Wednesday, June 06, 2007
We'll Get The SOB on That Too....
Go get him Joe!
We're with you, big guy!
An Interview With Joseph Wilson
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t Report
Monday 04 June 2007
In a recent interview, former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson told me that he and his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, both strongly feel that Vice President Dick Cheney is behind efforts to block her from discussing her work for the Central Intelligence Agency before 2002 in a memoir to be published in October. The memoir is titled "Fair Game." Plame Wilson's undercover CIA identity was leaked to a handful of reporters by senior Bush administration officials. She and her husband believe the leak was retaliation after he spoke out against the White House concerning Iraq.
In July 2003, Wilson wrote an op-ed article in the New York Times, accusing the Bush administration of twisting prewar Iraq intelligence in an effort to win public support for a US-led invasion of that country.
Upon reviewing her manuscript, the CIA told Plame Wilson she cannot disclose that she worked for the agency prior to 2002 - even though it is public information and has been entered into the Congressional Record. Last week, Plame Wilson and her publisher, Simon & Schuster, sued the CIA in US District Court in New York for unconstitutionally interfering with her rights to free speech.
"This is Richard Cheney's last attempt to try to stifle free speech in this country, and we'll beat the son of a bitch on that too, if we have to," Wilson told me in a 30-minute interview at his office in Santa Fe, New Mexico. "We will find the work-around to make sure this happens - that she will be able to tell her story, so that somebody other than Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Rich Armitage and Karl Rove can talk about her."
Wilson and his wife have filed a civil suit against top administration officials - among them Vice President Dick Cheney, White House Political Adviser Karl Rove and Cheney's former Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for allegedly violating his and Plame Wilson's civil rights when they disclosed her covert CIA status to the media. The defendants have argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed on grounds that it was a "policy dispute." However, Wilson told me he believed that the judge presiding over the case felt the case had merit and took issue with assertions made by Cheney's attorneys that Cheney, in his capacity as vice president, was entitled to absolute immunity from lawsuits.
"I think we came away feeling that the judge clearly saw that a wrong had been committed," Wilson told me. The judge is expected to render a decision in less than a month on whether the civil suit can move forward. "The judge was skeptical of this notion of absolute immunity. He made the point, I think repeatedly, that absolute immunity was a unique feature of the Office of the President, and not necessarily of the Office of the Vice President."
Libby was convicted earlier this year of four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury about how he discovered that Plame Wilson was a CIA employee, and whether he discussed her role at the agency with the media. He is scheduled to be sentenced Tuesday.
Wilson's stinging rebuke of the administration's reliance on what later turned out to be a set of forged documents angered senior Bush administration officials. The documents purportedly revealed that Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium from Niger to build an atomic bomb. Wilson had traveled to the African country of Niger in February 2002 on behalf of the CIA to investigate the allegations. He returned to the US and told a CIA briefer that the claims were unfounded. President Bush cited the claims as fact in his January 2003 State of the Union speech.
A federal investigation led by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald later found that numerous White Officials had retaliated against and sought to discredit Joseph Wilson for publicly claiming that the administration had manipulated Iraq intelligence by telling a handful of elite Washington, DC reporters that Wilson's investigation into the Niger claims could not be trusted. The administration told the reporters that Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA and had arranged to send her husband to Niger. The officials suggested that the trip was the result of nepotism. Plame Wilson testified before Congress this year that she had had no role in selecting her husband for the mission.
Jason Leopold is a former Los Angeles bureau chief for Dow Jones Newswire. He has written over 2,000 stories on the California energy crisis and received the Dow Jones Journalist of the Year Award in 2001 for his coverage on the issue as well as a Project Censored award in 2004. Leopold also reported extensively on Enron's downfall and was the first journalist to land an interview with former Enron president Jeffrey Skilling following Enron's bankruptcy filing in December 2001. Leopold has appeared on CNBC and National Public Radio as an expert on energy policy and has also been the keynote speaker at more than two dozen energy industry conferences around the country.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Jefferson Indicted. 16 Counts
Mr. Jefferson is certainly, like everyone else, innocent until proven guilty. That is especially true given the stunning politization of the DOJ under Bush (and Rove).
Nevertheless, this is as good a time as any to express our zero-tolerance policy for corruption in D.C. and/or state houses across this country, no matter the party.
It is our hope that Judge Walton, who threw the book at I. Lewis Libby yesterday, will become the example followed by judges across the country when it comes to lying, corrupt politicians who believe they are above the law.
If Mr. Jefferson is guilty of the counts againt him, he has betrayed the people of La. at a terrible time, just when they need all the help they can get.
Jury Indicts Representative Jefferson in Bribery Probe
By Jerry Markon and Allan Lengel
The Washington Post
Tuesday 05 June 2007
Federal authorities accused Rep. William J. Jefferson yesterday of using his congressional office and staff to enrich himself and his family, charging the Louisiana Democrat with offering and accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to support business ventures in the United States and several West African nations.
The 16-count indictment also accused Jefferson, a former co-chairman of congressional caucuses on Nigeria and African trade, of racketeering, money laundering and obstruction of justice. The indictment was handed up by a federal grand jury and capped a long and tumultuous FBI investigation.
The grand jury said Jefferson, 60, had solicited a bribe for himself and family members in a congressional dining room, falsely reported trips to Africa as official business, sought to corrupt a senior Nigerian politician and promoted U.S. financing for a sugar factory in Nigeria whose owner paid fees to a Jefferson family company in his home state.
The indictment said that at one point, Jefferson drove in his Lincoln Town Car through the streets of Arlington with $100,000 in marked FBI bills meant for a top Nigerian official whose assistance Jefferson needed for a business venture. The lawmaker allegedly stowed $90,000 in his home freezer, wrapped in aluminum foil and concealed inside frozen-food containers.
The funds would be a down payment, Jefferson is accused of explaining to an associate, to ensure that "the little hook is in there."
The indictment came after a lengthy investigation that became public in 2005 with an FBI raid on Jefferson's homes. A separate raid in May 2006 on his quarters in the Rayburn House Office Building provoked a political and legal debate over the seizure of his computer hard drive and office files, with House leaders raising questions about the constitutionality of such an intrusive act. President Bush sealed the seized documents, but a federal judge later declared the raid constitutional. Some documents were eventually released to investigators, but others are held up in a legal challenge over the raid.
Jefferson, a low-key legislator who won reelection with 57 percent of the vote in November while under investigation, declined to comment yesterday. His attorney, Robert Trout, said Jefferson intends to fight on.
"They picked the wrong congressman, and they picked the wrong facts," Trout said at a news conference in Los Angeles.
"The Department of Justice has inspected every aspect of Mr. Jefferson's public and private life" but has not alleged that the lawmaker "promised anybody any legislation," Trout said. "There is no suggestion that he promised anyone any appropriations. There were no earmarks. There were no government contracts."
The federal indictment is the first in which a U.S. official is charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bars bribery of foreign officials. Jefferson, federal officials said yesterday, collected about $400,000 as the result of the schemes at issue and was slated to collect much more if all his business deals came to fruition.
A 1972 graduate of Harvard Law School, Jefferson obtained a master's degree in taxation from Georgetown University's law school in 1996, four years before the indictment says his alleged conspiracy began. Jefferson became in 1990 the first black congressman elected in Louisiana since Reconstruction, and the soft-spoken lawmaker retained the strong support of other members of the Congressional Black Caucus after the FBI raid.
But House Democratic leaders orchestrated his removal last year from the Ways and Means Committee, and congressional sources said they may seek in coming days to strip him of his sole remaining committee assignment.
If convicted on all counts, Jefferson could face more than 200 years in prison, but under federal sentencing guidelines the term would probably be much less. The 94-page indictment details 11 alleged bribery and fraud schemes involving his business interests in at least seven West African countries, including telecommunications deals in Nigeria and Ghana, oil concessions in Equatorial Guinea, waste-recycling systems in Nigeria and the Nigerian sugar plant for which he sought Export-Import Bank financing.
Federal investigators based their accusations on recorded conversations, e-mail messages, documents, faxes and a cooperating witness - Lori Mody - who wore an electronic listening device when she conferred with Jefferson, according to the indictment and sources familiar with the probe. As outlined by authorities, the bribery schemes unfolded in meetings in Potomac, New York, London and Africa, and letters promoting business ventures were sent on congressional stationery by Jefferson's aides.
The indictment says Jefferson told the cooperating witness that he had "a lot of folks to pay off" in connection with a Nigerian cable television and Internet deal involving Louisville-based iGate.
At another point, he is said to have described his role in packing family members onto the board of a company he had allegedly been shaking down for bribes. "I'm in the shadows behind the curtain," he reportedly said.
In May 2005, while discussing the possibility of bribing Nigerian officials to support the venture, Jefferson said he wanted to handle the matter personally. "I would rather take care of it," he is alleged to have told the witness. "I'm talking about with elected people and big shots, okay?"
The next month, Jefferson allegedly told the same witness that he outlined the project to the spouse of a Nigerian official he wanted to bribe so the official would "salivate over what the opportunities are there." Describing his efforts to get Nigerian and other African officials to support his business interests, Jefferson is accused of saying at one point: "I will try my very best to deliver for you and not disappoint you."
Mody is a wealthy investor from McLean who did business with Jefferson and iGate but eventually became suspicious and went to the FBI. That triggered the start of the investigation in March 2005. The Nigerian official that Jefferson allegedly sought to bribe has been identified in court records as Atiku Abubakar, who served as Nigeria's vice president from 1997 until this year.
Edward Weidenfeld, the attorney for Abubakar, said last night that "Vice President Abubakar is innocent of any wrongdoing, period."
"The schemes charged are complex," Chuck Rosenberg, the U.S. attorney in Alexandria, said at a news conference. "The alleged criminal behavior is spread over time and distance. But the essence of the charges in this case are really rather simple. Mr. Jefferson corruptly traded on his good office and on the Congress, where he served as a member of the United States House of Representatives, to enrich himself and his family through a pervasive pattern of fraud, bribery and corruption that spanned many years and two continents."
Jefferson business associates Vernon L. Jackson, owner of iGate, and Brett Pfeffer, a former congressional aide, pleaded guilty last year to bribery and are serving time in prison.
Joseph Persichini Jr., head of the FBI's Washington field office, said the investigation is continuing. Jefferson is scheduled to be arraigned Friday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.
Staff writer Sonya Geis in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Nevertheless, this is as good a time as any to express our zero-tolerance policy for corruption in D.C. and/or state houses across this country, no matter the party.
It is our hope that Judge Walton, who threw the book at I. Lewis Libby yesterday, will become the example followed by judges across the country when it comes to lying, corrupt politicians who believe they are above the law.
If Mr. Jefferson is guilty of the counts againt him, he has betrayed the people of La. at a terrible time, just when they need all the help they can get.
Jury Indicts Representative Jefferson in Bribery Probe
By Jerry Markon and Allan Lengel
The Washington Post
Tuesday 05 June 2007
Federal authorities accused Rep. William J. Jefferson yesterday of using his congressional office and staff to enrich himself and his family, charging the Louisiana Democrat with offering and accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to support business ventures in the United States and several West African nations.
The 16-count indictment also accused Jefferson, a former co-chairman of congressional caucuses on Nigeria and African trade, of racketeering, money laundering and obstruction of justice. The indictment was handed up by a federal grand jury and capped a long and tumultuous FBI investigation.
The grand jury said Jefferson, 60, had solicited a bribe for himself and family members in a congressional dining room, falsely reported trips to Africa as official business, sought to corrupt a senior Nigerian politician and promoted U.S. financing for a sugar factory in Nigeria whose owner paid fees to a Jefferson family company in his home state.
The indictment said that at one point, Jefferson drove in his Lincoln Town Car through the streets of Arlington with $100,000 in marked FBI bills meant for a top Nigerian official whose assistance Jefferson needed for a business venture. The lawmaker allegedly stowed $90,000 in his home freezer, wrapped in aluminum foil and concealed inside frozen-food containers.
The funds would be a down payment, Jefferson is accused of explaining to an associate, to ensure that "the little hook is in there."
The indictment came after a lengthy investigation that became public in 2005 with an FBI raid on Jefferson's homes. A separate raid in May 2006 on his quarters in the Rayburn House Office Building provoked a political and legal debate over the seizure of his computer hard drive and office files, with House leaders raising questions about the constitutionality of such an intrusive act. President Bush sealed the seized documents, but a federal judge later declared the raid constitutional. Some documents were eventually released to investigators, but others are held up in a legal challenge over the raid.
Jefferson, a low-key legislator who won reelection with 57 percent of the vote in November while under investigation, declined to comment yesterday. His attorney, Robert Trout, said Jefferson intends to fight on.
"They picked the wrong congressman, and they picked the wrong facts," Trout said at a news conference in Los Angeles.
"The Department of Justice has inspected every aspect of Mr. Jefferson's public and private life" but has not alleged that the lawmaker "promised anybody any legislation," Trout said. "There is no suggestion that he promised anyone any appropriations. There were no earmarks. There were no government contracts."
The federal indictment is the first in which a U.S. official is charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bars bribery of foreign officials. Jefferson, federal officials said yesterday, collected about $400,000 as the result of the schemes at issue and was slated to collect much more if all his business deals came to fruition.
A 1972 graduate of Harvard Law School, Jefferson obtained a master's degree in taxation from Georgetown University's law school in 1996, four years before the indictment says his alleged conspiracy began. Jefferson became in 1990 the first black congressman elected in Louisiana since Reconstruction, and the soft-spoken lawmaker retained the strong support of other members of the Congressional Black Caucus after the FBI raid.
