envy of all?

America’s commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, and our ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, went up to Capitol Hill this week but were unable to give any real answers as to when the U.S. might be able to disengage, or when a corner might be turned, or when a faint, flickering hopeful light might be glimpsed at the end of the long, horrific Iraqi tunnel.

A country that used to act like Babe Ruth now swings like a minor-leaguer. The all-American can-do philosophy has been smothered by the hapless can’t-do performances of the people who have been in charge for the past several years. It’s both tragic and embarrassing.

The war in Iraq stands like a boulder in the road, blocking progress on so many other important issues that are crucial to our viability as a society. We’ve seen this before. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, which included the war on poverty, was crippled by the war in Vietnam.

On the evening of April 4, 1967, one year to the day before he was assassinated, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. went into Riverside Church in Manhattan and said of the war in Vietnam: “This madness must cease.”

Forty-one years later, we can still hear the echo of Dr. King’s call. The only sane response is: “Amen.”

Manischewitzville

Funny tune about passover to the Jimmy Buffet song "Margaritaville". Gotta love Jewish humor.

Friday, April 11, 2008

Countdown: President Bush’s Cruel Treatment Of Our Soldiers

Countdown: President Bush’s Cruel Treatment Of Our Soldiers

Today’s #5 story on Countdown resembled Keith Olbermann’s many Special Comments as he tore apart President Bush, his lies and cruel treatment of our soldiers by fact-checking his speech about Iraq this afternoon.

video_wmv Download | Play video_mov Download | Play

President Bush has decided to put a hold on troop withdrawals, but tries to give the appearance that he’s actually reducing troop levels. He also reduced tours of duty for our soldiers from 15 months to 12, but with a cruel caveat — it doesn’t apply to any troops currently in Iraq or those deploying before August. Olbermann rips Bush for saying troop morale would plummet if we were to lose in Iraq by not fulfilling HIS goals, pointing out that some 120 soldiers committed suicide last year alone, and for them, the war is already over.

” Last year he escalated the war in Iraq, today he announced that there would be deescalation beyond July, yet somehow stood there with a straight face and lied about how he was withdrawing troops. Now, that was hardly the lone instance of dissembling, tortured logic, sophistry and outright dishonesty in Mr. Bush’s latest sugar-coating of the undeniable and unforgivable fact that he is continuing to arrange for the needless deaths of American heroes.”


Daily Show: The Rise and Fall of FOX News

Daily Show: The Rise and Fall of FOX News

Eights months ago, I said that this was the best Daily Show clip I’ve seen in a while. Well, Thursday night Jon Stewart and Jon Oliver out-did themselves. I present to you…The Rise and Fall of FOX News.

video_wmv Download | Play video_mov Download | Play (h/t Heather for mash up)

If there was ever a six minute video clip that could encapsulated what FOX has done to this country in the past 10+ years, this it it.

Update: John Amato:

Stewart: What Jon is the purpose of the documentary?

Oliver: Simply to judge the president before history gets it’s chance.

FOX Host: From the beginning George W. Bush has been frequently ridiculed for his speaking style, now seven years later he’s credited with some of the most eloquent and visionary speeches ever delivered by an American President.

Stewart: Who has credited him with that?

Oliver: That guy, just, just now, the guy on TV. You just saw him. You see, FOX News understands that a man’s legacy is not defined not by what the man does, but by what people on television say he does about him.

There is no truer statement, “my friends.” Then we get to see the treatment of Obama, Clinton and McCain through their warped eyes.

Oliver: In the years to come this fearless network will continue to say to America with confidence and absolute certainty. Go FOX yourself.

Maliki Disagrees With Petraeus’s ‘Pause,’ Says ‘U.S. Troops Should Be Pulled Out’

Maliki Disagrees With Petraeus’s ‘Pause,’ Says ‘U.S. Troops Should Be Pulled Out’

bush-malikiweb3.jpgGen. David Petraeus, top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress this week that he is recommending to President Bush that the United States “pause” the draw down of troops in Iraq this July for at least 45 days in order to assess the security situation there.

Bush has now accepted Petraeus’s recommendation, “leaving open the possibility that about 140,000 U.S. servicemen and women will still be in the war zone when the next president takes office.”

But there is one important decision-maker that Petraeus and Bush don’t seem to be listening to: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The AP reports that Maliki told Bush yesterday that he “disagrees” with Petraeus’s recommendation “citing the growing capabilities of Iraq’s own security forces”:

The prime minister told Bush during a 20-minute telephone conversation on Wednesday that Iraqi security forces are capable of carrying out their duties and U.S. troops should be pulled out as the situation permits, according to a senior government adviser who sat in on the phone conversation. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the confidential details.

Bush actually agrees with Maliki. Last month, Bush said the Iraqi government’s offensive against Shi’ite militias in the southern city of Basra “shows the progress the Iraqi security forces have made during the surge.”

