The Future of our Nation Examined Through the Eyes of Twitter

Do you ever worry about the future of our nation?
Re-reading my Twitter/HootSuite 2015 national news threads just now, proved to be alarming for me.

1. Budget War talk started early.
2. Republicans made head-spinning claims as soon as they took over.
3. Legislating under Republicans began with the meaningless Keystone Pipeline bill.
4. My own crazy state of Texas has not disappointed in its heartlessness this year.
5. The Secret Service admitted to having problems with alcohol.

The Republican budget that has just been introduced favors the "One Percent."  It would abandon large swaths of vulnerable people.  Even though they claim credit for an improving economy, Congress will do nothing to fix the essential infrastructure needed to support and continue that healthy economy.  The Keystone Pipeline benefits the Canadian economy.  Texas turns farther towards the extreme right as each month passes.  And we cannot protect the safety of the POTUS.  These realities reinforce my worry about what is happening to the USA in early 2015 .

But there are bright spots that should not be ignored.

• The Daily Beast writes: The Right Warms Up To Climate Change.
• We are understanding more about the brain.  This is Brain Awareness Week.
• Cory Booker continues to post tweets about possibilities.
• Anthony Snowden and Glenn Greenwald are still able to get together,
• Europe remains helpful to Iranian negotiation, even if Republican legislators are not.
• The state of Oregon made voter registration automatic.

Not all Congressional Republicans are stupid or corrupt.  Science continues to prevail.  Truth continues to have its brave apologists. We can count on our centuries old friend, Europe, to have our back.  Some states in the USA are not insane.  And optimists tweet.

 
Follow me at Twitter.

Democracy will not be automatic.

image by freeimageslive.co.uk - stockmedia.cc

We must work to preserve Democracy.  Freedom and liberty under a constitution do not come easily, nor will a nation endure without care-taking and effort.  We in the United States have lost something of our constitutional democracy since the turn of the century.  And people in the Middle East stand to gain much if democracy can prevail after their "Arab Spring."

The Arab Spring did not produce a set of Democratic governments.  Although Tunisia probably has the best chance of living under a democratic regime.  Syria is still in the midst of a civil war.  Women’s roles have come under question in all countries in the Middle East.

Civil liberties protections for U.S. citizens took a beating over the years, following the Bush administration's response after the attacks on the U.S. on 9/11/01. The U.S. government has become more and more intrusive into our everyday lives.  Even now the Obama administration is pressing for the renewal of the (FISA) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Expectations of Democracy as a result of nation building were the hallmark of the previous Bush-Cheney administration. We came to know Neocons back then as they pursued their aggressive war agenda. They continued to have influence in the 2008 campaign. And now they still have not gone away; they are advising Mitt Romney on foreign policy.

Our political parties are less able to work together; they are becoming much more polarized.  The rise of the extreme right wing makes widespread repression of citizens' rights possible.  The government of Michigan has actually taken a turn away from Democracy.  City after city in Michigan is now run by a governor-appointed administrator.

The Occupy movement showed much promise when it began last year. A wide variety of citizens joined the protests. Recently, however, at the NATO summit in Chicago, protesters were not as numerous as some had expected.  The movement has not found its footing yet.

Democracy is not automatic.  We cannot take it for granted that the people of any country will be able to achieve to their full potential.  And we do not easily learn from our mistakes.   One of the keys to building and holding democratic institutions is the election process. The United States and several countries in the Middle East are looking towards electing their next leaders.  The best outcomes will be where citizens know what is at stake and what leadership is really all about.

Is this the legacy we are leaving?

Think about the future we, our children and grandchildren, are facing.  Fairly recent news items chronicle a number of symptoms of our apparent decade-long decline:

• Stalled U.S. economic growth rate
• Higher rates of poverty in most states; children in LGBT families more likely to be poor
• Diminished health outlook due to obesity
• Decline in the earth observation sciences
• Increased government surveillance of citizens, including data captured by Google from Wi-Fi content, as well as increasingly unprotected electronic privacy of cloud Email
• U.S. use of predator drones is now officially reported, targeted for a significant infusion of government funds, and justified by authorities (including allowing targeting of U.S. citizens).

