September 30, 2008

POLITICS-US: Bush Had No Plan to Catch Bin Laden after 9/11

By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 29 (IPS) - New evidence from former U.S. officials reveals that the George W. Bush administration failed to adopt any plan to block the retreat of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the first weeks after 9/11.

That failure was directly related to the fact that top administration officials gave priority to planning for war with Iraq over military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

As a result, the United States had far too few troops and strategic airlift capacity in the theatre to cover the large number of possible exit routes through the border area when bin Laden escaped in late 2001.

Because it had not been directed to plan for that contingency, the U.S. military had to turn down an offer by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in late November 2001 to send 60,000 troops to the border passes to intercept them, according to accounts provided by former U.S. officials involved in the issue.

On Nov. 12, 2001, as Northern Alliance troops were marching on Kabul with little resistance, the CIA had intelligence that bin Laden was headed for a cave complex in the Tora Bora Mountains close to the Pakistani border.

The war had ended much more quickly than expected only days earlier. CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks, who was responsible for the war in Afghanistan, had no forces in position to block bin Laden's exit.

Franks asked Lt. Gen. Paul T. Mikolashek, commander of Army Central Command (ARCENT), whether his command could provide a blocking force between al Qaeda and the Pakistani border, according to David W. Lamm, who was then commander of ARCENT Kuwait.

Lamm, a retired Army colonel, recalled in an interview that there was no way to fulfill the CENTCOM commander's request, because ARCENT had neither the troops nor the strategic lift in Kuwait required to put such a force in place. "You looked at that request, and you just shook your head," recalled Lamm, now chief of staff of the Near East South Asia Centre for Strategic Studies at the National Defence University.

Franks apparently already realised that he would need Pakistani help in blocking the al Qaeda exit from Tora Bora. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld told a National Security Council meeting that Franks "wants the [Pakistanis] to close the transit points between Afghanistan and Pakistan to seal what's going in and out", according to the National Security Council meeting transcript in Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War".

Bush responded that they would need to "press Musharraf to do that".

A few days later, Franks made an unannounced trip to Islamabad to ask Musharraf to deploy troops along the Pakistan-Afghan border near Tora Bora.

A deputy to Franks, Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong, later claimed that Musharraf had refused Franks's request for regular Pakistani troops to be repositioned from the north to the border near the Tora Bora area. DeLong wrote in his 2004 book "Inside Centcom" that Musharraf had said he "couldn't do that", because it would spark a "civil war" with a hostile tribal population.

But U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, who accompanied Franks to the meeting with Musharraf, provided an account of the meeting to this writer that contradicts DeLong's claim.

Chamberlin, now president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, recalled that the Pakistani president told Franks that CENTCOM had vastly underestimated what was required to block bin Laden exit from Afghanistan. Musharraf said, "Look you are missing the point: there are 150 valleys through which al Qaeda are going to stream into Pakistan," according to Chamberlin.

Although Musharraf admitted that the Pakistani government had never exercised control over the border area, the former diplomat recalled, he said this was "a good time to begin". The Pakistani president offered to redeploy 60,000 troops to the area from the border with India but said his army would need airlift assistance from the United States to carry out the redeployment.

But the Pakistani redeployment never happened, according to Lamm, because it wasn't logistically feasible. Lamm recalled that it would have required an entire aviation brigade, including hundreds of helicopters, and hundreds of support troops to deliver that many combat troops to the border region -- far more than was available.

Lamm said the ARCENT had so few strategic lift resources that it had to use commercial aircraft at one point to move U.S. supplies in and out of Afghanistan.

Even if the helicopters had been available, however, they could not have operated with high effectiveness in the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border region near the Tora Bora caves, according to Lamm, because of the combination of high altitude and extreme weather.

Franks did manage to insert 1,200 Marines to Kandahar on Nov. 26 to establish control of the airbase there. They were carried to the base by helicopters from an aircraft carrier that had steamed into the Gulf from the Pacific, according to Lamm.

The marines patrolled roads in the Kandahar area hoping to intercept al Qaeda officials heading toward Pakistan. But DeLong, now retired from the Army, said in an interview that the Marines would not have been able to undertake the blocking mission at the border. "It wouldn't have worked -- even if we could have gotten them up there," he said. "There weren't enough to police 1,500 kilometres of border."

U.S. troops probably would also have faced armed resistance from the local tribal population in the border region, according to DeLong. The tribesmen in local villages near the border "liked bin Laden," he said "because he had given them millions of dollars."

Had the Bush administration's priority been to capture or kill the al Qaeda leadership, it would have deployed the necessary ground troops and airlift resources in the theatre over a period of months before the offensive in Afghanistan began.

"You could have moved American troops along the Pakistani border before you went into Afghanistan," said Lamm. But that would have meant waiting until spring 2002 to take the offensive against the Taliban, according to Lamm.

The views of Bush's key advisers, however, ruled out any such plan from the start. During the summer of 2001, Rumsfeld had refused to develop contingency plans for military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan despite a National Security Presidential Directive adopted at the Deputies' Committee level in July and by the Principles on Sep. 4 that called for such planning, according to the 9/11 Commission report.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz resisted such planning for Afghanistan because they were hoping that the White House would move quickly on military intervention in Iraq. According to the 9/11 Commission, at four deputies' meetings on Iraq between May 31 and Jul. 26, 2001, Wolfowitz pushed his idea to have U.S. troops seize all the oil fields in southern Iraq.

Even after Sep. 11, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney continued to resist any military engagement in Afghanistan, because they were hoping for war against Iraq instead.

Bush's top secret order of Sep. 17 for war with Afghanistan also directed the Pentagon to begin planning for an invasion of Iraq, according to journalist James Bamford's book "Pretext for War".

Cheney and Rumsfeld pushed for a quick victory in Afghanistan in NSC meetings in October, as recounted by both Woodward and Undersecretary of Defence Douglas Feith. Lost in the eagerness to wrap up the Taliban and get on with the Iraq War was any possibility of preventing bin Laden's escape to Pakistan.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

Prosecutor named to probe US attorneys' firings

The launching of a criminal inquiry follows the recommendation of internal Justice Department investigators who concluded that, despite denials of the administration, political considerations played a part in the firings of as many as four of the federal prosecutors.

In their 358-page report, investigators said the lack of cooperation by senior officials at the White House and in the Justice Department left gaps in their findings that should be investigated further.

"Serious allegations involving potential criminal conduct have not been fully investigated or resolved," the report said, listing lying to investigators, obstruction of justice and wire fraud among the potential felony crimes.

Mukasey's appointment of Nora Dannehy, the acting U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to continue the inquiry leaves open the possibility that it won't be finished before President Bush leaves office in January.

Senators of both parties who led a congressional probe of the firings praised Mukasey's decision and cautioned Bush against pardoning anyone as he leaves the White House.

"The American people will see any misuse of the pardon power or any grant of clemency or immunity to those from his administration involved in the U.S. attorney firing scandal as an admission of wrongdoing," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

The report unsparingly criticized Bush administration officials, Republican members of Congress and their aides for the ousters, which touched off a scandal that stripped the Justice Department of its leadership and sparked a historic showdown in court.

The report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility Director Marshall Jarrett described Gonzales and his deputy, Paul McNulty, as "remarkably disengaged" from the process that led to the dismissal of the prosecutors.

Monday's report was the latest to criticize Gonzales' management of the Justice Department during his 31 months as attorney general. Gonzales quit under fire in September 2007.

In a statement issued by his attorney, Gonzales said: "My family and I are glad to have the investigation of my conduct in this matter behind us and we look forward to moving on to new challenges."

Gonzales' attorney, George Terwilliger, noted that the report found no unlawful conduct. "It seems rather odd," Terwilliger said, "that rather than bring the investigation to a close, the department would escalate the matter to the attention of a prosecutor."

U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president, but cannot be fired for improper reasons.

The report singled out the removal of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in New Mexico - one of the nine - as the most troubling. Iglesias's firing followed complaints from leading Republican political figures in New Mexico, including Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, about Iglesias' handling of voter fraud and public corruption cases, the report said.

Iglesias, who now works as a paid speaker and practices law part-time, said he thinks criminal investigations should be pursued against Domenici and anyone else who may have broken federal criminal laws. He said he had not yet seen the report.

"I've said all along that these moves were improper and illegal and now it appears that they were criminal as well," he said in an interview. "Our complaints weren't just complaints of disgruntled former employees."

A spokesman for Domenici, who is leaving Congress at the end of the year, did not respond to requests for comment.

Wilson, who cooperated in the internal investigation of the firings, issued a statement in which she said the report's findings were incorrect. She acknowledged contacting Iglesias about possible indictments in a New Mexico case, but she denied complaining about him to anyone in the Bush administration.

Investigators said their inquiry of the firing of Iglesias and others was hampered by the lack of cooperation from Domenici, former White House adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, former Justice Department official Monica Goodling and other key witnesses.

The president's refusal to let Rove, Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten testify before Congress about the firings touched off a legal fight that is now before a federal appeals court. Most recently a judge ordered Miers to answer questions from the House Judiciary Committee about the firings.

The report concluded that Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, was the person most responsible for developing the plan to fire the prosecutors and said that Sampson's comments to Congress, the White House and others were misleading.

Sampson and others claimed at first that the prosecutors' poor performance inspired their firings. But the report found that Bud Cummins, the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas, was forced out to make way for Timothy Griffin, who had previously been Rove's deputy in the White House political office.

It also said the dismissal of Todd Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, probably resulted from pressure from the office of Republican Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond. Bond was upset that Graves did not intervene in a dispute between the staffs of Bond and Republican Rep. Sam Graves, the prosecutor's brother, the report said.

A spokeswoman for Bond did not immediately return a call for comment.

Investigators found no evidence that Arizona U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton and U.S. Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego were fired for prosecuting Republican members of Congress.

Similarly, the report says Justice Department officials had legitimate concerns about the work of two other prosecutors who were fired - Margaret Chiara of Grand Rapids, Mich., and Kevin Ryan of San Francisco.

---

On the Net:

Justice Department report: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/new.htm

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.




From George Washington to George Bush: Executive Privilege Through History Presidential Veto Primer
Latest White House Headlines
Bush implores Congress to act to rescue markets

Text of Bush's Tuesday statement

Bush disappointed by House vote, vows to press on

Text of President Bush's statement

Bush: Rescue needed to keep economy from breakdown

PHOTO GALLERY
AP Photo

President Bush


Interactives
The Fired Prosecutors: A Primer
Documents

Aug. 30, 2007: Inspector General's Letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on Investigating Gonzales

Aug. 27, 2007: Resignation Letter of Alberto Gonzales

List of Sampson Documents Withheld from Congress

Part I: Sampson-Miers e-mails

Part II: Sampson-Miers e-mails

Sampson-Rove e-mails

White House letter
Your Questions Answered
Ask AP: Hurricane reporters, property in Cuba

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General Michael Mukasey named a prosecutor Monday to investigate whether former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, other Bush administration officials or Republicans in Congress should face criminal charges in the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The launching of a criminal inquiry follows the recommendation of internal Justice Department investigators who concluded that, despite denials of the administration, political considerations played a part in the firings of as many as four of the federal prosecutors.

In their 358-page report, investigators said the lack of cooperation by senior officials at the White House and in the Justice Department left gaps in their findings that should be investigated further.

"Serious allegations involving potential criminal conduct have not been fully investigated or resolved," the report said, listing lying to investigators, obstruction of justice and wire fraud among the potential felony crimes.

Mukasey's appointment of Nora Dannehy, the acting U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to continue the inquiry leaves open the possibility that it won't be finished before President Bush leaves office in January.

Senators of both parties who led a congressional probe of the firings praised Mukasey's decision and cautioned Bush against pardoning anyone as he leaves the White House.

"The American people will see any misuse of the pardon power or any grant of clemency or immunity to those from his administration involved in the U.S. attorney firing scandal as an admission of wrongdoing," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

The report unsparingly criticized Bush administration officials, Republican members of Congress and their aides for the ousters, which touched off a scandal that stripped the Justice Department of its leadership and sparked a historic showdown in court.

The report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility Director Marshall Jarrett described Gonzales and his deputy, Paul McNulty, as "remarkably disengaged" from the process that led to the dismissal of the prosecutors.

Monday's report was the latest to criticize Gonzales' management of the Justice Department during his 31 months as attorney general. Gonzales quit under fire in September 2007.

In a statement issued by his attorney, Gonzales said: "My family and I are glad to have the investigation of my conduct in this matter behind us and we look forward to moving on to new challenges."

Gonzales' attorney, George Terwilliger, noted that the report found no unlawful conduct. "It seems rather odd," Terwilliger said, "that rather than bring the investigation to a close, the department would escalate the matter to the attention of a prosecutor."

U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president, but cannot be fired for improper reasons.

The report singled out the removal of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in New Mexico - one of the nine - as the most troubling. Iglesias's firing followed complaints from leading Republican political figures in New Mexico, including Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, about Iglesias' handling of voter fraud and public corruption cases, the report said.

Iglesias, who now works as a paid speaker and practices law part-time, said he thinks criminal investigations should be pursued against Domenici and anyone else who may have broken federal criminal laws. He said he had not yet seen the report.

"I've said all along that these moves were improper and illegal and now it appears that they were criminal as well," he said in an interview. "Our complaints weren't just complaints of disgruntled former employees."

A spokesman for Domenici, who is leaving Congress at the end of the year, did not respond to requests for comment.

Wilson, who cooperated in the internal investigation of the firings, issued a statement in which she said the report's findings were incorrect. She acknowledged contacting Iglesias about possible indictments in a New Mexico case, but she denied complaining about him to anyone in the Bush administration.

Investigators said their inquiry of the firing of Iglesias and others was hampered by the lack of cooperation from Domenici, former White House adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, former Justice Department official Monica Goodling and other key witnesses.

The president's refusal to let Rove, Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten testify before Congress about the firings touched off a legal fight that is now before a federal appeals court. Most recently a judge ordered Miers to answer questions from the House Judiciary Committee about the firings.

The report concluded that Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, was the person most responsible for developing the plan to fire the prosecutors and said that Sampson's comments to Congress, the White House and others were misleading.

Sampson and others claimed at first that the prosecutors' poor performance inspired their firings. But the report found that Bud Cummins, the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas, was forced out to make way for Timothy Griffin, who had previously been Rove's deputy in the White House political office.

It also said the dismissal of Todd Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, probably resulted from pressure from the office of Republican Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond. Bond was upset that Graves did not intervene in a dispute between the staffs of Bond and Republican Rep. Sam Graves, the prosecutor's brother, the report said.

A spokeswoman for Bond did not immediately return a call for comment.

Investigators found no evidence that Arizona U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton and U.S. Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego were fired for prosecuting Republican members of Congress.

Similarly, the report says Justice Department officials had legitimate concerns about the work of two other prosecutors who were fired - Margaret Chiara of Grand Rapids, Mich., and Kevin Ryan of San Francisco.

---

On the Net:

Justice Department report: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/new.htm

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.


September 29, 2008

ACTIVISM: Over the bank bailout !!


They said it couldn't be done, but it HAS been done,

by you

and

other TrueMajority members.

At 2:05 pm today, the House voted down the taxpayer bailout of Wall Street. The stock market predictably dropped on the news that investment companies won't be getting our money, and the pundits will be getting all exercised about it. Here's what you should do about that:

Take a deep breath.

And then send a message to Congress to start focusing on the real fixes we need.

Wall Street has actually convinced a lot of us that what's good for the Dow Jones Average is good for us real people. But for eight years while bankers raked in billions, ordinary Americans have seen their real wages drop, jobs sent overseas, health insurance rates skyrocket, and now thousands are losing their homes.

We need our government to actively work for US in fixing this mess, so let's tell Congress it's time to start over and pass a New Deal for Main Street.

That means:

  • Putting real regulations back on runaway financial corporations, and taking an ownership stake in exchange for any taxpayer support
  • Providing mortgage relief so ordinary Americans stop losing their homes
  • Putting millions to work by investing in new green jobs and infrastructure
  • Investing in a health care plan to cover everyone

This debate is not over, so jump into it now. At long last it's become obvious what kind of country de-regulation and taxbreaks for corporations creates. People are re-considering our priorities as a nation. Speak up for yours.

Thanks,

-Matt

Matt Holland

House votes against $700 billion rescue package: Marketwatch

By Ruth Mantell & Steve Gelsi, MarketWatch
Last update: 2:37 p.m. EDT Sept. 29, 2008

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- House lawmakers voted Monday to reject the historic $700 billion financial rescue plan, a sharp blow to the administration and bipartisan leaders in Congress who warn that the country is on the brink of an economic precipice.

With elections approaching, some lawmakers -- both Democrats and Republicans -- may feel nervous about voting for a plan that risks so much taxpayer money and can't promise success. But the president has lobbied hard to approve the plan, and U.S. officials also have stressed the dire consequences of taking no action.

There were 205 in favor of the legislation and 228 against. Among Democrats, 140 voted in favor and 95 against. Among Republicans, 65 voted in favor and 133 against.

Critics say the plan does not adequately address problems such as job losses and a distressed housing market that underlie current economic weakness. U.S. officials had hoped the plan would ease the credit crunch and restore confidence in the markets, even as markets plunged around the world. Those in favor of the rescue plan may have been trying to treat the most manageable symptom -- a frozen credit market -- if not the actual disease.

A vote in the Senate was expected Wednesday, and the president would have followed with a speedy signature.
'I didn't come here to vote for bills like this. Let me tell you this: I believe Congress has to act and that means each and everyone of us.'

— John Boehner, R-Ohio
Earlier Monday, doubt emerged over whether enough representatives would vote in favor of the plan and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appealed to colleagues in the early afternoon, stressing that representatives will continue to monitor financial issues and pursue additional strategies. She said it's imperative that the measure on the floor receives bipartisan support.

"That is the only message that will send a message of confidence to the markets," Pelosi said.

Colleagues applauded after appeals for bipartisan agreement on the rescue plan from Rep. John Boehner, House minority leader, and Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the financial-services committee.

The risk of not acting is much higher than the risk of acting, according to Boehner.
"I didn't come here to vote for bills like this. Let me tell you this: I believe Congress has to act and that means each and everyone of us," he said.

Video: Deal draws criticism

After a tentative agreement was set over the weekend, a $700 million Wall Street rescue plan could become law. But there are still holdouts and plenty of public anger. Fox's Doug Luzader reports. (Sept. 29)

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have said the plan is necessary to avert serious consequences for markets and the economy.

There's evidence that voters may be warming to the plan: A new national survey shows that 33% of likely voters now favor the plan, up from 24% on Friday, according to Rasmussen Reports. The survey, conducted Sunday, also found that 32% of voters are opposed to the plan, compared with one-half of those surveyed Friday. Still, 35% of voters are not sure about the plan.

"Those who understand that taxpayers will eventually get much of the money back support the bailout by a 2-to-1 margin,"
Rasmussen Reports said. "Those who incorrectly believe the government will not be getting money back oppose the bailout by a 62% to 18% margin."


Need for Speed

Investors voiced concern about the legislation's ultimate impact, as four European financial institutions were bailed out and Wachovia Corp.'s (WB:
Wachovia Corp
Last: 10.00+490.00-102.08%
12:22pm 09/29/2008
Delayed quote data
Last: 19.70-0.45-2.23%
2:23pm 09/29/2008
Delayed quote data

Stocks opened sharply lower on Wall Street and then fell hard. See Market Snapshot.
At the White House, Bush urged passage of the financial-rescue package, in a move to shore up the country's ailing lending system.
Also Monday, Bernanke said he's looking forward to "swift passage" of the legislation. Bernanke has been urging lawmakers to move quickly on a rescue plan, warning that the economic and financial consequences of a delay would be dire.
"This legislation should help to restore the flow of credit to households and businesses that is essential for economic growth and job creation, while at the same time affording strong and necessary protections for taxpayers," Bernanke said in a statement.
The giant plan is needed to avert a deeper crisis that could hamper the flow of money throughout the financial system, President Bush said. He added that the credit crisis and the housing slowdown will remain facts of life for Americans for the time being.
'This bill provides the necessary tools and funding to help protect our economy against a systemwide breakdown.'
— President Bush
Under the measure, the federal government will purchase assets from banks in order to free up lending in the system, and strong oversight is included, Bush said before U.S. financial markets opened Monday.

Elsewhere, regulators announced Monday that Wachovia's banking operations were being bought by Citigroup. See full story.

Paulson said he supports the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s actions to facilitate the sale to Citigroup (C:
Citigroup, Inc
Last: 19.70-0.45-2.23%
2:23pm 09/29/2008
Delayed quote da

Bernanke also said he supports the FDIC action. See full story.

The Treasury Department also said its temporary guarantee program for U.S. money-market funds in now open. For the next year, the Treasury will insure holdings of any publicly offered money-market mutual fund, retail and institutional, that pays a fee to participate. The temporary guarantee program provides coverage to shareholders for amounts that they held in participating funds as of Sept. 19.

Progress made on rescue

On Sunday, Democratic congressional leaders announced their agreement on details of the rescue plan, releasing a draft text trumpeting taxpayer guarantees and caps on executive compensation.

The draft bill, titled the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008," follows days of legislative wrangling as U.S. financial markets teetered on the edge of a collapse triggered by the U.S. mortgage crisis.

"This isn't about a bailout of Wall Street; it's a buy-in so we can turn our economy around," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said at a press conference announcing the agreement.
The draft legislation would authorize $250 billion immediately, with another $100 billion upon presidential certification. A further $350 billion would also be available subject to congressional approval.
"I appreciate the leadership shown by members on both sides of the aisle, who came together to write a very good bill,"
Bush said in a statement.
"This bill provides the necessary tools and funding to help protect our economy against a systemwide breakdown."

Under the proposed bill, the Treasury Department can use a combination of tactics to buy bad loans, focusing on mortgages and mortgage-backed securities but also including other types of loans under certain conditions. Treasury could purchase the bad debt through an auction process as well as by buying loans directly, a Treasury official said in a conference call with reporters.
The proposed legislation also allows companies to participate in an insurance program, whereby Treasury would guarantee troubled assets, charging companies a premium "sufficient to cover anticipated claims."

"This bill provides the necessary tools to deploy up to $700 billion to address the urgent needs in our financial system, whether that be by purchasing troubled assets broadly, insuring troubled assets, or averting the potential systemic risk from the disorderly failure of a large financial institution,"
the Treasury secretary said.

The government would get a stake in companies receiving bailout funds so that taxpayer money could be recovered if those companies grow in the future, according to the bill.
The proposed legislation also requires that in five years, the president submit a proposal to Congress "that recoups from the financial industry any projected losses to the taxpayer."

Existing executive-pay contracts will stay in place

In some cases, the bill would require companies limit executive pay, but those limits vary depending on the method by which Treasury purchases a firm's troubled assets, and how much Treasury antes up.

"When Treasury buys assets at auction, an institution that has sold more than $300 million in assets is subject to additional taxes, including a 20% excise tax on golden parachute payments triggered by events other than retirement, and tax deduction limits for compensation limits above $500,000,"
according to a synopsis of the text of the bill.

While the proposed bill prevents companies from signing new golden-parachute deals with top executives after Treasury gets involved, it does not change the terms of already existing contracts, apparently in an effort to encourage companies to participate in the bailout program.

Keeping an eye on progress

The bill would put oversight provisions in place, including creating the position of an inspector general as well as a congressional oversight panel to monitor the program, plus a requirement that the Treasury secretary regularly report to Congress the details of all loan purchases.
Also, "all of the transactions related to this legislation will be on the Internet within 48 hours," Pelosi said. "That transparency, that oversight, will be very important to our economy."
The bill also contains some provisions that seek to help families in financial distress avoid foreclosures, in part by creating a plan to "encourage servicers of mortgages to modify loans" and allowing the Treasury to use loan guarantees to avoid foreclosures.

While critics have noted that government encouragement won't necessarily impel servicers to work with borrowers, the Treasury official said that buying large groups of loans will help push that process forward. "Treasury will be buying many of the securities in volume. We will have a lot of influence on the servicers and we will work aggressively to ... prevent foreclosures," the official said.

Candidates weigh in

Before the release of the draft text, presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama said Sunday morning that they would be willing to sign off on the massive financial rescue plan but would need to first consider the details.

When asked if he supported the plan, McCain told ABC's This Week:
"I'd like to see the details, but hopefully yes. ... This is something we'll all swallow hard and go forward with."