Moreover, Bush has also said that if Maliki wants U.S. troops to leave Iraq, then “we would leave“:

BUSH: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave. […] We are there at their request. […] but if they were to make the request, we wouldn’t be there.

Bush has consistently expressed confidence in Maliki’s leadership and judgement saying he had seen “the strength of his character,” that he is a “strong leader,” and a “good guy” with “deep determination.”

If Bush has so much confidence in Maliki’s character and leadership abilities, then perhaps he should take his advice.

Gates no longer ‘hopes’ to get down to 100,000 troops in Iraq by 2009.

By Ben on Apr 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Gates no longer ‘hopes’ to get down to 100,000 troops in Iraq by 2009.

Last September, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that it was his “hope” that there would be “about 100,000” U.S troops in Iraq by the time the next president takes office. During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today Gates said — with somewhat of a smirk — that hoping is “one of the benefits of being Secretary of Defense.” Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) said to Gates, “talking about hope…you hoped that we could get down to 100,000 troops in Iraq by January of ‘09. Do you still have that hope?” “No, sir,” Gates replied. Watch it:



Screenshot




And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken from Obama Delegate List

And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken from Obama Delegate List

Well, interesting things indeed went on in the dead of night as delegate candidates are being evaluated by the Obama campaign in California to see if they're worthy of inclusion as prospective delegates to Denver. Marcy Winograd over at the blog we do not name or link to said...


By dusk on Wednesday, the California Obama campaign had purged almost all progressive anti-war activists from its delegate candidate lists. Names of candidates, people who had filed to run to represent Obama at the August Democratic Party National Convention, disappeared, not one by one, but hundreds at a time, from the Party web site listing the eligibles. The list of Obama delegate hopefuls in one northern California congressional district went from a robust 100 to an anemic 23, while in southern California, the list in Congressman Waxman's district almost slipped out of sight, plunging from a high of 91 candidates to 17. Gone were strong women with independent political bases.

Marcy went on to state that the remaining candidates appeared to be mostly "bundlers and their girlfriends".

Marcy has paid her dues- she ran against Jane Harman in CA-36 in 2006, and got 37.5% of the votes with a lot of progressive support. The wisdom of the Obama campaign pissing off this kind of person remains to be determined.

Over at Calitics, Brian Leubitz is not happy.


Obama Slashes and Burns through the Delegate List

Today, I learned that I have been pruned out of my delegate race. I will say that I didn't really expect to win. There were people in my district that were better organized and better known (Chris Daly). And they both made the cut. However, I didn't figure the campaign to whom I donated money, and to whom I traveled to two different states for, would decide that I wasn't loyal enough. Heck, I spent March 4 working for Buffy Wicks (the CA field director) in Texas at the Election Hotline... this is a function of the Obama campaign, and if they expect to get any more time or money from me, I need to hear some sort of reasonable answer from the campaign.

And we get the so-called "rationale" for eliminating "certain types" of people...


I understand that the Obama campaign is wary of the Clinton campaign picking off some of their pledged delegates...

More ruckus over on HuffPo:


Obama's "Big Tent" Campaign Cuts Out The Little People In California

After completing the application process and finding my name on the official list of registered candidates, I received an email from the California Democratic Party today (Wednesday) at 4:48 p.m. informing me that the final approved lists of delegate candidates had been posted and that I should check the website. (I assume the same email went out to all the delegate candidates.) I clicked over to the website and found that, lo and behold, what had been a list of 90 candidates had been eviscerated down to only 17, and that my name was gone. I immediately checked the Obama candidate list for the 33rd District, where a friend and fellow Obama die-hard was also running for a delegate spot. His name was gone, too, and a list that formerly contained 83 names was down to a mere 20.

The ostensible rationale for the cutting of delegate candidates is to prevent "Trojan horse" delegates from making their way to the Convention floor and then switching allegiances. The vetting and removal of delegate candidates is expressly allowed by party rules. But could the 30th District really have had 73 such turncoats, and was I really one of them? I was a Precinct Captain for the Obama campaign for the California primary; I've donated several hundred dollars to Senator Obama's campaign (the first politician I've ever supported financially); and I've boosted the campaign in numerous posts on this website...

It's hard not to be cynical. Remaining on the list of approved candidates is the slate of candidates (longtime campaign volunteers) that the Obama campaign has officially endorsed, as well as several names recognizable from local politics. These delegate candidates aren't to be faulted for being longtime political activists, but the cynic in me wonders why those names remained while the "nobodies" on the list disappeared. The Obama campaign owes those of us who were cut a fuller explanation of the decision process.

This is where the real progressives are being asked to get off the bus. Ideologically motivated people, the progressives who have been in Bush's face and raising a stink about the Bush Administration long before it became fashionable, are being seen as not trustworthy.

What Obama's campaign wants is "mules" - people who will go to the convention and vote for Obama, no matter what. It's not about the issues, it's about the candidate. If these delegates have strong dedication to particular causes they might be persuadable, so none of those types are allowed.