Never before has it been the case that we are leaving our descendants worse off than we were. . . economically and health-wise.  We have a diminished quality of life.  The gap between rich and poor has increased, as have the costs of health care.  The military-industrial complex, as President Eisenhower warned, is in the forefront of powerful influence in our nation.  The earth is on a dangerous path to increased warming.  And we as citizens enjoy less and less constitutional protection.  As a matter of fact, what on earth do we think we are doing?!

"Forward" is the new presidential campaign slogan of the Democrats. We are at the crossroads. If the November elections fail to reelect President Obama, fail to return Democratic control to the U.S. House of Representatives, and to switch various state legislatures, we will continue this sorry legacy.  We need to get back on track as soon as possible.

The State Has the Power to do What?!

The enormous power of certain elements of U.S. federal and state government is something to concern us as citizens.  From intruding into social media, searching our person or tracking our whereabouts without due cause, and state legislatures waging war on women, the power is being overused.


Negative use of social media - Isn’t it ironic that in the same period as the announced Untied States initiative against (Syria and Iran) for the use of social media to target its citizens, we learn that USA Today may have been the target of a false propaganda campaign coming out of the Pentagon.

Invasions of privacy - Despite a recent ruling that people being arrested for very minor offences can legally be strip searched, the Supreme court seems troubled by police GPS tracking efforts and will rule on that case sometime before June

Impose more restrictions on reproductive rights - According to the Guttmacher Institute, 6 states have passed laws requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound on each woman seeking an abortion. Medical personnel must provide the woman an opportunity to view the image.  A recent Texas antiabortion law is now being enforced following court rulings.  In a February story by Reuters, the law is, to quote:

a law requiring abortion providers to show or describe to a woman an ultrasound image of her fetus . . .
While most of those states allow women to decline to view the image, Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina require women to hear the provider's verbal description of the ultrasound.  The laws in Oklahoma and North Carolina are temporarily not being enforced, pending court challenges.

The supreme irony regarding “power-over” us, is that it can be misused by the institutions we are supposed to be able to trust – the Supreme Court and the military—as well as the far right wing of the Republican party.

Subscribe to some of these great Email newsletters from “Congressional Quarterly.”

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 27: U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, seen through a television camera view finder, addresses the Homeland Security Policy Institute January 27, 2011 at George Washington University in Washington, DC. Napolitano announced that the color-coded Homeland Security Advisory System will be replaced by a simpler two-tier system. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

The one that I have read for several years -- 

most of the time from top to bottom -- is: CQ Behind the Lines (CQ Roll Call behindthelines-service@newsletters.cqrollcall.com)

Source: CQ Homeland Security.  Rob Margetta, CQ Homeland Security Editor; Arwen Bicknell, Behind the Lines Editor
Published by CQ Roll Call
---------------------------------

Other CQ Roll Call Products you might want to check out include:

CQ Floor Video
CQ Weekly
CQ Today
CQ Amendment Text
CQ BillTrack
CQ Budget Tracker
CQ HealthBeat
CQ Homeland Security
CQ Hot Docs
CQ House Action Reports
CQ LawTrack
CQ MoneyLine
CQ StateTrack
Roll Call
See all CQ Roll Call products

To sign up for CQ Roll Call's free newsletters, click here.
Copyright © 2012 CQ Roll Call. All rights reserved.

The Surveillance State(s)

The cliche "big brother is watching you" is now becoming more the reality.  These stories caught my eye just in the last couple of days.


New York's finest, detectives working on gathering intelligence entered church sanctuaries and basements to surveil Occupy Wall Street protestors.  Words and phrases found on Twitter will be data mined for clues to possible uprisings and unrest.  Texas border patrol agents may soon be the recipients of night vision equipment and unmanned drones that come home from the Middle East.  And with U.S. financing, Afghanistan has plans to gather biometric data on all coming and going to or from the country, and eventually will fingerprint, photograph and scan the irises of all Afghans.  Seen together it is a not a picture that matches with our vision of assumptions about freedom, privacy or justice.  Not to mention spending inordinate amounts of public money on such ventures.


Even in Churches, Wall Street protesters can’t escape the watch of police.* (After their encampent in Zucotti Park was destroyed by the highly militarized NYC police department), protestors had been allowed to sleep in welcoming churches. The police entered the churches with the excuse of needing a bathroom.  To quote from the New York Times story, 

. . . demonstrators were sleeping on the cushioned pews of a United Methodist church on the Upper West Side on Thursday morning when one of them spotted a man in plainclothes wandering through the sanctuary, apparently counting heads.