Obama told CBS's Face the Nation:
"We have to get something done. ... My inclination would be to vote for it, understanding that I'm not happy about it -- we should have never gotten to this place."


Ruth Mantell is a MarketWatch reporter based in Washington.
Steve Gelsi is a reporter for MarketWatch in New York.

Devasting videos on the banking crisis



Who Screwed Up the Housing Market and Caused the World Wide Credit Crunch ??










How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis - (RePUGlican View)

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.



WAKE UP KURDISTAN !! : Axin Arbili in OpEd News

KurdishMedia.com - By Axin Arbili

There is no change for the better; there is no turning point in our history: The anti-Kurdish forces of the past are the anti-Kurdish forces of today. Despite the end of Saddam’s dictatorship five years ago, there is still no freedom for the Kurds, no free Kurdistan even in so-called liberated Iraq. Our enemies are busy, as ever, with maintaining the status quo in the Middle East, and they are successful. In return for Kurdish efforts of reconciliation and goodwill, Arabs, with the help of the Turks, have stopped the referendum in Kerkuk and are now doing everything to abolish that constitutional requirement and right. The Kurdish city and especially the oil there are still regarded “Arab patrimony”, and under Saddam this meant Anfal: large-scale ethnic cleansing, deportations, displacement, genocide.

The Kurdish genocide; the murder of more than 350,000 people, the displacement of millions; the depopulation and destructions of the Kurdish landscape seems to have quietly disappeared from collective conscious, from the collective memory and public political discourse; it has almost become irrelevant to our leaders. Nobody remembers the referendum in which the Kurdish people in the south declared their will for self-determination and independence; today we do not see the implementation of the only legitimate will, but we see the instructions and will of Washington, Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran, Ankara being implemented. The Kurdish leaders in Iraq have become collaborators and clients of US global empire.

The question to be asked and answered is thus: What did the Peshmerga actually fight for in “Operation Iraqi Freedom”? Did they really fight for Kurdish freedom or did they risk their lives so that instead of Sunni Arabs their Shiite kin get the opportunity to rule Baghdad and thus Kurdistan? The answer is quite clear. We missed a unique opportunity to tell our enemies and the world that we don't want to be part of that criminal and hated creation of British imperialism called Iraq; that we want the sanctity of our homelands recognized under international law, that we want a free and sovereign Kurdish society, protected by a Kurdish state and army; that the insults, intimidations, threats, aggressions, crimes against us must end for once and all. Instead of doing the right thing, the Kurdish leaders decided to become presidents and foreign ministers of that terror state of Iraq; we see how they listen to our enemies and follow imperial instructions; we see that there is no progress and peace for our nation. In the political and cultural realities of the world, we do not even exist. We are called Iraqis; south Kurdistan is just northern Iraq in the eyes of the “international community” and others.

The scale of racial hatred against any form of Kurdish independence or even a Kurdish city administration is unimaginably deep and egregious when we compare that the Arabs already have 22 (twenty-two) independent sovereign countries with tens of thousands of rich cities and a population of 350 to 400 million; that there are 7 (seven) independent sovereign Turkic states, 16 (sixteen) Autonomous Turkic republics, with a Turkish/Turkic population of more than 200 million; that the combined Arab und Turkish land masses represent a vast area stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to Central Asia and beyond; that Turks and Arabs fully enjoy all human and ethnic rights monitored under international law. Despite all of their territorial and material wealth (including the largest oil reserves), despite their numerous states, and despite calling themselves compassionate Muslims, Turks and Arabs are not willing to allow the Kurds, who have no other allies or kin, let alone friends, to exercise the same human and ethnic rights, to have their historical, moral, legal rights for self-determination and for their own sovereign country realised.

The “international community” couldn’t care less. Arab oil and Nato-membership of Turkey are too precious for the West to jeopardize by supporting the despised, poor and powerless Kurds. Consequently and historically the USA/EU/NATO have supported their client states rather than supporting democracy and justice in the region. Outside the western spheres, there is no such thing anyway. There are only vital strategic and material interests. There is no right or wrong, moral or immoral for the West when it comes to its vital interests; there is only the will and force to achieve the objectives by all means, at any costs, including genocides. In the Middle East, these are access and control of the energy reserves and expansion of control to yet uncontrolled regions (Iran, Caucasus, Central Asia, etc.). In the new strategy paper of the US military for the 21st century, it is now explicitly and officially stated what has been US foreign policy practice for decades and centuries: continuous warfare for depleting energy, food and water resources together with their European kin and local puppets. Since these resources are in other countries and belong to other peoples/races, the US military officially declares to continue targeting the indigenous populations whenever necessary; it other words, there is no distinction between civilian and military; the other culture as a whole is an enemy of the US if it’s in the way. Freedom? Democracy? Only the most naïve and manipulated can still believe in a benevolent Uncle Sam.

So while the Arabs are attacking us in “legal” ways and/or by using terror to prevent Kerkuk becoming part of Kurdish administration; all of the Kurdish territories are under constant attack by the Turkish air force to kill as many “Kurdish terrorists” (= free Kurds) as possible. The Turks are assisted by the Iranian army, and the actions of both the Turkish and Iranian military are approved and supported by the USA/West! On the one side Kemalists and Mullahs are conducting warfare against a defenseless people in open violation of all rules and conventions; on the other there is the “international community” deliberately looking away and allowing crimes against humanity. The UN general meeting demonstrated this once again openly and directly when representatives, including Ahmadinejad, delivered their speeches. He was talking about God, justice, beauty, harmony, brotherhood of man, while at the same time the Iranian army is carrying out its war against the Kurdish population; and the “international community” is wondering whether or not Iran has peaceful intentions toward the West. These are satanic double standards and they show unambiguously that the West is not bothered about the Kurdish situation and fate. The barbarism of the Turkish/Iranian military is matched by the selfish brutality of the West. While some delegations were absent; the foreign minister of Iraq, who is a Kurd, was present and listening. And not only was he present and listening, he actually applauded when this prophet of evil finished his deceitful speech. It was like a scene from a nightmare or directly from hell. I could only feel shame and anger as there can be no understanding let alone justification for such disgraceful behaviour. How can you, as a Kurd, applaud him when this man only has murderous contempt for you and your people. He is the head of a state which is determined to crush Kurdish rights, which imprisons, tortures and kills Kurdish intellectuals and human rights activists; which has been cooperating with the Turks for centuries in occupying and exploiting Kurdish lands; which has always been anti-Kurdish in theory and practice. Knowing all of this, how can you just sit there comfortably, listen and applaud this false prophet when you could, in your position as foreign minister, inform the world public of Iranian and Turkish atrocities?

Our enemies will not take us serious with such figures, they can only laugh at us and do what they like. No wonder that the world has no clue about our tragedy, that the only thing they can relate Kurds to is either terrorism or that we are just plain stupid or masochistic.

The Turks have been demonstrating their contempt for centuries. While we are begging for some democracy; their “constitutional court” is considering the closure of the only Kurdish party in Turkey just because this party wants a free and democratic society with equal rights for every one and, above all, because it is a Kurdish party that represents the Kurds. For the military rulers in Ankara, Kurds representing Kurds and insisting on Kurdish right is just another form of terrorism that needs to be eradicated. As all the previous Kurdish parties were shut down, it is more than likely that this one will also have the same fate. Even if it is not shut down now, it will be reminded of the Turkish sword hanging over its head, ready to be used at any time the party/Kurds say anything different than Kemalist state slogans.

We need to wake up and understand: Democracy is not in the interest of the ruling elites as it would mean the end of Kemalism/Turkish supremacy. Consequently there is no real democracy, all these Turkish parties, the parliament, the courts, the government only a façade for the “international community”. Behind the scenes, the US-backed generals pull the strings and make these puppets move as they wish. If one of them dares to get out of line, there is always the threat and possibility of a military coup to re-arrange and re-install the Kemalist order even more brutally. But as the Turkish society has been thoroughly Kemalized by the Kemalofascist military, bureaucracy, and judiciary for almost a century, and as it has also been thoroughly Islamized by the their Muslim leaders, with their strong economic base; there is no danger of any form of subversion from the Turkish people against the status quo or any wish for real democracy. As long as there is Western support and financing of the Turkish fascist order, as long as the Kurds have no voice and are powerless slaves of Western and local forces; the Turks, Arabs, Iranians, Westerners are quite content and happy with the status quo called “Middle East”.

Given these global, geostrategic, socio-political realities, any talk of democratization of such societies becomes ridiculous, absurd if not pathological. And it is absolute and utter hubris to believe, let alone to suggest that Kurds, as freedom fighters or as political fighters, could democratize Arab or Turkish societies in any way. Not only that Kurds don’t have the means, but they also don’t have the right to attempt any such mad thing. If these societies or states prefer a Kemalist, Baathist, Islamist system or whatever system they want, it is their decision and choice. These are separate societies, separate peoples, separate states. Even Israel, the nuclear and industrial superpower of the region, makes no claim or has a plan of democratizing the Palestinian Arabs or any other Arabs for that matter; how can Kurds talk about democratizing others?! This form of thinking is purely idealistic, wishful, delusional and thus a total waste of time. It will not help our cause in any way, it has just hindered it and blocked real progress, and thus it only has played into the hands of our enemies.

But we have no more time to lose. We are dealing with hostile barbaric forces which only have contempt for us if we try to civilize them with democratic rhetorics and plans. They insult us, spit into our faces, torture and kill us in return to demonstrate that there is no such thing as Kurdish rights. Look around, animals even have more rights in Turkey, Iran, Syria and in the world than Kurds. They make it absolutely clear and act upon the understanding that it's in nobody’s interest that we exist.. The Turks, Arabs, Iranians have been carrying out physical and cultural genocides against the Kurdish nation without any action, even without any real protest from that “civilized international community”. Although on legal and moral basis, these states ought to be sanctioned, boycotted and punished; you see how they are officially recognized and welcomed at every international forum and in every organization.

Wake up and understand; begging for democracy will not bring us anywhere. Has it brought us the freedom of our language, the freedom of speech, freedom for education in our native language; are there any Kurdish institutions, universities? Where are the Kurdish names for our children, towns, landscapes? While we should be demanding our right for self-determination and independence, we don’t even dare to ask for some form of autonomy. The Kemalist and Islamist Turks will not accept even the basic human and ethnic rights; and the democratic Turks are only a few and totally powerless. What they are selling as democratic reforms is meaningless in practice or simply a show for the entertainment of the EU.

Wake up and understand: The Turks are afraid of real democracy. They instinctively know that it would mean losing more or even all of their conquered lands. They are not the indigenous people of this region and thus feel insecure in foreign territory. 500 years of occupation of Anatolia has not changed this fundamental reality in the Turkish psyche. They are descendants of conquerors and occupiers and there is no way back. As the Ottoman Empire was created and maintained with the Turkish sword, so today physical force remains the only instrument to maintain what is left. With the end of their empire, there is only one remaining target: the Kurds. As long as there are Kurds, they will be reminded that they are illegal occupiers; that it is not their country; that they are intruders; thieves, murderers. Real democracy will necessarily lead to acknowledgement of these facts, recognition of the Assyrian, Greek, Armenian, Kurdish genocides, and to compensation. Therefore, real democracy is not in the interest of the Turkish people as a principle, and it will never happen under such conditions.

Wake up and understand: A peaceful, equal, democratic co-existence between the Turkish and Kurdish peoples within the same borders is impossible as the Turks don’t accept the Kurdish nation. Therefore, it is wrong to think and irresponsible to suggest that as Kurds we do not need our own protective state when history clearly demonstrates and teaches that peoples and populations were massacred and genocided precisely because they did not have their own protective states, precisely because they did not have borders to protect them from genocidal assault.

Has mankind changed meantime? Do we now live in a world of brotherhood and justice? Have we overcome our barbaric instincts of attacking and destroying other cultures, of conquering other countries and enslaving native populations? Do warfare and ethnic cleansing belong to the past? Do cultures and countries fully and harmoniously cooperate to overcome their problems? Has the fighting and murdering for resources stopped, has the desire for imperial world dominion ended, are conflicts now being finally settled peacefully?

No, nothing has changed and the US and their “allies” are making sure that nothing will change and business continues as usual.

Democracy is not their language, so it should not be the one to use when confronted by them. This is a life or death confrontation, it is literally about survival or total annihilation. There is no time for illusions and self-delusions, we finally need to wake up and do what is possible and necessary. Let’s be clear and remember: In the Turkish and world media, in the propaganda of Western real-politics, we are terrorists whatever we do or say; the Turks and others make sure that our legitimate demands are officially regarded as terrorism and fought.

We need to focus on the task ahead: It is to fight for the liberation of Kurdistan, for the creation of a united Kurdish state. This is our right and obligation – and it is justified historically, morally, legally! This must be our only goal and it must be the goal of all Kurds under foreign occupation. An independent sovereign state is not a theoretical concept, it is essential to the life and culture of a people; it is the home, shelter, protector of the people. It is the only guarantor of its future! How can one deprecate the importance of a state? How can one suggest that it is an ideological entity; that it is a bourgeois invention or plot? That is absolutely irresponsible and the propaganda of the enemy. Our only chance is a clear understanding of our situation and determined implementation of a strategy leading to the declaration of the state of Kurdistan. Otherwise there will be no freedom, no security, and above all, there will be no dignity, no honour for the Kurdish nation. Without our own state; the Kurdish people will continue being in slavery, will remain at the mercy of hostile, aggressive powers, and will be constantly at risk of total physical annihilation by these powers at any time.

There is no other way but absolute liberation. The West has and will not help. On the contrary, with the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, running through ancient Armenian and Kurdish territories, the American-Turkish-Israeli-Georgian alliance has been cemented for good. We must now seek for some kind of cooperation based on the principle that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. In our case, our enemies’ enemies are Russia and China. The US and Nato have plotted new strategies to harm these countries and keep them out of the central Asian oil and gas markets. Two new power blocks are forming now, the NATO plus local clients led by the USA/EU on the aggressive-imperial side and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) led by Russia and China on the defensive side. We are right in the middle of this confrontation, which seems to be inevitable and could lead to global wars. It will be impossible to remain neutral and if we don’t want to be crushed by both, we need to decide now where we will stand to achieve our goal of a free recognized Kurdistan.


How to Put the Torturers in Prison: David Swanson

U.S. politics has become something previously only found in science fiction, an intersection of parallel universes. One universe is the one on television and in Congress. In this universe there are suspicions that someone in the U.S. military may have used some technique bordering on torture, but there's just no way to know for sure. Perhaps an investigation would be a good idea. Or maybe a better solution would be to elect a new president, especially one who's been a victim of torture and opposes it. But the whole topic is very minor one, and the correct position is unclear since torture is both frowned on and useful for getting tough on terrorists.

In the other universe, John McCain has been supporting torture for years now, but virtually every informed observer recognizes that torture serves no practical purpose and is dragging world opinion of the United States into the gutter, making us less safe. In this other world, we encounter information like that collected in a new book by Michael Ratner called "The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld." We discover that there is voluminous evidence in the form of photographs and first-hand testimony that our nation has been engaged in using a wide array of the most abusive torture techniques possible for years now, resulting in many known cases of murder -- of the torture resulting in death.

U.S. politics has become something previously only found in science fiction, an intersection of parallel universes. One universe is the one on television and in Congress. In this universe there are suspicions that someone in the U.S. military may have used some technique bordering on torture, but there's just no way to know for sure. Perhaps an investigation would be a good idea. Or maybe a better solution would be to elect a new president, especially one who's been a victim of torture and opposes it. But the whole topic is very minor one, and the correct position is unclear since torture is both frowned on and useful for getting tough on terrorists.

In the other universe, John McCain has been supporting torture for years now, but virtually every informed observer recognizes that torture serves no practical purpose and is dragging world opinion of the United States into the gutter, making us less safe. In this other world, we encounter information like that collected in a new book by Michael Ratner called "The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld." We discover that there is voluminous evidence in the form of photographs and first-hand testimony that our nation has been engaged in using a wide array of the most abusive torture techniques possible for years now, resulting in many known cases of murder -- of the torture resulting in death.

In this other world, sometimes known as reality, there is extensive documentary
evidence that torture has been authorized by many top U.S. officials, including George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Stephen Cambone, Ricardo Sanchez, Geoffrey Miller, Walter Wojdakowski, Thomas Pappas, Barbara Fast, Marc Warren, Alberto Gonzales, William James Haynes II, David Addington, John C. Yoo, and Jay Bybee. There are other names that could be added, but those are the individuals indicted in Ratner's book. Ratner actually leaves out Bush and Cheney, but says he is only doing so because they are still in office.

Ratner presents the evidence against these torturers, and then presents substantial evidence in their defense in the form of memos they've written trying to argue that what is blatantly illegal is legal. Then Ratner debunks their claims. His book does for torture what Elizabeth de la Vega's book ("U.S. v. Bush et alia") did for defrauding a nation into war: it lays out the case to a grand jury, or to a jury. There is sufficient evidence in this book to put these people behind bars. There is sufficient material here to understand how these criminals would defend themselves in court as well. And all of this exists in a world apart from Congress and television.

I'm not arguing for actual conviction by book. While we can guess how people might defend themselves, they must be given a fair chance to actually do so before being convicted. But every book like this that emerges should help us break through the erroneous idea that we need to investigate before we can conclude that torture has been committed, that it is illegal, and that the individuals named above bear legal responsibility for it.

In the parallel universe inhabited by Congress, the furthest reaches of advocacy for justice are inhabited by things like the resolution Rep. Tammy Baldwin introduced on Friday (http://afterdowningstreet.org/baldwinbill ), urging the next president to please stop committing some of the unconstitutional and illegal abuses of the current one, but at the same time urging the next president to investigate whether the current one or any of his subordinates committed any crimes. This eternal demand for investigations (even while acknowledging the crimes) is much like the demand of other politicians for additional proof before they'll believe global warming exists. Both pretenses are motivated by corrupting influences. To admit that no investigations are needed of torture and war crimes would be to admit that Congress could very quickly impeach the president if it chose to. Baldwin is one of a small minority of Congress members who have supported impeachment. She announced her new resolution on a Friday night during a presidential debate when almost nobody would notice and focused it entirely on appealing to the executive branch not to misuse its dictatorial powers, as opposed to stripping those powers away and restoring Congress to its proper place in our government. And 434 other Congress members did even less than that.

Books can't cross from one universe to another. Nobody could pretend further investigations were needed if they held a copy of Ratner's book. Ratner lays out the case on torture, including the evidence, the counter-arguments, and their refutations, exactly as if we were all living in the real world. Prosecution is possible abroad, but courts abroad will be heavily influenced by the amount of public pressure we can create for prosecution within the United States. Strategies for prosecution within the United States and abroad are being organized: http://convictbushcheney.org The trick will be to properly merge this movement with the universe of the media-congressional-military complex.

Important inspirational reminder -

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility
against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

-- Thomas Jefferson, September 23, 1800,
as inscribed in the Jefferson Memorial

"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle! Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

- Thomas Paine, COMMON SENSE

Terrorism laws pass their first test as youth convicted in homegrown plot

With a report from Kirk Makin

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080926.TERROR26/TPStory/National

BRAMPTON, ONT. -- The Canadian Crown has, for the first time, successfully prosecuted a crime designated as an act of terrorism, thanks to the wide net cast by new laws.

A 20-year-old man was yesterday found to be an "eager acolyte" to more senior suspects who discussed storming Parliament, and exploding truck bombs in downtown Toronto. Despite the fact there was no evidence that he planned, or even knew about, any specific plot, he was found guilty of participating in a terrorist group.

The ruling may influence coming trials in this case - which became renowned as an example of "homegrown terrorism"- and others, and likely lead to new arrests, experts say.

The experts added that the weaknesses in the case illustrate how strong the law is.

"The ruling may indicate that 'participation in terrorism' becomes the favoured charge, much as 'material support for terrorism' has south of the border," University of Toronto law Professor Kent Roach said of a charge laid in dozens of U.S. cases.

Mr. Justice John Sproat's 94-page ruling released yesterday is not binding on other judges, but could have "significant adverse implications" for other accused, Mr. Roach said, even as early as next month when an Ottawa terrorism trial wraps up.

The law professor also pointed out that yesterday's verdict was "a different result," than that of a B.C. trial against two men in connection with a much more heinous crime. In 2005, after a two-decade RCMP investigation, two men were acquitted of planting a suitcase bomb that killed more than 300 people on a 1985 Air India flight.

The two men were charged under traditional Criminal Code laws that did not explicitly address acts of terrorism.

The provisions of 2001's Anti-Terrorism Act were invoked in the more recent case to thwart the nascent plans of a highly infiltrated group whose most peripheral members - including the man convicted yesterday - were under age at the time of their arrest.

Despite the marginal nature of the case, Canada's security agencies are buoyed that a terrorism conviction is finally on the books. "All of the folks on this file are really breathing better on it ... It's a big confidence builder," said Senator Colin Kenny, who heads a committee that probes national-security agencies.

The defence bar was less enthused. "A lot of passive followers, listeners and wannabes are going to get caught up in the sweep of the new law," said lawyer Frank Addario.

The suspect was portrayed by the defence as, if not exactly a babe in the woods, an impressionable 17-year-old Islamic convert who ended up in a winter woodland training camp north of Toronto.

His identity is protected under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and his 10 adult co-accused have yet to face trial.

But the evidence was that he was under the sway of senior suspects, including a Svengali figure just a couple of years older. The ringleader was caught on tape brainstorming a host of schemes that failed to reach fruition, and uttering hateful jihadist rhetoric.

About a dozen young Muslims in their teens and 20s came out to the camp, bringing military fatigues, paintball guns and a 9-millimetre handgun. Judge Sproat had sharp words for defence arguments the camp was an exercise in outdoorsmanship.

"Engaging in activities such as paint-balling, physical exercise and rafting is by no means inconsistent with the existence of a terrorist group," he wrote. He also pointed out that suspects need not have hatched epic, nor even very professional plans, to be guilty of terrorist crimes.

Even if the youth arrived at the camp ignorant of the group's purpose, he left much better informed, Judge Sproat ruled. He cited the ringleader's fireside speeches urging all-out attacks against the West.

" ... Rome has to be defeated. And we have to be the ones to do it, no holding back," went one such speech.

Judge Sproat found the evidence relating to the youth - he didn't look at the breadth of the Crown's overall case - left no doubt in his mind that at least five of the 10 adults had formed a terrorist group.

While the "extremely unsavoury" ringleader was singled out most frequently, the ruling also focused on the more capable No. 2, who allegedly formed a secretive splinter cell before he was spotted researching bomb-building and trying to acquire tonnes of fertilizer.

Judge Sproat was obliged to determine that a wider terrorist group existed before he could judge the youth. Still, his ruling rankled defence counsel. "The trial judge made improper findings of fact about the guilt of several accused that were not before him," Dennis Edney, the lawyer for one adult, said.

After the December training camp, the youth continued to associate with senior suspects, and even sought advice from them on whether stealing from Wal-Mart was permissible under Islam. Within weeks, he was caught shoplifting.

By then, he had also disabled a pinhole camera that security agencies had secretly installed to keep tabs on the group.

For these and other reasons, Judge Sproat concluded there was no reasonable doubt the youth participated in a terrorist group. He faces 10 years in prison, but his lawyers suggest a stiff sentence is unlikely.

Sentencing is being delayed pending a defence motion to be heard in December.

The ruling "certainly affirms the offence of participating in terrorism is quite broad," Prof. Roach said.

When Canada's Parliament framed the antiterrorism law after the Sept. 11 U.S. attacks, he said, fears about terrorist cells were obviously running high.

In the future, appeal courts may have to grapple with the law's reach. "Is it unconstitutional to punish and label someone as a terrorist, if they don't know the specifics?" he asked.


Gitmo prosecutors seek resentencing for detainee

By MIKE MELIA


GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) — Military prosecutors have asked the judge who presided over the war crimes trial for Osama bin Laden’s driver to order a new sentencing hearing, arguing the detainee should not have received credit for time served, officials said Thursday.

The motion filed Wednesday argues that Salim Hamdan, who is eligible for release by January, cannot receive trial credit for his time detained at the Guantanamo Bay Navy base as an “enemy combatant.”

“We’re not looking to jack up the sentence, just to have it on a legally correct basis,” said Army Col. Lawrence Morris, the chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo tribunals.