Why does this surprise anyone? All along, Obama's campaign has been about getting elected, Chicago style - that's it. Causes come and go, but the pursuit of political power goes on.

"Thanks for the help, liberal blogosphere and grassroots activists, but we'll take it from here". Heh.

Oh, by the way, it's all Hillary's fault - as usual. She MADE them do this.

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Clinton tells Bush to boycott Olympics ceremony

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is calling on President Bush to boycott this summer's Olympics opening ceremonies to protest China's abysmal human rights record, according to her campaign.

Clinton, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, released the following statement through her campaign Monday:

The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for Presidential leadership. These events underscore why I believe the Bush administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China. At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government.

I encourage the Chinese to take advantage of this moment as an opportunity to live up to universal human aspirations of respect for human rights and unity, ideals that the Olympic games have come to represent.

Americans will stand strong in support of freedom of religious and political expression and human rights. Americans will also stand strong and root for the success of American athletes who have worked hard and earned the right to compete in the Olympic Games of 2008.

Clinton's statement was released as protests halted the Olympic torch relay through Paris Monday.

Other world leaders already are planning an opening ceremony boycott, reports Politico's Ben Smith.

Leaders led by German chancellor Angela Merkel have made plans to boycott the opening ceremony to press China for its crackdown in Tibet.

A coalition of groups trying to end the Sudanese government's attacks on civilians in Darfur also called Friday on world leaders to boycott the opening ceremony to protest China's support for Sudan's government.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has also suggested boycotting the August 8 opening ceremony.

"How can world leaders watch the lighting of the Olympic torch – under the “one world, one dream” banner – without taking bolder action to extinguish the flames of violence still consuming the defenseless men, women and children of Darfur?" the groups said in a statement.

DHS ignores civil liberties in domestic spy satellite plan, lawmakers say

DHS ignores civil liberties in domestic spy satellite plan, lawmakers say
Nick Juliano

Homeland Security Committee members fault Chertoff for delaying legal framework for new office

A controversial plan that would allow domestic law enforcement agencies to use data gathered by US spy satellites still lacks necessary civil liberties and privacy protections, and three Democratic lawmakers are urging Department of Homeland Security Chair Michael Chertoff to established a legal framework for the new plan he promised six months ago.

DHS plans to create a new office that would expand law enforcement and other civilian agencies' access to data gathered by powerful intelligence and military satellites orbiting the earth. The National Applications Office will oversee who can access such satellite data, which is typically used to monitor climate change and track hurricane damage, among other uses.

DHS still has not laid out legal frameworks or standard operating procedures for the office, according to a letter from three members of the House Homeland Security Committee.

"We recently learned that the Department has begun to advertise for positions at the NAO. While we applaud the Department's efforts to prepare for the future, we are disappointed by its continuing pattern of putting the cart before the horse," wrote Reps. Bennie G. Thompson, the committee's chair; Jane Harman, chair of an intelligence subcommittee; and Christopher P. Carney, chair of an oversight subcommittee.

The lawmakers said they were concerned about the "privacy and civil liberties challenges" posed by the domestic satellite program. They said a legal framework for the program was missing from the NAO's charter, which "had been finalized without any input from this committee ... or the privacy and civil liberties community.

"Instead of crafting a privacy and civil liberties solution for the Department's NAO law enforcement customers or updating us about a summer date for its completion, the NAO Charter now makes clear that this critical undertaking will be postponed until an unspecified time in the future," they write. "This is unacceptable."

The domestic spy satellite plan was first proposed last August, and its expected launch in October was delayed because of privacy concerns. The lawmakers' letter, which was sent Monday, makes clear those concerns remain.

Although we support any Department effort to engage in more effective and responsive information sharing with our nation's first preventers, the serious privacy and civil liberties issues that the NAO raises are manifold and multifaceted. Doing business with the NAO's law enforcement and other customers therefore requires a robust and detailed legal framework and SOPs that provide clearly defined privacy and civil liberties safeguards. Merely mentioning Posse Comitatus and other laws in the NAO Charter does not provide needed assurances that the Department will not transform NAO into a domestic spying platform. Furthermore, delaying the hard work of addressing the privacy and civil liberties issues specific to law enforcement customers further erodes our confidence that you are serious about serving their needs. It's frankly time for the Department to lead on privacy and civil liberties in this area -- not shirk a difficult duty.

The NAO would expand access to data gathered by Measurement and Signal Intelligence (MASINT) satellites, which according to reports use radar and infrared imaging technologies to see through cloud cover, forest canopies and even concrete barriers. Allowing local police forces access to such data raises substantial questions about whether the door to 4th Amendment violations is being flung open.

A Congressional Research Service report prepared last month outlined some of these concerns. It concluded that privacy concerns were likely to be dependent upon the type of technology used. That, the lawmakers said in their letter Monday, has still not been clarified by DHS.