"U.S. Spy Agency to Use Twitter to Forecast Unrest" is the headline.  According to Scientific American, a US intelligence agency aims to forecast unrest by studying . . . social media. This is the use of so-called open source intelligence and it amounts to more widespread domestic surveillance. To quote:

It is every government's dream: a system that can predict future events such as riots, political upheavals and the outbreak of wars.The Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), a research arm of the US intelligence community, is sponsoring the work under the Open Source Indicators (OSI) program. The three-year project, with an unspecified budget, is designed to gather digital data from a range of sources, from traffic webcams to television to Twitter. The goal, according to IARPA, is to provide the intelligence community with predictions of social and political events that can "beat the news".

Here is a recent tweet I posted regarding the possiblity of widespread coordination of recent police actions:
GeeCarolNov 16, 4:08pm via HootBar

A long list of possibilities for #OWS raid coordination via DHS | Fusion Center Locations/Contact Information: is.gd/wvMo1Z

Using left-over war-zone equipment along the Texas border is the idea of Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX).  More and more we see evidence that domestic security is becoming militarized.  To quote from the New York Times, 

The Send Equipment for National Defense Act, written by RepresentativeTed Poe, a Republican from Humble, would require that 10 percent of certain equipment returned from Iraq — like Humvees, night-vision equipment and unmanned aerial surveillance craft — be made available to state and local agencies for border-security operations.

Afghanistan has big plans for obtaining biometric data.  And the United States will pay for it.  (Note also recent news of far more widespread demand for identity cards for voting).To quote from the New York Times:

A handful of other countries fingerprint arriving foreigners, but no country has ever sought to gather biometric data on everyone who comes and goes, whatever their nationality. Nor do Afghan authorities plan to stop there: their avowed goal is to fingerprint, photograph and scan the irises of every living Afghan. It is a goal heartily endorsed by the American military, which has already gathered biometric data on two million Afghans who have been encountered by soldiers on the battlefield, or who have just applied for a job with the coalition military or its civilian contractors.The Kabul airport program is also financed by the United States, with money and training provided by the American Embassy. Americans, like all other travelers, are subject to it.

*In conclusion, for years I have blogged about civil liberties or security.  Despite the fact that "the war on terror" was always a misnomer, Fourth amendment protection from unreasonable search or seizure remains at increased risk for citizens of states becoming more and more militarized.

Some Legal Thoughts For Today

Image via Wikipedia

Today is Monday, November 7, 2011 - It is a good day to be alive, despite the bad things that are happening.  What I have read in the news this morning raises for me a number of important questions in the legal realm.

As the Feds seek unfettered GPS surveillance power as location-tracking flourishes, I feel alarmed at the growth of domestic sureillance in our day to day lives.  Tomorrow the Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments about whether law enforcement can attach a GPS tracking device to a vehicle without a probable cause warrant from a judge.  Where is the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection? As Wired blogger David Kravets wrote,

Technology has advanced since both of these cases, feeding the government’s growing hunger for cost-efficient, easy-to-use spy tools, and making the latest debate before the justices seem Orwellian. Today, one’s exact position on Earth can easily be secretly monitored with devices costing less than $200. Add to this the government’s argument in court briefs that “a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another,” and you have the makings for widespread, unchecked surveillance.

The Implications of DOJ’s FOIA “Lies,” according to blogger emptywheel, have all kinds of possibilities for the abuse of our civil liberties.  How is it that the government can lie when it comes to matters involving the lega lights of citizens?  To quote and list:

. . . the practice of DOJ for nearly a quarter century to provide misleading information in response to FOIAs asking for certain kinds of information–broadly, ongoing investigations, informants, and foreign intelligence. In this post I want to consider how the practice may be ripe for abuse.