But House Democratic leaders orchestrated his removal last year from the Ways and Means Committee, and congressional sources said they may seek in coming days to strip him of his sole remaining committee assignment.
If convicted on all counts, Jefferson could face more than 200 years in prison, but under federal sentencing guidelines the term would probably be much less. The 94-page indictment details 11 alleged bribery and fraud schemes involving his business interests in at least seven West African countries, including telecommunications deals in Nigeria and Ghana, oil concessions in Equatorial Guinea, waste-recycling systems in Nigeria and the Nigerian sugar plant for which he sought Export-Import Bank financing.
Federal investigators based their accusations on recorded conversations, e-mail messages, documents, faxes and a cooperating witness - Lori Mody - who wore an electronic listening device when she conferred with Jefferson, according to the indictment and sources familiar with the probe. As outlined by authorities, the bribery schemes unfolded in meetings in Potomac, New York, London and Africa, and letters promoting business ventures were sent on congressional stationery by Jefferson's aides.
The indictment says Jefferson told the cooperating witness that he had "a lot of folks to pay off" in connection with a Nigerian cable television and Internet deal involving Louisville-based iGate.
At another point, he is said to have described his role in packing family members onto the board of a company he had allegedly been shaking down for bribes. "I'm in the shadows behind the curtain," he reportedly said.
In May 2005, while discussing the possibility of bribing Nigerian officials to support the venture, Jefferson said he wanted to handle the matter personally. "I would rather take care of it," he is alleged to have told the witness. "I'm talking about with elected people and big shots, okay?"
The next month, Jefferson allegedly told the same witness that he outlined the project to the spouse of a Nigerian official he wanted to bribe so the official would "salivate over what the opportunities are there." Describing his efforts to get Nigerian and other African officials to support his business interests, Jefferson is accused of saying at one point: "I will try my very best to deliver for you and not disappoint you."
Mody is a wealthy investor from McLean who did business with Jefferson and iGate but eventually became suspicious and went to the FBI. That triggered the start of the investigation in March 2005. The Nigerian official that Jefferson allegedly sought to bribe has been identified in court records as Atiku Abubakar, who served as Nigeria's vice president from 1997 until this year.
Edward Weidenfeld, the attorney for Abubakar, said last night that "Vice President Abubakar is innocent of any wrongdoing, period."
"The schemes charged are complex," Chuck Rosenberg, the U.S. attorney in Alexandria, said at a news conference. "The alleged criminal behavior is spread over time and distance. But the essence of the charges in this case are really rather simple. Mr. Jefferson corruptly traded on his good office and on the Congress, where he served as a member of the United States House of Representatives, to enrich himself and his family through a pervasive pattern of fraud, bribery and corruption that spanned many years and two continents."
Jefferson business associates Vernon L. Jackson, owner of iGate, and Brett Pfeffer, a former congressional aide, pleaded guilty last year to bribery and are serving time in prison.
Joseph Persichini Jr., head of the FBI's Washington field office, said the investigation is continuing. Jefferson is scheduled to be arraigned Friday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.
Staff writer Sonya Geis in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Food Prices Climbing (It's getting dangerous)
Consumers feel the heat from rising food prices:
Rising gasoline prices have been getting all the attention, but the cost of another, more-important staple is actually rising even more: food.
In the past year, food prices have increased 3.7 percent and are on track to jump by as much as 7 percent by year's end. The current increase is more than double the 1.8 percent jump seen the year before, according to the consumer price index.
Rising gasoline prices have been getting all the attention, but the cost of another, more-important staple is actually rising even more: food.
In the past year, food prices have increased 3.7 percent and are on track to jump by as much as 7 percent by year's end. The current increase is more than double the 1.8 percent jump seen the year before, according to the consumer price index.
Libby sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison
Hoorah!
But we doubt he'll serve that long, if at all.
Don't the Bushes always pardon their men, especially when the men know where the bodies are buried, so to speak? Libby even looks like a rat.
Remember old Caspar? (Weinberger that is....). He had the Iran/Contra goods on loopy Poppy.
Pardoned!
Come to think of it, he resembled a rat as well. Hummm....
Libby sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison - Yahoo! News:
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison Tuesday for lying and obstructing the CIA leak investigation — the probe that showed a White House obsessed with criticism of its decision to go to war.
Experts cast doubt on credibility of JFK terror plot
Anyone surprised by this?
Could it be that the story about Cheney plotting with Israel to help him get around Condi and Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran by launching a preemptive attack was not pleasing to the administration? Sure as hell didn't want that story to get reved up, now would we?
Experts cast doubt on credibility of JFK terror plot - Yahoo! News:
NEW YORK (AFP) - An alleged plot to blow up fuel tanks and pipelines at New York's JFK airport had little chance of success, according to safety experts, who have questioned whether the plot ever posed a real threat.
Al Gore is being savaged, again.
There is little doubt in my mind that Al Gore is probably one of the smartest people ever elected president by the American people. (That's right, elected by the people)
Nevertheless, he shouldn't run. Just look what he has to endure for opening his mouth about two issues, the importance of which is patently obvious to anyone with more than three neurons firing. Al can probably do more good for the country by continuing to do what he is doing.
OK, I admit that Al can be a little annoying, but that isn't really all that important compared to.....say.......the end of the planet as we know it!
Al Gore is SOoo right about the level of discourse in this country. It has sunk to such new lows in the past decade or so, I find it nauseating in it's ramifications for this nation.
The level of appalling ignorance in this country about important issues, like why the hell we are in Iraq, is stunning and a bigger danger to our "freedoms" than anything al Qaeda could ever hope to do.
Cable News is by far the worst offender when it comes to misinforming, dis-informing and half-ass informing the American electorate. Still, they sure did have good company in the run up to mass slaughter and quagmire. WaPo and the NYT are as guilty as anyone else.
Consortiumnews.com:
An irony about Al Gore’s new book, The Assault on Reason, is that the former Vice President blames TV much more than the print media for America’s drift into the world of the irrational.
Yet, while author Gore has encountered mostly respectful interviews on TV, his book has been savaged by major newspapers and print reviewers, often distorting the contents and resurrecting one of the favorite press themes of Campaign 2000, that Gore is an obnoxious pedant.
Starting the ball rolling was a dismissively brief two-column review in the Washington Post’s Book World on May 27, largely ignoring what the book said while making clear that the Inside-the-Beltway hostility toward Gore endures.
Nevertheless, he shouldn't run. Just look what he has to endure for opening his mouth about two issues, the importance of which is patently obvious to anyone with more than three neurons firing. Al can probably do more good for the country by continuing to do what he is doing.
OK, I admit that Al can be a little annoying, but that isn't really all that important compared to.....say.......the end of the planet as we know it!
Al Gore is SOoo right about the level of discourse in this country. It has sunk to such new lows in the past decade or so, I find it nauseating in it's ramifications for this nation.
The level of appalling ignorance in this country about important issues, like why the hell we are in Iraq, is stunning and a bigger danger to our "freedoms" than anything al Qaeda could ever hope to do.
Cable News is by far the worst offender when it comes to misinforming, dis-informing and half-ass informing the American electorate. Still, they sure did have good company in the run up to mass slaughter and quagmire. WaPo and the NYT are as guilty as anyone else.
Consortiumnews.com:
An irony about Al Gore’s new book, The Assault on Reason, is that the former Vice President blames TV much more than the print media for America’s drift into the world of the irrational.
Yet, while author Gore has encountered mostly respectful interviews on TV, his book has been savaged by major newspapers and print reviewers, often distorting the contents and resurrecting one of the favorite press themes of Campaign 2000, that Gore is an obnoxious pedant.
Starting the ball rolling was a dismissively brief two-column review in the Washington Post’s Book World on May 27, largely ignoring what the book said while making clear that the Inside-the-Beltway hostility toward Gore endures.
Foul-Mouthed Bush and Cheney wreck FCCs indecency crusade
What is your definition of indecency?
We find the Iraq War, and the language of lies that led to it, indecent, in the extreme. Cheney's meltdown on the senate floor is nothing compared to Cheney continuing to make a connection between Iraq, al Qaeda and 9/11.
By STEPHEN LABATON
WASHINGTON, June 4 — If President Bush and Vice President Cheney can blurt out vulgar language, then the government cannot punish broadcast television stations for broadcasting the same words in similarly fleeting contexts.
That, in essence, was the decision on Monday, when a federal appeals panel struck down the government policy that allows stations and networks to be fined if they broadcast shows containing obscene language.
Although the case was primarily concerned with what is known as “fleeting expletives,” or blurted obscenities, on television, both network executives and top officials at the Federal Communications Commission said the opinion could gut the ability of the commission to regulate any speech on television or radio.
Kevin J. Martin, the chairman of the F.C.C., said that the agency was now considering whether to seek an appeal before all the judges of the appeals court or to take the matter directly to the Supreme Court.
The decision, by a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, was a sharp rebuke for the F.C.C. and for the Bush administration. For the four television networks that filed the lawsuit — Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC — it was a major victory in a legal and cultural battle that they are waging with the commission and its supporters.
Under President Bush, the F.C.C. has expanded its indecency rules, taking a much harder line on obscenities uttered on broadcast television and radio. While the judges sent the case back to the commission to rewrite its indecency policy, it said that it was “doubtful” that the agency would be able to “adequately respond to the constitutional and statutory challenges raised by the networks.”
The networks hailed the decision.
“We are very pleased with the court’s decision and continue to believe that the government regulation of content serves no purpose other than to chill artistic expression in violation of the First Amendment,” said Scott Grogin, a senior vice president at Fox. “Viewers should be allowed to determine for themselves and their families, through the many parental control technologies available, what is appropriate viewing for their home.”
Mr. Martin, the chairman of the commission, attacked the panel’s reasoning.
“I completely disagree with the court’s ruling and am disappointed for American families,” he said. “The court says the commission is ‘divorced from reality.’ It is the New York court, not the commission, that is divorced from reality.”
He said that if the agency was unable to prohibit some vulgarities during prime time,
“Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want.”
Beginning with the F.C.C.’s indecency finding in a case against NBC for a vulgarity uttered by the U2 singer Bono during the Golden Globes awards ceremony in 2003, President Bush’s Republican and Democratic appointees to the commission have imposed a tougher policy by punishing any station that broadcast a fleeting expletive. That includes vulgar language blurted out on live shows like the Golden Globes or scripted shows like “NYPD Blue,” which was cited in the case.
Reversing decades of a more lenient policy, the commission had found that the mere utterance of certain words implied that sexual or excretory acts were carried out and therefore violated the indecency rules.
But the judges said vulgar words are just as often used out of frustration or excitement, and not to convey any broader obscene meaning. “In recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced sexual or excretory organs or activities.”
Adopting an argument made by lawyers for NBC, the judges then cited examples in which Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had used the same language that would be penalized under the policy. Mr. Bush was caught on videotape last July using a common vulgarity that the commission finds objectionable in a conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Three years ago, Mr. Cheney was widely reported to have muttered an angry obscene version of “get lost” to Senator Patrick Leahy on the floor of the United States Senate.
“We find that the F.C.C.’s new policy regarding ‘fleeting expletives’ fails to provide a reasoned analysis justifying its departure from the agency’s established practice,” said the panel.
Emily A. Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had no comment about the ruling.
Although the judges struck down the policy on statutory grounds, they also said there were serious constitutional problems with the commission’s attempt to regulate the language of television shows.
“We are skeptical that the commission can provide a reasoned explanation for its ‘fleeting expletive’ regime that would pass constitutional muster,” said the panel in an opinion written by Judge Rosemary S. Pooler and joined by Judge Peter W. Hall. “We question whether the F.C.C.’s indecency test can survive First Amendment scrutiny.”
In his dissent, Judge Pierre N. Leval defended the commission’s decision to toughen its indecency policy.
“In explanation of this relatively modest change of standard, the commission gave a sensible, although not necessarily compelling, reason,” he said.
“What we have is at most a difference of opinion between a court and an agency,” Judge Leval said. “Because of the deference courts must give to the reasoning of a duly authorized administrative agency in matters within the agency’s competence, a court’s disagreement with the commission on this question is of no consequence. The commission’s position is not irrational; it is not arbitrary and capricious.”
The case involved findings that the networks had violated the indecency rules for comments by Cher and Nicole Richie on the Billboard Music Awards, the use of expletives by the character Andy Sipowicz on “NYPD Blue” and a comment on “The Early Show” by a contestant from CBS’s reality show “Survivor.”
The commission did not issue fines in any of the cases because the programs were broadcast before the agency changed its policy. But the networks were concerned about the new interpretation of the rules, particularly since the agency has been issuing a record number of fines.
Two years ago, Congress increased the potential maximum penalty for each indecency infraction to $325,000, from $32,500. Producers and writers have complained that the prospect of stiff fines had begun to chill their creative efforts.
The case, Fox et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, along with a second case now before a federal appeals court in Philadelphia involving the malfunctioning wardrobe that exposed one of the pop singer Janet Jackson’s breasts during the halftime show of the 2004 Super Bowl, have been closely watched by the television industry and its critics for their broad implications for television programming.
Neither cable TV nor satellite programming faces the same indecency rules even though they cover about 85 percent of homes. And as the Bush administration’s appointees have taken a tougher view on indecency, the industry has waged a countercampaign in the courts.
The commission has struggled to consistently explain how it applies the rules. In the Bono case involving the Golden Globe awards, the staff initially ruled in favor of the network. After lawmakers began to complain about that decision, the commission, then led by Michael K. Powell, reversed the staff decision.