(A previous version of this story incorrectly defined MASINT as "Mass Intelligence." The error has been corrected. RAW STORY regrets the error.)


Saturday, April 05, 2008

Coming soon: superfast internet

From
April 6, 2008

Coming soon: superfast internet

THE internet could soon be made obsolete. The scientists who pioneered it have now built a lightning-fast replacement capable of downloading entire feature films within seconds.

At speeds about 10,000 times faster than a typical broadband connection, “the grid” will be able to send the entire Rolling Stones back catalogue from Britain to Japan in less than two seconds.

The latest spin-off from Cern, the particle physics centre that created the web, the grid could also provide the kind of power needed to transmit holographic images; allow instant online gaming with hundreds of thousands of players; and offer high-definition video telephony for the price of a local call.

David Britton, professor of physics at Glasgow University and a leading figure in the grid project, believes grid technologies could “revolutionise” society. “With this kind of computing power, future generations will have the ability to collaborate and communicate in ways older people like me cannot even imagine,” he said.

The power of the grid will become apparent this summer after what scientists at Cern have termed their “red button” day - the switching-on of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the new particle accelerator built to probe the origin of the universe. The grid will be activated at the same time to capture the data it generates.

Cern, based near Geneva, started the grid computing project seven years ago when researchers realised the LHC would generate annual data equivalent to 56m CDs - enough to make a stack 40 miles high.

This meant that scientists at Cern - where Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the web in 1989 - would no longer be able to use his creation for fear of causing a global collapse.

This is because the internet has evolved by linking together a hotchpotch of cables and routing equipment, much of which was originally designed for telephone calls and therefore lacks the capacity for high-speed data transmission.

By contrast, the grid has been built with dedicated fibre optic cables and modern routing centres, meaning there are no outdated components to slow the deluge of data. The 55,000 servers already installed are expected to rise to 200,000 within the next two years.

Professor Tony Doyle, technical director of the grid project, said: “We need so much processing power, there would even be an issue about getting enough electricity to run the computers if they were all at Cern. The only answer was a new network powerful enough to send the data instantly to research centres in other countries.”

That network, in effect a parallel internet, is now built, using fibre optic cables that run from Cern to 11 centres in the United States, Canada, the Far East, Europe and around the world.

One terminates at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory at Harwell in Oxfordshire.

From each centre, further connections radiate out to a host of other research institutions using existing high-speed academic networks.

It means Britain alone has 8,000 servers on the grid system – so that any student or academic will theoretically be able to hook up to the grid rather than the internet from this autumn.

Ian Bird, project leader for Cern’s high-speed computing project, said grid technology could make the internet so fast that people would stop using desktop computers to store information and entrust it all to the internet.

“It will lead to what’s known as cloud computing, where people keep all their information online and access it from anywhere,” he said.

Computers on the grid can also transmit data at lightning speed. This will allow researchers facing heavy processing tasks to call on the assistance of thousands of other computers around the world. The aim is to eliminate the dreaded “frozen screen” experienced by internet users who ask their machine to handle too much information.

The real goal of the grid is, however, to work with the LHC in tracking down nature’s most elusive particle, the Higgs boson. Predicted in theory but never yet found, the Higgs is supposed to be what gives matter mass.

The LHC has been designed to hunt out this particle - but even at optimum performance it will generate only a few thousand of the particles a year. Analysing the mountain of data will be such a large task that it will keep even the grid’s huge capacity busy for years to come.

Although the grid itself is unlikely to be directly available to domestic internet users, many telecoms providers and businesses are already introducing its pioneering technologies. One of the most potent is so-called dynamic switching, which creates a dedicated channel for internet users trying to download large volumes of data such as films. In theory this would give a standard desktop computer the ability to download a movie in five seconds rather than the current three hours or so.

Additionally, the grid is being made available to dozens of other academic researchers including astronomers and molecular biologists.

It has already been used to help design new drugs against malaria, the mosquito-borne disease that kills 1m people worldwide each year. Researchers used the grid to analyse 140m compounds - a task that would have taken a standard internet-linked PC 420 years.

“Projects like the grid will bring huge changes in business and society as well as science,” Doyle said.

“Holographic video conferencing is not that far away. Online gaming could evolve to include many thousands of people, and social networking could become the main way we communicate.

“The history of the internet shows you cannot predict its real impacts but we know they will be huge.”

Gay Paper: Obama Refuses To Talk With Gay Media

Gay Paper: Obama Refuses

To Talk With Gay Media

The Huffington Post




The Philadelphia Gay News is hammering Barack Obama for what they say is his consistent refusal to speak to gay media outlets.
In its latest issue, the paper features a front-page interview with Hillary Clinton and a large blank space under a photo of Barack Obama, with a banner headline reading, "Clinton Talks, Obama Balks."
The paper's accompanying editorial states:
At this point in the Democratic presidential campaign, we're able to view the candidates by their actions. And we have found that Sen. Barack Obama would rather talk at the LGBT community than with them...