1. Ongoing Legal Investigation - The first exclusion–for information that might tip the subject of an investigation into a potential crime to that investigation and therefore lead her to, for example, destroy evidence–makes a bit of sense. But it seems ripe for abuse in several ways.
2. Informants - The second exclusion prevents people from asking for information on people they suspect might be informants by name. So, for example, if a peace group thinks Joe Smith asks too many question about group members’ pot smoking and therefore might be an informant, their FOIA request for information on him could be excluded.
3. Classified FBI records on “foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, or international terrorism” - As with the other two exclusions, there’s some logic to the third, covering classified FBI records on foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, or international terrorism. . . . logic held before 9/11 turned the “foreign intelligence” category into a giant grab bag.

A Pennsylvania man gets jail for paying judges for favors, according to this (11/5/11) Reuters story.  This is one of the dangers that come in when we make something the State should do on its own into a profit-making scheme. How is it that anyone should profit for providing juvenile detention?  Here are the pertinent details:

A . . . man who owned for-profit juvenile detention centers was sentenced to 18 months in prison . . . for paying judges to send youths to his facilities in a so-called "kids for cash" scheme. Robert Powell, 53, a former trial lawyer . . . also must pay $60,000 for his involvement in the scheme. He was found guilty in 2009 of paying $770,000 in kickbacks to then-judges Mark Ciavarella Jr. and Michael Conahan, who in return sent youths to his detention centers.

Mississippi [is] to decide if [a] fertilized egg is a human being on Tuesday.  If the proposition wins it could put women's lives in jeopardy, threaten birth control and would certainly be legally challenged in many different ways.  Will it truly put Roe vs. Wade in the biggest danger since it was adopted? Reuters has the story.

Mississippi . . . could be the first state in the nation to define a fertilized egg as a person, a controversial concept aimed at outlawing abortion, some types of birth control and infertility methods that result in the loss of embryos. The so-called "personhood amendment" to the state constitution represents a twist in strategy for anti-abortion efforts, which have notched great success across the country this year with dozens of new restrictions put into law.

From a constitutional, ethical or procedural point of view, these news stories raise important questions.  What questions do you have?

Posted via email from Southwest Postings

Related articles

• Ex-owner of Pa. youth lockups gets 18 months (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Obama Justice Dept. Looking to Legalize Perjury? (pjmedia.com)
• Who's on the Intelligence Oversight Board? Government Won't Say (eff.org)

Why civil liberties should still matter -

President Obama's Inauguration.  Image via Wikipedia

South by Southwest is an old political blog I began in 2005.  For whatever reason, I focused on the subject of constitutional civil liberties almost from the beginning.*  Perhaps it was my belief that the Republican Bush administration began riding roughshod over the Bill of Rights' First and Fourth Amendments almost immediately after the 9/11/01 attacks on the United States.

Fast forward to January 2009 when the current Democratic Barack Obama administration began.
It became apparent to me over time that not that much changed under our Constitutional Law professor president. 

The U.S. recently confirmed that Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a military drone strike.  And almost from when this news became known, there was a debate between civil libertarians and the rest of the country over the justification of the U.S. military action in northern Yemen.  In its news article today's New York Times points to the President's dilemma.  To quote,

The strike was the culmination of a desperate manhunt marked not only by near misses and dead ends, but also by a wrenching legal debate in Washington about the legality — and morality — of putting an American citizen on a list of top militants marked for death. It also represented the latest killing of a senior terrorist figure in an escalated campaign by the Obama administration.

. . . There had been an intense debate among lawyers in the months before the Obama administration decided to put Mr. Awlaki on a target list in early 2010, and officials said that Mr. Khan was never on the list. The decision to make Mr. Awlaki a priority to be sought and killed was controversial, given his American citizenship. The American Civil Liberties Union, which fought unsuccessfully in the American court system to challenge the decision to target Mr. Awlaki, condemned the killing. 

Commentators on television, the blogosphere and social media soon raised questions about the legality and morality of the "assassainations" or war combatant targeting of two United States citizens.  So I am not alone with my discomfort.  That view is not widely held beyond the members of the left. But it does give many of us pause. Michael J.W. Stickings, my longtime blog friend at The Reaction, wonders whether President Obama is "a disaster for civil liberties."  He mirrors my own ambivalence, saying:

Though I remain, for the most part, a supporter of the president, I cannot disagree 

[with legal scholar Jonathan Turley, whom Stickings quotes extensively].

While I would argue that he has done a lot of good thus far in office, this remains the major blot on his record.