But the commission declined to impose a fine because, it noted, “existing precedent would have permitted this broadcast” and therefore NBC and its affiliates “necessarily did not have the requisite notice to justify a penalty.”
Broadcast television executives have complained about what they say has been the arbitrary application of the rules. They expressed concern, for instance, that they might be penalized for broadcasting “Saving Private Ryan,” a Steven Spielberg movie about the invasion of Normandy during World War II, because of the repeated use of vulgarities.
But the F.C.C. in that case ruled in favor of the networks, finding that deleting the expletives “would have altered the nature of the artistic work and diminished the power, realism and immediacy of the film experience for viewers.”
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
This Effing War Is Gonna Haunt Us All For Years To come
And, perhaps no one as much as Hillary Clinton.
The word mistake does not seem to be in her vocabulary. Historically, it is a bad time for people who cannot say, "I was wrong."
Nevertheless, she was right to point out that it is a sad thing when congressmen and senators cannot trust the president to tell the truth about something as important as taking this nation to war.
Howl by Nicholas von Hoffman
Hillary's Political Horror Story
[posted online on June 1, 2007]
Slowly, very slowly, Hillary Clinton's vote to invade Iraq is turning into a political horror story. It is the moldering hand of a murder victim coming out of the grave to grab her by the ankle.
Bodies would not be jumping out at the candidate of the money wing of the Democratic Party if she had only said she made a mistake in voting for the war, but she has refused to do that so often that if she did it now she would open herself up to a chorus of catcalls.
She may be concerned that a retraction will make her look weak. So her line of defense has been, "My vote was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that I had at the time."
She says it over and over again.
The facts she had and the facts she could have had before she cast her vote for the war are two different things. We learn that from an article in The New York Times Magazine by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.
These two, who have made a career out of investigating Hillary, have dug up a couple of facts the Senator is going to have a hard time ignoring. The big fact is that she had access at the time to a highly classified report, the National Intelligence Estimate, which contained authoritative doubts that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Gerth and Van Natta have established that she did not read this report. Because it was classified, senators wishing to read it had to sign in, and Hillary did not. Although one of her Democratic colleagues, Bob Graham, then chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, urged Hillary and all the other Democratic senators to read it, few did. Graham, however, read the ninety-page document and was so shaken by the questionable evidence for the existence of WMDs that he voted against going to war.
In fairness to Hillary, she is not the only Democratic presidential aspirant who had a chance to read the National Intelligence Estimate and did not. John Edwards did not read it either and also voted for war. Since then Edwards, unlike Hillary, has recanted his vote, but he still has some explaining to do. Also with some explaining to do are Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd, two other Democratic senators running for the nomination. But Hillary is the only one saying that she would still vote for war knowing what she did then.
If her vote was "a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that I had at the time," what exactly is a "sincere vote"? Why did Clinton vote to send Americans and Iraqis their doom without reading a report throwing cold water on the reasons she later gave for supporting the war? And as for the assurances, where did she get them? From intelligence sources or from her political advisers?
There is more than one dead hand snatching at Hillary's ankles. Why, Gerth and Van Natta ask, did she accept the Bush-Cheney line that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam? Not only the National Intelligence Estimate but other intelligence reports available to her as a senator said it simply was not true.
Yet another hand slapping the ground and grasping for Hilary's ankle is what Gerth and Van Natta call "the forgotten vote." They write: "For all the scrutiny of Clinton's vote, an important moment has been lost. It came several hours earlier, on Oct. 10, 2002, the same day Clinton spoke about why she would support the Iraq-war authorization.
"In her remarks on the Senate floor, she stressed the need for diplomacy with Iraq on the part of the Bush administration and insisted she wasn't voting for 'any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism.' Yet just a few hours after her speech, Clinton voted against an amendment to the war resolution that would have required the diplomatic emphasis that Clinton had gone on record as supporting--and that she now says she had favored all along....
"The amendment called...for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed and, in Senator (Carl) Levin's words, 'urge us to authorize a going-it-alone, unilateral resolution.' That resolution would allow the president to wage war as a last option."
Safely seated in the armor-plated political machine of her candidacy, Hillary Clinton has not had to explain her vote against the "diplomacy first" amendment. Nor has she had to answer for not reading the National Intelligence Estimate before voting to send thousands of people to their deaths.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
The word mistake does not seem to be in her vocabulary. Historically, it is a bad time for people who cannot say, "I was wrong."
Nevertheless, she was right to point out that it is a sad thing when congressmen and senators cannot trust the president to tell the truth about something as important as taking this nation to war.
Howl by Nicholas von Hoffman
Hillary's Political Horror Story
[posted online on June 1, 2007]
Slowly, very slowly, Hillary Clinton's vote to invade Iraq is turning into a political horror story. It is the moldering hand of a murder victim coming out of the grave to grab her by the ankle.
Bodies would not be jumping out at the candidate of the money wing of the Democratic Party if she had only said she made a mistake in voting for the war, but she has refused to do that so often that if she did it now she would open herself up to a chorus of catcalls.
She may be concerned that a retraction will make her look weak. So her line of defense has been, "My vote was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that I had at the time."
She says it over and over again.
The facts she had and the facts she could have had before she cast her vote for the war are two different things. We learn that from an article in The New York Times Magazine by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.
These two, who have made a career out of investigating Hillary, have dug up a couple of facts the Senator is going to have a hard time ignoring. The big fact is that she had access at the time to a highly classified report, the National Intelligence Estimate, which contained authoritative doubts that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Gerth and Van Natta have established that she did not read this report. Because it was classified, senators wishing to read it had to sign in, and Hillary did not. Although one of her Democratic colleagues, Bob Graham, then chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, urged Hillary and all the other Democratic senators to read it, few did. Graham, however, read the ninety-page document and was so shaken by the questionable evidence for the existence of WMDs that he voted against going to war.
In fairness to Hillary, she is not the only Democratic presidential aspirant who had a chance to read the National Intelligence Estimate and did not. John Edwards did not read it either and also voted for war. Since then Edwards, unlike Hillary, has recanted his vote, but he still has some explaining to do. Also with some explaining to do are Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd, two other Democratic senators running for the nomination. But Hillary is the only one saying that she would still vote for war knowing what she did then.
If her vote was "a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that I had at the time," what exactly is a "sincere vote"? Why did Clinton vote to send Americans and Iraqis their doom without reading a report throwing cold water on the reasons she later gave for supporting the war? And as for the assurances, where did she get them? From intelligence sources or from her political advisers?
There is more than one dead hand snatching at Hillary's ankles. Why, Gerth and Van Natta ask, did she accept the Bush-Cheney line that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam? Not only the National Intelligence Estimate but other intelligence reports available to her as a senator said it simply was not true.
Yet another hand slapping the ground and grasping for Hilary's ankle is what Gerth and Van Natta call "the forgotten vote." They write: "For all the scrutiny of Clinton's vote, an important moment has been lost. It came several hours earlier, on Oct. 10, 2002, the same day Clinton spoke about why she would support the Iraq-war authorization.
"In her remarks on the Senate floor, she stressed the need for diplomacy with Iraq on the part of the Bush administration and insisted she wasn't voting for 'any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism.' Yet just a few hours after her speech, Clinton voted against an amendment to the war resolution that would have required the diplomatic emphasis that Clinton had gone on record as supporting--and that she now says she had favored all along....
"The amendment called...for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed and, in Senator (Carl) Levin's words, 'urge us to authorize a going-it-alone, unilateral resolution.' That resolution would allow the president to wage war as a last option."
Safely seated in the armor-plated political machine of her candidacy, Hillary Clinton has not had to explain her vote against the "diplomacy first" amendment. Nor has she had to answer for not reading the National Intelligence Estimate before voting to send thousands of people to their deaths.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Monday, June 04, 2007
Gates warns Turkey not to invade Iraq
What the Hell was Bush thinking?
Getting us involved in this hornets nest ought to, by itself, be cause for impeachment.
Lying us into it should be reason enough for a public flogging!
Gates warns Turkey not to invade Iraq - Yahoo! News:
SINGAPORE - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday cautioned Turkey against sending troops into northern
Iraq, as it has threatened, to hunt down Kurdish rebels it accuses of carrying out terrorist raids inside Turkey.
'We hope there would not be a unilateral military action across the border into Iraq,' Gates told a news conference after meetings here with Asian government officials. Turkey and Iraq were not represented.
Gates said he sympathized with the Turks' concern about cross-border raids by Kurdish rebels.
Former General: American Crisis In Leadership!
The Peninsula On-line: Qatar's leading English Daily:
San Antonio, Texas • The man who led coalition forces in Iraq during the first year of the occupation says the United States can forget about winning the war.
“I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will — not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat,” retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said in an interview.
Sanchez, in his first interview since he retired last year, is the highest-ranking former military leader yet to suggest the Bush administration fell short in Iraq. “I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time,” Sanchez said after a recent speech in San Antonio, Texas.
San Antonio, Texas • The man who led coalition forces in Iraq during the first year of the occupation says the United States can forget about winning the war.
“I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will — not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat,” retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said in an interview.
Sanchez, in his first interview since he retired last year, is the highest-ranking former military leader yet to suggest the Bush administration fell short in Iraq. “I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time,” Sanchez said after a recent speech in San Antonio, Texas.
Corporate Media Out To Get Edwards? Is The Pope Catholic
Well, of course they are.
He is the biggest threat to them.
Are Media Out to Get John Edwards?
By Jeff Cohen
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributor
Friday 01 June 2007
Give me a break about John Edwards's pricey haircut, mansion, lecture fees, and the rest. The focus on these topics tells us two things about corporate media: One, we've long known - that they elevate personal stuff above issues; the other is now becoming clear - that they have a special animosity towards Edwards.
Is it hypocritical for the former senator to base a presidential campaign on alleviating poverty while building himself a sprawling mansion? Perhaps. But isn't that preferable to all the millionaire candidates who neither talk about nor care about the poor? Elite media seem more comfortable with millionaire politicians who identify with their class - and half of all US senators are millionaires.
Trust me when I say I don't know many millionaires. Of course, I don't know many presidential candidates either (except my friend Dennis Kucinich, whose net worth in 2004 was reported to be below $32,000).
But I'm growing quite suspicious about the media barrage against Edwards, who got his wealth as a trial lawyer suing hospitals and corporations. Among "top-tier" presidential candidates, Edwards is alone in convincingly criticizing corporate-drafted trade treaties, and talking about workers' rights and the poor and higher taxes on the rich. He's the candidate who set up a university research center on poverty. Of the front-runners in presidential polls, he's pushing the hardest to withdraw from Iraq, and pushing the hardest on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to follow suit.
Given a national media elite that worships "free trade" and disparages Democrats for catering to "extremists" like MoveOn.org on Iraq withdrawal, the media's rather obsessive focus on Edwards's alleged hypocrisy should not surprise us.
Nor should it surprise us that we've been shown aerial pictures of Edwards's mansion in North Carolina - but not of the mansions of the other well-off candidates.
Or that a snob like Brit Hume of Fox News is chortling, "What would Jesus do with John Edwards's mansion?"
Or that we've heard so much about Edwards's connection to one Wall Street firm, but relatively little about the fact that other candidates, including Democrats, are so heavily-funded by Wall Street interests.
Or that Juan Williams and NPR this weekend teed off on Edwards for saying he's "so concerned about poverty" while pocketing hedge fund profits and $55,000 for a lecture at the University of California, Davis. NPR emphasized that the Davis fee was for a "speech on poverty" - but didn't mention that Davis paid other politicians the same or more for lectures. Or that Rudy Giuliani gets many times as much for speeches.
You see, those other pols aren't hypocrites: They don't lecture about poverty.
What's really behind the media's animus towards Edwards is his "all-out courting of the liberal left-wing base" (ABC News) or his "looking for some steam from the left" (CNN).
One of the wise men of mainstream punditry, Stuart Rothenberg, said it clearest in a "Roll Call" column complaining of Edwards's "class warfare message" and his "seeming insatiable desire to run to the left"; the column pointed fingers of blame at Edwards's progressive campaign co-chair David Bonior, consultant Joe Trippi, groups like Democrats.com and Democracy for America, and a bring-our-troops-home message "imitating either Jimmy Stewart or Cindy Sheehan."
Leave it to Fox's Bill O'Reilly to take the mainstream current over the cliff, bellowing on Tuesday that Edwards has "sold his soul to the far left.... MoveOn's running him.... His support on the Internet is coming from the far left, which is telling him what to do."
What seems to worry pundits - whether centrist or rightist - is that Edwards is leading the polls in Iowa, where the first caucuses vote next January.
Indeed, current media coverage of Edwards bears an eerie resemblance to the scary reporting on the Democratic frontrunner four years ago, Howard Dean. If Edwards is still ahead as the Iowa balloting nears, expect coverage to get far nastier. The media barrage against Dean in the weeks before Iowa - "too far left" and "unelectable" with a high "unfavorable" rating - helped defeat him. (I write those words as someone who was with Kucinich at the time.)
Today, elite media are doing their best to raise Edwards's unfavorable rating. But the independent media and the Netroots are four years stronger - and have more clout vis-a-vis corporate media - than during Dean's rise and fall.
And it's hard for mainstream pundits to paint Edwards as "unelectable." Polls suggest he has wide appeal to non-liberals and swing voters.
After years of pontificating about how Southern white candidates are the most electable Democrats for president, it would be ironic for even nimble Beltway pundits to flip-flop and declare that this particular white Southerner is a bad bet simply because he talks about class issues.
Jeff Cohen is a media critic, former TV pundit and author of Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media. He was communications director of the Kucinich for President Campaign in 2003, and currently consults with Progressive Democrats of America.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
He is the biggest threat to them.