A panel of six American military officers sentenced Hamdan to 5 1/2 years in prison last month, making him eligible for release by January. The judge informed the jurors that time already served would count toward the sentence before they began deliberations.

Hamdan, the only convicted detainee at Guantanamo, was found guilty of supporting terrorism but acquitted of the more serious charge of conspiracy at the first American war crimes trial since World War II.

Prosecutors recommended a sentence of 30 years to life in prison.

Hamdan, 40, could be held indefinitely regardless of the sentence. The Pentagon reserves the right to hold him and other “enemy combatants” who are considered dangerous to the United States — even those who are acquitted or complete sentences in the tribunal system.

The motion calls for the judge to order the same jurors back to Guantanamo for a new hearing, said Air Force Maj. Gail Crawford, a spokeswoman for the tribunal system.

September 28, 2008

US BAILOUT fuels protests in streets, online !!


Parveen Chopra Sunday, 28 September , 2008, 11:46

New York: Even as lawmakers laboured to break the impasse on Bush administration's $700 billion plan to rescue giant Wall Street firms to solve the financial crisis, the bailout has spontaneously inspired street protests in the US and outrage gone viral across the web.
US turmoil and its impact in India


Protesters argue that they would want the Congress to protect millions of ordinary American citizens on the verge of losing their homes due to poor lending practices of creditors instead of handing out public money to big investment companies responsible for ruining the economy in the first place.


US bailout battle heading for a showdown
An Indian American, Arun Gupta, too was enraged on learning the details of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's bailout plan with taxpayer funds. Publisher of an alternative newspaper, The Indypendent, he sent an e-mail to some politically active friends in New York, which resulted in protests against the bailout in New York and at scores of other locations in the country Sep 25.


"I couldn't sit back while this plan gets rammed through Congress," Gupta was quoted in the media as saying.



He now works with the online group, truemajority.org, and is expecting hundreds to join a novel protest planned near Wall Street in Manhattan. Protesters intend building a pile of "citizen junk" that the government should also purchase in front of the iconic bull sculpture.



Besides street protests, the Internet is now the site of numerous petitions, debates bordering on rants, and satire about the treasury secretary's plan and its potential consequences. Vociferous critics spanning the political and ideological spectrum in the country demand that Congress amend, scale back, or scrap the plan altogether.



Much of online rage takes the form of signatures on petitions and electronic letters to members of Congress. One Independent Senator, Bernie Sanders, is circulating a popular one on the left-leaning blog Huffington Post.



The 1.9-million member Service Employees International Union is also circulating a sign-on letter to Congress that says point blank: "No deal. No blank check." Another website, StopTheHousingBailout.com argues: "A bailout tells responsible Americans that they are suckers."


A right-wing blogger urges Republicans to vote against the bailout, since "God himself couldn't have given rank-and-file Republicans a better opportunity to create political space between themselves and the administration".


Biting satire is the way of buymyshitpile.com, where users are posting pictures of their personal junk next to the tagline: "Hey Washington, can you buy my bad investments, too?" The total asking price of the "pile" submitted by users-which includes horse shit, baseball card collection, and an 'Immagrent', has crossed $7 billion as of Saturday.


Social networking sites are not immune to the new virus. The Facebook group "Just Say No to the Government Bailout" has over 300 members now.



On YouTube, there is a bailout-related group called the Young Turks, whose news-style segment, "This Is How The Bail Out Will Screw You", has had more than 25,000 page views.
"The public outrage out there is really enormous," said Independent presidential candidate and populist consumer advocate Ralph Nader on a TV programme, calling the Bush proposal "a double standard between the guys at the top and the people who are going to have to pay the bills".

*IS THE US under MARTIAL LAW ???



Congressman Burgess asks the Speaker of the House to post the bailout bill on the internet for at least 24 hours instead of passing the largest piece of legislation in US financial history in the “dark of night.”

The most frightening part of Rep. Burgess’ one-minute floor speech is when he says, “Mr. Speaker I understand we are under Martial Law as declared by the speaker last night.”



PROSECUTION IS ON THE TABLE IN CONGRESS !!

Rep. Baldwin (D-WI) Introduces Bill to Undo and Prosecute Bush-Cheney Crimes

Filed under: Impeachment Progress News — Mikael @ 9:17 am

afterdowningstreet.orgby david swanson

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin has just introduced the Executive Branch Accountability Act of 2008, which calls on the next President of the United States to
* Fully investigate Bush/Cheney administration officials' alleged crimes and hold them accountable for any illegal acts.
* Ensure that any Bush/Cheney administration official guilty of a war crime is prosecuted under the War Crimes Act and the Anti-Torture Act.
* Affirm that it is the sole legal right of Congress to declare war.
* Restore the writ of habeas corpus.
* Ensure that torture and rendition are uniformly prohibited under United States law.
* Immediately close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp.
* Ensure that Americans can bring claims against their government.
* Immediately take affirmative steps to protect all documents from the Bush/Cheney Administration.
* Publicly review potential abuses of the presidential pardon process.
* Reform the use of presidential signing statements.
A copy of the Executive Branch Accountability Act of 2008 as introduced at :

While no future president will take these steps unless compelled to by the people and our representatives in Congress, and while many of these steps should be taken by Congress itself rather than by the president, the first step in placing this critical set of tasks on the agenda of both the next Congress and the next White House is to ask every member of Congress to cosponsor this resolution immediately.

***

Baldwin Calls for Executive Accountability To Reverse Illegal Actions and Prevent Further Abuses

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin has introduced the Executive Branch Accountability Act of 2008, calling on the next President to reverse the damaging and illegal actions taken by the Bush/Cheney Administration and to collaborate with Congress to proactively prevent any further abuses of executive branch power.

“Over the past several years, serious questions have been raised about the
conduct of high ranking Bush/Cheney Administration officials in relation to some
of the most basic elements of our democracy: respect for the rule of law, the
principle of checks and balances, and the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the
Bill of Rights,”

said Baldwin.

“The list of abuses of executive branch power is long, as are the Administration’s attempts to impede congressional oversight.


Indeed, Congress has presented President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other Bush/Cheney Administration officials with ample opportunities to reverse these abusive actions and restore our democracy. At each step, they have, instead, chosen to show contempt for the Congress and the American public. We must look to the next administration – and the next President – to show leadership in restoring
executive branch accountability,”

Baldwin said.

The Executive Branch Accountability Act of 2008 calls on the next President of the United States to immediately and publicly reaffirm our nation’s commitment to the rule of law. It specifically directs the next President to:

* Fully investigate Bush/Cheney administration officials’ alleged crimes and hold them accountable for any illegal acts.
* Ensure that any Bush/Cheney administration official guilty of a war crime is prosecuted under the War Crimes Act and the Anti-Torture Act.
* Affirm that it is the sole legal right of Congress to declare war.
* Restore the writ of habeas corpus as an essential principle of our democracy.
* Ensure that torture and rendition are uniformly prohibited under United States law.
* Immediately close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp.
* Ensure that Americans can bring claims against their government.
*Immediately take affirmative steps to protect all documents from the Bush/Cheney Administration and publicly reaffirm that the Office of the Vice President is indeed part of the executive branch.
* Publicly review potential abuses of the presidential pardon process.
* Reform the use of presidential signing statements.

“On January 20, 2009, the next President of the United States will stand before the American people and take an oath of office to ‘…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ Along with this oath, it is my fervent hope that he will take the decisive actions detailed in this legislation to restore our democracy,” said Baldwin.
(Source)

September 26, 2008

Oh! Oh! Rice admits POW Abuse Plans

Rice Confirms WH, Senior US Leadership Linked With Alleged Illegal 2003 POW Abuse Plans

The Senate Armed Services Committee held hearings on the POW interrogation planning. Secretary of State Rice in written responses to the Senate Armed Services Committee disclosed 2003-era meetings discussing POW treatment.

Levin: "These were the most senior officials in the United States government, advisors to the President, meeting in the White House."
Senator Levin lists others connected with this alleged POW abuse planning: Rumsfeld, Chertoff, John Yoo, Tenet, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, and other White House and NSC legal advisers. (The referenced ten (10) tabs in Levin's opening statement are not the same as in the SASC25 tabs, from the first round of hearings on POW interrogation planning.)

Geneva prohibits all POW abuse, and this legal requirement applies to the United States as a detaining power, regardless the status of the POWs.
Senator Levin: In a written response to questions I sent her in July 2008, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice, who was then the National Security Advisor
to the President, responded on September 12th that, in 2002 and 2003 there were meetings at the White House where specific CIA interrogation techniques were discussed. [TAB 3]
Congress needs to explain why it took five (5) years to gather this evidence of the planned abuse of POWs in violation of the laws of war.

The Department of Defense provided interrogation training with the premise the prisoners were unlawful combatants. This is irrelevant. Geneva imposes on the United States, as a detaining power, the legal obligation to treat all prisoners humanely.

The testimony shows the military personnel discussed their legal concerns with legal counsel:
Colonel Moulton (retired): [In late July or early August 2003] I asked Lt Col Kleinman what the legal status of the detainees was and what techniques the [Task Force] wanted to see demonstrated. I was told that the detainees were designated unlawful combatants and that the techniques being requested were ones used by [Joint Personnel Recovery Agency] personnel during Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training.
Recently the Psychological Association supported a petition imposing restrictions on members interacting with similar interrogations. The wording merely affirms an existing legal standard under the laws of war: Complicity with POW abuse is not lawul or permitted:
APA: "[P]sychologists may not work in settings where “persons are held outside of, or in violation of, either International Law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the US Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights”.
Nuremberg clearly established the legal duty of all civilians, not just doctors to not engage in war crimes. Once civilians participate in war crimes they loose their protected status under the Geneva Conventions and become legitimate military targets during armed conflict.

Despite this risk of lawful attack, American civilians are alleged to have have ignored the threat of death during combat, and knowingly supported and engaged in alleged illegal war crimes planning.

The gaps in medical ethics should not have existed. APA must explain why its existing ethics standards did not adequately meet the legal requirements under Nuremberg; and why this revision was required.

The APA restriction relates to psychologists allegedly assisting with interrogation planning:
TPMM: Two SERE-affiliated psychologists, Bruce Jessen and James Elmer Mitchell, assisted the CIA in "reverse-engineering" the SERE training received by U.S. forces in order to determine what coercive techniques would successfully break an al-Qaeda detainee.
Rice's Attorney disclosed a planning meeting at the Presidential level in the White House or Old Executive Office bulding:
Senator Levin: Her legal advisor at the time, John Bellinger, said in his September
12th written answers to my questions that he was present in meetings at
the White House or the Eisenhower Executive Office Building
“at which
SERE training was discussed.” [TAB 4]
The war crimes conference discussed which sanctions should be imposed on legal counsel for their failure to fully enforce the laws of war; and not remove themselves from this alleged illegal war crimes planning. Among the recommended actions include disbarment and prosecution of legal counsel for violations of the Geneva Conventions.

These legal consequences can be broadly applied to any and all civilians who have, in effect, breached their legal obligations under Geneva. It is an open question whether foreign powers do or do not enforce Geneva against American civilians who have engaged in war crimes.

Russian combat forces could be directed against American civilians and other personnel in Poland and Eastern Europe for their alleged complicity with the alleged war crimes.

Geneva Violations Strains NATO, US Military

Russia sits on the Polish border. The United States is more than 5,000 miles away. Russia in Georgia demonstrated it has superior military weapons, and can easily defeat the outdated NATO defense systems.

Eastern European countries (former Warsaw Pact allies of Russia) after joining NATO have focused their military programs on counter-terrorism, not on developing conventional military forces the US requires to hide war criminals from justice.

NATO does not have the military capability to defend itself against Russia's lawful use of force to punish American civilians in Eastern Europe who have breached the laws of war.

Russia has expanded its patrols along the Alaskan border, and has increased its military cooperation with Venezuela. The increased Russian presence along the United States means the United States cannot fully dedicate all US military forces to the bungled military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Congressional failure to enforce Geneva means the Congress has been complicit with reckless military decisions and strains on military forces.

Congress in failing to enforce the laws of war, sent a green light to the President to expand a reckless camp aign, further straining American military forces, and leaving the United States exposed to military attack.

The domestic enemies are in Congress, in denial about their Geneva obligations. Members of Congress can be prosecuted under the laws of war.


Save the Nation!! Suggestions from the grassrootz !!

This idea sounds just crazy enough to possibly work, so naturally it won't be given serious
consideration. How great is our bureaucracy!!

Hi Pals,

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.
Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.
To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bona fide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.
So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.
That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.
A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads

Put away money for college - it'll be there

Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.

Buy a new car - create jobs

Invest in the market - capital drives growth

Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves

Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 (
'vote buy' ) economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG - liquidate it. Sell off its parts.

Let American General go back to being American General.

Sell off the real estate.

Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can 'never work.' But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion

We Deserve It Dividend more than do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC

And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

Kindest personal regards,

Birk

T. J. Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic

PS: Feel free to pass this along to your pals as it's either good for a laugh or a tear or a very
sobering thought on how to best use $85 Billion!!

Economists To Nancy Pelosi: Don’t Rush Wall Street Bailout

Posted: 25 Sep 2008 07:00 AM CDT


As Barney Frank announces that he’s pulled together a deal that will get the votes needed to pass through Congress, economists from some of the top schools in the country ask, “What’s the hurry?”:

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:

As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:

1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.

2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.

3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America’s dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.

As the Wall Street meltdown causes John McCain to throw in the towel and George Bush attempts to pull off the biggest heist in history, it’s becoming clear that pushing any bailout legislation too far, too fast, could be a total disaster for our country. The Democrats need to listen to people who really know economics, keep a tight leash on Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke, say no to Disaster Capitalism and take the time to get this right the first time.

The list of economists who signed the letter is below the fold.

Signed (updated 9/24/2008 10:30AM CT)

Acemoglu Daron (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Adler Michael (Columbia University)
Admati Anat R. (Stanford University)
Alvarez Fernando (University of Chicago)
Andersen Torben (Northwestern University)
Barankay Iwan (University of Pennsylvania)
Barry Brian (University of Chicago)
Beim David (Columbia University)
Berk Jonathan (Stanford University)
Bisin Alberto (New York University)
Bittlingmayer George (University of Kansas)
Boldrin Michele (Washington University)
Brooks Taggert J. (University of Wisconsin)
Brynjolfsson Erik (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Buera Francisco J.(UCLA)
Carroll Christopher (Johns Hopkins University)
Cassar Gavin (University of Pennsylvania)
Chaney Thomas (University of Chicago)
Chari Varadarajan V. (University of Minnesota)
Chauvin Keith W. (University of Kansas)
Chintagunta Pradeep K. (University of Chicago)
Christiano Lawrence J. (Northwestern University)
Cochrane John (University of Chicago)
Coleman John (Duke University)
Constantinides George M. (University of Chicago)
Crain Robert (UC Berkeley)
Culp Christopher (University of Chicago)
De Marzo Peter (Stanford University)
Dubé Jean-Pierre H. (University of Chicago)
Edlin Aaron (UC Berkeley)
Eichenbaum Martin (Northwestern University)
Ely Jeffrey (Northwestern University)
Eraslan Hülya K. K.(Johns Hopkins University)
Faulhaber Gerald (University of Pennsylvania)
Feldmann Sven (University of Melbourne)
Fernandez-Villaverde Jesus (University of Pennsylvania)
Fox Jeremy T. (University of Chicago)
Frank Murray Z.(University of Minnesota)
Fuchs William (University of Chicago)
Fudenberg Drew (Harvard University)
Gabaix Xavier (New York University)
Gao Paul (Notre Dame University)
Garicano Luis (University of Chicago)
Gerakos Joseph J. (University of Chicago)
Gibbs Michael (University of Chicago)
Goettler Ron (University of Chicago)
Goldin Claudia (Harvard University)
Gordon Robert J. (Northwestern University)
Guadalupe Maria (Columbia University)
Hagerty Kathleen (Northwestern University)
Hamada Robert S. (University of Chicago)
Hansen Lars (University of Chicago)
Harris Milton (University of Chicago)
Hart Oliver (Harvard University)
Hazlett Thomas W. (George Mason University)
Heaton John (University of Chicago)
Heckman James (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Henderson David R. (Hoover Institution)
Henisz, Witold (University of Pennsylvania)
Hertzberg Andrew (Columbia University)
Hite Gailen (Columbia University)
Hitsch Günter J. (University of Chicago)
Hodrick Robert J. (Columbia University)
Hopenhayn Hugo (UCLA)
Hurst Erik (University of Chicago)
Imrohoroglu Ayse (University of Southern California)
Israel Ronen (London Business School)
Jaffee Dwight M. (UC Berkeley)
Jagannathan Ravi (Northwestern University)
Jenter Dirk (Stanford University)
Jones Charles M. (Columbia Business School)
Kaboski Joseph P. (Ohio State University)
Kaplan Ethan (Stockholm University)
Karolyi, Andrew (Ohio State University)
Kashyap Anil (University of Chicago)
Keim Donald B (University of Pennsylvania)
Ketkar Suhas L (Vanderbilt University)
Kiesling Lynne (Northwestern University)
Klenow Pete (Stanford University)
Koch Paul (University of Kansas)
Kocherlakota Narayana (University of Minnesota)
Koijen Ralph S.J. (University of Chicago)
Kondo Jiro (Northwestern University)
Korteweg Arthur (Stanford University)
Kortum Samuel (University of Chicago)
Krueger Dirk (University of Pennsylvania)
Ledesma Patricia (Northwestern University)
Lee Lung-fei (Ohio State University)
Leuz Christian (University of Chicago)
Levine David I.(UC Berkeley)
Levine David K.(Washington University)
Linnainmaa Juhani (University of Chicago)
Lucas Robert (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Luttmer Erzo G.J. (University of Minnesota)
Manski Charles F. (Northwestern University)
Martin Ian (Stanford University)
Mayer Christopher (Columbia University)
Mazzeo Michael (Northwestern University)
McDonald Robert (Northwestern University)
Meadow Scott F. (University of Chicago)
Mehra Rajnish (UC Santa Barbara)
Mian Atif (University of Chicago)
Middlebrook Art (University of Chicago)
Miguel Edward (UC Berkeley)
Miravete Eugenio J. (University of Texas at Austin)
Miron Jeffrey (Harvard University)
Moretti Enrico (UC Berkeley)
Moriguchi Chiaki (Northwestern University)
Moro Andrea (Vanderbilt University)
Morse Adair (University of Chicago)
Mortensen Dale T. (Northwestern University)
Mortimer Julie Holland (Harvard University)
Muralidharan Karthik (UC San Diego)
Nevo Aviv (Northwestern University)
Ohanian Lee (UCLA)
Pagliari Joseph (University of Chicago)
Papanikolaou Dimitris (Northwestern University)
Paul Evans (Ohio State University)
Peltzman Sam (University of Chicago)
Perri Fabrizio (University of Minnesota)
Phelan Christopher (University of Minnesota)
Piazzesi Monika (Stanford University)
Piskorski Tomasz (Columbia University)
Rampini Adriano (Duke University)
Reagan Patricia (Ohio State University)
Reich Michael (UC Berkeley)
Reuben Ernesto (Northwestern University)
Roberts Michael (University of Pennsylvania)
Rogers Michele (Northwestern University)
Rotella Elyce (Indiana University)
Ruud Paul (Vassar College)
Safford Sean (University of Chicago)
Sandbu Martin E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Sapienza Paola (Northwestern University)
Savor Pavel (University of Pennsylvania)
Scharfstein David (Harvard University)
Seim Katja (University of Pennsylvania)
Shang-Jin Wei (Columbia University)
Shimer Robert (University of Chicago)
Shore Stephen H. (Johns Hopkins University)
Siegel Ron (Northwestern University)
Smith David C. (University of Virginia)
Smith Vernon L.(Chapman University- Nobel Laureate)
Sorensen Morten (Columbia University)
Spiegel Matthew (Yale University)
Stevenson Betsey (University of Pennsylvania)
Stokey Nancy (University of Chicago)
Strahan Philip (Boston College)
Strebulaev Ilya (Stanford University)
Sufi Amir (University of Chicago)
Tabarrok Alex (George Mason University)
Taylor Alan M. (UC Davis)
Thompson Tim (Northwestern University)
Tschoegl Adrian E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Uhlig Harald (University of Chicago)
Ulrich, Maxim (Columbia University)
Van Buskirk Andrew (University of Chicago)
Veronesi Pietro (University of Chicago)
Vissing-Jorgensen Annette (Northwestern University)
Wacziarg Romain (UCLA)
Weill Pierre-Olivier (UCLA)
Williamson Samuel H. (Miami University)
Witte Mark (Northwestern University)
Wolfers Justin (University of Pennsylvania)
Woutersen Tiemen (Johns Hopkins University)
Zingales Luigi (University of Chicago)

DC Activist Eve Tetaz Begins Trial :David Swanson's report

Eve Tetaz, a 77-year-old retired District of Columbia public schoolteacher will march into court with nine other peace activists to begin a trial stemming from a nonviolent protest in the Senate Gallery named "The Ghosts of the Iraq War."

On March 12, 2008, less than a week before the fifth anniversary of the "shock and awe" attack and subsequent invasion of Iraq, Tetaz and members of the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance, Pax Christi and Veterans for Peace went to the Senate during debates on the national budget. They placed white gauze over their faces in a haunting gesture of death, and stood in the gallery decrying the illegal and immoral war and occupation, which has cost US taxpayers more than $557 Billion.

"I am retired, and I see this as my job,"
Tetaz said.
"I am called by my conscience and my faith to speak out against war and mass murder. All life is sacred."

If convicted of "Disrupting Congress," the nonviolent peace activists face a maximum penalty of six months in prison. Tetaz was arrested a dozen times in 2007 for protesting against the Iraq War and the U.S. Government's use of torture. She has also been arrested three times this year, including a dramatic protest in January at the Supreme Court, demanding the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the full restoration of habeas corpus for prisoners held there.

Due to her nonviolent protest activities, Tetaz is likely to face the longest jail sentence. The Adams Morgan resident has already spent a few short sentences in DC Jail for past protests.

The trial is set to begin at 9:20 a.m. Monday at D.C. Superior Court, 500 Indiana Avenue, NW. DC attorney Jack Barringer will be defending Tetaz.

"The right to peacefully and non-violently petition the government is the cornerstone of democracy," Tetaz said. "I was obeying a higher law, which decries the crimes against humanity committed in Iraq."

Tetaz is the founder of Life Pathways, a non-profit organization helping single parents become financially independent and trained in the field of health care. She is a member of the Church of the Savior, and has been an advocate for the poor on issues of economics and social justice.

Watch a video of the Ghosts of War action.


September 25, 2008

OVP Implicitly Claims Evidence of Illegal Activity Does Not Need To Be Retained

By testing - September 24, 2008, 1:20PM

Vice President Implicitly Admits To Not Fully Retaining All Legally Required Documents under Geneva, FISA

There's been some interesting give and take between the Vice President and Congress overs records retention. CREW attempted to review some documents, and OVP balked.The court essentially confirmed our suspicions: The OVP has parsed the legal language, as was done with Geneva, FISA and the Constitution, to justify hiding evidence of illegal activity. It will be interesting to compare the OVP records retention-compliance with the disclosures in the DoD emails.

Member of Congress Connection

Once Congress quickly moved on the financial issues this last week, Congress has a problem with Geneva:

The war crimes prosecutors could reasonably conclude Congress, in quickly responding to the US financial problems, showed the timeline it could work when faced with a significant legal problem. Members of Congress might be prosecuted for not similarly quickly moving on the Geneva violations.

Likely OVP Failure To Retain Evidence of Geneva Violations

The court noted the OVP view of their legal obligations was narrow, raising the prospect some documents have not been retained, as required:

Court: However, Defendants admit that they have interpreted the PRA in a narrow fashion and have only preserved documentary material in accordance with that narrow interpretation. As such, if Defendants’ interpretation is not correct as a matter of law, there is no question that documents that may be entitled to PRA protection will not receive the statute’s protections.During the negotiations, before the final court order, the OVP and plaintiff CREW attemted to arrive at an agreement. However, Of the court found OVP, in responding to the CREW proposals, parsed language to define their legal obligations and compliance:
Court: [T]he defendants’ declarations offer carefully parsed language establishing only that defendants are preserving two subsets of vice presidential records

These two subsets are:

Declaration: all the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the Vice President fall within either

(a) the category of functions of the Vice President specially assigned to the Vice President by the President in the discharge of executive duties and responsibilities, or

(b) the category of the functions of the Vice President as President of the Senate.