The fact is that Obama has spoken with the gay press only twice, and one of those interviews...was in 2004, before he became a U.S. senator. The other limited interview occurred after controversy erupted when his campaign added an anti-gay minister to his tour of the South. It has now been 1,522 days since Obama has been accessible to our community.
You can read the full interview with Clinton here, and CBS News' coverage here. Queerty has more.

Government-Backed Health Search Engine Blocks The Word "Abortion"

Government-Backed Health Search Engine Blocks The Word "Abortion"

A U.S. government-funded medical information site that bills itself as the world's largest database on reproductive health has quietly begun to block searches on the word "abortion," concealing nearly 25,000 search results.

Called Popline, the search site is run by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Maryland. It's funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, the federal office in charge of providing foreign aid, including health care funding, to developing nations.

The massive database indexes a broad range of reproductive health literature, including titles like "Previous abortion and the risk of low birth weight and preterm births," and "Abortion in the United States: Incidence and access to services, 2005."

But on Thursday, a search on "abortion" was producing only the message "No records found by latest query."

Friday, April 04, 2008

Pilotless drones to battle pot growers

Pilotless drones to battle pot growers

Forest Service Buys a Pair of Flying Drones to Help Find Marijuana Growers in California


Apr 04, 2008 03:53 EST

The U.S. Forest Service has bought a pair of flying drones to track down marijuana growers operating in remote California woodlands.


Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who oversees the Forest Service, told The Associated Press on Thursday that the pilotless, camera-equipped aircraft will allow law enforcement officers to pinpoint marijuana fields and size up potential dangers before agents attempt arrests.

Rey said there are increasing numbers of marijuana growers financed by Mexican drug cartels using California's forests to stage their operations.

"We're dealing with organized efforts now — not just a couple of hippies living off the land and making some cash on the side," Rey said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

The purchase of the two SkySeer drones, for a combined $100,000, reflects rising interest in remote-controlled aircraft among law enforcement, science and other government agencies.

Once used almost exclusively by defense and intelligence agencies, drones are now routinely flown by the Department of Homeland Security to patrol the Mexican border. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hopes to use them on weather missions.

The two Forest Service drones differ from those used by other agencies. They're lighter — less than five pounds apiece — and can fly for only about an hour.

Sold by Octatron of La Verne, Calif., the battery-powered SkySeer can fly at under 30 miles per hour, has a two-mile range and is operated by a two-man crew on the ground, according to the company. One of the drones bought by the Forest Service was equipped with a thermal camera for nighttime flights.

The purchase was disclosed in documents obtained through a freedom of information request filed by the group Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility.

The group's executive director, Jeff Ruch, questioned whether the Forest Service needed the machines. He said the purchase reflected a "boys with toys" mentality within the agency and that manned aircraft flyovers were adequate.

Rey dismissed the criticism. "The fact is, our guys work in remote locations and knowing more about what they're going to confront will make them a lot safer," he said.

More than 2.3 million marijuana plants were eradicated from Forest Service lands nationwide last year, according to figures provided by the office of Forest Service Chief Abigail Kimbell.

In California's 18 national forests, an estimated 6 million marijuana plants have been removed since 2000. Rey said forests in the southern Sierra Nevada mountains have seen the most activity.

Source: AP News


Thursday, April 03, 2008

Documents show Pentagon now using FBI to spy on Americans

Documents show Pentagon now using FBI to spy on Americans
Associated Press


ACLU obtains documents after suit over National Security Letters

The military is using the FBI to skirt legal restrictions on domestic surveillance to obtain private records of Americans' Internet service providers, financial institutions and telephone companies, according to Pentagon documents.

The American Civil Liberties Union expressed outrage at the new revelations, based its conclusion on a review of more than 1,000 documents turned over by the Defense Department after it sued the agency last year for documents related to national security letters, or NSLs, investigative tools used to compel businesses to turn over customer information without a judge's order or grand jury subpoena.

"Newly unredacted documents released today reveal that the Department of Defense is using the FBI to circumvent legal limits on its own NSL power," said the ACLU, whose lawsuit was filed in Manhattan federal court.

ACLU lawyer Melissa Goodman said the documents the civil rights group studied "make us incredibly concerned." She said it would be understandable if the military relied on help from the FBI on joint investigations, but not when the FBI was not involved in a probe.

The FBI referred requests for comment Tuesday to the Defense Department. A department spokesman, Air Force Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder, said in an e-mail that the department had made "focused, limited and judicious" use of the letters since Congress extended the capability to investigatory entities other than the FBI in 2001.

He said the department had acted legally in using a necessary investigatory tool and noted that "unusual financial activity of people affiliated with DoD can be an indication of potential espionage or terrorist-related activity."

Ryder said the information in the ACLU claims came in part from an internal review of DoD's use of the letters.

"We have since developed training and provided it to the services for their use," he said.