Are Media Out to Get John Edwards?
By Jeff Cohen
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributor
Friday 01 June 2007
Give me a break about John Edwards's pricey haircut, mansion, lecture fees, and the rest. The focus on these topics tells us two things about corporate media: One, we've long known - that they elevate personal stuff above issues; the other is now becoming clear - that they have a special animosity towards Edwards.
Is it hypocritical for the former senator to base a presidential campaign on alleviating poverty while building himself a sprawling mansion? Perhaps. But isn't that preferable to all the millionaire candidates who neither talk about nor care about the poor? Elite media seem more comfortable with millionaire politicians who identify with their class - and half of all US senators are millionaires.
Trust me when I say I don't know many millionaires. Of course, I don't know many presidential candidates either (except my friend Dennis Kucinich, whose net worth in 2004 was reported to be below $32,000).
But I'm growing quite suspicious about the media barrage against Edwards, who got his wealth as a trial lawyer suing hospitals and corporations. Among "top-tier" presidential candidates, Edwards is alone in convincingly criticizing corporate-drafted trade treaties, and talking about workers' rights and the poor and higher taxes on the rich. He's the candidate who set up a university research center on poverty. Of the front-runners in presidential polls, he's pushing the hardest to withdraw from Iraq, and pushing the hardest on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to follow suit.
Given a national media elite that worships "free trade" and disparages Democrats for catering to "extremists" like MoveOn.org on Iraq withdrawal, the media's rather obsessive focus on Edwards's alleged hypocrisy should not surprise us.
Nor should it surprise us that we've been shown aerial pictures of Edwards's mansion in North Carolina - but not of the mansions of the other well-off candidates.
Or that a snob like Brit Hume of Fox News is chortling, "What would Jesus do with John Edwards's mansion?"
Or that we've heard so much about Edwards's connection to one Wall Street firm, but relatively little about the fact that other candidates, including Democrats, are so heavily-funded by Wall Street interests.
Or that Juan Williams and NPR this weekend teed off on Edwards for saying he's "so concerned about poverty" while pocketing hedge fund profits and $55,000 for a lecture at the University of California, Davis. NPR emphasized that the Davis fee was for a "speech on poverty" - but didn't mention that Davis paid other politicians the same or more for lectures. Or that Rudy Giuliani gets many times as much for speeches.
You see, those other pols aren't hypocrites: They don't lecture about poverty.
What's really behind the media's animus towards Edwards is his "all-out courting of the liberal left-wing base" (ABC News) or his "looking for some steam from the left" (CNN).
One of the wise men of mainstream punditry, Stuart Rothenberg, said it clearest in a "Roll Call" column complaining of Edwards's "class warfare message" and his "seeming insatiable desire to run to the left"; the column pointed fingers of blame at Edwards's progressive campaign co-chair David Bonior, consultant Joe Trippi, groups like Democrats.com and Democracy for America, and a bring-our-troops-home message "imitating either Jimmy Stewart or Cindy Sheehan."
Leave it to Fox's Bill O'Reilly to take the mainstream current over the cliff, bellowing on Tuesday that Edwards has "sold his soul to the far left.... MoveOn's running him.... His support on the Internet is coming from the far left, which is telling him what to do."
What seems to worry pundits - whether centrist or rightist - is that Edwards is leading the polls in Iowa, where the first caucuses vote next January.
Indeed, current media coverage of Edwards bears an eerie resemblance to the scary reporting on the Democratic frontrunner four years ago, Howard Dean. If Edwards is still ahead as the Iowa balloting nears, expect coverage to get far nastier. The media barrage against Dean in the weeks before Iowa - "too far left" and "unelectable" with a high "unfavorable" rating - helped defeat him. (I write those words as someone who was with Kucinich at the time.)
Today, elite media are doing their best to raise Edwards's unfavorable rating. But the independent media and the Netroots are four years stronger - and have more clout vis-a-vis corporate media - than during Dean's rise and fall.
And it's hard for mainstream pundits to paint Edwards as "unelectable." Polls suggest he has wide appeal to non-liberals and swing voters.
After years of pontificating about how Southern white candidates are the most electable Democrats for president, it would be ironic for even nimble Beltway pundits to flip-flop and declare that this particular white Southerner is a bad bet simply because he talks about class issues.
Jeff Cohen is a media critic, former TV pundit and author of Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media. He was communications director of the Kucinich for President Campaign in 2003, and currently consults with Progressive Democrats of America.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Coverage Of Protests Endangers Musharaff
Funny, isn't it, that over here, in the "land of the free," Bush has no problem at all keeping non-violent protests of our TeeVee sets?
The corporate-whore media does it for him.
As TV Coverage Feeds Protests, Musharraf Reacts
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, June 4, 2007; A01
HARIPUR, Pakistan -- Every day, Taj Mohammed Abbasi wheels his cart through dusty streets, selling the oranges, guavas and litchis that are the pride of this rural outpost in the shadow of the Himalayan foothills.
But what he's seen recently on television motivated him this weekend to take to the streets for a different reason: to join a movement with the audacious goal of ousting the military-led government and restoring democracy to Pakistan.
"Watching television, I have become very angry," said Abbasi, 33, swatting flies from his cart. "I am not a political person. I have not been to a lot of rallies. But this time, definitely, I am going."
Pakistan might be in the midst of its first televised revolution. For nearly three months, a handful of fledgling independent stations have been broadcasting minute-by-minute coverage of what at first seemed a relatively obscure issue: the suspension of Pakistan's chief judge by the president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
Since then, Pakistanis nationwide have been transfixed by live coverage of police beating lawyers, pro-Musharraf groups firing assault rifles at demonstrators and the chief justice speaking to ever-larger and more boisterous audiences about the dangers of autocratic rule.
As the cameras have rolled, opposition to Musharraf has surged, and he is considered more vulnerable now than at any time in his eight years in office. Even in rural areas where poverty is high, residents have gathered in hotels and barbershops around the few television sets available and watched the brewing crisis play out live.
Here in Haripur -- an hour's drive north of the capital, Islamabad, but a world away from its modern conveniences -- residents came out by the thousands on Saturday to demand that Musharraf step aside and allow elections to restore civilian rule.
Stung by the criticism, Musharraf has reacted by cracking down on what had been the government's signature defense against charges of authoritarianism: the independent television news networks.
The country's half-dozen networks all sprung up under his watch, and Musharraf has repeatedly bragged to the world about his efforts to free Pakistani television from state control and censorship for the first time in the country's history. But with his government teetering, Musharraf, a key U.S. ally, is threatening the networks' very existence.
"He allowed the genie out of the bottle. But he didn't realize how big it could become. Now he's trying to put it back," said Talat Hussain, director of news and current affairs for one of the channels, Aaj Television.
Aaj, along with others, has come under intense pressure in recent days to pull programming off the air and to cancel live coverage of opposition rallies. Aaj has continued to broadcast, but its transmission is being blocked throughout much of the country.
"I have no illusions about it," Hussain said. "They're going to shut us down."
Ayaz Amir, a political commentator who hosts a call-in program on rival channel ARY Oneworld, said his show was canceled this past week because of government pressure. "I've been branded as a person who's not favorably disposed to the government," he said.
Government officials deny they are censoring the news media. They say they are simply enforcing regulations that have been on the books for years but have often been ignored, including a requirement that stations get permission before they broadcast live.
"The independence of the media is something we take pride in," said Information Minister Mohammed Ali Durrani. "We'll take care of their independence."
Musharraf has made no secret of his displeasure with the way the controversy over the chief justice has been covered, and his top aides have accused the news media of exploiting the issue for ratings gains.
Last week, Durrani warned journalists against criticizing the army, an institution that has historically been revered in Pakistan but is increasingly attacked for denying the country a chance at civilian rule eight years after a military-led coup elevated Musharraf to power.
Durrani's remarks came after the independent channels broadcast marathon coverage of an anti-Musharraf rally at which demonstrators chanted slogans such as, "The generals are traitors" and "Save the country -- take Musharraf's skin off."
Since that rally, several of the channels have toned down their coverage of the crisis, and there is widespread speculation that they made deals with the government in order to continue broadcasting.
Until recent months, Musharraf had displayed an adeptness at using the media to his advantage -- giving occasional interviews and staging elaborate press events to showcase government accomplishments. The tactics worked: The president enjoyed widespread popularity and was considered virtually invincible.
But the chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, loomed as a potential obstacle because he was expected to rule on cases that could complicate Musharraf's plans to get himself elected for another five-year term by a lame-duck parliament.
On March 9, Musharraf invited cameramen to a meeting at which he expected Chaudhry to resign under pressure for alleged abuses of office. Instead, Chaudhry refused. The image of the judge moments before he stood up to the uniformed president became the first icon of the controversy.
The next came days later, when police raided Geo television's office in Islamabad as the station tried to film protesters demonstrating against Chaudhry's suspension. Tear gas filled the office, and police began beating journalists with batons, but the cameras continued to roll.
Two months later, in Karachi, Aaj's office came under attack as demonstrators clashed in the streets outside in violence that would ultimately claim more than 40 lives. During six hours of live coverage, Aaj's anchors repeatedly called for help from the police, to no avail, on a day when government security forces were widely blamed for standing by as the city burned.
A note on the Geo Web site Sunday said: "The government has blocked the transmission of the Geo News TV channel across the country due to the reasons best known to them. . . .
"The citizens, social and political circles have condemned the ban on transmission of Geo News and they have demanded of the government to immediately lift ban on the transmission of the Geo News and give complete freedom to media in the country," it said.
The chief justice and his supporters have used television to their advantage, staging exuberant, day-long parades from one city to the next, earning them hours of continuous coverage.
By contrast, political observers say, the government has tried to use force and intimidation to end the controversy, but has consistently misjudged how its efforts would play on television. As a result, Musharraf's problems have only intensified.
"What they did not take into account was that the crisis was going live to every bloody Pakistani household," said Aamer Ahmed Khan, Pakistan editor of the BBC World Service and a journalist here for more than two decades. "That is what is making them nervous now."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
The corporate-whore media does it for him.
As TV Coverage Feeds Protests, Musharraf Reacts
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, June 4, 2007; A01
HARIPUR, Pakistan -- Every day, Taj Mohammed Abbasi wheels his cart through dusty streets, selling the oranges, guavas and litchis that are the pride of this rural outpost in the shadow of the Himalayan foothills.
But what he's seen recently on television motivated him this weekend to take to the streets for a different reason: to join a movement with the audacious goal of ousting the military-led government and restoring democracy to Pakistan.
"Watching television, I have become very angry," said Abbasi, 33, swatting flies from his cart. "I am not a political person. I have not been to a lot of rallies. But this time, definitely, I am going."
Pakistan might be in the midst of its first televised revolution. For nearly three months, a handful of fledgling independent stations have been broadcasting minute-by-minute coverage of what at first seemed a relatively obscure issue: the suspension of Pakistan's chief judge by the president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
Since then, Pakistanis nationwide have been transfixed by live coverage of police beating lawyers, pro-Musharraf groups firing assault rifles at demonstrators and the chief justice speaking to ever-larger and more boisterous audiences about the dangers of autocratic rule.
As the cameras have rolled, opposition to Musharraf has surged, and he is considered more vulnerable now than at any time in his eight years in office. Even in rural areas where poverty is high, residents have gathered in hotels and barbershops around the few television sets available and watched the brewing crisis play out live.
Here in Haripur -- an hour's drive north of the capital, Islamabad, but a world away from its modern conveniences -- residents came out by the thousands on Saturday to demand that Musharraf step aside and allow elections to restore civilian rule.
Stung by the criticism, Musharraf has reacted by cracking down on what had been the government's signature defense against charges of authoritarianism: the independent television news networks.
The country's half-dozen networks all sprung up under his watch, and Musharraf has repeatedly bragged to the world about his efforts to free Pakistani television from state control and censorship for the first time in the country's history. But with his government teetering, Musharraf, a key U.S. ally, is threatening the networks' very existence.
"He allowed the genie out of the bottle. But he didn't realize how big it could become. Now he's trying to put it back," said Talat Hussain, director of news and current affairs for one of the channels, Aaj Television.
Aaj, along with others, has come under intense pressure in recent days to pull programming off the air and to cancel live coverage of opposition rallies. Aaj has continued to broadcast, but its transmission is being blocked throughout much of the country.
"I have no illusions about it," Hussain said. "They're going to shut us down."
Ayaz Amir, a political commentator who hosts a call-in program on rival channel ARY Oneworld, said his show was canceled this past week because of government pressure. "I've been branded as a person who's not favorably disposed to the government," he said.
Government officials deny they are censoring the news media. They say they are simply enforcing regulations that have been on the books for years but have often been ignored, including a requirement that stations get permission before they broadcast live.
"The independence of the media is something we take pride in," said Information Minister Mohammed Ali Durrani. "We'll take care of their independence."
Musharraf has made no secret of his displeasure with the way the controversy over the chief justice has been covered, and his top aides have accused the news media of exploiting the issue for ratings gains.
Last week, Durrani warned journalists against criticizing the army, an institution that has historically been revered in Pakistan but is increasingly attacked for denying the country a chance at civilian rule eight years after a military-led coup elevated Musharraf to power.
Durrani's remarks came after the independent channels broadcast marathon coverage of an anti-Musharraf rally at which demonstrators chanted slogans such as, "The generals are traitors" and "Save the country -- take Musharraf's skin off."
Since that rally, several of the channels have toned down their coverage of the crisis, and there is widespread speculation that they made deals with the government in order to continue broadcasting.