Implicitly, the President would not have expressly "delegated" to the OVP the task of covering up war crimes, illegal FISA violations, POW abuse. The Libby Grand Jury testimony re Plame shows that the agreements were wink-wink, and not (necessarily) expressly assigned.

The problem is the OVP has been linked, in the DoD emails, with activities that fall outside these two subsets. There is no adequate information to know which other OVP activities, other than illegal domestic propoganda and FISA violations during wartime, also fall outside these two subsets. The OVP has essentially claimed that anything that is outside these two subsets is not subject to any legal requirement, oversight, review, or document retention requirement. This is a circular arguing to claim that evidence of illegal activity -- extending outside the law, and unrelated to the two subsets -- cannot be subject to any legal retention requirement. They're saying the National Archives cannot have access to evidence of unlawful OVP activity, which -- by their definition -- would fall outside the two subsets.

September 24, 2008

Canada Headed for Financial Meltdown?

Source: The Canadian Press

Posted: 09/24/08 6:12PM

Filed Under: Canada

TORONTO - Contrary to the prevailing view that Canada's housing and mortgage markets are more stable than their U.S. counterparts, Merrill Lynch is warning that this country could face a meltdown that's similar to the one that has devastated the American economy. In a report issued Wednesday, Merrill Lynch Canada economists said many Canadian households are more financially overextended than their counterparts in the United States or Britain. They said it's only a matter of time before the "tipping point" is reached and the housing and credit markets crack in Canada.
The Merrill Lynch Canada report by economists David Wolf and Carolyn Kwan acknowledges that the analysis is more pessimistic than the prevailing view. Many economists have been saying that Canada's housing and banking sectors are much more stable than their American counterparts and will likely slow down but not crash. James Marple, an economist at TD Bank, said Wednesday "we don't feel there will be the kind of crash that we have seen in the United States." For instance, he said, housing affordability has not declined like it has in the United States. "We have seen a housing market that has stayed closer to what we feel are underlying demographic fundamentals," Marple said. The housing sector in Canada has not "had that kind of glut of housing supply across the country" that would lead to the massive correction experienced in the U.S., he said. But Merrill Lynch - whose U.S. parent is one of the biggest victims of a crisis in financial markets that is rooted in the American housing and mortgage meltdown - said Canadians should be wary.
Household net borrowing in Canada amounted to 6.3 per cent of disposable income in 2007 - meaning they're carrying more debt than households in the United Kingdom and not far off the peak U.S. shortfall in 2005 - just before the subprime mortgage crisis erupted.
"These data imply that the Canadian household sector is now overextending itself
as much as the U.S. or U.K. ever did, challenging the consensus view that
Canadian lenders and borrowers have been far more conservative through the
cycle,"
the Merrill report says. It also says housing prices are now falling and inventories of unsold homes are rising sharply in Canada suggesting that this market turnaround will not be a transitory phenomenon. However, the prevailing view is that Canada's lenders have issued few of the type of subprime mortgages that sparked the U.S. crisis, which is continuing to ripple through the financial system. In addition, many observers argue that Canadian residential properties are, by and large, not overvalued - considering the strength of regional economies in resource-rich provinces. Said Marple, housing demand in Canada has been the strongest in places such as Alberta where there has been strong income growth and strong migration due to the oil industry and the oilsands projects.
"Those markets ... likely were a little bit overheated,"
he said. "We have started to see prices falling down ... but nowhere near the type of correction that we have observed in the United States." In fact, he said, if you take out the Alberta housing market, "home prices are still rising" across the country. "We've moved into a more balanced market," said Marple, "where we have seen in the last year new listings growth outpace home sales."

US judge ‘reluctantly’ delays Guantanamo appeals

WASHINGTON (AFP) — A US judge “reluctantly” agreed to request from Washington to delay appeals brought by some 250 Guantanamo detainees challenging the legality of their detention.

Monday’s decision came as four accused 9/11 conspirators, including confessed mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, appeared for a second preliminary hearing at the US Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Judge Thomas Hogan, who is coordinating some 200 to 250 appeals in front of the federal courts, said in an order that he was granting the government’s motion.

“The court is satisfied that the government is not dragging its feet in an attempt to delay these matters beyond what is necessary to protect the national security concerns associated with releasing classified information,” the order said.

“Accordingly, the court further orders that the government shall file factual returns and motions to amend factual returns at a rate of at least 50 per month,” he said in the order, a copy of which was obtained by AFP.

Documents for the first 50 “habeas corpus” appeals are due by September 30, Hogan added.

In early June, the US Supreme Court ruled that prisoners detained in the US “war on terror” and held in Guantanamo Bay had the right to know on what charges they are being held.

More than 250 detainees, some of whom have spent several years at the prison in Guantanamo Bay, have submitted habeas corpus petitions to the court, arguing they are being held illegally without charge or trial.

At the beginning of July, Hogan laid out a timetable for ruling on all cases by the end of August.

But at midnight on the eve of the deadline, the administration of President George W. Bush argued it needed more time to review and declassify key documents, and also to obtain security clearances for the roughly 50 attorneys assigned to the cases.

Critics accuse Bush of trying to delay the whole process, which weighs one of the most fundamental US constitutional rights — protection against illegal detention — until he leaves office in January.

In Monday’s hearing, Mohammed and four co-defendants faced the Guantanamo court on charges including conspiracy, murder, attacking civilians, terrorism, and material support for terrorism linked to the 9/11 attacks which killed some 3,000 people.

Four of the defendants were present at the hearing, while Ramzi Binalshibh refused to appear, according to the Pentagon.

At the first preliminary hearing in June, the defendants sought to dismiss their legal teams.

They face the death penalty if convicted, and three of the defendants including Binalshibh demanded to be sentenced to death as they sought martyrdom.

No trial date has been set.

URGENT ACTIVISM !! MEET TOMORROW, THURSDAY at the US CONSULATE, 5pm


















We need to meet TOMORROW, at 5 pm, US CONSULATE !!


UNIVERSITY AVENUE
, Toronto, Ontario

BRING SIGNS, Cameras and make noise !!

This would be an important DEMO !!

We can circulate more impeach/prosecute BuZh petitions !!


Press here for the link to make up signs !!



America Says NO Bush Bailout!

Attend an emergency rally against the Bush bailout.


Our pressure is working. Already this week, TrueMajority members have made almost 20,000 calls to tell their Senators "NO" to the Bush corporate bailout. Now news is beginning to come out that some lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats alike, are having second thoughts about going along with the administration's plan.

We can put the brakes on this.

Tomorrow, Thursday, September 25th at 5 pm ordinary Americans are organizing Emergency Rallies against the Bailout nationwide. Other TrueMajority members have already started 75 rallies in their towns, will you join them?

ATTEND AN EMERGENCY RALLY AGAINST THE BAILOUT

We're all in this together. The proposed bailout is a $700,000,000,000 dollar check from your bank account, handed over to Wall Street. This is literally the largest give away of public money to the private sector in history. We have an historic emergency, and it's on us to step up and lead.

If there isn't already a rally in your community, start one right now.

Once you pick a time and place we'll help turnout other TrueMajority members to your event and provide signs you can print out and a sample program. The most important thing is for you to pick a spot where you'll be seen, and start inviting other people you know right now.

Together we'll send a clear message that America Says NO to Bush Bailout!

Thanks for leading the way,

-Ilya

Ilya Sheyman
Online Organizer



Forward this email to your friends who support Main Street not Wall Street.

If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for TrueMajority.

SECRECY NEWS update

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2008, Issue No. 93
September 24, 2008

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

** COURT ORDERS RELEASE OF DETAINEE ABUSE PHOTOGRAPHS
** COURT ORDERS PRESERVATION OF VICE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS
** NEW LIGHT ON PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTORS IN IRAQ
** DEPT OF DEFENSE ROLE IN FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, AND MORE FROM CRS


COURT ORDERS RELEASE OF DETAINEE ABUSE PHOTOGRAPHS

A federal court of appeals this week affirmed that 21 photographs depicting abusive treatment of detainees by U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan must be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act.

"The public interest in disclosure of these photographs is strong," the Second Circuit panel concluded in a September 22 ruling in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union and other plaintiffs.

The ruling carefully analyzed and rejected several government arguments against disclosure.

Among other things, the government had contended that the photographs should be exempted from disclosure under FOIA exemption 7(F), which protects law enforcement records that "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual." Government attorneys said that release of the photographs (which were gathered in the
course of an Army criminal investigation) could be used to incite violence against U.S. forces, coalition forces or civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan, and should therefore be withheld.

But even if potential incitement is a valid concern, the court said, it would not provide a basis for invoking FOIA exemption 7(F), which was intended to serve as "a shield against specific threats to particular individuals arising out of law enforcement investigations, never as a means of suppressing worldwide political violence." The exemption is not supposed to be "an all-purpose damper on global controversy."

In short, the court ruled, the cited FOIA exemption cannot be used as "an ersatz classification system" to bar access to these unclassified photographs.

Nor can the government legitimately invoke the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions that protect prisoners "against insults and public curiosity."

"Both of these treaties were designed to prevent the abuse of prisoners," the court explained. "Neither treaty is intended to curb those who seek information about prisoner abuse in an effort to help deter it."

At the end of World War II, the court noted, the government itself "widely disseminated photographs of prisoners in Japanese and German prison and concentration camps. These photographs of emaciated prisoners, corpses, and remains of prisoners depicted detainees in states of powerlessness and subjugation similar to those endured by the detainees depicted in the photographs at issue here. Yet the United States championed the use and dissemination of such photographs to hold perpetrators accountable."

In the same way, "Release of the photographs is likely to further the purposes of the Geneva Conventions by deterring future abuse of prisoners," the court concluded.

A copy of the 52 page ruling in ACLU et al v. Department of Defense et al is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/aclu092208.pdf

"These photographs demonstrate that the abuse of prisoners held in U.S. custody abroad was not aberrational and not confined to Abu Ghraib, but the result of policies adopted by high-ranking officials," said Amrit Singh, the ACLU attorney who argued the case.

"Their release is critical for bringing an end to the administration's torture policies and for deterring further prisoner abuse," Ms. Singh said.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/36882prs20080922.html


COURT ORDERS PRESERVATION OF VICE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS

In a rare judicial rebuff to the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the preservation of Vice Presidential records over the objections of Administration attorneys.

A lawsuit brought by Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW) along with historians and others alleged that the Office of Vice President had improperly limited the scope of records that it said would be preserved under the Presidential Records Act, and that records outside the scope of that definition were liable to be destroyed.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly agreed that there was no legal basis on the record for the Vice President's position. On September 20, she ordered the government to preserve all official Vice Presidential records "without regard to any limiting definitions that Defendants may believe are
appropriate."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/crew092008.pdf

"It's a pretty strong opinion," said Anne Weismann, chief counsel for CREW. "They will be prevented from destroying anything. It basically means they have to preserve everything in the broadest possible interpretation of what the law requires -- not their narrow interpretation."

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/34245


NEW LIGHT ON PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTORS IN IRAQ

The use of thousands of private security contractors in Iraq represents a quantitatively new feature of U.S. military operations, but relatively little has been publicly disclosed about the contractual arrangements involved.

The war in Iraq "is apparently the first time that the United States has depended so extensively on contractors to provide security in a hostile environment," according to a recently updated Congressional Research Service report.

But "the use of armed contractors raises several concerns, including transparency and accountability," the CRS report said.

"The lack of public information on the terms of the contracts, including their costs and the standards governing hiring and performance, make evaluating their efficiency difficult. The apparent lack of a practical means to hold contractors accountable under U.S. law for abuses and other transgressions, and the possibility that they could be prosecuted by foreign courts, is also a source of concern," the CRS report said.

Thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by David Isenberg of United Press International, new information is now available on the U.S. State Department's Worldwide Personal Protective Services (WPPS) contract, which provides security services throughout Iraq (as well as Afghanistan, Bosnia and Israel).

UPI obtained the WPPS contract specifications from the State Department and reported on the material in "Dogs of War: WPPS World" by David Isenberg, September 19:

http://www.metimes.com/Security/2008/09/19/dogs_of_war_wpps_world/51b1/

The newly disclosed contract material itself was posted by UPI here:

http://r.m.upi.com/other/12216818791223.pdf

Extensive background information on the issue is available from the Congressional Research Service in "Private Security Contractors in Iraq: Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues," updated August 25, 2008:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32419.pdf


DEPT OF DEFENSE ROLE IN FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, AND MORE FROM CRS

The structure, development and ramifications of growing U.S. Department of
Defense foreign assistance activities are described in a major new report
from the Congressional Research Service. See "The Department of Defense
Role in Foreign Assistance: Background, Major Issues, and Options for
Congress," August 25, 2008:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34639.pdf

Other noteworthy new reports from CRS that have not been made readily
available to the public include the following.

"Pay-for-Performance: The National Security Personnel System," September
17, 2008:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34673.pdf

"The Defense Base Act (DBA): The Federally Mandated Workers' Compensation
System for Overseas Government Contractors," September 15, 2008:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34670.pdf

"The North Korean Economy: Leverage and Policy Analysis," updated August
26, 2008:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32493.pdf

"Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History, Law, Practice and
Recent Developments," updated August 21, 2008:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL30319.pdf

"Periods of War," updated August 19, 2008:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS21405.pdf

"The Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, and Federal Energy Technology
R&D Programs: A Comparative Analysis," September 3, 2008:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34645.pdf

Supreme Court grants Troy Davis stay of execution!

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 5:56 AM


Dear Virginia,

A week and a half ago, hundreds of ColorOfChange.org members called the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, asking them to commute the sentence of Troy Davis, a Black man on Georgia's death row who is likely innocent. Despite huge doubts about his guilt--7 of the 9 witnesses against him have recanted their testimony, with some saying they were coerced into testifying against him1--the board decided to proceed with his execution.

Yesterday brought excellent news. The State of Georgia was scheduled to kill Troy Davis at 7pm, but at the last minute, the U.S. Supreme Court granted him a temporary stay of execution.2 After having been denied a new trial by the Georgia Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court is Troy Davis' final chance at a fair trial. Today, they decided to temporarily delay Troy Davis's execution while they decide whether to hear his appeal.

While we weren't able to convince Georgia's Board of Pardons and Paroles to do the right thing this time around, ColorOfChange.org members were part of a huge outpouring of support for Troy Davis just before his scheduled execution. The Supreme Court is not supposed to respond to public pressure, but all the attention focused on Troy Davis may well have encouraged a sense of responsibility to at least consider hearing his case before he is killed.

It's not the first time we've helped delay his execution. Last summer, we faced a similar situation--Troy was scheduled to be executed, and the Board of Pardons and Paroles was asked to stop his execution. ColorOfChange.org members flooded the board with calls and played a key role in convincing them to do the right thing--the board granted him a stay of execution, giving his legal team more time to convince a court to hear the new evidence in his case.

Now, it's up to the US Supreme Court to ensure that justice is served in Troy Davis' case. In a justice system that is so often unreasonable, unjust, and cruel, it's hard to know what will happen. But it can only help that the world is watching.

Thanks and Peace,

-- James, Gabriel, Clarissa, Andre, Kai, and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
September 24th, 2008

1. "Davis execution scheduled; 7 witnesses have recanted," Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/03/08
http://colorofchange.org/link/?id=2034-79213&cat=davis&link=1

2. "U.S. Supreme Court stays Georgia execution," CNN, 09/23/08
http://colorofchange.org/link/?id=2034-79213&cat=davis&link=2


Reminder about the Emails !!

The White House illegally deleted over 10 million e-mails. Is the Bush administration hiding something?

A government watchdog group now says more than 10 million White House emails are missing. Citizens for the Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) described this massive hole in White House email records last April. At that time they thought the number was 5 million - Now they say it is more than 10 million emails. In one of the great understatements of this here Christmas season, the group says that this revised estimate - quote - highlights that this is a very serious and systematic problem at the White House - unquote. Both CREW and another private group called the National Security archive are suing the Bush administration to try to get information about all these missing emails. The White House email problems first came to light during special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity.

It’s worth noting what a critical time period these missing emails represent. Why it’s from March of 2003 to October 2005. That would include the start of the Iraq War right up through the aftermath of Katrina. As the director of one of these groups put it: It doesn’t get more historically valuable than that. Given the way the White House handled both the war and Katrina, it’s also quite convenient that suddenly this mountain of stuff is missing. By the way it’s against the law that these emails be destroyed or lost. They are supposed to be saved. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 mandates White House communications be preserved. Another law broken — Another example of nobody doing a damn thing about it.

Not to mention (but you know I will) that over 4 years of Rove’s emails were also illegally deleted from when the White House was illegally using RNC email servers to circumvent the Presidential Records Act. Whatever did become of Sen Leahy’s “Those e-mails are there, they just don’t want to produce them. We’ll subpoena them if necessary“? Is Cafferty right? Is there really nobody doing a damn thing about this anymore except for CREW and GWU’s National Security Archive?

Secret CIA prison scandal will affect Polish relations with Europe and America


Agnieszka Bienczyk-Missala [Analyst, Polish Institute of International Affairs]: "In August 2008 the Public Prosecutor's Office in Poland started an investigation on the existence of secret CIA detention facilities in Poland. It happened three years after the revealing information published by the Washington Post and Human Rights Watch. So far, all consecutive Polish governments have neglected the issue, denying the CIA operated a secret prison in Poland.

Yet it is highly probable that the state investigation will confirm Poland hosted illegal CIA prisons. The crucial step will gathering evidence of practicing torture. According to the Polish Penal Code, legal proceedings should be launched against decision makers and perpetrators. Any person who commits this kind of act shall be subject to imprisonment of from one to ten years. In cases of crimes against prisoners of war the term of imprisonment could be as much as twenty five years. As alleged offenders will likely be CIA officers and other American citizens, it will be extremely difficult to bring the legal proceedings to an end, as the American government will probably not be willing to cooperate. In addition, it is worth mentioning, that all victims of unlawful detention, torture and ill-treatment in Poland can claim compensation before Polish courts and have a right to submit a complaint against Poland to the European Court on Human Rights in Strasbourg.

At the beginning of scandal three years ago, representatives of the European Union and the Council of Europe turned attention to serious consequences, which may happen in cases of evidence of torture and detention of terrorism suspects in secret locations in Poland and Romania. According to Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, the member state, which seriously violates principles of democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law can be suspended from certain rights, including voting rights. Similar procedures are envisaged by the statutes of the Council of Europe. Any member of the Coun­cil of Europe which has seriously vio­lated the princi­ples of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdic­tion of human rights may be suspended from its rights of repre­sentation and even re­quested to withdraw.

Launching the above procedures seems rather unlikely. It would be necessary to interpret whether administering secret prisons and practicing torture by foreign secret service personnel constitutes a serious breach of the afore mentioned principles. The Council of Europe has never taken the decision of suspending a state that systematically practices torture, like Russia or Turkey. Moreover, the international reports suggested that 14 European countries had cooperated with the CIA program and some European leaders, like Javier Solana, EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, were aware of CIA rendition flights. Political reasons will play a decisive role, and Poland and Romania are unlikely to suffer serious consequences on the international level. At the same time the present Polish government will be able to use the issue of secret detention facilities in political fights with opposition parties who can be held responsible for cooperation in the rendition program.

The whole issue has a very negative impact on the image of Poland in Europe. It will also influence, to some extent, Polish-American relations. Most Poles are very critical about the existence of CIA prisons in Poland and they become more and more critical of US policy. For years Polish society has been the most pro-American group in the European Union, but this attitude is changing. Now Poles pay greater attention to the behavior of their government toward Washington and the government cannot disregard the state of public opinion."

Opinions expressed in JURIST's Hotline are the sole responsibility of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, or the University of Pittsburgh.

September 23, 2008

An Unfair And Ineffective Bailout

Center for American Progress (always have great links !!)

(What do you think will happen with the Congressional hearings !!)

The Bush administration's initial plan to bail out Wall Street's ailing financial markets was just three pages long. It called for Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to be given unprecedented and unilateral authority to buy up $700 billion in souring mortgage assets from the very financial institutions that "engineered the current crisis." Section 8 of the proposed legislation ensured that none of Paulson's actions could be challenged by any court or federal agency. The section read: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Across the political spectrum, economic and financial analysts immediately questioned the fairness and effectiveness of the plan. Indeed, economist Paul Krugman wrote yesterday in the New York Times,

"If this plan goes through in anything like its current form, we'll all be very sorry in the not-too-distant future."
In a rare moment of agreement, New York Times columnist Bill Kristol wrote similarly that he is "not convinced" that the Bush administration "has even the basics right." In addition to offering nothing in the way of oversight, the Paulson plan provided no relief for struggling homeowners and gave tax payers nothing in return for taking on the bad debts of Wall Street. While congressional negotiators made significant headway yesterday toward a progressive version of the Paulson plan, it is not there yet.

BUSINESS AS USUAL: The Bush administration's initial attempt to railroad anyone skeptical of the Paulson plan is reminiscent of some of its previous legislative initiatives. The Bush administration has a long track record of using times of crisis to demand -- and then mismanage -- unprecedented amounts of power and money. Just as troubling, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that lobbyists for Wall Street firms have launched an aggressive campaign to ensure that the terms of the Treasury's proposed bailout are as favorable to the finance industry as possible. A major player in this effort is the Financial Services Roundtable, a "lobbying group representing the nation's banks." Over the weekend, the Roundtable successfully lobbied the Treasury to make the proposed bailout "broad enough to include different types of assets" -- possibly including assets held by foreign banks. Further, the Roundtable said yesterday that including relief for struggling homeowners in the bill would be a "deal breaker." The Los Angeles Times notes that finance sector is well-positioned to shape the legislation because it has "given lavishly to both parties in Congress."

CONGRESSIONAL PUSH BACK: Yesterday, members of Congress pushed back against the Paulson plan, successfully securing key concessions from the Bush administration. The Wall Street Journal reports this morning that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and the Bush administration agreed on a plan to appoint an "independent board to monitor the bailout and report on its progress to Congress and the public." The board, however, "wouldn't have authority to veto Treasury investment decisions, and the bailout's launch wouldn't be delayed while a board was being put in place." In addition, "both sides have also agreed to a measure that would allow -- but not require -- the Treasury to take an equity stake in a financial institution that sells assets to the government." Such an equity stake could allow taxpayers to eventually realize some profit in exchange for taking on a given institution's bad assets. Further, Krugman notes that the equity stake provision allows the government to, if necessary, infuse struggling institutions with capital. Finally, the Treasury agreed to cursory support for struggling homeowners, promising to deploy officials from the FDIC, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac to "help adjust the loans of borrowers who were behind on payments but deemed credit-worthy" and ensure that "renters in homes headed for foreclosure aren't evicted." Restructuring the mortgages that Treasury will control is crucial not only for helping the homeowners but for wiping out the risk in the securities that are linked to those mortgages. As David M. Abromowitz and Andrew Jakabovics write for the Center for American Progress, without such a provision, "taxpayers will be saddled with increasingly worthless [assets] as many of the underlying mortgages fail."

BUT STILL NOT THERE: Early yesterday, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) released his own plan for the proposed bailout. Some of the provisions proposed by Dodd have been accepted by the Bush administration, but several of the most promising aspects of Dodd's plan have yet to appear in the negotiated agreement between Congress and the Treasury. A significant aspect of the Dodd proposal is to allow bankruptcy judges "to restructure mortgages for homeowners facing foreclosure." The Center for Responsible Lending explains that "current law makes a mortgage on a primary residence the only debt that bankruptcy courts are not permitted to modify in chapter 13 payment plans." This means that struggling homeowners are excluded from debt relief that is available to "yacht owners," "subprime lenders," and even individuals with mortgages on second and third homes. Dodd's plan would also "give the Treasury secretary the power to prevent payment of bonuses if executives took excessive risk or if they were predicated on earnings targets that weren't met." Members of Congress will have an opportunity to push for modifications to the current plan when when Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake testify before Congress today and tomorrow.