He said that there was no law requiring it to track use of the letters but that the department had decided it was in its best interest to do so.

Goodman, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, said the military is allowed to demand financial and credit records in certain instances but does not have the authority to get e-mail and phone records or lists of Web sites that people have visited. That is the kind of information that the FBI can get by using a national security letter, she said.

"That's why we're particularly concerned. The DoD may be accessing the kinds of records they are not allowed to get," she said.

Goodman also noted that legal limits are placed on the Defense Department "because the military doing domestic investigations tends to make us leery."

In other allegations, the ACLU said:

_ The Navy's use of the letters to demand domestic records has increased significantly since the Sept. 11 attacks.

_ The military wrongly claimed its use of the letters was limited to investigating only Defense Department employees.

_ The Defense Department has not kept track of how many national security letters the military issues or what information it obtained through the orders.

_ The military provided misleading information to Congress and silenced letter recipients from speaking out about the records requests.

Goodman said Congress should provide stricter guidelines and meaningful oversight of how the military and FBI make national security letter requests.

"Any government agency's ability to demand these kinds of personal, financial or Internet records in the United States is an intrusive surveillance power," she said.

Pentagon expected to close Rumsfeld-sparked spy office

"The Pentagon is expected to shut a controversial intelligence office that has drawn fire from lawmakers and civil liberties groups who charge that it was part of an effort by the Defense Department to expand into domestic spying," the New York Times reports Wednesday. "The move, government officials say, is part of a broad effort under Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to review, overhaul and, in some cases, dismantle an intelligence architecture built by his predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld."

"The intelligence unit, called the Counterintelligence Field Activity office, was created by Mr. Rumsfeld after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as part of an effort to counter the operations of foreign intelligence services and terror groups inside the United States and abroad," the Times adds. "Yet the office, whose size and budget is classified, came under fierce criticism in 2005 after it was disclosed that it was managing a database that included information about antiwar protests planned at churches, schools and Quaker meeting halls."

Elizabeth Edwards: Favors Clinton's Health Plan, Says Obama's 'Not Universal,' Slams McCain's As Ineffective

Elizabeth Edwards: Favors Clinton's Health Plan, Says Obama's 'Not Universal,' Slams McCain's As Ineffective

Elizabeth Edwards continued her passionate advocacy of universal health care on today's morning shows, appearing on both The Today Show and Morning Joe. Edwards noted her preference for the health care plan devised by Hillary Clinton, stating that it's mandated coverage made it the only truly "universal" health plan between Clinton and Barack Obama: "It means every American has to be covered. Senator Obama means every child has to be covered. I think we need to go the full nine yards." Edwards also continued to criticize the health care plan put forth by John McCain, saying, "He's the beneficiary of some great government programs. But in terms of private insurance, he would not be guaranteed coverage under his own plan. Neither would I or anybody with a pre-existing condition."

EDWARDS: Senator McCain has a health care policy that frankly does not guarantee him or me or a lot of Americans, certainly the people I'm going to go see this morning to get my treatment next to this morning, those people are not guaranteed treatment, not guaranteed insurance coverage.


BRZEZINSKI: So you're saying that McCain wouldn't get coverage under his own plan?

EDWARDS: He's the beneficiary of some great government programs. But in terms of private insurance, he would not be guaranteed coverage under his own plan. Neither would I or anybody with a pre-existing condition. Imagine how many families that involves across this country.
...

SCARBOROUGH: Which plan is better? Which plan covers more Americans? The Clinton plan or the Obama plan?

EDWARDS: In my view, the Clinton plan provides, because it provides a mandate. It means every American has to be covered. Senator Obama means every child has to be covered. I think we need to go the full nine yards and make certain we have -- I'm not very good at cliches, is that the cliche. It ought to be ten yards, wouldn't it?

SCARBOROUGH: Well, not if it's fourth and nine.

EDWARDS: In any event, we want to make certain that every American is covered. In fact, this is also -- Senator McCain does not cover every American. The way that you really keep down the costs of health insurance is that you have universality. You're still going to have everybody cost shifting, trying to cover the cost of the uninsured or cover the cost of people who have an exclusion that doesn't cover this particular condition. You're always going to have this cost-shifting, and that keeps costs up -- to keep costs down, you really need everybody covered.

[WATCH.]

When asked about the possibility of forthcoming endorsements from either her or husband John, Edwards begged off, saying, "We believe both of these candidates would make fine presidents and fine nominees for the party and certainly, particularly with respect to health care, a significant improvement over John McCain and we think our endorsement may be a little less important than y'all do." Edwards also disputed reports of lingering rancor between she, her husband, and Senator Obama: "I did not find him condescending. He was charming...as was Senator Clinton, and I have absolutely no idea where this report comes from."

In related news, Elizabeth Edwards will serve as a visiting fellow to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government next week.

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

McCain: ‘No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have.’

McCain: ‘No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have.’