Until recent months, Musharraf had displayed an adeptness at using the media to his advantage -- giving occasional interviews and staging elaborate press events to showcase government accomplishments. The tactics worked: The president enjoyed widespread popularity and was considered virtually invincible.
But the chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, loomed as a potential obstacle because he was expected to rule on cases that could complicate Musharraf's plans to get himself elected for another five-year term by a lame-duck parliament.
On March 9, Musharraf invited cameramen to a meeting at which he expected Chaudhry to resign under pressure for alleged abuses of office. Instead, Chaudhry refused. The image of the judge moments before he stood up to the uniformed president became the first icon of the controversy.
The next came days later, when police raided Geo television's office in Islamabad as the station tried to film protesters demonstrating against Chaudhry's suspension. Tear gas filled the office, and police began beating journalists with batons, but the cameras continued to roll.
Two months later, in Karachi, Aaj's office came under attack as demonstrators clashed in the streets outside in violence that would ultimately claim more than 40 lives. During six hours of live coverage, Aaj's anchors repeatedly called for help from the police, to no avail, on a day when government security forces were widely blamed for standing by as the city burned.
A note on the Geo Web site Sunday said: "The government has blocked the transmission of the Geo News TV channel across the country due to the reasons best known to them. . . .
"The citizens, social and political circles have condemned the ban on transmission of Geo News and they have demanded of the government to immediately lift ban on the transmission of the Geo News and give complete freedom to media in the country," it said.
The chief justice and his supporters have used television to their advantage, staging exuberant, day-long parades from one city to the next, earning them hours of continuous coverage.
By contrast, political observers say, the government has tried to use force and intimidation to end the controversy, but has consistently misjudged how its efforts would play on television. As a result, Musharraf's problems have only intensified.
"What they did not take into account was that the crisis was going live to every bloody Pakistani household," said Aamer Ahmed Khan, Pakistan editor of the BBC World Service and a journalist here for more than two decades. "That is what is making them nervous now."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Why Isn't Dick Cheney In Prison?
Dick Cheney Rules (In Hell)
Americans are accustomed to Vice President Dick Cheney’s waiting out a terrorist threat in a “secure undisclosed location.” Now it seems that Mr. Cheney wears the cloak of invisibility in secure disclosed locations.
The Associated Press reported that Mr. Cheney’s office ordered the Secret Service last September to destroy all records of visitors to the official vice presidential mansion — right after The Washington Post sued for access to the logs. That move was made in secret, naturally. It came out only because of another lawsuit, filed by a private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, seeking the names of conservative religious figures who visited the vice president’s residence.
This disdain for accountability is distressing, but not surprising. Mr. Cheney has had it on display from his first days in office, when he refused to name the energy-industry executives who met with him behind closed doors to draft an energy policy.
In a similar way, Mr. Cheney seems unconcerned about little things like checks and balances and traditional American notions of judicial process. At one point, he gave himself the power to selectively declassify documents and selectively leak them to reporters. In a recent commencement address, he declaimed against prisoners who had the gall to “demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States.”
Mr. Cheney is the driving force behind the Bush administration’s theory of the “unitary executive,” which holds that no one, including Congress and the courts, has the power to supervise or regulate the actions of the president. Just as he pays little attention to old-fangled notions of the separation of powers, Mr. Cheney does not overly bother himself about the bright line that should exist between his last job as chief of the energy giant Halliburton and his current one on the public payroll.
From 2001 to 2005, Mr. Cheney received “deferred salary payments” from Halliburton that far exceeded what taxpayers gave him. Mr. Cheney still holds hundreds of thousands of stock options that have ballooned by millions of dollars as Halliburton profited handsomely from the war in Iraq.
Reviewing this record — secrecy, impatience with government regulations, backroom dealings, handsome paydays — it dawned on us that Mr. Cheney is in step with the times. He has privatized the job of vice president of the United States.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Americans are accustomed to Vice President Dick Cheney’s waiting out a terrorist threat in a “secure undisclosed location.” Now it seems that Mr. Cheney wears the cloak of invisibility in secure disclosed locations.
The Associated Press reported that Mr. Cheney’s office ordered the Secret Service last September to destroy all records of visitors to the official vice presidential mansion — right after The Washington Post sued for access to the logs. That move was made in secret, naturally. It came out only because of another lawsuit, filed by a private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, seeking the names of conservative religious figures who visited the vice president’s residence.
This disdain for accountability is distressing, but not surprising. Mr. Cheney has had it on display from his first days in office, when he refused to name the energy-industry executives who met with him behind closed doors to draft an energy policy.
In a similar way, Mr. Cheney seems unconcerned about little things like checks and balances and traditional American notions of judicial process. At one point, he gave himself the power to selectively declassify documents and selectively leak them to reporters. In a recent commencement address, he declaimed against prisoners who had the gall to “demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States.”
Mr. Cheney is the driving force behind the Bush administration’s theory of the “unitary executive,” which holds that no one, including Congress and the courts, has the power to supervise or regulate the actions of the president. Just as he pays little attention to old-fangled notions of the separation of powers, Mr. Cheney does not overly bother himself about the bright line that should exist between his last job as chief of the energy giant Halliburton and his current one on the public payroll.
From 2001 to 2005, Mr. Cheney received “deferred salary payments” from Halliburton that far exceeded what taxpayers gave him. Mr. Cheney still holds hundreds of thousands of stock options that have ballooned by millions of dollars as Halliburton profited handsomely from the war in Iraq.
Reviewing this record — secrecy, impatience with government regulations, backroom dealings, handsome paydays — it dawned on us that Mr. Cheney is in step with the times. He has privatized the job of vice president of the United States.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Libby Sentencing
Tomgram: De la Vega, Has Libby Learned Nothing?
Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega has been writing about the case of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame for this site since the summer of 2005. The story itself began back in July 2003 with a New York Times op-ed by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, that called into question one of the many exaggerations, fabrications, and manipulations with which the Bush administration took a fear-filled and cowed Congress and a fear-filled populace on a bum's rush to its war of choice. In Wilson's case, it was the famed 16 words ("The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa…") that made it into the President's 2003 State of the Union speech about Saddam Hussein's supposed search for yellowcake uranium in Africa for the Iraqi nuclear program that had not existed for years. This was part of the supposed evidence which allowed top officials, especially Vice President Cheney, to put the proverbial "mushroom cloud" over American cities before the invasion of Iraq. (Or as then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice so famously said: "[W]e don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The subsequent rush of the highest officials of this administration to smear Wilson (through his CIA agent wife and by other means) was an early indication of post-invasion panic in White House ranks -- and of an administration's collective desire to make a harsh example of one person ready to speak publicly in order to staunch any future bleeding on the domestic front.
This Tuesday, Vice President Cheney's former right-hand man, I. Lewis Libby, is to receive legal justice for his role in covering up these activities. As de la Vega indicates below, given the enormity of what his boss and others did -- and a glance at any of those little boxes inside most American papers with the names of dead American soldiers offers but a glimpse of the mayhem and carnage they let loose -- this is a modest moment indeed. De la Vega in her remarkable book United States v. George Bush et al., a "hypothetical indictment" of the President, Vice President and three top advisors, and seven days of "grand jury testimony" on the way this administration conspired to defraud us into war, went after the largest target of all. (By next year, with the book being transformed into both a movie and a play, her "indictment" may be part of American life.) In the meantime, she makes sense of what we should -- and should not -- expect Tuesday of the Libby sentencing. Tom
Sentencing for Dummies
The Fate of I. Lewis Libby
By Elizabeth de la Vega
If the memorandum filed by defense attorneys in anticipation of former top White House adviser I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's June 5th sentencing is any indication, it appears that Libby -- one of the highest White House officials ever convicted of a felony -- has learned precisely nothing from his trial and conviction on charges of false statements, obstruction of justice, and perjury.
Libby's lawyers admit -- because they have to -- that their client, a man with three decades of executive-level federal government service, disseminated classified information about the status of CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson in response to public criticism of the Bush administration by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. They nevertheless insist that this, at best, reckless (and, far more likely, intentional) act is not only not illegal, but not even wrong.
Unfortunately for Libby, this in-your-face position also has a certain shoot-yourself-in-the-foot quality. Libby is arguing for a probationary sentence, which is considerably more lenient than that called for by the Sentencing Guidelines. (See lesson one below.) An essential factor every judge must consider in deciding whether to depart from the guidelines to impose such a light sentence is whether it would sufficiently deter others from similar misconduct.
Having aggressively argued that there was neither crime, nor misconduct, how do Libby's lawyers then address the issue of deterrence? They argue that Libby has experienced a "very public fall from grace" and that this "dire consequence" alone would be enough to "warn the public -- and high ranking government officials in particular -- that it is important to take FBI and grand jury investigations very seriously." This is an exquisite expression of the entitlement and arrogance that spawned the administration's smear campaign against Joseph Wilson in the first place. It could only be more pointedly evocative of utter contempt for the rule of law if it were followed by a sneer emoticon.
If Libby and his loyal followers -- including former Law and Order District Attorney Fred Thompson who appears to be taking the creative approach of launching his presidential campaign with an attack on prosecutions for perjury (those wacky soft-on-crime Hollywood types!) -- have learned nothing from this case, what about the rest of us? What lessons might we learn from Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson?
Lesson One: Federal Sentencing for Dummies
This lesson is designed for those of you who are not lawyers or otherwise inclined to wade through the United States Sentencing Guidelines in order to understand the issues that Judge Reggie Walton has to decide before sentencing Scooter Libby.
Here is all you need to know:
In federal court, sentences are determined using a system of guidelines that has two main components: a defendant's criminal history and an "offense level" based on the nature of the crimes for which he was convicted. After someone is convicted of a crime, a probation officer prepares a report that lays out a preliminary calculation of these factors, which results in a recommended sentencing range. The probation officer also identifies possible grounds for downward or upward departures from that range. The government and the defense then argue about the findings and calculations in the report, submit memos and make oral presentations, after which the judge decides what sentence to impose. Judges don't have to follow the guidelines, but they usually do.
Everyone in the case thus far -- the probation officer, the defense attorneys, and the prosecutors -- agrees that the base offense level for Libby is 15 to 21 months. The Special Counsel is arguing, however, that, under the federal sentencing guidelines, the court should increase this range because Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice interfered with an investigation into possible violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and the Espionage Act. If the court accepts this argument, Libby could receive a sentence ranging from 30 to 37 months.
The defense, on the other hand, is arguing that the judge should not follow the guidelines at all. Instead, they say, Libby should merely be sentenced to probation because:
(1) he has an outstanding record of government service;
(2) he will lose his law license;
(3) he and his family have suffered, financially and otherwise, as a result of the prosecution;
(4) his conduct was an aberration;
(5) he is unlikely to commit crimes in the future.
Given that, as the government points out, Libby used his position in the White House to commit the crime for which he was convicted; that he has not used his law license for many years and would likely never have to again; that the families of all defendants' suffer and that, unlike most defendants, Libby has a massive legal defense trust fund; that he committed his crime not once, but four times over a period of many months; and that doesn't think he did anything wrong, I suspect the judge will not be giving Libby probation. Indeed -- for what it's worth -- I consider it far more likely that he will receive a sentence of approximately 30 months.
Lesson Two: Why the Sentence Libby Receives is the Least Significant Aspect of the Entire CIA Leak Investigation
The case of United States v. I. Lewis Libby was simultaneously the repository of enormous hopes among critics of the Bush administration (who, like myself, longed to see Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald crack open the whole White House rush to war against Iraq) and the target of remarkable vitriol on the part of administration supporters. As it turned out, the wishes and fears of both sides were more a reflection of what the case was not than of what it actually was. Certainly, the investigation and prosecution of Libby had the potential to reveal information that might have had significant political consequences, but the criminal proceedings themselves were never going to be the agent of such change. For that we needed -- and still need -- Congress.
Because of this almost universal disconnect over the case, I would not be surprised to find that, even if Judge Walton imposes a sentence of 37 months -- which I believe would be entirely warranted -- many people, particularly those who have most ardently supported the effort, will find the event anticlimactic and vaguely dispiriting.
I make this prediction in part because such is the nature of sentencing proceedings. Having participated in hundreds of sentencings, I've found nearly every one to be dispiriting at some level. Strangely -- especially given that I was there as a prosecutor -- I often felt sorry for the defendant and, even more often, sympathized with the defendant's family and friends. At the same time, I was always heartbroken by the effects of the crime on the victims and knew that the pain they had been caused was not going to end simply because the defendant was heading off to prison. Sentencings have an aura of finality -- and simplicity -- that is invariably more illusory than real.
An even greater illusion, however, is the idea that any sentencing, any individual criminal prosecution, or any individual prosecutor could have a galactic impact on our society (no less, in this case, on the fall of the House of Bush). Every prosecutor knows this fact -- and is occasionally more humbled by it than he or she might wish to be -- but if you would like to test the proposition, ask yourself these questions: A. Who prosecuted Al Capone? B. Who prosecuted Timothy McVeigh? C. Who prosecuted the Unabomber? (Answers: A. George E.Q. Johnson; B. George Hartzler; C. Robert Cleary, Stephen Freccero, and Steven Lapham.)
This in no way minimizes the importance of the Libby case, nor does it lessen the accomplishments of the able team that prosecuted it. On the contrary, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald himself has repeatedly emphasized this very point, most recently in the Special Counsel's Sentencing Memo filed on May 25th. The Libby prosecution served to vindicate, he wrote, "a principle fundamental to preserving our judicial system's independence from politics: that any witness, whatever his political affiliation, whatever his views on any policy or national issue, whether he works in the White House or drives a truck to earn a living, must tell the truth when he raises his hand and takes an oath in a judicial proceeding, or gives a statement to federal law enforcement officers." That is not an insignificant public interest -- indeed it is critically important -- but it is a limited one.