MUST READ !! Webster Tarpley on the Bailout (and the jackals bringing you The Plan hahahaha)

NO To The Paulson-Bernanke
Derivatives Scam Bailout
Bail Out the American People, Not Wall Street!
An Economic Recovery Strategy for Protectionists,
Dirigists, Mercantilists, and Populists

By Webster G. Tarpley
9-23-8

WASHINGTON DC -- The grand theft bailout now being rammed through Congress by Treasury Secretary Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and other officials of the Bush regime with the help of accomplices Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and other parliamentarians is a monstrosity for the ages, combining every hideous feature of monetarism, elitism, oligarchism, and sheer feckless incompetence. It is to all intents and purposes a national suicide note of the United States of America, a contract with the devil that absolutely guarantees irrevocable national decline. For any person of goodwill there can be only one impulse at the present moment, and that is to stop this bailout -- to block it, to sabotage it, to bottle it up, to load it with killer amendments, and to do everything legally possible to stop this insane design from going through.

IF MCCAIN VOTES AGAINST THE BAILOUT, HE WILL WIN THE PRESIDENCY

In political terms, McCain is now running well to the left of Obama on this issue, with a much stronger populist profile. McCain has attacked the outrageous greed and corruption of Wall Street. Obama does not dare attack Wall Street, since these are his masters. Obama, sounding like Milton Friedman, only attacks Washington. Obama has said that he will support whatever Paulson demands. That is not a surprise, since Paulson represents Goldman Sachs, and Obama is a wholly owned property of Goldman Sachs, which is his single biggest source of campaign contributions. Obama is a creature of Brzezinski, Soros, and Rockefeller, and without them he has no existence; Obama is an abject Wall Street puppet, an agent of finance capital. This week, both senators will have to decide how they vote on the odious derivatives bailout. Obama will surely vote in favor of it, since this is what Wall Street demands. If McCain votes against it, he will most probably propel himself into the White House on the model of Give 'Em Hell Harry in 1948. Filthy corrupt Democrats like Schumer are already attacking McCain as the new Huey Long. Huey Long, the Louisiana populist of the 1930s, had many positive features, and we could certainly use a good dose of Huey Long in this country to counteract the elitism, oligarchism, condescension, and arrogant snobbery of foundation operatives like Obama. The bailout is already very unpopular ­ 72% of all voters are opposed to it ­ and it will become more and more hated when it becomes clear that it is also a failure. McCain's course is clear. Will he have the brains and guts to cross Obama's T on this vital issue?

PAULSON OF GOLDMAN SACHS, WOULD-BE FINANCE DICTATOR

Paulson is a ruthless and brutal eco-freak usurer who learned his trade at the Goldman Sachs stock-jobbing operation. He is now the leading member of the committee of public safety which rules in Washington, and which includes Gates, Rice, and Mullen. He now demands the astronomical sum of 700 billion dollars for the bailout of mortgage-backed derivatives, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, and other poisonous derivatives. Make no mistake -- this is not a bailout of homeowners who are threatened with foreclosure; it is a bailout of the lunatic house of cards which desperate bankers have built on these mortgages using derivatives. The entire crisis is not a crisis of subprime mortgages, it is a crisis of the derivatives bubble which was launched by Wendy Gramm of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission and Greenspan of the Fed with the connivance of Robert Rubin of Goldman Sachs and Citibank, and others in the Clinton administration, some 15 years ago.

These derivatives now amount to a total worldwide notional value that can be estimated between 1 quadrillion and two quadrillion US dollars. [!!!!!!!!!!!] This sum is so large that it dwarfs the total value of the entire planet earth and all those who live here. Compared to the cancerous, bloated, and fictitious mass of derivatives which is at the root of this crisis, the $700 billion demanded by politicians, large as this may seem, is nothing but a drop in the bucket. And a drop in the bailout bucket is what it will be. The mass of world derivatives between $1 and $2 quadrillion represents an insatiable black hole which is capable of putting an end, not just to civilization, but the human life itself. The moral choice could not be clearer: humanity will either destroy the derivatives bubble in our time, or the derivatives bubble will surely destroy humanity. Those are the stakes in the current exercise.

Paulson and Bernanke, both lawyers for the Wall Street jackals, lampreys, vultures and hyenas, argue that the public interest demands a bailout of their cronies at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, Wachovia, and the other large money center institutions. Before the American public antes up $700 billion just for openers in the game of genocidal poker which run by the infernal croupiers Paulson and Bernanke, we would be very well advised to examine the veracity of this premise.

COMMERCIAL BANKS ARE INDISPENSABLE

It is of course true that the healthy functioning of the United States economy requires a viable and flexible system of commercial banks. No one should doubt the necessity of commercial banks.

Andrew Jackson was clinically insane on this point, and he still has not a few followers around today. But it ought to be clear that without the services of a well developed commercial banking system, it is impossible to organize business activities as essential as payments, deposits, checking, payrolls, and the discounting of short-term commercial paper, bills of exchange, bills of lading, and all the credit instruments that are intimately connected with real productive activity. Without a functioning commercial banking system, the economic heart of the United States would stop beating, as it briefly did at the end of the Hoover administration in March of 1933. Without commercial banks, no wheel of a factory or railroad can turn, and no commodities can move to show up in supermarkets.

JPM, CITI, BoA ARE DERIVATIVES MONSTERS, NOT COMMERCIAL BANKS

But when we look at institutions like J.P. Morgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America, we become aware that these large money center institutions have become detached from any conceivable connection to the world of production, wages, transportation, and all other useful and productive activities. These institutions are not commercial banks any more in any meaningful sense of the term. Ten years ago, in the midst of the Asian financial crisis and the aftermath of the Russian GKO state bankruptcy collapse, the boss of JP Morgan Chase went on television to announce that his bank was specialized in the "risk business." The risk business meant that JP Morgan Chase, had simply given up on the traditional activity of commercial banks, which was primarily to provide loans to corporations for productive investment in plant and equipment that would also create well-paid industrial jobs. J.P. Morgan Chase decided long ago that that activity was nowhere near profitable enough to be continued.

Instead, J.P. Morgan Chase devoted itself more and more to the issuance, sale, and purchase of derivatives. As early as 1992, the best definition of J.P. Morgan Chase was that it was no longer a commercial bank but rather a derivatives monster. In 2002, the J.P. Morgan Chase derivatives monster came very close to imploding, collapsing in on itself like the hopeless black hole that it still remains to the present day. According to the most recent report of the Comptroller of the Curreny of the US Treasury dated September 30, 2007, JP Morgan Chase today has between $90 trillion and $100 trillion of derivatives. In reality this is a very low-ball estimate, and the real derivatives exposure is some multiple of this figure ­ perhaps $300 or $400 trillion, especially now that Bear Stearns, a smaller black hole of derivatives has been absorbed. But even a mere $90 trillion is already six times the US GDP (currently estimated between $14 and $15 trillion).

DERIVATIVES ARE FINANCIAL AIDS

The question of the derivatives is once again the central issue of the crisis. Most people may not even know what derivatives are, although by now many have some idea that they are dangerous and toxic. French President Jacques Chirac once defined derivatives as financial aids, and he was right. A share of stock supposedly represents part ownership in a corporation. A corporate bond is a debt instrument issued by a corporation, with some claim to a part of the assets in case of bankruptcy liquidation. That means that the stocks and bonds are paper, but paper that is at only one remove from the real world of production, consumption, employment, and wages. The derivative is something radically different.

A derivative represents paper based on paper, no longer a stock or bond, but a future, option, or index that is based on some stock, bond, or other form of paper. Derivatives are therefore at least one step further removed from the world of tangible physical commodity production of useful items which humanity requires in order to survive and to conduct civilization as we know it. In addition to the options, futures, and indices, we have all the possible permutations and combinations of the above, with new variations that are almost infinite. Even to catalogue these would take a book. In addition to these exchange traded derivatives, there is a much larger class of derivative which does not appear on the Chicago Board Options Exchange or analogous institutions in all the money centers of the world. The second and larger class represents the counterparty derivatives, including such things as collateralized debt obligations, mortgage backed securities, structured notes, credit default swaps, and the myriad of other derivative products.

These derivatives were originally supposed to be used as a hedge against risk, but before too long they began to represent the biggest single source of risk and the entire lunatic edifice would finance. By now, to repeat this point yet again, the total world derivatives of in excess of one quadrillion dollars -- that is to say, 1000 billion dollars, and may be already approaching the neighborhood of $1.5 quadrillion or even more. One of the inherent problems of derivatives is that nobody knows this exact figure, since derivatives are not reportable in many countries and tend to escape regulation by the proper financial authorities.

DERIVATIVES ARE USELESS AND A THREAT TO CIVILIZATION

You cannot eat derivatives. You cannot live in a derivative. You cannot wear derivatives as clothing, nor can you drive a derivative work. You cannot sail in them or fly in them. They cannot be used as tools of any useful trade. They are not computers, not machine tools, not pharmaceutical equipment, not agricultural implements.

Derivatives are therefore totally outside the realm of capital goods production needs, no matter how these may be defined.

FOR RECOVERY, WIPE OUT, SHRED, DELETE ALL DERIVATIVES

J.P. Morgan Chase, therefore, performs no useful or productive social function, and there is absolutely no reason in the world why the people of the United States should want to bail out this pernicious and socially destructive institution. It has probably been several decades since J.P. Morgan Chase created a single modern productive job. J.P. Morgan Chase's strategic commitment in favor of the derivatives bubble means essentially that we can easily dispense with most of the functions of this self-styled "bank," really a casino. Instead of being bailed out, J.P. Morgan Chase ought therefore to be seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and put through chapter 11 bankruptcy. In the course of that bankruptcy reorganization, the entire derivatives book of J.P. Morgan Chase must be deleted, shredded, used as a Yule log, or employed to stoke a festive bonfire of the derivatives. The world did much better when there were no derivatives, and will get along just fine without them.

Derivatives were of very dubious legality in general and were illegal in some of their specific forms until the mid-1990s.

INSTRUMENTS MEANS DERIVATIVES

According to Paulson's pact with the devil published in the New York Times on September 20, 2008, the Secretary of the Treasury is supposed to be empowered by Congress to spend $700 billion on mortgage related securities, obligations, and instruments. That last word instruments is the favorite euphemism of television commentators and journalists who want to propose a derivatives bailout without using this word, which has now become to some degree unmentionable and taboo, presumably because of its highly negative connotations left over from the crises of more than a decade ago. Accordingly, one very good killer amendment that ought to be added to this pact with the devil should state that not one penny of taxpayer money should ever be used to finance the purchase of derivatives, no matter how they may be euphemistically referred to.

WHY BUY MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES THAT HAVE NO PRICE BID?

Paulson wants to buy up derivatives. But at what price? Derivatives have no intrinsic value. Like the rasbucknik in the old L'il Abner comic strip, derivatives have negative value, since somebody has to be paid to cart them away. Counterparty derivatives currently have no price, since there is no market where they are trading, and nobody would want to buy them if there were such a market. Collateralized debt obligations were selling at 5 cents on the dollar a few weeks ago, but that was well before the current crisis broke in its full fury. So how will Paulson know how much to pay for the derivatives he wants to purchase? Will he use the discredited Black-Sholes model, which led to the bankruptcy of the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund ten years ago? Given all this, the only price which can be assigned to the mass of derivatives is not their notional value, but rather a big fat ZERO. Anything else is stealing from the government.

"INVESTMENT BANKS" DRIVE UP THE PUMP PRICE OF GASOLINE

Let us now leave behind the category of the commercial banks and move on to institutions like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the stock jobbing operations or counting houses that like to call themselves investment banks these days, even though they do not have the status of a commercial bank and are not members of the Federal Reserve. Why should any public money at all be used to prolong the noxious lives of these sociopathic and pernicious institutions? A short examination of what these so-called investment banks do will reveal that there is no public interest in keeping these creatures alive, and that, once again, touch better off without them.

Investment banks used to assist corporations and floating issues of stocks or bonds on the financial markets. Investment banks were supposed to function as the advisers of industrial corporations and other corporations as they sought to raise capital needed for new plant, equipment, and jobs. But today, these functions have virtually disappeared. The investment banks do a certain amount of work in initial public offerings for IPOs of new securities, but these are almost always of a financially speculative nature. The main thing is that investment banks now place bets on certain classes of assets in the hope of turning a purely speculative profit for themselves. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley maintain trading desks and engage in purely speculative trading of assets which they themselves own, and most of the time these assets represent derivatives of one kind or another. In recent times, the most important asset class which Goldman Sachs and MorganStanley have been trading is probably future indices on commodities, especially oil. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley between them have in the past year by various estimates accounted for about half of the speculative activity in the commodities markets of London, New York, and other money centers which brought about the doubling of the per barrel price of oil between July 2007 and July 2008, increasing the cost of gasoline to almost five dollars per gallon.

GOLDMAN SACHS, MORGAN STANLEY CREATE I.C.E. TO FLAY AMERICANS

In a very real sense, American motorists filling their gas tanks at the pump at exorbitant prices have been involuntarily subsidizing the speculative derivatives activity of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. [absolutely true! This is a hidden tax that discriminates against the poor and working class!] How bitterly ironic that the same American motorists should now be taxed in order to permit their tormentors to live on and to continue to mercilessly loot them. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley found that even the very weak regulatory regime maintained here in the United States under the auspices of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was too onerous for them because it slightly constrained their rapacious quest for speculative profits at the expense of the American people. These two investment banks therefore created a new speculative commodity exchange, the ICE or Intercontinental Exchange located in London, with a regulatory regime is virtually nonexistent. The ICE or Intercontinental Exchange in London is where about half of the world
futures contracts in oil have been trading in recent months.

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, like their now-defunct brethren Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch, have also made many speculative investments in the area of mortgage backed securities based on predatory subprime mortgages. The adjustable rate mortgages that underlie these derivatives should have been declared illegal long ago. But now let us imagine what will happen if a hapless victim of these predatory lending practices is forced into foreclosure in the current world economic great depression.

Goldman Sachs will send the bailiff to your door to throw you, your family, and your belongings out on the street, even though you have been taxed to permit Goldman Sachs to continue its sociopathic existence. You will in effect be robbed out of one pocket even as you are being pushed out the door and made homeless by the same institution which has been the beneficiary of your forced charity.

Surely any politician daring to come forward to suggest the public bailout of Goldman Sachs so that it can continue to enforce foreclosures against the American citizens who are paying the bill for the financial excesses of this bandit institution ought to be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. Yet this is exactly what Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Frank are proposing to force through the U.S. Congress in the coming week. This represents a new low in public morality.

With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the situation is slightly different, but the same criteria ought to apply. Fanny and Freddie worked very well during the three decades after the formation of Fannie Mae in 1938 as an agency of the federal government -- a hillbilly cousin of the US treasury, as it used to be called.

Things began to go wrong in 1968 when Fannie Mae was privatized, under the pernicious influence of the doctrines of the monetarist Milton Friedman of the infamous Chicago school of pseudo-economics and obscurantism. Fanny and Freddie have now been placed under the control of conservators, but they ought to be nationalized as part of a permanent state sector of the US economy, and operated as the public utility that they were intended to be. The salaries of their officials ought to be determined by the government-wide GSA schedule. Fannie and Freddie have guaranteed mortgages, and ought to continue to do so. But they have no obligation to guarantee mortgage backed securities or any other form of newfangled derivatives which were never mentioned in their charter.

Accordingly, Fannie and Freddie thought to strip away the mortgage backed securities that have been used to package or bundle the mortgages that they now hold. The mortgages represent a valuable asset for the future, under conditions of economic recovery which we intend to organize. But that extra layer of derivatives paper represents a useless additional tax on the public treasury, which the US government has no obligation to maintain. In short, it is time to separate the socially useful core of actual mortgages representing residential and commercial properties from the harmful and speculative overlay of the mortgage-backed security. By this kind of financial engineering, speculators can receive condign punishment, even as the public treasury is believed of an extra layer useless payment which would only reward speculative crimes.

If anyone should inquire as to the ultimate philosophical causes of the current George Bush world economic depression, the answer is simple: this depression is a direct result of the influence of Milton Friedman and the Chicago school, who are themselves to kind of come down American version of the Viennese school of Friedrich von Hayek. Ludwig von Mises, and other charlatans masquerading as economists. The common denominator of the Chicago school is the Vienna school which is represented by the right-wing anarchist thesis that government is always bad and the private sector, especially speculators, are always good. This absurd thesis is now being consigned to the dustbin of history. Friedman and von Hayek, if they were alive today, would doubtless demand the full fury of the free market the unleashed against the American people. This would lead, not to a recovery, but merely to death on a large scale.

The implications of the Chicago school and the Vienna school under current circumstances are nothing short of genocidal, and even the financiers are hastily dumping the discredited doctrines of Friedman and from Hayek as they rush to get their hands into the public till through bigger and better bailouts in an endless series. There is nothing anywhere in the world left today that might resemble a free market, only an endless list of cartels, trusts, monopolies, oligopolies, duopolies, and other conspiracies in restraint of trade. In fact, there has been nothing even vaguely resembling a free market in most of the world in the past several centuries. What is collapsing today in September 2008 is the delusion that such a thing as a free market might exist in the modern world.

The same negative judgment applies to the lunatic doctrines of Joseph Schumpeter, who preached the madness of creative destruction as a way out of the world economic depression of the 1930s.

Schumpeter's doctrines today are nothing less than a public menace, and persons who demand a deflationary crash of the world economy by preaching the Andrew Mellon formula of liquidating labor, liquidating stocks, liquidating bonds, liquidating real estate, etc., are to be put in a padded cell. This is even worse than Herbert Hoover. It was tried in 1932-33, and it turned out to be a bottomless pit already then, so it does not need to be tried again.

BACK TO THE NEW DEAL: RESTORE THE GLASS-STEAGAL FIREWALL

Scribblers like Friedman and von Hayek were paid by finance oligarchs to wage a relentless war against that heritage of the Franklin D. Roosevelt New Deal, the set of policies which allowed humanity to survive the Great Depression of the 1930s. The current crisis would not have been possible in the present form if the institutional safeguards enacted during the New Deal had been left in place, as they should have been. These safeguards represent permanent features of civilization, and they need to be restored. The best example is the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act under the Clinton administration in 1999. The Glass-Steagall Act was a classic piece of New Deal legislation which established that being a commercial bank and being a stockbroker are mutually exclusive activities that could not be legally combined in the same company.

Commercial banking was one thing, and stock brokerage was something completely separate. Naturally, the greedy financiers and their spokesmen clamored for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and they finally got their wish. Now less than 10 years later all of the Wall Street banks, seemingly without notable exceptions, are bankrupt and insolvent institutions that cannot not survive without a massive infusion of taxpayer money. We need to restore Glass- Steagal, which will mean among other things that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley will not be eligible to become bank holding companies after all. If you don't like your tax bill next year, you should thank Newt Gingrich and others who made it their business to destroy and roll back the achievements of the New Deal in the name of the despicable ideology of monetarism as preached by Friedman and von Hayek. Newt, by the way, is now calling for an immediate deflationary crash to find out what the real prices of housing might be. This is like doing experiments on your own flesh, and Newt should go to the funny farm.

BACK TO THE NEW DEAL: RESTORE THE UPTICK RULE

Another example is the uptick rule. This New Deal measure meant that it was illegal to sell a stock short if it were continuously in decline. The speculator had to wait until there was an uptick, meaning a trade in which the stock in question increased in price; only then could a short sale be carried out. Another piece of bitter irony inherent in the present crisis is that this uptick rule was abolished by the feckless and incompetent Chairman Cox of the Securities and Exchange Commission at the beginning of last summer, just in time for the explosion of the world credit crisis which has led to the current world economic depression. Incredibly enough, Chairman Cox of the SEC has been unable to pull himself together long enough to permanently re-impose the uptick rule.

Instead, he has drawn up a list of 799 financial institutions and banks whose stock will now be illegal to sell short for at least 10 days, although one suspects that this prohibition will be prolonged indefinitely. This crackpot expedient reveals the true nature of the current monetarist regime. Shorting and destroying General Motors, which actually produces something useful, is fine, but no shorting of JP Morgan Chase, which is a public menace that produces nothing but toxic paper. The long-term roots of the current crisis go back to August 15, 1971, when Nixon, Kissinger, Arthur Burns and George Shultz wantonly destroyed the Bretton Woods system of fixed currency parities, ushering in the new world of financial risk which is now collapsing around us.

NATIONALIZE THE FEDERAL RESERVE AS A BUREAU OF THE TREASURY

The present crisis ought to provide the death warrant for the failed Federal Reserve System. When the Fed was created back under Woodrow Wilson, its Rockefeller and Morgan sponsors promised that the Fed would protect us against all future financial panics. The Fed failed once in 1929-1933, and now it is failing again for a second time. The Fed is worthless as a firewall against depression. We must therefore seize the Fed, audit it, nationalize it, and operate it in the future as a bureau of the US Treasury. From now on, we must go back to the Constitution, meaning that the size of the money supply and short-term interest rates will have to be determined by public laws of the United States, passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the president. Using this method, we can mandate new initial credit issues of $1 to $2 trillion to be used exclusively as low interest (.5% to 1%) and long-term (30 to 40 year maturities) credit for productive purposes only ­ manufacturing, farming, mining, commerce, energy production, infrastructure, and the other things we need. We should stop having the Fed lend money to Citibank at 2% and then having the Treasury borrow that same money back for 4% to 5% in the form of Treasury paper. Nationalize the Fed, and let the Treasury finance itself, cutting out the parasitical middlemen like JP Morgan Chase, Goldman, Citibank, and the rest. The taxpayers will be the big winners.

HOOVER'S RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION WAS A FAILURE

The Paulson-Bernanke $700 billion is roughly comparable (factoring in about 2000% inflation from 1932 to 2008) to the Herbert Hoover Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which started with $2 billion real 1932 dollars, but failed because it tried to prop up insolvent banks and shore up collapsing financial values. Under FDR, the RFC was put under Jesse Jones, who used it to create real plant and equipment with great success. Under Jones, the RFC contributed decisively to US economic recovery by building up the Metals Reserve Company, the Rubber Reserve Company, the Defense Plant Corporation, the Defense Supplies Corporation, the War Damage Corporation, the U.S. Commercial Company, the Rubber Development Corporation, and the Petroleum Reserve Corporation. In other words, the RFC under Jones rebuilt the industrial infrastructure which we have been using down to the present day. Most of these investments represented added physical commodity production.

Today, this could be repeated to produce infrastructure and energy plants for civilian use.

CLEARING THE DECKS FOR WORLD ECONOMIC RECOVERY

It is time to forget about paper and the price of paper, and to concentrate on production ­ securing the tangible physical commodities and hard commodity production which are necessary for human life and civilization. It is impossible to prop up financial values in a panic, and it is foolish to try. To secure a decent future, we must now enact the following measures. Any of these points, all of which seek to defend the general welfare and the public interest, can and should be used as killer amendments to be attached to the current bailout monstrosity as a means of bringing it down.

Stop all foreclosures on homes, farms, businesses, factories, mines, transport systems, for a period of at least five years or for the duration of the present world economic depression, whichever takes longer. If you throw a family out of their home or shut down a family farm, taxicab company, trucking firm, ferry, airline, railroad, or factory of any kind because of debt, you will be on your way to Leavenworth. All politicians now say that we have to keep families in their homes. Excellent! A uniform federal law with real teeth is the way to do it.

Seize bankrupt banks and financial institutions. Put them through Chapter XI bankruptcy, and cancel the hopelessly unpayable parts of their debts, starting with their derivatives book.

Wipe out all derivatives, whether exchange traded or counterparty, without compensation. They have always been illegal. They are now a threat to all of our lives. Not one penny of public money must go to buy derivatives.

Securities transfer tax or Tobin tax on all financial transactions, including stocks, bonds, foreign exchange, etc. This is a sales tax on finance oligarchs who need to start paying their fair share. This will take the life out of the booze for many speculators.

Stop oil, food and commodity speculation with comprehensive re- regulation including position limits, 50 to 100% margin requirements depending on market conditions, and by distinguishing between legitimate hedgers and predatory speculators.

No tax increases on households. Surtax for foundations like the Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Annenberg, and Gates Foundations, who use their funds not for charity but for subversion and divide and conquer social engineering to divide and weaken the American people in defense of the financier interest.

Restore business confidence and credit with new credit issue through the nationalized Federal Reserve, operating under the legal auspices of the US Treasury. Use credit as a public utility. Provide cheap, long-term credit for productive purposes only, not parasitical speculation or financial services.

Institute an absolute guarantee for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, WIC, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and the other remaining elements of the social safety net. No "entitlement reform" under any circumstances. Austerity for bankers, not people. Use the proceeds from the Securities Transfer Tax to replenish the Social Security Trust Fund and preserve the other vital programs through the end of the twenty-first century.