In recent days, Sen. John McCain has sought to distance himself rhetorically from President Bush’s foreign policy. But on right-wing radio talker Mike Gallagher’s show this past Friday, McCain struck a different tone, proudly declaring that “no one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have.” “Let me emphasize that there are many national security issues that I have strongly supported the president and steadfastly so,” added McCain.

Listen here:

Later in the interview, McCain reiterated that he has “agreed with the president on many issues,” though he said “there are some issues” they have not agreed on.

Beck: Wal-Mart Made A ‘Deal With Terrorists’ In Ending Its Lawsuit Against Brain-Damaged Employee

Beck: Wal-Mart Made A ‘Deal With Terrorists’ In Ending Its Lawsuit Against Brain-Damaged Employee

glennbeck.jpgIn 2000, then-Wal-Mart employee Debbie Shank was hit by a semi-truck, leaving her seriously brain-damaged and confined to a wheelchair. Wal-Mart covered her medical expenses until she won a settlement from the trucking company that left her $417,000 after legal fees.

Invoking a little-noticed clause in Shank’s contract that kicked in once she won a settlement with the trucking company, Wal-Mart sued the Shank family to recoup the medical expenses it had spent on her care, all $470,000.

In response, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann last week began decrying Wal-Mart’s actions nightly, four times labeling $9-billion corporation one of his “Worst Persons in the World.” Last night, however, Olbermann was able to announce the good news — that Wal Mart yesterday wrote to the Shanks to tell them it would drop its suit:

Occasionally others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times. … Wal-Mart will not seek any reimbursement for the money already spent on Ms. Shank’s care, and we will work with you to ensure the remaining amounts in the trust can be used for her ongoing care.

Unfortunately, CNN’s Glenn Beck could not attain a similarly enlightened perspective. He condemned Wal-Mart on his radio show today, insisting the corporation had made a “deal with terrorists” and had succumbed to “blackmail”:

Well, what are the principles? The principles are right is right, wrong is wrong. No matter how much I need it, no matter how hard it is for me, no matter how much it sucks, it’s not right. My word is my bond. I made an agreement. I didn’t see it in there. … This is blackmail. And yet Wal-Mart folds. You don’t deal with terrorists? Really? You just did. You just dealt with economic blackmailers. … But then — and I don’t even put it on the family as much as I do on the media. The media, they just — MSNBC, man, they can just make hay with this.

Listen to Beck’s rant:

Earlier in his rant, Beck seems to suggest that the Shanks reneged on Debbie’s contract when it asked Wal-Mart to forgive her medical expenses. However, as legal analyst Jeffery Toobin pointed out on Anderson Cooper 360 last night, the corporation was under no obligation whatsoever to sue the Shanks. It was a discretionary choice:

There is no reason why they should have filed this lawsuit. This was an unnecessary pain inflicted.

Hagel: White House’s justification of Iraq is like ‘Alice In Wonderland.’

Hagel: White House’s justification of Iraq is like ‘Alice In Wonderland.’

Last night on the Daily Show, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) repeated his claim that the Iraq war has been “one of the great blunders of American history,” and that the White House is justifying “something that’s unjustifiable”:

Your question about how the administration deals with this now–well, they continue to justify something that’s not justifiable. It’s Alice in Wonderland: what’s up is down, what’s down is up.

Watch it:

Recently, Hagel rejected the idea that the surge has been a “success” considering the fact that U.S. has “lost over 900 dead Americans since the surge.”

McCain Gets Iraq Facts Wrong Again: Says Sadr — Not Maliki — ‘Asked’ For Ceasefire

By Matt on Apr 1st, 2008 at 1:57 pm

McCain Gets Iraq Facts Wrong Again: Says Sadr — Not Maliki — ‘Asked’ For Ceasefire

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he was “surprised” by violent clashes between central Iraqi government and militias connected to Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr last week in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. “Maliki decided to take on this operation without consulting the Americans,” McCain told reporters on his campaign bus.

As MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann noted last night, at the same time McCain expressed surprise about the developments in Basra, he also got basic facts wrong about the ceasefire that halted the violence on Sunday. McCain claimed that “it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire,” not Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malki:

Asked if the Basra campaign had backfired, he said: “Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire, declared a ceasefire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a ceasefire. So we’ll see.’’

Watch it:

As Mother Jones’ Jonathan Stein notes today, McCain’s description of what happened is “completely misleading” and wrong. In fact, Sadr’s call for a ceasefire only came after members of Maliki’s political party traveled to Iran to broker a deal with him:

The backdrop to Sadr’s dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran’s holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country.

There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.

Ali al Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s Dawa party, and Hadi al Ameri, the head of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq.

According to the AP, “the peace deal between al-Sadr and Iraqi government forces” not only “left the cleric’s Mahdi Army intact,” but it also left Maliki “politically battered and humbled within his own Shi’ite power base.”