Related current opinion articles:

• American Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki Assassinated in Yemen (news.firedoglake.com)
• Glenn Greenwald, Ron Paul and Jeremy Scahill on Obama authorizing the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki (dandelionsalad.wordpress.com)
• Anwar al-Awlaki's extrajudicial murder | Michael Ratner (guardian.co.uk)

*Just a  few of my previous posts related to civil liberties over the years:

• 9/7/11: A look at freedom and liberty in the US ten years after 9/11/01
• 9/2/09: Intelligence Bytes
• 12/18/05: NSA Surveillance of Americans: NYT
• 12/09/05: Patriot Act May Be Extended
• 10/20/05: Spy World

Civil liberties should still matter.  Even if I can understand or even argue for the killing-of-a-terrorist view, the next questions are the real ones.  What happens when another president (not so competent and trustworthy) is in charge?  Where is the line for him/her?  Does it make a difference where the killing happens?  Could it be legally done in the United States as well as Yemen?  How strong was the evidence?  Was there due process?  What does the law of war demand?  What qualifies as the "imminent threat" posed by the citizen/combatant?  What if innocent people are also killed?

Posted on 10/1/11 - from Texas:

My Other Blogs: Check out my Amplify blog for synopses of current news stories. My creative website is Making Good Mondays. Follow me at Twitter. And Carol Gee - Online Universe is the home page for all my websites.

A look at freedom and liberty in the US ten years after 9-11-01

A recent poll revealed some surprises about how Americans feel about their constitutional rights after ten years of changes in how the Fourth Amendment has been applied in their lives. They still care a great deal about civil liberties protections, even in the face of the need to deal with increased government surveillance. They have differing levels of tolerance for intrusions however, depending on the circumstances.

Readers are encouraged to read the full WaPo article for the details of this truly fascinating poll.

Amplify’d from www.washingtonpost.com

Poll: Americans open to trading off some liberties _ within limits _ to fight terrorism

By Associated Press, Published: September 6

WASHINGTON — Surveillance cameras in public places? Sure. Body scans at airports? Maybe. Snooping in personal email? Not so fast.

Ten years after the 9/11 attacks led to amped-up government surveillance efforts, two-thirds of Americans say it’s fitting to sacrifice some privacy and freedoms in the fight against terrorism, according to a poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

A slim majority — 54 percent — say that if they had to choose between preserving their rights and freedoms and protecting people from terrorists, they’d come down on the side of civil liberties. The public is particularly protective of the privacy of U.S. citizens, voicing sharp opposition to government surveillance of Americans’ emails and phone calls.

The poll asked people to grapple with some of same quandaries that the government and the courts have been wrestling with over the past decade, and even before the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Two-thirds of those surveyed believe the resulting policies are a mish-mash created in reaction to events as they occur rather than clearly planned.

The AP-NORC poll found that about half of those surveyed felt that they have indeed lost some of their own personal freedoms to fight terrorism. Was it worth it? Close to half of those who thought they’d lost freedoms doubted it was necessary.

Overall, six in 10 say the government is doing enough to protect Americans’ rights and freedoms as it fights terrorism. But people may not even be aware of what they’ve given up. The extent of government eavesdropping and surveillance is something of a mystery. Read more at www.washingtonpost.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1ckpm

The Ohio midterm elections will be a laboratory for Democratic organizers

Discouragement and apathy are natural and normal reactions to unemployment or loss on one's home. Democrats must find ways to encourage people towards hope and motivate them to act. If the Democratic party can turn out people to merely vote, their election worries could be over, not only in Ohio but all over the country.

Amplify’d from www.slate.com

Digging Out the Grass Roots

A visit to Ohio shows how hard it will be for the Democrats to motivate voters.

By John Dickerson

Posted Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2010, at 11:29 PM ET

out and survival may come down to Steve Nicholson vs. Rachel Harris. Neither is likely to vote Republican. But it's unlikely that both will vote Democratic. As Nov. 2 approaches, Democrats face a high

For the Democratic Party, the difference this year between a rout and survival may come down to Steve Nicholson vs. Rachel Harris. Neither is likely to vote Republican. But it's unlikely that both will vote Democratic. As Nov. 2 approaches, Democrats face a highly motivated opposition. The search for ways to excite people—not just their core voters but anyone who might be receptive to their message—grows more desperate by the day. "Folks, wake up!" President Obama told a group of Democrats Monday night. "This is not some academic exercise."