Using New Deal methods, it is possible to stop a depression cold in a single day. We did it before, and we can do it again. Only 28% of the American people now support the monstrous derivatives bailout, with 37% opposed and 35% unsure, according to Rasmussen on Sept. 22. This is an issue powerful enough to crystallize the current party re-alignment in the same way that slavery in the territories did in 1860, or the last depression did in 1932. Within a month, the current empty husks of the gutted Democratic and Republican Parties could collapse, and be replaced by the pro-Wall Street Bailout Party led by Obama and his phalanx of rich elitists and Malthusian fanatics from both parties, and the pro-middle class and pro-worker Anti-Bailout Party with support from right-wing Republicans, libertarians, and working class Democrats. Who will have the brains and guts need to assert leadership over the Anti- Bailout Party? Will it be McCain? Or Hillary Clinton?

Or someone else? We will soon find out.

See also by Tarpley (he's real good on banking and the Federal Reserve):

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/09/surviving_the_c.html

The Paulson-Bernanke Bank Bailout Plan

Will the Cure be Worse Than the Crisis?

by MICHAEL HUDSON

Saturday’s $700 billion junk mortgage bailout is the largest and worst giveaway since a corrupt Congress gave land grants to the railroad barons a century and a half ago. If it goes through, it will shape the coming century by giving finance unprecedented power over debtors – homebuyers, industry, state and local government, and the federal government as well.

But what threatens to be even worse is the government’s move to let the financial sector make even higher, unprecedented gains by working its way out of negative equity to “make taxpayers whole” by repaying the government’s bailout by bleeding the economy at large. anticipating congressional capitulation in this license to engage in predatory credit, the latest Sunday evening surprise is that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s own firm, Goldman Sachs, is to become bank holding company picking up the financial wreckage now that the government is covering the bad loans and investment gambles Wall Street has made.

What Mr. Paulson did not say in his weekend TV interviews, organized as what he hoped would be a series of victory laps. Neither he nor Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke nor any other Wall Street spokesman has acknowledged that the government has helped promote today’s $46 trillion debt bomb. This enormous overhead consists of the product that banks are selling – interest-bearing debt that is being added to real estate, corporate industry and personal income to price the U.S. economy out of world markets.

We have heard nothing about how Wall Street lobbyists have succeeded in killing the financial cops on Wall Street – and done the same with the consumer cops on Main Street. There is no public recognition of the fact that more money in tax cuts went to the top 1% than the bottom 80% combined.

So how much credence should we give the newest proposals for the United States to commit economic suicide by turning over the powers of government in effect to Wall Street? When they talk about “making taxpayers whole,” what really is their game?

At first glance it may sound appealing to taxpayers for banks to be told to use their future earnings to pay back the $700 billion dollars in junk mortgages, bad hedge-fund bets and other gambles that the Treasury promised on September 20 to pick up at face value, no loss incurred. To provide a sense of proportion, this money could have funded the next forty or fifty years of Social Security. It could have funded health care for all Americans. It could have made a big step toward rebuilding the nation’s crumbling infrastructure. But that is another story. For now the major question is just how the banks, insurance companies and financial conglomerates are to raise the money to pay off this bailout.

The last time the government let banks earn their way out of negative equity was in 1980. Interest rates to bank customers topped 20 percent, driving down prices for real estate, stocks and bonds so low that the leading U.S. banks saw their net worth wiped out. Their debts to depositors and bondholders exceeded the collateral they held in their reserves to back these deposit obligations. But as soon as Ronald Reagan led the Republicans back into office, the Federal Reserve began to flood the economy with free credit, driving down the interest rates that banks had to pay. They were allowed to act as a monopoly and keep credit-card interest rates high, at 20 percent, and above 30 percent with penalties, thanks to the fact that America’s high post-Vietnam interest rates led state after state to repeal anti-usury laws to keep credit flowing.

So the banks did “earn their way out of debt.” But if you were a taxpayer who needed to use a credit card, you paid through the nose. The banks earned their way out of debt at your expense. And by the way, if you really did pay an income tax, you probably did not own commercial real estate or significant financial assets. The Internal Revenue Service made commercial real estate and a large swath of finance (at least for the wealthiest investors) income-tax free by generating tax credits that could be applied against income across the board. The capital-gains tax was lowered to a fraction of the income tax, leading investors to pay out whatever income their investments generated as interest on loans to buy property they expected to sell at a markup. And with Alan Greenspan appointed the head the Federal Reserve Board in 1987, the age of asset-price inflation had arrived.

Cities and states vied with each other to slash property taxes, replacing them with income and sales taxes that fall mainly on labor and consumers. The upshot is that wealth has polarized to an unprecedented degree. According to statistics collected by the Congressional Budget Office, the wealthiest 1% now own 57% of the nation’s returns to wealth (interest, dividends and capital gains) and the richest 10% own no less than 77%.

With this background in mind, it looks like the Paulson-Bernanke plan for the Wall Street investment banks and other predatory lenders – and insurers such as A.I.G. – to “earn their way out of debt” will be at the economy’s expense. The bailout is to be achieved by letting Wall Street’s post-Glass-Steagall financial conglomerates charge their customers exorbitant financial charges. As Britain’s Conservative Party leader Margaret Thatcher put it in her favorite phrase, TINA: There is no alternative. And as Lady Macbeth said, if the deed is to be done, let it be done fast. After all, it is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for every financial institution in America to cash out with a fortune!

For Mr. Paulson this means not giving Congress a chance to represent the public interest in designing the terms of this giant bailout. Sec. 8 of the Treasury plan bans any Congressional review, giving him unprecedented power by: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.” Under cover of emergency force majeur conditions, the plan is to take the money and run, preferably without permitting any Congressional debate.

It is bad enough for the government to buy $700 billion of bad bank investments at prices that no private-sector investor has been willing to approach. This itself is an undeserved giveaway to the financial institutions that caused the problem by living recklessly in the short run. But making them – and indeed, helping them – pay back this gift with the aid of favorable tax and deregulatory policies will simply shift the cost off their shoulders onto those of bank depositors, credit-card users, mortgage borrowers and hapless pension-fund contributors to the money managers who have taken most of the current income in the form of commissions, salaries and bonuses to themselves. This will sharply add to the price of doing business in the United States, and specifically to the economy’s debt overhead by the banks making even more predatory loans.

It gets worse. In order for the existing junk mortgages to be “made good,” real estate prices must be raised further above the ability to pay for this year’s five million homeowners in arrears and facing default. Is this a good thing? Is it good to raise access prices for housing even more, forcing new homebuyers to go further into debt than ever before to gain access to housing? Mr. Paulson has directed the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA (Federal Housing Authority) to re-inflate the real estate market. They are to pump nearly a trillion dollars into the mortgage market.

Fiscal policy is also to be brought to bear to turn the real estate market around by pressuring cities and states to “help homeowners pay their mortgage debts” by cutting property taxes. The idea is to leave more revenue available for property owners to pay mortgage bankers. Unfortunately, this will oblige cities to make up these cuts by taxing labor and sales, running deeper into debt than they already are, or cutting back their spending on basic infrastructure, education and public services and continue shortchanging their pension funds. This is the price to be exacted to “protect the taxpayer’s interest” by bailing out irresponsible banks. The solution is to let them make even more money by acting in a yet more predatory way.

This is not industrial capitalism; it is asset stripping. The closest analogy I can think of would be to give the Mafia free reign to start a new crime wave “in the taxpayers’ interest” so as to raise enough money to pay its fines to the Justice Department. Imagine how our world would look like if the economy had been turned over to Al Capone as head political capo and to Mafia financial manager Meyer Lansky as Treasury Secretary in the 1930s, with the pyramid schemer Carlo Ponzi heading the Federal Reserve and bank robber Willie Sutton as Attorney General.

The last thing the economy needs is a new real estate bubble. To prevent it, local property taxes need to be raised, not lowered. But this is not the Treasury’s plan. Instead of representing the national interest, it is representing the banking sector whose profits come from making more and bigger loans. This is just the opposite from what a well-run economy needs to recover its growth and competitive power. It needs debt write-downs to what homeowners can pay.

But Mr. Paulson has made it clear that aid for homeowners is not part of the Treasury’s plan. On Sunday, September 21, he resisted suggestions that his program be amended to include further relief for homeowners facing mortgage foreclosures. Because financial markets remain under severe stress, he claimed, there is an urgent need for Congress to act quickly without adding other measures that could slow down passage. “We need this to be clean and to be quick,” he said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week.” He expressed concern that debate over adding all of those proposals would slow the economy down, delaying the rescue effort that is so urgently needed to get financial markets moving again. "The biggest help we can give the American people right now is to stabilize the financial system," Mr. Paulson said.

If you doubt that this is the government’s ideal plan, just look at what it is rejecting. You hear no talk from Mr. Paulson or Mr. Bernanke about bailing out homeowners by writing down their debts to match their ability to pay. This is what economies have done from time immemorial. Instead, the Republicans – along with their allied Wall Street Democrats – have chosen to bail out investors in junk mortgages presently far exceeding the debtor’s ability to pay, and far in excess of the current (or reasonable) market price. The Treasury and Fed have opted to keep fictitious capital claims alive, forgetting the living debtors saddled with exploding adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) and toxic “negative amortization” mortgages that keep adding on the interest (and penalties) to the existing above-market balance.

The question to be asked is just how much will the economy’s debt overhead grow, and what will it cost debtors (a.k.a. “taxpayers”)? And how will the economy look when the dust settles?

Economically the act gives a new meaning to the classical concept of circular flow. The traditional textbook meaning has referred to the circulation between producers and consumers, from wage payments by industrial companies to their employees, who use their wages to buy what they produce. This is why Henry Ford famously paid his workers the then-towering $5 a day. This was Say’s law: Income paid for production is finds its counterpart in consumption to maintain equilibrium in a way that enables the economy to keep on growing. The new circular flow runs from the Fed and Treasury to Wall Street in the form of bailouts, and then back to Republicans in Washington in the form of campaign contributions. The money circulates without having to go through the “real” economy of production and consumption at all.

The Treasury Department issued a fact sheet on the proposal on Saturday evening: “Removing troubled assets will begin to restore the strength of our financial system so it can again finance economic growth.” In everyday language the euphemism “removing troubled assets” means buying junk mortgages at way above current market price, as if the banks didn’t know all along that they were junk but hoped to pawn them off on their clients. The problem is that the banks have not been financing growth in the form of tangible capital investment, but have found their quickest profits to lie in a combination of asset stripping and asset-price inflation.

On Sunday a BBC World Service reporter asked me to list three things that the financial sector would like to see. Taking the open-ended question on the highest philosophical plane, I said, first of all, the banks would love to free themselves of all deposit liabilities – simply to keep the money for themselves. That is their objective when they see a client, after all: How much of the client’s earnings and money can they shift into their own pockets. Second, they would like to see politicians elected directly by the amount of money they could raise, thereby doing away with the actual problem of elections. If politics is going to be privatized, this is the way to do it. Rome’s voting system was organized along these lines. Third, the financial sector prefers not to have to report any data at all or pay any taxes. It has lobbied Congress to block collection of statistics, on the premise that what is not seen will not be taxed. And at present, banks and brokerage houses are still screaming to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley bill calling for full and honest accounting. For financial ideologues this is an equivalent watershed dragon to Rowe vs. Wade, now that they have repealed the Glass-Steagall Act that had separated banks from casinos.

Somewhat taken aback by the rawness of these principles, the reporter asked what outcome was most likely. If Congress does what it is supposed to do, there should be quite a showdown. But how unlikely to be achieved is the above scenario? A few hours earlier on Sunday my friend Eric Janszen of itulip.com sent me a note he had received from a fund manager attesting to the lack of care for clients of financial institutions, giving a flavor of the predatory spirit guiding the bailout’s planners and its beneficiaries:

RAIDS OF INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS

This is so important a topic, that it deserves top billing!!! Hidden inside the AIG bailout funding package, surely hastily cobbled together, but carefully enough to include a totally corrupt clause, was a handy dandy clause that permits raids. The conglomerate financial firms are permitted at this point to use private individual brokerage account funds to relieve their own liquidity pressures. This represents unauthorized loans of your stock account assets. So next, if the conglomerate fails, your stock account is part of the bankruptcy process. ...

The actual evidence for legalized stock account raids by the financial firms can be found in recent articles in Financial Times and Wall Street Journal. So this is not a wild claim. The September 14th article on the Wall Street Journal entitled "Wall Street Crisis Hits Stocks" was the first exposure.

The runs on US banks are in progress. See Washington Mutual, where private email messages have been shared by WaMu bank officers. WaMu alone could deplete the entire Federal Deposit Insurance Corp fund for bank deposit coverage. Eventually the FDIC will compete for USGovt federal money for bailouts and nationalizations, which would be funded by the US Govt because they will not let FDIC run dry.

My Kucinich-campaign colleague David Kelley and I agree on how Wall Street’s action plan ideally would work. The Republicans will take the $800 billion of U.S. Treasury securities presently earmarked for the Social Security Administration accounts, and achieve the privatization that Pres. Bush and his backers have been pressing for so hard for the past eight years. Under emergency conditions – today’s 9/21 as the modern analogue to 9/11 just seven years ago (the well-known natural lifespan of locusts) – will swap these Treasury bonds for junk mortgages, at face value of course. Then, a few months from now (after the new president takes office in February, or perhaps a few days before to achieve the usual political clean slate) the government will tell prospective retirees and workers who have been suffering FICA withholding all these years,

“Oops, the government has just lost all your money. Well, that just shows how government planning is the road to serfdom. Next time save yourself by handling your own accounts – or at least choosing whether to consign your forced retirement savings to Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns or kindred predatory money managers. If only we could have done this a few months ago, there would have been no meltdown and Wall Street would have been doing just fine.”

If you are going to take such a step, you of course say you are doing it to “save” the economy. You even proclaim yourself to be a hero. This is how the nation’s newspaper and TV media responded after news of the bailout of AIG and, more to the point, the Wall Street gamblers and derivatives traders whose gains and losses – that is, the ability of trillions of dollars worth of computer-driven trading gambles – to collect their winnings and avoid losses.

Today’s financial markets are well personified in the classic Hollywood westerns. They typically are about towns taken over and run by a banker (“Wall Street” in miniature), for whom a retinue of outlaws and their gangs work (the boys in the back room). The banker runs the town, usually doing business from its biggest building, the local saloon or casino where most of the action occurs. It has a brothel upstairs (the usual Hollywood simile for Congress). The good-hearted prostitute (sometimes the madam) with a heart of gold usually is the movie’s only honest secondary character (a stand-in for one of the bleeding-heart Congressmen on the finance or mortgage-credit committees lisping well-scripted lines promising that all new legislation will benefit homeowners, not predatory mortgage lenders).

There also is a good-hearted investigative newspaper publisher-journalis. He almost always gets killed and his printing press destroyed. (Today his paper is simply bought out by a conglomerate and merged into the pro-Wall Street mass media.) The banker’s gang appoints the sheriff (on today’s larger scale, the Federal Reserve and Justice Department), and also the mayor (who rarely is seen except to sign papers). The sheriff’s job is the same as in today’s world: to evict debtors from homes and properties on which the land-greedy banker is foreclosing. This is the common theme of westerns, after all: They are all about the great American land grab – situated out West so as to protect the identities of the guilty here in the East on Wall Street.

Attentive readers will notice that I have left out of this script the hero. His role is to fight the banker/land grabber and the gang he has brought into town. Wearing a white hat, he rides into town to clean it up, and in the final showdown shoots the head gunslinger (or perhaps the banker himself, who is done for in any event). This is the position that Mr. Paulson portrays himself. But what the audience doesn’t see (at first) is that the bullets he is shooting are merely blanks. It is in fact only a movie after all! The showdown is staged! He works for the banker himself! Goldman Sachs turns itself into a big-fish bank and gobbles up all the little fish in a great financial squeeze.

An alien class of financial mock-heroic poseurs has taken over – land grabbers and banksters of various stripes. Almost unnoticed, an invasion of government snatchers, bank snatchers, money snatchers pretending to be Main Street, pretending to be “the economy” and now claiming to need to be rescued – at the cost of saying goodbye to public finance as we have known it, goodbye to Social Security, to peoples’ hope for upward economic mobility.

It looks like Wall Street will receive government support at Main Street’s expense. This is hardly surprising when you look at who the major campaign contributors are – to both parties. Understandably, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke are trying to muddy the issue for their financial constituency. Hedge fund traders and kindred banksters have metamorphosized into “the financial system to be saved” and hence “the economy” itself. As if it is necessary to save peoples’ savings deposits and bank accounts by rescuing the casino companies with which the banks have merged – the predatory mortgage brokers, the insurance companies with their fraudulent accounting, the crooked asset-management firms, all of which have merged into conglomerates “too large to fail.” If they are too large, simply un-merge them. Restore Glass-Steagall, which worked for 65 years to prevent this kind of problem from erupting.

The most egregious pretense is that the problem is only temporary, not structural. We are merely “freeing up” the market for new loans. This is precisely the opposite of what the classical economists meant by “free markets.” What America has is a bad debt problem, not a “liquidity” problem. There is no “illiquidity” when people refuse to buy a junk mortgage on a property worth only a fraction of the mortgage’s face value. Many of these bad mortgage loans are fraudulent. The Treasury bailout seeks to make $700 billion of fictitious financial claims “real” – that is, way overvalued as compared to their actual worth(lessness) .

What is reducing real estate and corporate stocks and bonds to junk is the exponential growth in the economy’s debt overhead. Debts that cannot be paid have little market value at any price. The nation must make a choice:

If the government bails out the large financial institutions for having made bad loans – or to be more precise, for not being able to pawn off these bad loans on foreigners or other financial prey in a timely fashion – then the only way in which the government (or other new creditors) can be paid back is by not forgiving the debts owed by strapped homeowners.
This would tighten the debt terms on debtors at the bottom of the food chain – those against whom the bank-sponsored new bankruptcy has been aimed. This is why I deplore the government bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the junk mortgages it has been packaging from predatory lenders such as Countrywide Financial, Washington Mutual and other deceptive lenders. The wrong parties have been gifted.

I should add that the solution does not lie simply in creating a new regulatory system, much less a single regulatory agency. After all, it was at Wall Street’s command that the Bush Administration installed deregulators in all the key regulatory positions. This meant that regulations didn’t matter at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at the Fed under Alan Greenspan, at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under Mr. Cox (after William H. Donaldson resigned when the White House would not let him regulate as much as he thought necessary) or at the Department of Justice under Bush yes-men such as Alberto Gonzales. Politics and people have turned out to be more important than the law. We have seen the Supreme Court scrap the Constitution in the 2000 election – with acquiescence from the Democrats, starting with Mr. Gore’s refusal to contest Florida.

To appoint a single regulator would prevent all other regulators – and law enforcement officers, attorneys general, the SEC and so forth – from enforcing honest financial policies in the event that an incoming president should appoint another Greenspan, Gonzales or other ideological extremist averse to the idea of applying existing regulations and honest laws. Under these conditions “consolidated regulation” would mean a free ride for crooks much like J. Edgar Hoover gave the Mafia under his tenure.

My alternative solutions are as simple as Mr. Paulson’s, but of course are quite different. The public interest does indeed call for maintaining the economy’s basic credit, money-transfer, credit card and depository checking and savings functions. But not under the current venal and predatory management practices. It is this management that has lobbied so hard for deregulation, and whose industry representatives have insisted so strongly to place extremist ideological deregulators into the economy’s major positions. Therefore, the Treasury only should buy junk mortgages at current market price. The losses should be taken in order to re-even out the wealth pyramid that has become so much steeper under the Greenspan-Bernanke ploys. The banks knew full well that these mortgages lacked underlying value. The price of making use of this borrowing facility is to forfeit all equity stock to the government. The Treasury should prohibit any financial institution that sells or swaps securities to the Fed from paying any dividends to shareholders or stock options and bonuses to managers. It also should give the government priority over other creditors. Otherwise, firms that have negative equity will benefit purely at public expense, using the money to pay dividends, bonuses and exorbitant salaries.

Second, we need to restore the Glass-Steagall separation of commercial banks from risk-taking investment banks, mortgage brokers and other financial-sector flotsam and jetsam. Break up the mergers between banks and casino sell-side financial and real estate institutions. Just the opposite is occurring: On Monday, Sept. 22, the financial universe was transformed by the announcement that Mr. Paulson’s Wall Street firm, Goldman Sachs, was transforming itself into a bank holding company. The casinos are to take over the banking system as big fish eat little fish in the present financial emergency. It looks like new giants are emerging, already larger than the government in terms of the magnitude of the debts they have run up – and certainly in their earning power. Indeed, who is to say that extracting interest from the U.S. economy will not emerge as the new form of taxation?

Third, re-write the bankruptcy laws to favor debtors once again, not creditors. This means reversing the current bankruptcy code sponsored by lobbies from the credit-card companies. The interests of the five million mortgage debtors faced with foreclosure and expropriation this year should rightly be placed above the interest (literally) of predatory creditors.

Fourth, sharply increase property taxes, shifting them back off labor and sales. We need to return to the classical idea of taxing unearned and unproductive income instead of adding to the price of labor and industry. What has been freed from the tax collector by the shift of taxes off property has not lowered the cost of housing and other real estate, or corporate costs of doing business. The income “freed” has ended up being paid to the banks as interest. The government still has had to raise money – but in the form of taxes that fall on labor’s wages and industry’s profits. So labor and industry now pay twice for what they formerly paid only once. They still pay the same overall amount of taxes, but also pay an equivalent amount of interest. The financial system is crowding out the government.

In the fifth place, we need to start discussing whether we really need a banking system that behaves in the way the present one does. In recent decades banks have made loans mainly to inflate asset prices by loading real estate and industry with interest-bearing debt. What if all banks were to be organized along the lines of savings banks, with 100% reserves. This is the Chicago Plan from the 1930s (currently revived by the American Monetary Institute, which holds its annual meeting this week in Chicago, by the way). This at least would go back to basics to provide a foundation from which to re-begin to discuss just what kind of credit the economy needs and what would be the best terms on which to structure financial markets.

Any solution does indeed need to be radical. But it can be much less radical than Mr. Paulson’s power grab for his Morgan Stanley firm and the rest of Wall Street in the closing days of the Bush administration just before the Republicans look like losing power. The indicated solution is to reverse predatory finance, not bail it out at permanent taxpayer expense. Government funds are not unlimited. Is it worth wiping out hopes for Social Security and public health care, for renewed national infrastructure spending and industrial restructuring in order to bail out a banking and financial system that has not contributed to economic growth but has weighed it down with reckless debt regardless of the economy’s ability to pay?

Is it right to blame the five million homeowners now in arrears and facing foreclosure, but rewarding the irresponsible bankers and outright fraudulent institutions who have used Enron accounting to make a once-in-a-lifetime rip-off? That is what Mr. Paulson would do in insisting that Congress pass his legislation without taking time to discuss the issue and above all without “assigning blame.” But without such assignation, how do we know where to go from the current mess caused by financial deregulation, repeal of Glass-Steagall, the financial system’s Enron-style accounting and predatory mortgage lending?

Before leaving from his post as Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan’s speeches sounded like “Apres moi, le deluge.” We are living in a world whose economic and political pressures are much like those in the interregnum between Louis XIV and the French Revolution. Where are the revolutionists today?

Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist specializing in the balance of payments and real estate at the Chase Manhattan Bank (now JPMorgan Chase & Co.), Arthur Anderson, and later at the Hudson Institute (no relation). In 1990 he helped established the world’s first sovereign debt fund for Scudder Stevens & Clark. Dr. Hudson was Dennis Kucinich’s Chief Economic Advisor in the recent Democratic primary presidential campaign, and has advised the U.S., Canadian, Mexican and Latvian governments, as well as the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), he is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new ed., Pluto Press, 2002) He can be reached via his website, mh@michael-hudson. com


Timely questions and some video on the FED RESERVE

Is Paulson just a puppet?

Is there gold in Fort Knox? Where did go? How do we know?

Was the 16th Amendent to the US Constitution ratified?
Has the US Supreme Court said the income tax is legal?

Is there a law that says you have to fill out a 1040 and pay income tax?