It is, moreover, not even remotely equivalent to the interest the public has in ensuring -- no, demanding -- that Congress rein in the executive abuse of power that spawned the Iraq War, and so the smear campaign against Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson. Indeed, it is worse than illusory; it is actually quite dangerous in the long-term for the public to believe that the work of prosecutors and prosecutions can substitute for the work of Congress.
No, I am not decrying the "criminalization of politics" (as those on the right are so fond of doing). There are times -- and this is one example -- when our government officials have committed crimes and must be prosecuted. Nonetheless, the prosecution of those crimes, however expertly done, is a focused, precise task. To expect a federal prosecutor to remedy the gravely dysfunctional government that we currently have through one, or even many, criminal prosecutions is like expecting an orthopedic surgeon to cure a patient's multiple organ failure by setting a broken arm.
Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in the Nation magazine, the Los Angeles Times, and Salon. She writes regularly for Tomdispatch.com. She is the author of United States v. George W. Bush et al., which has been optioned for both a play and a movie (scheduled to begin production in the summer of 2007).
She may be contacted at ElizabethdelaVega@Verizon.net.
Copyright 2007 Elizabeth de la Vega
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega has been writing about the case of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame for this site since the summer of 2005. The story itself began back in July 2003 with a New York Times op-ed by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, that called into question one of the many exaggerations, fabrications, and manipulations with which the Bush administration took a fear-filled and cowed Congress and a fear-filled populace on a bum's rush to its war of choice. In Wilson's case, it was the famed 16 words ("The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa…") that made it into the President's 2003 State of the Union speech about Saddam Hussein's supposed search for yellowcake uranium in Africa for the Iraqi nuclear program that had not existed for years. This was part of the supposed evidence which allowed top officials, especially Vice President Cheney, to put the proverbial "mushroom cloud" over American cities before the invasion of Iraq. (Or as then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice so famously said: "[W]e don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The subsequent rush of the highest officials of this administration to smear Wilson (through his CIA agent wife and by other means) was an early indication of post-invasion panic in White House ranks -- and of an administration's collective desire to make a harsh example of one person ready to speak publicly in order to staunch any future bleeding on the domestic front.
This Tuesday, Vice President Cheney's former right-hand man, I. Lewis Libby, is to receive legal justice for his role in covering up these activities. As de la Vega indicates below, given the enormity of what his boss and others did -- and a glance at any of those little boxes inside most American papers with the names of dead American soldiers offers but a glimpse of the mayhem and carnage they let loose -- this is a modest moment indeed. De la Vega in her remarkable book United States v. George Bush et al., a "hypothetical indictment" of the President, Vice President and three top advisors, and seven days of "grand jury testimony" on the way this administration conspired to defraud us into war, went after the largest target of all. (By next year, with the book being transformed into both a movie and a play, her "indictment" may be part of American life.) In the meantime, she makes sense of what we should -- and should not -- expect Tuesday of the Libby sentencing. Tom
Sentencing for Dummies
The Fate of I. Lewis Libby
By Elizabeth de la Vega
If the memorandum filed by defense attorneys in anticipation of former top White House adviser I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's June 5th sentencing is any indication, it appears that Libby -- one of the highest White House officials ever convicted of a felony -- has learned precisely nothing from his trial and conviction on charges of false statements, obstruction of justice, and perjury.
Libby's lawyers admit -- because they have to -- that their client, a man with three decades of executive-level federal government service, disseminated classified information about the status of CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson in response to public criticism of the Bush administration by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. They nevertheless insist that this, at best, reckless (and, far more likely, intentional) act is not only not illegal, but not even wrong.
Unfortunately for Libby, this in-your-face position also has a certain shoot-yourself-in-the-foot quality. Libby is arguing for a probationary sentence, which is considerably more lenient than that called for by the Sentencing Guidelines. (See lesson one below.) An essential factor every judge must consider in deciding whether to depart from the guidelines to impose such a light sentence is whether it would sufficiently deter others from similar misconduct.
Having aggressively argued that there was neither crime, nor misconduct, how do Libby's lawyers then address the issue of deterrence? They argue that Libby has experienced a "very public fall from grace" and that this "dire consequence" alone would be enough to "warn the public -- and high ranking government officials in particular -- that it is important to take FBI and grand jury investigations very seriously." This is an exquisite expression of the entitlement and arrogance that spawned the administration's smear campaign against Joseph Wilson in the first place. It could only be more pointedly evocative of utter contempt for the rule of law if it were followed by a sneer emoticon.
If Libby and his loyal followers -- including former Law and Order District Attorney Fred Thompson who appears to be taking the creative approach of launching his presidential campaign with an attack on prosecutions for perjury (those wacky soft-on-crime Hollywood types!) -- have learned nothing from this case, what about the rest of us? What lessons might we learn from Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson?
Lesson One: Federal Sentencing for Dummies
This lesson is designed for those of you who are not lawyers or otherwise inclined to wade through the United States Sentencing Guidelines in order to understand the issues that Judge Reggie Walton has to decide before sentencing Scooter Libby.
Here is all you need to know:
In federal court, sentences are determined using a system of guidelines that has two main components: a defendant's criminal history and an "offense level" based on the nature of the crimes for which he was convicted. After someone is convicted of a crime, a probation officer prepares a report that lays out a preliminary calculation of these factors, which results in a recommended sentencing range. The probation officer also identifies possible grounds for downward or upward departures from that range. The government and the defense then argue about the findings and calculations in the report, submit memos and make oral presentations, after which the judge decides what sentence to impose. Judges don't have to follow the guidelines, but they usually do.
Everyone in the case thus far -- the probation officer, the defense attorneys, and the prosecutors -- agrees that the base offense level for Libby is 15 to 21 months. The Special Counsel is arguing, however, that, under the federal sentencing guidelines, the court should increase this range because Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice interfered with an investigation into possible violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and the Espionage Act. If the court accepts this argument, Libby could receive a sentence ranging from 30 to 37 months.
The defense, on the other hand, is arguing that the judge should not follow the guidelines at all. Instead, they say, Libby should merely be sentenced to probation because:
(1) he has an outstanding record of government service;
(2) he will lose his law license;
(3) he and his family have suffered, financially and otherwise, as a result of the prosecution;
(4) his conduct was an aberration;
(5) he is unlikely to commit crimes in the future.
Given that, as the government points out, Libby used his position in the White House to commit the crime for which he was convicted; that he has not used his law license for many years and would likely never have to again; that the families of all defendants' suffer and that, unlike most defendants, Libby has a massive legal defense trust fund; that he committed his crime not once, but four times over a period of many months; and that doesn't think he did anything wrong, I suspect the judge will not be giving Libby probation. Indeed -- for what it's worth -- I consider it far more likely that he will receive a sentence of approximately 30 months.
Lesson Two: Why the Sentence Libby Receives is the Least Significant Aspect of the Entire CIA Leak Investigation
The case of United States v. I. Lewis Libby was simultaneously the repository of enormous hopes among critics of the Bush administration (who, like myself, longed to see Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald crack open the whole White House rush to war against Iraq) and the target of remarkable vitriol on the part of administration supporters. As it turned out, the wishes and fears of both sides were more a reflection of what the case was not than of what it actually was. Certainly, the investigation and prosecution of Libby had the potential to reveal information that might have had significant political consequences, but the criminal proceedings themselves were never going to be the agent of such change. For that we needed -- and still need -- Congress.
Because of this almost universal disconnect over the case, I would not be surprised to find that, even if Judge Walton imposes a sentence of 37 months -- which I believe would be entirely warranted -- many people, particularly those who have most ardently supported the effort, will find the event anticlimactic and vaguely dispiriting.
I make this prediction in part because such is the nature of sentencing proceedings. Having participated in hundreds of sentencings, I've found nearly every one to be dispiriting at some level. Strangely -- especially given that I was there as a prosecutor -- I often felt sorry for the defendant and, even more often, sympathized with the defendant's family and friends. At the same time, I was always heartbroken by the effects of the crime on the victims and knew that the pain they had been caused was not going to end simply because the defendant was heading off to prison. Sentencings have an aura of finality -- and simplicity -- that is invariably more illusory than real.
An even greater illusion, however, is the idea that any sentencing, any individual criminal prosecution, or any individual prosecutor could have a galactic impact on our society (no less, in this case, on the fall of the House of Bush). Every prosecutor knows this fact -- and is occasionally more humbled by it than he or she might wish to be -- but if you would like to test the proposition, ask yourself these questions: A. Who prosecuted Al Capone? B. Who prosecuted Timothy McVeigh? C. Who prosecuted the Unabomber? (Answers: A. George E.Q. Johnson; B. George Hartzler; C. Robert Cleary, Stephen Freccero, and Steven Lapham.)
This in no way minimizes the importance of the Libby case, nor does it lessen the accomplishments of the able team that prosecuted it. On the contrary, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald himself has repeatedly emphasized this very point, most recently in the Special Counsel's Sentencing Memo filed on May 25th. The Libby prosecution served to vindicate, he wrote, "a principle fundamental to preserving our judicial system's independence from politics: that any witness, whatever his political affiliation, whatever his views on any policy or national issue, whether he works in the White House or drives a truck to earn a living, must tell the truth when he raises his hand and takes an oath in a judicial proceeding, or gives a statement to federal law enforcement officers." That is not an insignificant public interest -- indeed it is critically important -- but it is a limited one.
It is, moreover, not even remotely equivalent to the interest the public has in ensuring -- no, demanding -- that Congress rein in the executive abuse of power that spawned the Iraq War, and so the smear campaign against Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson. Indeed, it is worse than illusory; it is actually quite dangerous in the long-term for the public to believe that the work of prosecutors and prosecutions can substitute for the work of Congress.
No, I am not decrying the "criminalization of politics" (as those on the right are so fond of doing). There are times -- and this is one example -- when our government officials have committed crimes and must be prosecuted. Nonetheless, the prosecution of those crimes, however expertly done, is a focused, precise task. To expect a federal prosecutor to remedy the gravely dysfunctional government that we currently have through one, or even many, criminal prosecutions is like expecting an orthopedic surgeon to cure a patient's multiple organ failure by setting a broken arm.
Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in the Nation magazine, the Los Angeles Times, and Salon. She writes regularly for Tomdispatch.com. She is the author of United States v. George W. Bush et al., which has been optioned for both a play and a movie (scheduled to begin production in the summer of 2007).
She may be contacted at ElizabethdelaVega@Verizon.net.
Copyright 2007 Elizabeth de la Vega
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Cheney, The Pirince of Darkness.....
He is either the anti-christ or the most psychotic person we have ever had in high office!
It is that simple!
Either way, we are simply screwed.
Got nutin' to lose, Big Time.
Published on Saturday, June 2, 2007 by The Nation
When The Prince of Darkness Visits
by Katrina Vanden Heuvel
“I want to know when the Prince of Darkness comes to visit Mr. Cheney,” the wife of a colleague said in response to the Vice President’s most recent power grab.
The most secretive VP in US history has arbitrarily decided that the Secret Service logs of visitors to his official residence at the Naval Observatory are none of the people’s business. In September 2006, Cheney’s Counsel, Shannen Coffin, wrote the Secret Service that all logs should be handed over to the Office of the Vice President and that the agency “shall not retain any copy of these documents and information…. If any documents remain in your possession, please return them to OVP as soon as possible.”
The letter was written as the Washington Post requested the logs under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) – a watchdog group targeting officials who “sacrifice the common good to special interests” – had sued the Secret Service for access to the records under the FOIA as well. CREW is seeking to identify conservative religious leaders who visited both the White House and Vice President’s residence and the Coffin letter was filed by the Justice department in an effort to get the group’s lawsuit dismissed.
“The latest filings make clear that the administration has been destroying documents and entering into secret agreements in violation of the law,” said Anne Weisman, CREW’s chief counsel.
Against Cheney’s wishes, the Secret Service has retained copies of the records (though it maintains that these records – despite being “created as part of the Secret Service’s performance of its statutorily-mandated function of protecting the President and Vice President” – are not subject to disclosure under the FOIA.) The Bush administration maintains that all of these records are protected under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and it “quietly” signed an agreement to that effect with the Secret Service a year ago as the media sought to investigate Jack Abramoff’s White House access.
“The scary thing about this move by the vice president’s office is the power grab part of it,” Tom Blanton, head of the National Security Archive, told the Associated Press. “We’re looking at a huge problem if the White House can reach into any agency and say certain records have something to do with the White House and they are presidential from now on. This White House has been infinitely creative in finding new ways and new forms of government secrecy.”
And no one has been more aggressive on this battle against transparency than the Man Who Should Be Impeached (first). From secret meetings with energy executives to craft an energy policy that does nothing to alleviate oil dependence and everything to increase their own profits; to setting up a rogue agency (Office of War Policy) that cherry-picked intelligence and lied our nation into this catastrophic war; to his close involvement with a parallel Justice Department (Office of Legal Policy – with David Addington and cronies) that sought to justify torture, use Presidential signing statements to ignore laws, and expand Executive powers at the expense of our system of checks and balances under the unitary executive theory. And now the Vice President is using and abusing his power to make secret what is the rightful knowledge of US taxpaying citizens.
What’s next?
Katrina Vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
It is that simple!
Either way, we are simply screwed.
Got nutin' to lose, Big Time.
Published on Saturday, June 2, 2007 by The Nation
When The Prince of Darkness Visits
by Katrina Vanden Heuvel
“I want to know when the Prince of Darkness comes to visit Mr. Cheney,” the wife of a colleague said in response to the Vice President’s most recent power grab.