Democratic hopes rest in part on Organizing for America, the Obama campaign organization that mobilized such an army for his victory in 2008. In Ohio OFA, has joined with the Democratic Party in perhaps the largest ground effort in the country. They are aided by labor unions. The AFL-CIO has been targeting workplaces and walking the streets talking to its members.

Some of the challenges come simply from trying to motivate voters in a midterm rather than presidential year. There's no presidential horserace to follow. People are unfamiliar with the candidates. (Democrats can take heart that several people said they'd vote for the party even though they were unfamiliar with the candidates.) Conservatives are motivated by the desire for change. Democrats can't use that argument this time. Instead they have to make arguments for patience and herald incremental change, none of which is very stirring.

"It's grim," says one Democratic strategist involved in helping a variety of House and Senate candidates. When I asked another Democratic strategist for his assessment of Ohio, he referred to Bill Clinton's ability to come back in 1996 after the '94 losses. Handicappers are making ominous predictions, too. Congressional Quarterly just moved two Ohio congressional races from "toss-up" to "lean Republican." The difficulty on the ground in Ohio has led to speculation about whether the national Democratic committees are going to write off the state. Why throw good money after candidates that are sure to lose?

If there is to be a Democratic comeback in Ohio, it will rely on a two-pronged attack that relies on tying Republican candidates to Wall Street and their support for free trade. In the African-American community, the comeback argument is different: It's all about Obama. Posters at OFA headquarters that go up in African-American communities read "Our Time is Now" and show Obama getting his hair cut at the barber shop. Says one organizer explaining the pitch, "The Republicans want to take down Obama in 2010, and you need to have his back." Read more at www.slate.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/ay0e

via Amplify.com

Posted via email from Southwest Postings

National Security Issues Spotlighted

The Obama administration continues to make national security decisions with which I might not agree.  For example, Obama attorneys incorrectly argued for warrantless cell phone tracking, according to a Raw Story - 2/14 post.  Glenn Greenwald from Salon.com (1/8/10) put his own disagreement even more strongly: "The backfiring of the surveillance state" is how he characterized the failure. To quote:

Every debate over expanded government surveillance power is invariably framed as one of "security v. privacy and civil liberties" -- as though it's a given that increasing the Government's surveillance authorities will "make us safer." But it has long been clear that the opposite is true. As numerous experts (such as Rep. Rush Holt) have attempted, with futility, to explain, expanding the scope of raw intelligence data collected by our national security agencies invariably impedes rather than bolsters efforts to detect terrorist plots. This is true for two reasons:(1) eliminating strict content limits on what can be surveilled (along with enforcement safeguards, such as judicial warrants) means that government agents spend substantial time scrutinizing and sorting through communications and other information that have nothing to do with terrorism; and (2) increasing the quantity of what is collected makes it more difficult to find information relevant to actual terrorism plots. As Rep. Holt put it when arguing against the obliteration of FISA safeguards and massive expansion of warrantless eavesdropping power which a bipartisan Congress effectuated last year:

It has been demonstrated that when officials must establish before a court that they have reason to intercept communications -- that is, that they know what they are doing -- we get better intelligence than through indiscriminate collection and fishing expeditions.

Intelligence gathering is a very hard business in any administration, including that of President Obama.  Explaining the failure of the Intel community to detect the Christmas Eve attempt to blow up an airplane over Detroit, a new study financed by Congress,  according to the New York Times (2/22/10), has found that hurdles stymie the National Counterterrorism Center. To quote:

. . . the study concludes, is a lack of coordination and communication among the agencies that are supposed to take the lead in planning the fight against terrorism, . . The findings come just weeks after the National Counterterrorism Center was criticized for missing clear warning signs that a 23-year-old Nigerian man was said to be plotting to blow up a Detroit-bound commercial airliner on Dec. 25.

. . . The report found that the center’s planning arm struggled with “systemic impediments” like overlapping statutes, culture clashes with different agencies and tensions with two formidable players: the State Department’s counterterrorism office and the C.I.A.

. . . The study called on Mr. Obama to issue an executive order to define the nation’s counterterrorism architecture in order to address some of the problems and improve coordination. It also recommended giving the center’s director, currently Michael E. Leiter, a say in the choice of counterterrorism officials at other federal agencies, a step the 9/11 Commission had recommended but was not adopted.