Have you watched the videos produced by Aaron Russo? Do you think that is why he died?
Google videos,
America: Freedom to Fascism – Director's Authorized Version (total 111 min, but it is cut into smaller pieces.)
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=aaron+russo+freedom+to+fascism&hl=en&emb=0&aq=2&oq=Aaron+Ru#
America: Freedom to Fascism. Aaron Russo Interview. This is only 37 minutes where Russo talks about his film.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=aaron+russo+freedom+to+fascism&hl=en&emb=0&aq=2&oq=Aaron+Ru#
An Aaron Russo interview on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msfxiodoMQQ

Did JFK warn us about secret societies, and for that he was assassinated?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBF5DbPbg_A
You tube, Presidential Speech about Secret Societies

There is a similar view across the world
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4799447112501062338
Google, David Icke - Big Brother, the Big Picture (July 6th 2008)
David Icke speaks to the constituents of Haltemprice and Howden about the 'Big Brother' election, forced by the resignation of David Davis, and the move towards the global Big Brother enslavement we are all facing.
Total almost 3 hours. I watched it in 3 segments, and there are smaller parts here too.

Google, `Telephone with George Green July 16th 2008' to find out some more information about how the Federal Reserve is step up.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7618947388652774139

McGuinty faces major challenges

The Ontario Legislature resumes sitting today after a three-month recess. In the coming days, its order paper will be filled with earnest legislation like amendments to the Mining Act (to give First Nations more of a say in prospecting and mining on their traditional lands), a measure to limit toxic emissions by industries, and a ban on the use of hand-held cellphones by motorists.

There will also be an economic statement, likely in November, with some short-term fixes for the ailing provincial economy.

And in the daily question period in the Legislature, Premier Dalton McGuinty's government will come under attack for not doing enough to address the economic slump.

But McGuinty should be able to withstand the barrage, given the weakened state of the opposition, with one lame-duck leader (the NDP's Howard Hampton, who is stepping down next year) and the other on probation (the PC's John Tory, who was given a tepid endorsement by his party earlier this year).

Behind the scenes, however, McGuinty will be wrestling with two enormous decisions that will shape the province's future.

The first is whether to keep the budget balanced or to let it slide into deficit if, as expected, the current economic slump continues and significantly erodes the provincial revenue base.

The second is what kind of reactor to choose to replace the aging nuclear power plants at Pickering and Darlington.

On the deficit, even bank economists have said that, given the circumstances, it ought to be under consideration. But so far McGuinty has stuck doggedly to the goal of a balanced budget.

"Obviously if we anticipate that our revenues are going to slow down, as I've said many times in the past, we're going to have to do in government what families do at home," said McGuinty last week. "You've got to make some adjustments and you've got to make sure you're focusing on your priorities."

Thus, with one eye on the fiscal storm clouds, McGuinty has sought to dampen expectations of government assistance. He told municipalities last month not to expect instant relief from the downloading of provincial services onto their plates. And last week he suggested the timetable for his promise to reduce poverty will have to be stretched out.

So no new spending initiatives. But even existing spending – on schools, hospitals, roads, transit, courts, jails and so on – will come under pressure if the recession deepens and the treasury is further squeezed. It remains to be seen whether McGuinty's commitment to a balanced budget is sustainable in that circumstance.

As for the decision on a new nuclear reactor, in hot competition for the multi-billion-dollar contract are: Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), the homegrown company whose design is now in place in the province's power plants; French-owned Areva; and U.S.-based Westinghouse.

The McGuinty government would like to give the nod to AECL, which is owned by the federal government. But Ontario wants Ottawa to back up any sale with guarantees to cover cost overruns. So far, those guarantees have not been forthcoming, as Stephen Harper's government has wrestled with its own decision whether to keep AECL or sell it.

Both these decisions are due to be made next spring (the deficit in the annual provincial budget, the reactor likely in a separate announcement). The behind-the-scenes struggles that precede the decisions will be more ferocious – and hugely more significant – than the daily battles on the floor of the Legislature between the government and the opposition parties.

Comments

Major Challenge is getting rid of McGuinty

At what point will Ontarions ever get choices for good government? The current system is only about getting votes and not doing anything that benefits us. Mr. McGuinty was a reckless promiser in opposition and his party had even tried to get rid of him. He has been elected by playing the game (twice now) with no real strategic plan. You got wonder at a guy who now wants to use a web based petition when many such as tax payers association, support for parents of autistic children and even the small business association have used similar tactics with him with absolutely zero positive results. Can you say PR?

Posted by Ignorance is Bliss

don't bite the hand...

McGuinty never thought about how he's going to pay for all his massive increases in civil servants and their salaries. A strong public sector always requires a strong private sector. Someone has to pay the bills.

Posted by scamper

Grow up and govern

Have you received your property assessment yet? Lets see some real leadership and halt this annual insanity courtesy of MPAC. Mr. McGuinty road the coattails of fear in the '07 election on the religious schooling issue. It was a non starter. Mr. Tory could have OVERNIGHT turned this entire platform 180 degrees by promising a total revamp of this insane, bully pulpit tax grab. He didn't. Where were the NDP and Howard Hampton? If they raised this issue , they allowed it to be muted. The middle class is being fleeced and all the while wooed with empty promises in this campaign. WAKE UP

Posted by Steve Canyon

Really?

Sure, lets bring more competition to the provision of hydro power. Remember when Mr. Eaves let the rates for electricity float after full deregulation, and everyone hand to pay market price? The government had to step in again to prevent the public outcry from becoming riots in the streets. If we are already so incensed by the collusion of the oil conglomerates, how will it be when the electricity generators and distributors do the same thing? But by all means, Mr. Jones, lets have more competition.

Posted by sobersecondthought

Econimic denials and foolishness

McGullible was too busy boasting of irrelevant issues like banning smoking and pitbulls - the real easy stuff - how proactive. Mr Flaherty urged McG to start cutting taxes across the board, including the health tax. Instead, McG sulked and felt he was victimised - now, Ontario is in a recession and all he can do is give the doctors a big raise and shuffle the cabinet - liberals are all alike - why face reality when you can blame your foolhardyness on someone else.

Posted by freebel

Cost Over Runs

Let's end the old boys club once and for all. Ontario is shy on competition: there's very very little in hydro and very very very very little in education. This results in complacency, lack of accountability, mediocrity, and inefficiency. As Bob Rae said, " We can do better" Ontario would thrive with an injection of competition into it's highly protected socialized public work force.

Posted by Templeton Jones


No Short Term Fixes

The crisis in manufacturing has been brewing for a long time. Expect to see many more small companies in Ontario close. In the globalized economy, consolidation is a critical trend. Mass is king. Our cpompanies are typically one tenth the size of American companies. Guess who closes first when the market contracts?

Posted by Herschell Hollywood

Late-inning reprieve for U.S. deserter

Court pauses deportation order so ex-paratrooper with wife, two kids in Toronto can pursue appeal
Sep 23, 2008 04:30 AM

Staff Reporter

War resister Jeremy Hinzman has won a temporary reprieve to stay in Canada.

Hinzman, the first U.S. Army deserter to file for refugee status in Canada, will not be returned for the time being, which means for the moment at least he avoids prosecution for desertion, his lawyer Alyssa Manning said last night.

"We're elated," said Hinzman, 29. ``But we're by no means out of the woods yet.''

The next challenge Hinzman faces is winning leave to appeal his case to the Federal Court. "But we won't find that out for a couple of months," said the South Dakota native who lives in Parkdale with his wife and two children.

Hinzman was due to be deported today. His reprieve came after his lawyer argued to the Federal Court yesterday that an immigration officer had incorrectly assessed the hardships he and his family would face if forced to return to the U.S.

Manning told the court that expert evidence suggests U.S. soldiers who have spoken out against the 2003 U.S.-led Iraq invasion have been facing more punishment than other deserters.

Crown attorney Stephen Gold called this "speculation and surmise" but Justice Richard Mosley ruled that a stay in Hinzman's deportation order was appropriate.

Hinzman, who has worked in the past as a bike courier in Toronto, says he and his wife, Nga Nguyen, and children, Liam, 6, and 2-month-old Meghan, have been living off their savings in recent months. "When our compassionate and humanitarian application was turned down, my work permit was revoked (in August) ... We have a little bit (of money) so we've been okay," he said.

At the Toronto hearing yesterday "the judge said if our family was to be separated, that would be irreparable harm," said Hinzman, as he held his baby at Friends House, a Quaker centre on Lowther Ave. in Toronto.

He said he volunteered to go to war: "I wanted to make a better life for myself and my family."

The Rapid City, S.D., native joined the 82nd Airborne in January 2001. Three years later, he went AWOL and fled to Toronto just before his unit was scheduled to leave for Iraq.

After 2 1/2 years in the military, "I knew I wasn't a killer," he said. He was assigned to a non-combat role during a tour in Afghanistan.

With files from The Canadian Press

CITIZEN'S UNITE!! defend the citizen's arrest warrants in DC !!!

September 23, 2008

CONTACT: Elliot Adams 518-441-2697,
Ellen Barfield 410-948-8023, Tarak Kauff 845 249-9489

IRAQ AND VIETNAM WAR VETERANS OCCUPY NATIONAL ARCHIVES BUILDING

"Arresting Bush and Cheney for war crimes will honor our oath to the Constitution," vets say.

On Tuesday morning, September 23, 7:30am, at the front of the National Archives Building on Constitution Ave. in Washington, D.C., five military veterans will risk arrest as they climb a 9-foot retaining fence and occupy a 35-foot high ledge to raise a 22x8 foot banner stating, "DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION. ARREST BUSH AND CHENEY: WAR CRIMINALS!"

The group, which includes Vietnam and Iraq War veterans, has declared its intention to stay on the ledge, fasting for 24 hours
"in remembrance of those who have perished and those still suffering from the crimes of the Bush administration,"
according to a written statement. With a portable PA system, they will broadcast recorded statements from prominent Americans for the impeachment and/or arrest of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.

"Citizens Arrest Warrants" will be distributed to people waiting in line to enter the National Archives.

The veterans emphasized they are taking this action because "Bush and Cheney's serial abuse of the Law of the Land clearly marks them as domestic enemies of the Constitution. They have illegally invaded and occupied Iraq, deliberately destroyed civilian infrastructure, authorized torture, and unlawfully detained prisoners. These actions clearly mark them as war criminals. Accountability extends beyond impeachment to prosecution for war crimes even after their terms of office expire."

"We take this action as a last resort," their statement added. "For years we have pursued every avenue open to good, vigilant citizens to bring these men to justice, to re-establish the rule of law, and to restore the balance of power described in our Constitution. We are not disturbing the peace; we are attempting to restore the peace. We are not conducting ourselves in a disorderly manner; our action is well-ordered and well-considered. We are not trespassing; we have come to the home of our Constitution to honor our oath to defend it."

Those participating are all members of Veterans For Peace and include Elliott Adams: 61, NY, VFP President and former Army paratrooper in Viet Nam; Ellen Barfield: 52, MD, former U.S. Army Sgt., full-time peace and justice advocate; Kim Carlyle: 61, NC, mountain homesteader, former Army Spec 5, 828-626-2572; Diane Wilson: 59, TX, shrimp boat captain, former Army medic, 361-785-4680; Doug Zachary: 58, TX, VFP staff, former USMC LCpl discharged as a conscientious objector, 512-791-9824; and Tarak Kauff (ground support) 67, NY, painting contractor, former U.S. Army Airborne.

Founded in 1985, VFP has 120 chapters throughout the country and has actively protested the Afghanistan and Iraq wars since their inception. Membership includes men and women veterans of all eras and duty stations spanning the Spanish Civil War, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. VFP is an official Non Governmental Organization (NGO) represented at
the UN.


##


A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
http://www.answercoalition.org/
info@internationalanswer.org
National Office in Washington DC: 202-544-3389
New York City: 212-694-8720
Los Angeles: 213-251-1025
San Francisco: 415-821-6545
Chicago: 773-463-0311


September 22, 2008

Peter Dyer: Nuremberg and Iraq

Nuremberg and Iraq


by Peter Dyer

Sixty-two years ago this month, four judges met to deliberate the fate of the first men ever tried for war crimes in an international court of law.

After Nazi Germany was defeated in 1945, the major victorious allies (the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France) convened a trial of 21 of the most prominent Nazi government, military and media figures in the Palace of Justice at Nuremberg, the spiritual home of Nazism.

Another German, Martin Bormann, was tried in absentia.

The Allies drew up a charter establishing an International Military Tribunal (IMT) as the legal basis for prosecution of these men for three distinct categories of crimes: crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The defendants were also charged with “participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy” to commit these crimes.

The bench was made up of one judge from each of the four allied countries. The trial began on 20 November 1945. Nine months later, on 31 August 1946 the trial closed as the defendants made their final statements.

The judges announced their verdicts on 1 October. They found nineteen of the defendants guilty of one, some, or all of these crimes. Twelve, including Martin Bormann, were sentenced to death. One, Herman Goering, Germany’s number two Nazi, committed suicide before his scheduled execution.

Three were acquitted and seven received prison sentences. Ten were hung.

The 1946 trial was the first of a series of four Nuremberg trials which continued until April 1949.

While the Nuremberg trials are, these days, seldom invoked or discussed, they were and still are, in the words of Tribunal President Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, “unique in the history of the jurisprudence of the world”. Among the most groundbreaking aspects was the drive to formally criminalise the three categories of crimes, and to establish responsibility by individuals for these crimes. This was simply unprecedented.

The effort to try the Germans in an international forum was directed in large part by the United States. The chief U.S. prosecutor, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, opened the prosecution.

Today, when the Nuremberg trials are remembered, they are remembered primarily for the prosecution and punishment of individuals for genocide. Equally important at the time though, especially in the first trial, was the focus on aggressive war.

Thus, the first sentence of Justice Jackson’s opening statement:

“The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility.”

Crimes against peace and the responsibility for them were defined in Article 6, the heart of the Charter of the IMT: “The tribunal…shall have the power to try and punish persons who…whether as individuals or as members of organisations, committed any of the following crimes…for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) Crimes Against Peace, namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances…”

The desire was not only to punish individuals for crimes but to set an international moral and legal precedent for the future. Indeed, before the end of 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted Resolution 95 (1), affirming “the principles of International Law recognised by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal.”

Founded in the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations invoked in the first sentence of the preamble, the single most fundamental goal: “…to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind…”

To this end the United Nations Charter explicitly forbids armed aggression and violations of the sovereignty of any state by any other state, except in immediate self defense (Article 2, Sec. 4 and Articles 39 and 51).

Invoking the precedent set by the United States and the Allies at Nuremberg, there can be no doubt that the U.S. led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war of aggression. There was no imminent threat to American security nor to the security of the world. The invasion violated the U.N. Charter as well as U.N. Security Council Resolution #1441.

As a war of aggression, the invasion falls into the Nuremberg category of Crimes Against Peace. As such, there is individual responsibility for this crime.

Thus, if Americans chose to be bound by the precedent which they helped set and for which they punished leaders of World War II Germany, they would arrest and prosecute those individuals responsible for the invasion of Iraq: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and their enablers in government and in the media.

Those who justify the invasion of Iraq, invoking the U.S. self-declared mission to rid the world of evil, would do well to remember the words of Justice Jackson: “Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling these grievances or for altering these conditions.”

And, for those who have difficulty visualising American leaders as defendants in a criminal trial, Justice Jackson’s words again: “(T)he ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law. And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment. We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own people only when we make all men answerable to the law. This trial represents mankind’s desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world’s peace and to commit aggression against the rights of their neighbours.”

*************

Peter Dyer is a freelance journalist.

September 21, 2008

URGENT ACTIVISM !! STOP the bank bailout

Now this comes for Mish Shedlock -

Hardly a "radical" type.


Below that, the REAL TRUTH about the crisis

from Dennis Kucinich -

with the suggestion of WHAT TO DO !!


Bush Administration Seeks "Dictatorial Power"


Bloomberg is reporting Treasury Seeks Authority to Buy Mortgages Unchecked by Courts.

The Bush administration sought unchecked power from Congress to buy $700 billion in bad mortgage investments from financial companies in what would be an unprecedented government intrusion into the markets.

"He's asking for a huge amount of power," said Nouriel Roubini, an economist at New York University. "He's saying, `Trust me, I'm going to do it right if you give me absolute control.' This is not a monarchy."

Paulson is seeking an expansion of federal influence over markets that hasn't been seen since the Great Depression, said Charles Geisst, author of "100 Years of Wall Street" and a finance professor at Manhattan College in New York.

"This is going to be a big package because it's a big problem," Bush said following a meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe at the White House. "We need to get this done quickly, and the cleaner the better."

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said in a radio address that he "fully supports" Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke's efforts to stabilize the financial system. The plan, however, should benefit both main street and Wall Street, he said.

Republican Presidential nominee John McCain "looks forward" to reviewing the proposal while focusing at least in part on "minimizing the burden on the taxpayer," said Jill Hazelbaker, communications director for the McCain campaign.

The Bush administration seeks "dictatorial power unreviewable by the third branch of government, the courts, to try to resolve the crisis," said Frank Razzano, a former assistant chief trial attorney at the Securities and Exchange Commission now at Pepper Hamilton LLP in Washington. "We are taking a huge leap of faith."

Unreviewable Dictatorial Power

Notice how everyone wants to rush this through even though it is the biggest financial crisis in history. One might think that something this big should be carefully considered but no... Bush says: "This is going to be a big package because it's a big problem" and "We need to get this done quickly and the cleaner the better."

It seems the bigger the problem the quicker and cleaner it can be fixed. Indeed Congress will argue more over the cost of toilet seats than they will over this $700 billion (and counting) bailout.

Democrats Want To Expand The Bailout

"We're going to be buying up a lot of mortgage paper," said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. "Between Fannie Mae and Freddie now owned by the federal government and the mortgage paper we'll be acquiring here" and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. running failed bank IndyMac Bancorp Inc., "we should now be able substantially to reduce foreclosures," he said.

My Comment: Barney Frank is an incompetent socialist fool. Buying mortgages in and of itself will not prevent a single foreclosure. All buying mortgages will do is bail out the banks holding those mortgages. And one thing you can be most certain of is that it will be a selective bailout with no oversight as to who gets bailed out or why.

The Treasury plans to hire asset managers to purchase the assets through so-called reverse auctions, seeking the lowest prices, one of the people said. Congress will need to raise the limit for the federal debt to allow the government to borrow enough to fund the program, the person said.

Senator Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who has advocated that markets should be allowed to penalize bad bets, warned that bailout could saddle taxpayers with large debts.

"This could be the biggest bailout in the history of the country and could ultimately cost $500 billion to $1 trillion," Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said in a Bloomberg Television interview today. "Congress is not going to rubber stamp something."

My Comment: The odds of Congress not rubber stamping this are very slim.

Senator Christopher Dodd, the Banking Committee chairman, said the plan's framers should consider the full debt load of U.S. consumers, possibly including credit cards.

My Comment: Hells bells why not? Let's throw in credit cards, auto loans, boats, and casino debts? Why stop at credit cards and housing? Let's just have the government guarantee every debt in the country.

The temporary plan is likely to include a "second stimulus" proposal with infrastructure funds, low-income energy aid and Medicaid assistance, Frank said.

My Comment: Why stop at two? Why not four? Hell, let's just give everyone $1,000,000 and be done with it.

Officials devising the plan "need to make sure that they keep that hard-headed approach so that people are not profiting off this," said Martin Baily, who was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Democratic President Bill Clinton.

My Comment: Hard headed approach? What are these clowns smoking? Paulson asks for $700 billion and idiots like Frank and Dodd are clamoring for more already.

"To some extent that's unavoidable," said Baily, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "Anytime you do something like this you have the problem of bailing people out and creating moral hazard. That's the reason why you hold your nose. But it's better than the alternative."

Perfectly Avoidable

Martin Baily is another fool. This was perfectly avoidable. All we had to do we eliminate the Fed and fractional reserve lending. And that is what still needs to be done.

Instead Congress is lining up to give "Unreviewable Dictatorial Power"to the Treasury while increasing the size of the already ridiculous proposal.

Contact Your Senator Today!

It's time to contact your senator. Here is contact information for Senators of the 110th Congress.

Phone or Email your Senators today. Tell them in your own words

* Urge your senator to Filibuster any bailout legislation.
* Emphatically state you do not want a bailout of any kind for anyone.
* No Dictatorial power for Paulson or Bernanke
* Taxpayers should not have to bail out banks making bad loans
* Tell them that "The Fed" and Paulson are systemic risk".


Email AND Phone Senators Shelby, Bunning, Kyle, Hagel

Whether Senator Shelby is your Senator or not, flood him with calls and emails asking for a filibuster and to stop the insanity. Senators Shelby, Bunning, and Kyle might be sympathetic to the cause, based on past statements. I am taking a stab at Hagel.

Please email and phone the following. Specifically ask for a filibuster and tell them to vote no to any bailout.

Shelby, Richard C.- (R - AL)
110 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5744
E-mail: senator@shelby.senate.gov

Bunning, Jim- (R - KY)
316 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4343
Web Form: http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Kyl, Jon- (R - AZ)
730 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4521
Web Form: kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Hagel, Chuck (R - NE)
248 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4224
Web Form: hagel.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Please email and phone both of your senators as well.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

How many members of the Republican Party does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: TEN...

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed,

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb
needs to be changed,

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb,

4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for
changing the light bulb or for eternal darkness,

5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the
new light bulb,

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing
on a step ladder under the banner "Bulb Accomplished" ,

7. One administration insider to resign and in detail reveal how Bush
was literally "in the dark" the whole time,

8. One to viciously smear #7,

9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how John McCain
has had a strong light bulb-changing policy all along,

10. And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between
screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

ACTIVISM: Urengently contact

If you are a regular reader, you KNOW I despise the death penalty - whatever the case.

This case sends shivers down my spine - just like the unwarranted death of Tookie Williams. I don't want to have to cry over this; that's what happens when they take a life. Positively 13th century. Why not go after WAR CRIMINALS instead ??

Virginia

Sunday, Sept. 21, 2008

Dear Abolitionists,

See "in person" action opportunities for those in or near Georgia and DC below.

Other than Georgia's Board of Pardons and Paroles, the U.S. Supreme Court can stop the execution of Troy Davis. Troy Davis is scheduled to be executed on Tuesday, September 23 at 7:00 p.m. for his alleged murder of Police Officer Mark MacPhail in Georgia. Yet serious doubts of his guilt remain and compelling evidence of his innocence has not been heard in court.

There is no physical evidence linking Troy to the crime; no DNA, no murder weapon. Seven out of 9 witnesses have recanted their testimony implicating Troy, and one of the two remaining witnesses is the likely suspect. All Troy Davis has ever asked for is the chance to be tried in a court of law with the actual evidence. Now more than ever is the time for justice to be served.

Troy Davis and his family need your help!

Please see Bob Herbert's column in the New York Times, also below, and note the following, send the e-mail, send the fax, and on Monday morning make yourself heard again via telephone... The message is simple: "I am calling to ask the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to reconsider the case of Troy Davis and to stop this execution."

A friend in California called me to say that "...in reference to telephone numbers, I discovered this morning that for the State of Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, the most accessible - i. e., a real person answered and spoke versus a series of recordings... Get a real person at 404-656-5712...."

"...in reference to facsimile numbers, 404-651-8502 works...."

"...in reference to electronic messages. clemency_information@pap.state.ga.us
will most likely work....

"...according to the individual with whom this morning I spoke, more than 84,000 electronic messages, more than 20,000 facsimiles and an unquantified number of telephone calls had in favor of Mister Davis been received....

"...THE STATE OF GEORGIA BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES IS COUNTING....

"...PLEASE CONTINUE TO MAKE YOUR VOICE COUNT....


Click here to read about last week's protests in Atlanta, including a fast going on now that you can join in solidarity...

In the New York Times....

September 20, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
What*s the Rush?
By BOB HERBERT

Troy Davis, who was convicted of shooting a police officer to death in the parking lot of a Burger King in Savannah, Ga., is scheduled to be executed on Tuesday.

There is some question as to his guilt (even the pope has weighed in on this case), but the odds of Mr. Davis escaping the death penalty are very slim. Putting someone to death whose guilt is uncertain is always perverted, but there*s an extra dose of perversion in this case.

The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to make a decision on whether to hear a last-ditch appeal by Mr. Davis on Sept. 29. That's six days after the state of Georgia plans to kill him.