The most secretive VP in US history has arbitrarily decided that the Secret Service logs of visitors to his official residence at the Naval Observatory are none of the people’s business. In September 2006, Cheney’s Counsel, Shannen Coffin, wrote the Secret Service that all logs should be handed over to the Office of the Vice President and that the agency “shall not retain any copy of these documents and information…. If any documents remain in your possession, please return them to OVP as soon as possible.”
The letter was written as the Washington Post requested the logs under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) – a watchdog group targeting officials who “sacrifice the common good to special interests” – had sued the Secret Service for access to the records under the FOIA as well. CREW is seeking to identify conservative religious leaders who visited both the White House and Vice President’s residence and the Coffin letter was filed by the Justice department in an effort to get the group’s lawsuit dismissed.
“The latest filings make clear that the administration has been destroying documents and entering into secret agreements in violation of the law,” said Anne Weisman, CREW’s chief counsel.
Against Cheney’s wishes, the Secret Service has retained copies of the records (though it maintains that these records – despite being “created as part of the Secret Service’s performance of its statutorily-mandated function of protecting the President and Vice President” – are not subject to disclosure under the FOIA.) The Bush administration maintains that all of these records are protected under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and it “quietly” signed an agreement to that effect with the Secret Service a year ago as the media sought to investigate Jack Abramoff’s White House access.
“The scary thing about this move by the vice president’s office is the power grab part of it,” Tom Blanton, head of the National Security Archive, told the Associated Press. “We’re looking at a huge problem if the White House can reach into any agency and say certain records have something to do with the White House and they are presidential from now on. This White House has been infinitely creative in finding new ways and new forms of government secrecy.”
And no one has been more aggressive on this battle against transparency than the Man Who Should Be Impeached (first). From secret meetings with energy executives to craft an energy policy that does nothing to alleviate oil dependence and everything to increase their own profits; to setting up a rogue agency (Office of War Policy) that cherry-picked intelligence and lied our nation into this catastrophic war; to his close involvement with a parallel Justice Department (Office of Legal Policy – with David Addington and cronies) that sought to justify torture, use Presidential signing statements to ignore laws, and expand Executive powers at the expense of our system of checks and balances under the unitary executive theory. And now the Vice President is using and abusing his power to make secret what is the rightful knowledge of US taxpaying citizens.
What’s next?
Katrina Vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Mercinaries: An Obvlious Threat To Democracy
My God.
What a hellish nightmare!
Published on Sunday, June 3, 2007 by the Philadelphia Inquirer
What If Our Mercenaries Turn On Us?
by Chris Hedges
Armed units from the private security firm Blackwater USA opened fire in Baghdad streets twice in two days last week. It triggered a standoff between the security contractors and Iraqi forces, a reminder that the war in Iraq may be remembered mostly in our history books for empowering and building America’s first modern mercenary army.There are an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 armed security contractors working in Iraq, although there are no official figures and some estimates run much higher. Security contractors are not counted as part of the coalition forces. When the number of private mercenary fighters is added to other civilian military “contractors” who carry out logistical support activities such as food preparation, the number rises to about 126,000.
“We got 126,000 contractors over there, some of them making more than the secretary of defense,” said House defense appropriations subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D., Pa.).
“How in the hell do you justify that?”
The privatization of war hands an incentive to American corporations, many with tremendous political clout, to keep us mired down in Iraq. But even more disturbing is the steady rise of this modern Praetorian Guard. The Praetorian Guard in ancient Rome was a paramilitary force that defied legal constraints, made violence part of the political discourse, and eventually plunged the Roman Republic into tyranny and despotism. Despotic movements need paramilitary forces that operate outside the law, forces that sow fear among potential opponents, and are capable of physically silencing those branded by their leaders as traitors. And in the wrong hands, a Blackwater could well become that force.
American taxpayers have so far handed a staggering $4 billion to “armed security” companies in Iraq such as Blackwater, according to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.). Tens of billions more have been paid to companies that provide logistical support. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) of the House Intelligence Committee estimates that 40 cents of every dollar spent on the occupation has gone to war contractors. It is unlikely that any of these corporations will push for an early withdrawal. The profits are too lucrative.
Mercenary forces like Blackwater operate beyond civilian and military law. They are covered by a 2004 edict passed by American occupation authorities in Iraq that immunizes all civilian contractors in Iraq from prosecution.
Blackwater, barely a decade old, has migrated from Iraq to set up operations in the United States and nine other countries. It trains Afghan security forces and has established a base a few miles from the Iranian border. The huge contracts from the war - including $750 million from the State Department since 2004 - have allowed Blackwater to amass a fleet of more than 20 aircraft, including helicopter gunships. Jeremy Scahill, the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, points out that Blackwater has also constructed “the world’s largest private military facility - a 7,000-acre compound near the Great Dismal Swamp of North Carolina.” Blackwater also recently opened a facility in Illinois (”Blackwater North”) and, despite local opposition, is moving ahead with plans to build another huge training base near San Diego. The company recently announced it was creating a private intelligence branch called “Total Intelligence.”
Erik Prince, who founded and runs Blackwater, is a man who appears to have little time for the niceties of democracy. He has close ties with the radical Christian Right and the Bush White House. He champions his company as a patriotic extension of the U.S. military. His employees, in an act as cynical as it is dishonest, take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. But what he and his allies have built is a mercenary army, paid for with government money, which operates outside the law and without constitutional constraint.
Mercenary units are a vital instrument in the hands of despotic movements. Communist and fascist movements during the last century each built rogue paramilitary forces. And the appearance of Blackwater fighters, heavily armed and wearing their trademark black uniforms, patrolling the streets of New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, may be a grim taste of the future. In New Orleans Blackwater charged the government $240,000 a day.
"It cannot happen here’ is always wrong,” the philosopher Karl Popper wrote. “A dictatorship can happen anywhere.”
The word contractor helps launder the fear and threat out of a more accurate term: “paramilitary force.” We’re not supposed to have such forces in the United States, but we now do. And if we have them, we have a potential threat to democracy. On U.S. soil, Blackwater so far has shown few signs of being an out-and-out rogue retainer army, though they looked the part in New Orleans. But were this country to become even a little less stable, outfits like Blackwater might see a heyday.
If the United States falls into a period of instability caused by another catastrophic terrorist attack, an economic meltdown that triggers social unrest, or a series of environmental disasters, such paramilitary forces, protected and assisted by fellow ideologues in the police and military, could ruthlessly abolish what is left of our eroding democracy. War, with the huge profits it hands to corporations, and to right-wing interests such as the Christian Right, could become a permanent condition.
And the thugs with automatic weapons, black uniforms and wraparound sunglasses who appeared on the streets in New Orleans could appear on our streets.
(Excuse me, a moment, but NOLA's streets are our streets. How could it be otherwise? Not only are New Orleanians Americans, but many, many Americans have, at one time or anouther, visited the Big Easy. New Orleans, as the unique city it was, belonged to all of us. Still does, what's left of it.)
Chris Hedges (hedgesscoop@aol.com) is a graduate of Harvard Divinity School and won a Pulitzer Prize as a foreign correspondent for the New York Times. He is author, mostly recently, of “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.”
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
What a hellish nightmare!
Published on Sunday, June 3, 2007 by the Philadelphia Inquirer
What If Our Mercenaries Turn On Us?
by Chris Hedges
Armed units from the private security firm Blackwater USA opened fire in Baghdad streets twice in two days last week. It triggered a standoff between the security contractors and Iraqi forces, a reminder that the war in Iraq may be remembered mostly in our history books for empowering and building America’s first modern mercenary army.There are an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 armed security contractors working in Iraq, although there are no official figures and some estimates run much higher. Security contractors are not counted as part of the coalition forces. When the number of private mercenary fighters is added to other civilian military “contractors” who carry out logistical support activities such as food preparation, the number rises to about 126,000.
“We got 126,000 contractors over there, some of them making more than the secretary of defense,” said House defense appropriations subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D., Pa.).
“How in the hell do you justify that?”
The privatization of war hands an incentive to American corporations, many with tremendous political clout, to keep us mired down in Iraq. But even more disturbing is the steady rise of this modern Praetorian Guard. The Praetorian Guard in ancient Rome was a paramilitary force that defied legal constraints, made violence part of the political discourse, and eventually plunged the Roman Republic into tyranny and despotism. Despotic movements need paramilitary forces that operate outside the law, forces that sow fear among potential opponents, and are capable of physically silencing those branded by their leaders as traitors. And in the wrong hands, a Blackwater could well become that force.
American taxpayers have so far handed a staggering $4 billion to “armed security” companies in Iraq such as Blackwater, according to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.). Tens of billions more have been paid to companies that provide logistical support. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) of the House Intelligence Committee estimates that 40 cents of every dollar spent on the occupation has gone to war contractors. It is unlikely that any of these corporations will push for an early withdrawal. The profits are too lucrative.
Mercenary forces like Blackwater operate beyond civilian and military law. They are covered by a 2004 edict passed by American occupation authorities in Iraq that immunizes all civilian contractors in Iraq from prosecution.
Blackwater, barely a decade old, has migrated from Iraq to set up operations in the United States and nine other countries. It trains Afghan security forces and has established a base a few miles from the Iranian border. The huge contracts from the war - including $750 million from the State Department since 2004 - have allowed Blackwater to amass a fleet of more than 20 aircraft, including helicopter gunships. Jeremy Scahill, the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, points out that Blackwater has also constructed “the world’s largest private military facility - a 7,000-acre compound near the Great Dismal Swamp of North Carolina.” Blackwater also recently opened a facility in Illinois (”Blackwater North”) and, despite local opposition, is moving ahead with plans to build another huge training base near San Diego. The company recently announced it was creating a private intelligence branch called “Total Intelligence.”
Erik Prince, who founded and runs Blackwater, is a man who appears to have little time for the niceties of democracy. He has close ties with the radical Christian Right and the Bush White House. He champions his company as a patriotic extension of the U.S. military. His employees, in an act as cynical as it is dishonest, take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. But what he and his allies have built is a mercenary army, paid for with government money, which operates outside the law and without constitutional constraint.
Mercenary units are a vital instrument in the hands of despotic movements. Communist and fascist movements during the last century each built rogue paramilitary forces. And the appearance of Blackwater fighters, heavily armed and wearing their trademark black uniforms, patrolling the streets of New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, may be a grim taste of the future. In New Orleans Blackwater charged the government $240,000 a day.
"It cannot happen here’ is always wrong,” the philosopher Karl Popper wrote. “A dictatorship can happen anywhere.”
The word contractor helps launder the fear and threat out of a more accurate term: “paramilitary force.” We’re not supposed to have such forces in the United States, but we now do. And if we have them, we have a potential threat to democracy. On U.S. soil, Blackwater so far has shown few signs of being an out-and-out rogue retainer army, though they looked the part in New Orleans. But were this country to become even a little less stable, outfits like Blackwater might see a heyday.
If the United States falls into a period of instability caused by another catastrophic terrorist attack, an economic meltdown that triggers social unrest, or a series of environmental disasters, such paramilitary forces, protected and assisted by fellow ideologues in the police and military, could ruthlessly abolish what is left of our eroding democracy. War, with the huge profits it hands to corporations, and to right-wing interests such as the Christian Right, could become a permanent condition.
And the thugs with automatic weapons, black uniforms and wraparound sunglasses who appeared on the streets in New Orleans could appear on our streets.
(Excuse me, a moment, but NOLA's streets are our streets. How could it be otherwise? Not only are New Orleanians Americans, but many, many Americans have, at one time or anouther, visited the Big Easy. New Orleans, as the unique city it was, belonged to all of us. Still does, what's left of it.)
Chris Hedges (hedgesscoop@aol.com) is a graduate of Harvard Divinity School and won a Pulitzer Prize as a foreign correspondent for the New York Times. He is author, mostly recently, of “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.”
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Condi v. Cheney
Never thought we would be pulling for Condi, but she's all we have.
Too bad the 25th amendment doesn't apply to Veeps because Cheney is obviously crackers.
The country would be better served if Condi would just come out and say it!
By Michael Hirsh and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek International
June 11, 2007 issue - Condoleezza Rice seems in control of everything—except events. As she paused for a few minutes in the cabin of her Boeing 757 last week, winging her way to her 63rd country in two and a half years (Spain this time), the secretary of State calmly swatted away questions about the apparent stalemates she faces on so many fronts: Israeli-Palestinian talks, out-of-control nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, and an emerging cold-war-like confrontation with Russia. (That's without even bringing up the quagmire in Iraq.) Rice gets through controversy by snubbing it, smiling it out of existence. She's particularly dismissive when asked whether, at this late date, she is still fighting rear-guard actions against hard-liners in Washington—especially those in Vice President Dick Cheney's office who don't like her diplomatic approach to Iran. "There's always noise in any large system," Rice told NEWSWEEK in an interview.
She's not being glib: administration officials universally acknowledge that her views are dominant in Washington. But the rumbling has been getting louder. A NEWSWEEK investigation shows that Cheney's national-security team has been actively challenging Rice's Iran strategy in recent months. "We hear a completely different story coming out of Cheney's office, even now, than what we hear from Rice on Iran," says a Western diplomat whose embassy has close dealings with the White House. Officials from the veep's office have been openly dismissive of the nuclear negotiations in think-tank meetings with Middle East analysts in Washington, according to a high-level administration official who asked for anonymity because of his position.