This is not the first time in recent memory that McCain has gotten basic facts about Iraq wrong. Two weeks ago, he repeatedly made false claims that Iran was training al Qaeda fighters in Iraq.

Matt Duss has more at the Wonk Room.

.

Elizabeth Edwards: Americans Are ‘Left Outside The Clinic Doors’ With McCain’s Health Care Plan»

Elizabeth Edwards: Americans Are ‘Left Outside The Clinic Doors’ With McCain’s Health Care Plan»

elizabeth_edwards.jpg Elizabeth Edwards and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) have both survived cancer — breast cancer and melanoma, respectively. But as Edwards observed this week, “Neither one of us would be covered by his [McCain’s] health policy.”

In response, McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin criticized Edwards, saying her comments were “disappointing” and a misunderstanding of McCain’s “comprehensive” plan:

[Holtz-Eakin] said Saturday that Edwards’ comments were disappointing and that they revealed she did not understand the comprehensive nature of the senator’s proposal.

Holtz-Eakin said McCain’s policy would harness “the power of competition to produce greater coverage for Americans.” Because McCain’s plan would lower the cost of healthcare through competition, Holtz-Eakin said, it would reduce costs for consumers with or without preexisting conditions.

McCain’s plan, which largely extends the failures of the President Bush’s health care approach and gives insurance companies a pass, is hardly “comprehensive.” Today on the Wonk Room, Edwards responds to Holtz-Eakin, noting that McCain’s plan shuts Americans “outside the clinic doors”:

I freely admit that I am confused about the role of overnight funding in repurchase markets in the collapse of Bear Stearns. What I am not confused about is John McCain’s health care proposal. Apparently Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy advisor to McCain, thinks I do “not understand the comprehensive nature of the senator’s proposal.”

The problem, Douglas, is that, despite fuzzy language and feel-good lines in the Senator’s proposal, I do understand exactly how devastating it will be to people who have the health conditions with which the Senator and I are confronted (melanoma for him, breast cancer for me) but do not have the financial resources we have. In very unconfusing language: they are left outside the clinic doors.

Ten million Americans live with cancer today, and three of four families will help care for a family member with cancer. But health experts note that cancer survivors are routinely denied insurance when they try to purchase insurance as individuals.

“As one of those [voters] with a pre-existing condition, I sure would like some straight talk,” writes Edwards. Read her full response at the Wonk Room.

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba

U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba

Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba

By David Ruppe

N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War

The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof & that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."

The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere  only 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.

"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.

Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military  not democratic  control over the island nation after the invasion.

"That's what we're supposed to be freeing them from," Bamford says. "The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing."

'Over the Edge'

The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.

Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.

The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds.

There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.

And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a "considerable danger" in the "education and propaganda activities of military personnel" had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn't get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford.

"Although no one in Congress could have known at the time," he writes, "Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge."

Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan "pretext" operations at least through 1963.

One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base  an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.

"There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn't for lack of trying," he says.

After 40 Years

Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK's release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public's access to government records related to the assassination.

The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.

Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.

"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford.

Sony BMG's hypocrisy: company busted for using warez

Sony BMG's hypocrisy: company busted for using warez

Sony BMG is no stranger to piracy. As one of the most vocal supporters of the RIAA and IFPI antipiracy efforts, the company has some experience hunting down and punishing consumers who don't pay for its products. The company is getting some experience on the other side of the table, however, now that it's being sued for software piracy.

PointDev, a French software company that makes Windows administration tools, received a call from a Sony BMG IT employee for support. After Sony BMG supplied a pirated license code for Ideal Migration, one of PointDev's products, the software maker was able to mandate a seizure of Sony BMG's assets. The subsequent raid revealed that software was illegally installed on four of Sony BMG's servers. The Business Software Alliance, however, believes that up to 47 percent of the software installed on Sony BMG's computers could be pirated.

These are some pretty serious—not to mention ironic—allegations against a company that's gone so far as to install malware on consumers' computers in the name of preventing piracy.

While PointDev is claiming €300,000 (over $475,000) in damages in its suit against Sony BMG, Agustoni Paul-Henry, PointDev's CEO, says (from a Google translation of a French report) that this is more about principle than money: "We are forced to watch every week if key software pirates are not [sic] on the Internet. We are a small company of six employees. Instead of trying to protect us, we could spend this time to develop ourselves."

Paul-Henry thinks Sony BMG's piracy of PointDev's products is the fault of more than just a single employee (again, translated): "I think piracy is linked to the policy of a company. If the employee has the necessary funding to buy the software he needs, he will. If this is not the case, he will find alternative ways, as the work must be done in one way or another."

Certainly, one wonders what led to Sony BMG to steal PointDev's product in the first place. It's a safe bet that the company can afford to pay for the necessary licenses, which leaves sheer laziness as the most likely culprit. In any event, it's absolutely inexcusable for a company that has been at the forefront of the antipiracy fight, going so far as to surreptitiously install rootkits on its customers' PCs.