Mr. Davis's lawyers have tried desperately to have the execution postponed for those few days, but so far to no avail. Georgia is among the most cold-blooded of states when it comes to dispatching prisoners into eternity.

So the lawyers are now trying to get the Supreme Court to issue a stay, or decide before Tuesday on whether it will consider the appeal.

No one anywhere would benefit from killing Mr. Davis on Tuesday, as opposed to waiting a week to see how the Supreme Court rules. So why the rush? The murder happened in 1989, and Mr. Davis has been on death row for 17 years. Six or seven more days will hardly matter.

Most of the time, the court declines to hear such cases.

If that's the decision this time, Georgia can get on with the dirty business of taking a human life. If the court agrees to hear the appeal, it would have an opportunity to get a little closer to the truth of what actually happened on the terrible night of Aug. 19, 1989, when Officer Mark Allen MacPhail was murdered.

He was shot as he went to the aid of a homeless man who was being pistol-whipped in the parking lot.

Nine witnesses testified against Mr. Davis at his trial in 1991, but seven of the nine have since changed their stories. One of the recanting witnesses, Dorothy Ferrell, said she was on parole when she testified and was afraid that she*d be sent back to prison if she didn*t agree to finger Mr. Davis.

She said in an affidavit: "I told the detective that Troy Davis was the shooter, even though the truth was that I didn't know who shot the officer."

Another witness, Darrell Collins, a teenager at the time of the murder, said the police had 'scared' him into falsely testifying by threatening to charge him as an accessory to the crime. He said they told him that he might never get out of prison.

"I didn't want to go to jail because I didn't do nothing wrong," he said.

At least three witnesses who testified against Mr. Davis (and a number of others who were not part of the trial) have since said that a man named Sylvester "Redd" Coles admitted that he was the one who had killed the officer.

Mr. Coles, who was at the scene, and who, according to authorities, later ditched a gun of the same caliber as the murder weapon, is one of the two witnesses who have not recanted.

The other is a man who initially told investigators that he could not identify the killer. Nearly two years later, at the trial, he testified that the killer was Mr. Davis.

So we have here a mess that is difficult, perhaps impossible, to sort through in a way that will yield reliable answers. (The jury also convicted Mr. Davis of a nonfatal shooting earlier that same evening on testimony that was even more dubious.)

There was no physical evidence against Mr. Davis, and the murder weapon was never found. As for the witnesses, their testimony was obviously shaky in the extreme * not the sort of evidence you want to rely upon when putting someone to death.

In March, the State Supreme Court in Georgia, in a 4-to-3 decision, denied Mr. Davis*s request for a new trial. The chief justice, Leah Ward Sears, writing for the minority, said: "In this case, nearly every witness who identified Davis as the shooter at trial has now disclaimed his or her ability to do so reliably."

Amnesty International conducted an extensive examination of the case, documenting the many recantations, inconsistencies, contradictions and unanswered questions. Its report on the case drew widespread attention, both in the U.S. and overseas.

William Sessions, a former director of the F.B.I., has said that a closer look at the case is warranted. And Pope Benedict XVI has urged authorities in Georgia to re-sentence Mr. Davis to life in prison.

Rushing to execute Mr. Davis on Tuesday makes no sense at all.

***

IN PERSON ACTION OPPORTUNITIES

GEORGIA

If you are in or near Georgia, see the web page of Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty at http://www.GFADP.org for information on protest opportunities.


WASHINGTON, DC

WHAT: Emergency Rally at Supreme Court: Save Troy Davis

WHEN: Monday, September 22 @ noon

WHERE: One First ST, NE (Sidewalk in front of US Supreme Court Building)

For more info, contact cedp_dc@hotmail.com, or call 202 492 0441.
_____________________________________________________


SENT BY:

Abraham J. Bonowitz
Director of Affiliate Support
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
www.NCADP.org
abe@ncadp.org
202-331-4090
561-371-5204 (Mobile)

‘Einstein’ replaces ‘Big Brother’ in Internet surveillance: Wayne Madsen

Online Journal Contributing Writer


Sep 19, 2008, 00:22

(WMR) -- WMR has learned from government sources that the Bush administration has authorized massive surveillance of the Internet using as cover a cyber-security multi-billion dollar project called the “Einstein” program.

Billed as a cyber-security intrusion detection system for federal computer systems and networks, WMR has been told that the actual intent of Einstein is to initially monitor the email and web surfing activities of federal employees and contractors and not in protecting government computer systems from intrusion by outsiders.

In February 2008, President Bush signed a directive that designated the National Security Agency (NSA) as the central administrator for the federal government’s computer and network security.

Although Einstein is primarily a program under the aegis of the Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) of the National Cyber Security Division of the Homeland Security Department, WMR has learned that it has the personal support of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Mike McConnell, a former NSA director. Einstein is advertised as merely conducting traffic analysis within the dot (.) gov and dot (.) mil domains, including data packet lengths, protocols, source and destination IP addresses, source and destination ports, time stamp information, and autonomous system numbers. However, WMR has learned that Einstein will also bore down into the text of email and analyze message content. In fact, most of the classified budget allotted to Einstein is being used for collecting information from the text of messages and not the header data.

In fact, WMR has learned that most of the classified technology being used for Einstein was developed for the NSA in conducting signals intelligence (SIGINT) operations on email networks in Russia. Code-named PINWHEEL, the NSA email surveillance system targets Russian government, military, diplomatic, and commercial email traffic and burrows into the text portions of the email to search for particular words and phrases of interest to NSA eavesdroppers. According to NSA documents obtained by WMR, there is an NSA system code-named ”PINWALE.”

The DNI and NSA also plan to move Einstein into the private sector by claiming the nation’s critical infrastructure, by nature, overlaps into the commercial sector. There are classified plans, already budgeted in so-called “black” projects, to extend Einstein surveillance into the dot (.) com, dot (.) edu, dot (.) int, and dot (.) org, as well as other Internet domains. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has budgeted $5.4 billion for Einstein in his department’s FY2009 information technology budget. However, this amount does not take into account the “black” budgets for Einstein proliferation throughout the U.S. telecommunications network contained in the budgets for NSA and DNI.

In anticipation of the regulatory problems inherent in domestic email surveillance by the NSA, the Bush administration has ensured that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and industry associations have been stacked with pro-surveillance loyalists to ensure that Einstein is widely accepted and implemented.

Previously published in the Wayne Madsen Report.

Copyright © 2008 WayneMadenReport.com
Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and nationally-distributed columnist. He is the editor and publisher of the Wayne Madsen Report (subscription required).

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

Einstein

Internet communications are protected in many countries from evesdropping without a warrant. If the US persists in evesdropping on internet communications in foreign countries then they should be charged under the laws of those countries with breaking the confidentiality laws. If all countries did it the US could be tried by the International court and if all other countries co-operated the US could be ostracized from the NET. They deserve no less. It would be a great way of keeping their wonderful exceptionalism and other American garbage within their own borders away from civilized nations of the world.

Controversial Guantanamo legal advisor reassigned

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Leslie Schulman at 11:50 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Pentagon on Friday announced [news release] that US Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann [official profile; JURIST news archive], the controversial legal advisor to the US military commissions at Guantanamo and supervisor of the Office of Military Commissions-Prosecution (OMC-P), has been reassigned to the newly-created position of director of operations of the Office of Military Commissions. As director of operations, Hartmann will be responsible for the initiation, review, staffing, coordination and execution of all planning and development matters relating to military commissions. Deputy legal advisor Michael Champan will become the new legal advisor to the military commissions. AP has more.

Earlier this year military judges presiding over the military commission [JURIST news archive] trials of Guantanamo detainees Omar Khadr and Mohammed Jawad [JURIST reports] barred Hartmann from taking any part in the trials of those detainees on grounds that he was unduly biased towards the prosecution. US Army Gen. Gregory Zanetti [official profile], deputy commander at Guantanamo Bay, testified in August [JURIST report] that Hartmann routinely bullied his counterparts and was inappropriately aggressive in seeking indictments against detainees. In May, Hartman was disqualified [JURIST report] from participating in the military commission trial of detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan [DOD materials; JURIST news archive].

Cheney's secrecy - coming to an end ??? HAHAHAHA

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge on Saturday ordered Dick Cheney to preserve a wide range of the records from his time as vice president.

Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were sued to ensure that presidential records are not destroyed.

Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were sued to ensure that presidential records are not destroyed.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is a setback for the Bush administration in its effort to promote a narrow definition of materials that must be safeguarded under by the Presidential Records Act.

The Bush administration's legal position "heightens the court's concern" that some records may not be preserved, said the judge.

A private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is suing Cheney and the Executive Office of the President in an effort to ensure that no presidential records are destroyed or handled in a way that makes them unavailable to the public.

In a 22-page opinion, the judge revealed that in recent days, lawyers for the Bush administration balked at a proposed agreement between the two sides on how to proceed with the case.

Cheney and the other defendants in the case "were only willing to agree to a preservation order that tracked their narrowed interpretation" of the Presidential Records Act, wrote Kollar-Kotelly.

The administration, said the judge, wanted any court order on what records are at issue in the case to cover only the office of the vice president, not Cheney or the other defendants in the lawsuit.

The other defendants are the Executive Office of the President and the National Archives.

The lawsuit stems from Cheney's position that his office is not part of the executive branch of government.

This summer, Cheney chief of staff David Addington told Congress that the vice president belongs to neither the executive nor legislative branch of government but rather is attached by the Constitution to Congress. The vice president presides over the Senate.

The lawsuit alleges that the Bush administration's actions over the past 7½ years raise questions over whether the White House will turn over records created by Cheney and his staff to the National Archives in January.

In 2003, Cheney asserted that the office of the vice president is not an entity within the executive branch.

Two historians and three groups of historians and archivists joined CREW in filing the suit two weeks ago.

‘Child Soldier’ Omar Khadr’s trial rescheduled for November 10

In hard times, tent cities rise across the country

In hard times, tent cities rise across the country
Published on 19-09-2008


Source: Associated Press
A few tents cropped up hard by the railroad tracks, pitched by men left with nowhere to go once the emergency winter shelter closed for the summer.
Then others appeared — people who had lost their jobs to the ailing economy, or newcomers who had moved to Reno for work and discovered no one was hiring.

Within weeks, more than 150 people were living in tents big and small, barely a foot apart in a patch of dirt slated to be a parking lot for a campus of shelters Reno is building for its homeless population. Like many other cities, Reno has found itself with a "tent city" — an encampment of people who had nowhere else to go.

From Seattle to Athens, Ga., homeless advocacy groups and city agencies are reporting the most visible rise in homeless encampments in a generation.

Nearly 61 percent of local and state homeless coalitions say they've experienced a rise in homelessness since the foreclosure crisis began in 2007, according to a report by the National Coalition for the Homeless. The group says the problem has worsened since the report's release in April, with foreclosures mounting, gas and food prices rising and the job market tightening.
"It's clear that poverty and homelessness have increased," said Michael Stoops, acting executive director of the coalition. "The economy is in chaos, we're in an unofficial recession and Americans are worried, from the homeless to the middle class, about their future."

The phenomenon of encampments has caught advocacy groups somewhat by surprise, largely because of how quickly they have sprung up.

"What you're seeing is encampments that I haven't seen since the 80s," said Paul Boden, executive director of the Western Regional Advocacy Project, an umbrella group for homeless advocacy organizations in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Calif., Portland, Ore. and Seattle.
The relatively tony city of Santa Barbara has given over a parking lot to people who sleep in cars and vans. The city of Fresno, Calif., is trying to manage several proliferating tent cities, including an encampment where people have made shelters out of scrap wood. In Portland, Ore., and Seattle, homeless advocacy groups have paired with nonprofits or faith-based groups to manage tent cities as outdoor shelters. Other cities where tent cities have either appeared or expanded include include Chattanooga, Tenn., San Diego, and Columbus, Ohio.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development recently reported a 12 percent drop in homelessness nationally in two years, from about 754,000 in January 2005 to 666,000 in January 2007. But the 2007 numbers omitted people who previously had been considered homeless — such as those staying with relatives or friends or living in campgrounds or motel rooms for more than a week.

In addition, the housing and economic crisis began soon after HUD's most recent data was compiled.

"The data predates the housing crisis," said Brian Sullivan, a spokesman for HUD. "From the headlines, it might appear that the report is about yesterday. How is the housing situation affecting homelessness? That's a great question. We're still trying to get to that."

In Seattle, which is experiencing a building boom and an influx of affluent professionals in neighborhoods the working class once owned, homeless encampments have been springing up — in remote places to avoid police sweeps.

"What's happening in Seattle is what's happening everywhere else — on steroids," said Tim Harris, executive director of Real Change, an advocacy organization that publishes a weekly newspaper sold by homeless people.

Homeless people and their advocates have organized three tent cities at City Hall in recent months to call attention to the homeless and protest the sweeps — acts of militancy, said Harris, "that we really haven't seen around homeless activism since the early '90s."

In Reno, officials decided to let the tent city be because shelters were already filled.
Officials don't know how many homeless people are in Reno. "But we do know that the soup kitchens are serving hundreds more meals a day and that we have more people who are homeless than we can remember," said Jodi Royal-Goodwin, the city's redevelopment agency director.

Those in the tents have to register and are monitored weekly to see what progress they are making in finding jobs or real housing. They are provided times to take showers in the shelter, and told where to go for food and meals.

Sylvia Flynn, 51, came from northern California but lost a job almost immediately and then her apartment.

Since the cheapest motels here charge upward of $200 a week, Flynn ended up at the Reno women's shelter, which has only 20 beds and a two-week limit on stays.

Out of a dozen people interviewed in the tent city, six had come to Reno from California or elsewhere over the last year, hoping for casino jobs.

"I figured this would be a great place for a job," said Max Perez, a 19-year-old from Iowa. He couldn't find one and ended up taking showers at the men's shelter and sleeping in a pup tent barely big enough to cover his body.

The casinos are actually starting to lay off employees.

"Sometimes I think we need to put out an ad: 'No, we don't have any more jobs than you do,'" Royal-Goodwin said.

The city will shut down the tent city as soon as early October because the tents sit on what will be a parking lot for a complex of shelters and services for homeless people. The complex will include a men's shelter, a women's shelter, a family shelter and a resource center.

Reno officials aren't sure whether the construction will eliminate the need for the tent city. The demand, they say, keeps growing.

An update on Dr. Cyril Wecht: Meteor Blades

Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:42:09 PM PDT

Today, at his "No Comment" blog at Harper's, Scott Horton took note that when some bureaucrats at the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service that handle federal oil leasing royalties were found to be literally in bed with corporate officials with whom they do the public's business, the Public Integrity Section of Cheney-Bush Department of Justice chose not to prosecute. And they gave no reasons why.

Like wise with Mark Foley. You remember him, surely, the Republican Representative from Florida whose sexually graphic emails and instant messages to former and currently serving Congressional pages made a big splash in 2006. The DoJ is letting that go without prosecution, too.

Public Integrity, Redefined

If you’re trying to understand why the Justice Department under Bush has reached a modern low water level in public confidence, look no further.

Or perhaps consider some of the public integrity cases which are being prosecuted, at a cost of millions in taxpayer dollars. Graft, cocaine and sexual favors at Interior is considered nothing serious. Improper dealings with minors and the texting of sexually explicit solicitations apparently can just be overlooked. Compare this with Sue Schmitz, the Alabama legislator who allegedly underperformed on a series of consultancy contracts, and was sued for fraud as a result: the prosecution’s thundering condemnation was that she kept bad time records on a contract to promote the interests of a secondary education contractor at the legislature. Schmitz’s first trial, at a cost to the public of some $2 million, produced no conviction, so now the Justice Department indicates it will try a second time—rushing to get the prosecution done before regime change in Washington brings an end to the charade.

Or consider the case of Pittsburgh’s Cyril Wecht, also prosecuted in a high-profile case on a series of bizarre petty offenses. That prosecution also failed. In the Wecht case as well, Justice insists on a new trial, and is racing to complete it before the coach turns into a pumpkin on January 20. In the Wecht case, the appeals court has just removed the George W. Bush-appointed judge who presided over the case and whose consistently less-than-even-handed management of the case was the subject of widespread comment.

So how to differentiate the decision not to prosecute the coke-snorting, party-animal Bush appointees at Interior and the party-animal Congressman chasing after young pages from the 63-year-old school teacher in Alabama who kept bad time records and the prominent Pittsburgh medical examiner who had the indecency to make personal use of his fax machine? The latter two are Democrats. [My emphasis - MB]

I do not agree with THIS.

I think The Hague IS already acting. It's a multijurisdictional affair, afterall.

Any country involved in rendition and TORTURE is culpable, eh.

Local prosecutions and grassroots organizing are the key to saving AmeriKa from being a fascist, totalitarian state. What's needed is a special torture prosecutor, ASAP.

The DOJ led by Michael Mukasey has proven to be a sham. So We the People must do the job.

Here in CANADA, we must also act to ensure that feet are held to the fire and George W. BuZhCo. face prosecution for the SUPREME INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIME, which is genocide. Lots of ways to pursue this have been discussed extensively on this blog. See the recommendations made at the WAR CRIMES CONFERENCE in Andover Massachusetts ! There are many ideas. I think the ICC WILL be brought in, as a very last resort. A leash must be put on WAR CRIMINALS right quick, as the major party "candidates" intend to continue the war criminality.

This article is interesting, though.

Also, I always notice, when I read these articles and hear the speeches, no one mentions the FACT that Marcos was found GUILTY in the US of A. That is a heavy precedent to remember.

Virginia


By Peter Dyer
September 21, 2008

Q: What do Radovan Karadzic, former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, and George W. Bush have in common? A: Each lives under the slowly growing shadow of a body of international criminal law

This law is evolving towards the ultimate goal of holding even the most powerful leaders personally accountable for crimes committed by the State.

It is manifested in international agreements and statutes such as the Geneva Conventions, case law, two ad hoc war crimes tribunals (Yugoslavia and Rwanda), and a permanent International Criminal Court.

Radovan Karadzic, former Bosnian Serb President, has been arrested and now awaits trial in The Hague before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (I.C.T.Y.) on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity.

Dominique de Villepin is one of 33 French military and political leaders who have recently been accused in a report released by the Rwandan government of arming and advising Hutu leaders in the genocide and crimes against humanity of 1994.


(At the time Rwanda was a French client state and de Villepin was chief aide to French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe. The 500-page report, based on a two-year investigation, accuses both men of crimes including enabling the genocide by violating a United Nations Security Council Arms Embargo against Rwanda.)

George W. Bush in March 2003 ordered “Operation Shock and Awe” (though officially dubbed “Operation: Iraqi Freedom”) – the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq – presenting the world with a clear prima facie case of aggression.

Aggression, in the words of the judgment delivered at the first Nuremberg Trial, is “the supreme international crime” because it unleashes all the other devastation and inhumanity of war.

Personal accountability by state leaders for the crime of aggression – initiating an unprovoked war – is the most profound as well as the most difficult goal of the continuing evolution of international criminal law.

For this reason, and because President Bush is head of the world’s most powerful state, clearly the shadow of the law is at present less ominous to him than to Karadzic or perhaps to de Villepin.

But there is no statute of limitations for any of these crimes. Things change over time, often unpredictably. And the international community has been working steadily towards this difficult goal for decades.

No doubt the work will continue.

Nuremberg Precedent

Although the effort to hold leaders personally responsible for crimes of state goes back to the late 19th century, the first significant watershed was the 1946 judgment of the first Nuremberg trial.

A panel of judges from the U.S., U.K., France and the Soviet Union held German leaders personally responsible and punished them for crimes of state, including aggression.

The roots of the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals are largely in Nuremberg as are those of the International Criminal Court, although neither ad hoc tribunal charter included aggression.

One of the most significant achievements of the Yugoslavia Tribunal was the first ever indictment of an acting head of state, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, for crimes committed while still in office.

According to the I.C.T.Y. Web site, “the question is no longer whether leaders should be held accountable, but rather how can they be called to account.”

A major problem with the two courts was that they were each temporary responses to a specific set of separate circumstances which had considerable legal overlap.

The ad hoc approach was clearly limited by issues of logistics, expenses and repetition, many of which could have been more effectively addressed by a permanent court.

The achievements of the two tribunals as well as their limitations gave new impetus to the decades-old effort to establish a permanent International Criminal Court.

On July 17, 1998, the great majority of countries of the world voted in Rome, 120 to 7 with 21 abstentions, to establish the International Criminal Court. With the signature and ratification of 60 states the International Criminal Court came into being on July 1, 2002.

Six years later, as of last June 1, 106 countries have ratified the Rome Statute. Written into the Statute is a provision for member states to meet seven years after the entry into force (2009) to consider amendments.

Because the Statute is the result of decades of evolution and five weeks of intense negotiations between 148 countries, it is full of compromises. Even so, it is remarkable.

Never before has the world community united to create an institution invested with legal authority to write, adjudicate and enforce international criminal law. And, despite compromises, it is remarkable for the degree to which so many were able to agree on some basics.

Most important among these is a set of “core crimes” over which the Court has jurisdiction. These are: 1) genocide, 2) crimes against humanity, 3) war crimes and 4) aggression (the waging of aggressive war).

Conflict over Definition

Unfortunately, the Rome conference was unable to agree on a definition of aggression.

Unwilling to leave out “the supreme international crime” containing within itself the “accumulated evil of the whole,” the conference compromised, including aggression among the ”core crimes” but leaving it undefined in anticipation of a future amendment defining the crime and setting out conditions for jurisdiction.

One of the weaker aspects of the Statute is, of course, enforcement. As American Professor Leila Nadya Sadat, a delegate to the Rome conference wrote: “Here classic paradigms of sovereignty in which each state is master of its territory prevail. …The I.C.C.’s ability to effectively enforce international criminal law remains an open question.”

Unfortunately, a major obstacle to the I.C.C., enforcement and otherwise, has been the United States. The U.S. was one of seven countries which voted against the Statute — part of a list which included Iraq, Libya, Israel, Qatar and Yemen. Despite the vote, President Clinton signed the Statute on Dec. 31, 2000.

Less than two years later President George W. Bush “unsigned it.”

Other countries such as Russia and Egypt have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute. Still others such as China and India remain opposed.

If major countries such as Russia, China, India and especially the U.S. ever do decide to join and throw their considerable weight behind the I.C.C. here are a few examples of what the organization may eventually be capable of:

--”Treaty crimes” such as hijacking and narcotics trafficking, while not yet covered by the Statute, are slated to be discussed and possibly defined and amended into the Rome Statue as early as 2009. There would be an international institution with the legal power to apprehend, try and punish future Osama Bin Ladens without the catastrophic destruction and waste of war.

--The genocide visited by Saddam Hussein upon the Iraqi Kurds (1984-1991) perhaps could have been stopped, or at least punished upon authorization by the Security Council.

--There will be a venue for resolving murky situations such as the recent violence in Georgia, where a court of law could be the only place to finally decide if and when aggression and/or other crimes occurred and who was responsible.

--Assuming that aggression is eventually defined and fully included in the Rome Statute, those who initiate wars of aggression, such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq, will do so knowing there is at least the legal possibility of arrest, trial and prison.

Ironically the United States led the way in establishing the precedent for this when the Allies at Nuremberg tried and punished Germans for aggression and other crimes.

At the moment, the prospect of an American president sitting in the dock of the International Criminal Court seems remote.

It should be remembered, however, that in 1973, nobody would have believed that 33 years later General Augusto Pinochet would die under house arrest in Chile, facing trial on charges of human rights abuses, including kidnapping and murder, committed during the dark days of Chile’s military government.

A lot can happen in three decades. Leaders come and go. Power ebbs and flows. National and international perspectives and relationships change.

Imagine the chilling effect the real prospect of arrest, trial and prison for starting a war would have on a head of state considering aggression. Such a simple and powerful deterrent could move humanity significantly closer to realizing the original vision of the United Nations: a world without war.

There simply can be no lasting peace without justice.

To quote Professor Sadat, “As humanity struggles to overcome its darkest impulses in this new millennium, impulses that led not only to the slaughter of hundreds of millions during the 20th century, but threaten our very survival, the creation of effective international institutions and regimes is essential … to transform the prohibitions on the commission of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression into real tools to deter the cruel and powerful.”

Next year in New York, the I.C.C. Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression is scheduled to conclude their work on a definition of aggression for inclusion as an amendment to the Rome Statute.

A review conference of the full I.C.C. Assembly will convene in 2010 to consider this and other amendments.