Since Tehran has defied two U.N. resolutions calling for a suspension of its uranium-enrichment program, "there's a certain amount of schadenfreude among the hard-liners," says a European diplomat who's involved in the talks but would not comment for the record. And NEWSWEEK has learned that the veep's team seems eager to build a case that Iran is targeting Americans not just in Iraq but along the border of its other neighbor, Afghanistan.
In the last few weeks, Cheney's staff have unexpectedly become more active participants in an interagency group that steers policy on Afghanistan, according to an official familiar with the internal deliberations. During weekly meetings of the committee, known as the Afghanistan Interagency Operating Group, Cheney staffers have been intensely interested in a single issue: recent intelligence reports alleging that Iran is supplying weapons to Afghanistan's resurgent Islamist militia, the Taliban, according to two administration officials who asked for anonymity when discussing internal meetings.
CONTINUED
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Too bad the 25th amendment doesn't apply to Veeps because Cheney is obviously crackers.
The country would be better served if Condi would just come out and say it!
By Michael Hirsh and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek International
June 11, 2007 issue - Condoleezza Rice seems in control of everything—except events. As she paused for a few minutes in the cabin of her Boeing 757 last week, winging her way to her 63rd country in two and a half years (Spain this time), the secretary of State calmly swatted away questions about the apparent stalemates she faces on so many fronts: Israeli-Palestinian talks, out-of-control nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, and an emerging cold-war-like confrontation with Russia. (That's without even bringing up the quagmire in Iraq.) Rice gets through controversy by snubbing it, smiling it out of existence. She's particularly dismissive when asked whether, at this late date, she is still fighting rear-guard actions against hard-liners in Washington—especially those in Vice President Dick Cheney's office who don't like her diplomatic approach to Iran. "There's always noise in any large system," Rice told NEWSWEEK in an interview.
She's not being glib: administration officials universally acknowledge that her views are dominant in Washington. But the rumbling has been getting louder. A NEWSWEEK investigation shows that Cheney's national-security team has been actively challenging Rice's Iran strategy in recent months. "We hear a completely different story coming out of Cheney's office, even now, than what we hear from Rice on Iran," says a Western diplomat whose embassy has close dealings with the White House. Officials from the veep's office have been openly dismissive of the nuclear negotiations in think-tank meetings with Middle East analysts in Washington, according to a high-level administration official who asked for anonymity because of his position.
Since Tehran has defied two U.N. resolutions calling for a suspension of its uranium-enrichment program, "there's a certain amount of schadenfreude among the hard-liners," says a European diplomat who's involved in the talks but would not comment for the record. And NEWSWEEK has learned that the veep's team seems eager to build a case that Iran is targeting Americans not just in Iraq but along the border of its other neighbor, Afghanistan.
In the last few weeks, Cheney's staff have unexpectedly become more active participants in an interagency group that steers policy on Afghanistan, according to an official familiar with the internal deliberations. During weekly meetings of the committee, known as the Afghanistan Interagency Operating Group, Cheney staffers have been intensely interested in a single issue: recent intelligence reports alleging that Iran is supplying weapons to Afghanistan's resurgent Islamist militia, the Taliban, according to two administration officials who asked for anonymity when discussing internal meetings.
CONTINUED
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
One Courageous West Point Man.
From After Downing Street......
I spoke with someone who attended the graduation ceremony at West Point where Dick Cheney gave the commencement speech. Cheney then stood on stage and shook hands with each of the 1000 graduates: wait, make that 999. Because one courageous and principled cadet faced Cheney, looked him up and down, decided not to offer his hand and walked on. Cheney was visibly taken aback, and turned to glare after the parting cadet. (We can only imagine the repercussions that this cadet may now face.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
I spoke with someone who attended the graduation ceremony at West Point where Dick Cheney gave the commencement speech. Cheney then stood on stage and shook hands with each of the 1000 graduates: wait, make that 999. Because one courageous and principled cadet faced Cheney, looked him up and down, decided not to offer his hand and walked on. Cheney was visibly taken aback, and turned to glare after the parting cadet. (We can only imagine the repercussions that this cadet may now face.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Listen Up, DC Dems!
Paging Sergeant Joe Friday, Paging Sergeant Friday. Please Report to the Democrats on Capitol Hill. They Need You Badly.
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Sat, 06/02/2007 - 6:21am.
Editorials
The Democrats on Capitol Hill sure do need Sergeant Joe Friday to help them out.
You see, the D.C. Dems, especially now that that they are "investigating" the Bush Administration, keep tripping over dead bodies – and doing their damn best to convince themselves that they just stumbled over a rug, not a corpse.
It’s amazing how many contortions the Dems go through in order to avoid actually holding the Bush Administration accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Just look at the multiple legal, ethical, and perjury violations of America’s Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. He’s like one of the dead bodies that the Dems keep coming across – and then they claim that they won’t rush to judgement about whether or not the cadaver with multiple bullet wounds in its back was a victim of foul play. When the Democrats uncover a Bush Administration crime through an investigation, their response is to call for another investigation "to get to the bottom of this."
After a fireworks display of smoking guns took place, the best the Dems could muster with Gonzales was politely suggesting that he resign. Excuse me, Sergeant Joe Friday didn’t close a case by telling a murderer that he should consider driving himself to jail, if he felt like it, but otherwise Friday would leave him to continue killing people. You know, sort of a voluntary punishment concept.
While the Dems on the Hill fear to actually hold the Bush Administration accountable by taking away its powers through legislation or impeachment, the Republicans are back to character assassination (think the FOX discussion of the Edwards haircut that never ends) and undertaking its fourth election under Bush involving broad voter suppression.
Meanwhile, even tough "expletive deleted" spewing Dems like Rahm Emanuel keep thinking that capitulating to the Republicans and being non-confrontational on key votes is good for politics.
Say what? Emanuel may be a ruthless and unforgiving taskmaster when it comes to national campaign strategy, but he comes off as a wimp when confronting Bush and the Republicans in Congress. After the Dem Congressional capitulation to Bush on the war – a man with poll numbers as low as the temperature in North Dakota in January – Emanuel boasted, "I view this as the beginning of the end of the president's policy on Iraq."
Did anyone tell Rahm this was supposed to be the beginning of saving the lives or our troops by starting to withdraw them after four years of a ruinous war?
Emanuel is known as an enforcer who blows off kneecaps if Dems running for office don’t follow his instructions. He takes no prisoners behind the scenes.
But when it comes to actually holding the Bush Administration accountable, he’s suddenly a "Mr. See No Evil." His DLC roots of an imagined American "center" kick in, and he’s afraid of taking on the criminal (and we don’t mean that metaphorically) actions and policies of the Bush Administration.
We have noted many a time on BuzzFlash.com that the Republicans win (aside from their illegal voter suppression efforts) because they give the appearance of strength, while actually enacting policies that endanger the national security of the United States.
The Dems on the Hill are actually still scared off by Bush’s "appearance of strength," even when the majority of American voters aren’t buying George's hollow John Wayne imitation anymore.
At a time when the war in Iraq is probably the number one threat to our national security (rather than reducing the threat as Bush and Cheney claim), Americans want to see a political party emerge that shows some backbone and strength. Because national security is a real issue, not an abstract one.
But if the best the Democrats can do is go down on bended knee to a tin horn cowboy like Bush, the Dems continue to look weak. If they can’t battle a President as compromised by corruption, failure, lies, scandal, and radical ideology as Bush, how can they be expected to take on the phantom enemy abroad?
In the age of television coverage of politics as news analysis that focuses on caricatures of character, you can’t win elections by appearing to cave in all the time. It’s that simple. Form becomes content. And if the form is throwing in the towel when you hold a full house and the other side has nothing but a bunch of mismatched low number cards, you are rightfully perceived as a pushover.
Which brings us back to the ongoing investigations that the Dems say will eventually erode the Bush Administration. Right now, Alberto Gonzales is still Attorney General. We are still in Iraq. Bush is still appointing radical nominees to key administration posts. The national debt is still climbing to record levels. Political plans are being put into place to keep minorities, again, from voting in 2008. Republican donors are still being rewarded with hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer contracts. Cheney and his Neo-Con pals are still trying to stir up a war with Iran. And, among other unforgivable violations of the public trust, Rove is still engaged in his criminal political strategizing as the de facto domestic policy president of the United States and Svengali of dirty tricks and illegal use of the Department of Justice and voter suppression initiatives.
And the Dems keep investigating, tripping over dead bodies, and then responding by calling for more investigations. It appears no breaking of the law or act of corruption is enough for the Dems to start holding the Administration accountable by taking steps to remove the appropriate parties from office and to embark on a course of standing up against Administration actions that harm the interests of the American people – particularly in the area of protecting our nation.
It’s time to bring in Sergeant Joe Friday and start closing the cases against the Bush Administration. Because if the Dems don’t start showing that they are tough in dealing with a party that is imploding and on the ropes, the voters are going to continue to view them as timid and weak – and appropriately so.
Jack Webb, where are you?
Dead, we hear.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Sat, 06/02/2007 - 6:21am.
Editorials
The Democrats on Capitol Hill sure do need Sergeant Joe Friday to help them out.
You see, the D.C. Dems, especially now that that they are "investigating" the Bush Administration, keep tripping over dead bodies – and doing their damn best to convince themselves that they just stumbled over a rug, not a corpse.
It’s amazing how many contortions the Dems go through in order to avoid actually holding the Bush Administration accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Just look at the multiple legal, ethical, and perjury violations of America’s Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. He’s like one of the dead bodies that the Dems keep coming across – and then they claim that they won’t rush to judgement about whether or not the cadaver with multiple bullet wounds in its back was a victim of foul play. When the Democrats uncover a Bush Administration crime through an investigation, their response is to call for another investigation "to get to the bottom of this."
After a fireworks display of smoking guns took place, the best the Dems could muster with Gonzales was politely suggesting that he resign. Excuse me, Sergeant Joe Friday didn’t close a case by telling a murderer that he should consider driving himself to jail, if he felt like it, but otherwise Friday would leave him to continue killing people. You know, sort of a voluntary punishment concept.
While the Dems on the Hill fear to actually hold the Bush Administration accountable by taking away its powers through legislation or impeachment, the Republicans are back to character assassination (think the FOX discussion of the Edwards haircut that never ends) and undertaking its fourth election under Bush involving broad voter suppression.
Meanwhile, even tough "expletive deleted" spewing Dems like Rahm Emanuel keep thinking that capitulating to the Republicans and being non-confrontational on key votes is good for politics.
Say what? Emanuel may be a ruthless and unforgiving taskmaster when it comes to national campaign strategy, but he comes off as a wimp when confronting Bush and the Republicans in Congress. After the Dem Congressional capitulation to Bush on the war – a man with poll numbers as low as the temperature in North Dakota in January – Emanuel boasted, "I view this as the beginning of the end of the president's policy on Iraq."
Did anyone tell Rahm this was supposed to be the beginning of saving the lives or our troops by starting to withdraw them after four years of a ruinous war?
Emanuel is known as an enforcer who blows off kneecaps if Dems running for office don’t follow his instructions. He takes no prisoners behind the scenes.
But when it comes to actually holding the Bush Administration accountable, he’s suddenly a "Mr. See No Evil." His DLC roots of an imagined American "center" kick in, and he’s afraid of taking on the criminal (and we don’t mean that metaphorically) actions and policies of the Bush Administration.
We have noted many a time on BuzzFlash.com that the Republicans win (aside from their illegal voter suppression efforts) because they give the appearance of strength, while actually enacting policies that endanger the national security of the United States.
The Dems on the Hill are actually still scared off by Bush’s "appearance of strength," even when the majority of American voters aren’t buying George's hollow John Wayne imitation anymore.
At a time when the war in Iraq is probably the number one threat to our national security (rather than reducing the threat as Bush and Cheney claim), Americans want to see a political party emerge that shows some backbone and strength. Because national security is a real issue, not an abstract one.
But if the best the Democrats can do is go down on bended knee to a tin horn cowboy like Bush, the Dems continue to look weak. If they can’t battle a President as compromised by corruption, failure, lies, scandal, and radical ideology as Bush, how can they be expected to take on the phantom enemy abroad?
In the age of television coverage of politics as news analysis that focuses on caricatures of character, you can’t win elections by appearing to cave in all the time. It’s that simple. Form becomes content. And if the form is throwing in the towel when you hold a full house and the other side has nothing but a bunch of mismatched low number cards, you are rightfully perceived as a pushover.
Which brings us back to the ongoing investigations that the Dems say will eventually erode the Bush Administration. Right now, Alberto Gonzales is still Attorney General. We are still in Iraq. Bush is still appointing radical nominees to key administration posts. The national debt is still climbing to record levels. Political plans are being put into place to keep minorities, again, from voting in 2008. Republican donors are still being rewarded with hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer contracts. Cheney and his Neo-Con pals are still trying to stir up a war with Iran. And, among other unforgivable violations of the public trust, Rove is still engaged in his criminal political strategizing as the de facto domestic policy president of the United States and Svengali of dirty tricks and illegal use of the Department of Justice and voter suppression initiatives.
And the Dems keep investigating, tripping over dead bodies, and then responding by calling for more investigations. It appears no breaking of the law or act of corruption is enough for the Dems to start holding the Administration accountable by taking steps to remove the appropriate parties from office and to embark on a course of standing up against Administration actions that harm the interests of the American people – particularly in the area of protecting our nation.
It’s time to bring in Sergeant Joe Friday and start closing the cases against the Bush Administration. Because if the Dems don’t start showing that they are tough in dealing with a party that is imploding and on the ropes, the voters are going to continue to view them as timid and weak – and appropriately so.
Jack Webb, where are you?
Dead, we hear.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