With all that, the current intelligence community is willing to try such completely unconventional methods as MCClatchy's (3/29/10) headline revealed: "Feds are thinking outside the box to plug intelligence gaps."  Congress will be asked to appropriate funds for this project, as well as oversee it on behalf of the citizens they represent.

We all should be very grateful that intelligence oversight in Congress is no longer in the hands of former House Intelligence Committee chairman, Peter Hoekstra.  Read the following little gem by David C. Morrison from CQ Behind the Lines (3/30/10).  To quote:

Yemen, brother:  “ ‘I’ll lead a preemptive strike on Yemen,’ Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., vows, publicly stating his plans for the Michigan National Guard if he wins election as governor this fall,” Glossy News notes. ‘I’ve been leading on national security for the last nine years in Congress, trying to drive this administration in a policy direction that keeps America safe,’ Hoekstra said on ABC’s This Week. ‘Obama hasn’t shown interest in my concerns here, so I intend to strike with the reconstituted Michigan National Guard in Yemen. As the leading national expert, it’s certainly appropriate for me to promote this strike in Yemen. The leaders of that little speck of earth need to see what a ball buster a Michigan strike can be. They won’t know what hit them. I think the unemployed people of the fine state of Michigan can be of help to the safety of the citizens of the United States of America . . . Unemployed Michigan folks can come to the rescue of our dire situation here. And so say all of us.’”

Representative Hoekstra appears to have been completely serious in his above statement.  I note that Michigan is where the FBI recently arrested and charged with sedition a group of militant militia members who were allegedly plotting to kill police.  This gubernatorial candidate needs to be much more careful with his proposal to take up arms in his own "war on terror."  His is a long history of ignoring the rule of law.  For example, torture did not seem to bother him when he learned of it from the CIA.  But we'll never know for sure because the CIA failed to keep accurate records of Congressional briefings.

The CIA has no idea what it briefed Congress on torture reported "emptywheel" at Firedoglake (3/16/10). The CIA did not keep adequate records of what was briefed to members of Congress in 2003 and 2004 regarding torture.  To quote:

The CIA documents released in the latest FOIA batch prove that all the claims that CIA (and Crazy Pete Hoekstra) have made about briefings Congress received on torture are, at best, reconstructions based on years old memors, if not outright fabrications.

The documents appear to have been a summary of torture briefings CIA Office of Congressional Affairs put together on July 11, 2004 in anticipation of CIA’s Congressional briefing in July 2004.

The summary shows that:

CIA OCA didn’t even write up the briefings it gave Porter Goss and Jane Harman in February 2003 or the Gang of Four in September 2003 by July 2004. . . any claims they make about the content of those briefings cannot be said to be accurate. . .

The only MFR that OCA seemed to have completed in July 2004 is the February 4, 2003 briefing, at which Pat Roberts apparently unequivocally approved of destroying the torture tapes (and at which he also agreed to end nascent Congressional attempts at oversight).

In other words, the claims that CIA had detailed records about what Nancy Pelosi or Jane Harman or Jay Rockefeller said about destroying the torture tapes? They appear to be completely fabricated.

There is a related story regarding additional lawmakers'involvement coming out of this month's release of the CIA  records, "Ex-Intel Committee Chair Blasts GOP Successor for Killing Torture Probe" is by David Corn from Mother Jones (3/3/10). Former Democratic Senator Bob Graham of Florida was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee until January of 2003, when he was replaced by Republican Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas.  To quote:

. . at the start of the US government's campaign against Al Qaeda [Graham] tells Mother Jones he cannot fathom why his Republican replacement squashed his request for an independent review of the interrogation techniques then being used by the CIA. . .  he believes Sen. Roberts  neglected his obligations as head of the intel panel by smothering Graham's proposal for a committee assessment of so-called enhanced interrogation practices.

On February 4, 2003, according to a CIA memo released last week, . . . a classified briefing [was presented] . . . to Roberts and an aide to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the senior Democrat on the committee. Over the course of nearly two hours, the briefers covered the CIA's brutal interrogation (or torture)—including waterboarding—of two detained terrorist suspects, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and told Roberts of the agency's plan to destroy videotapes of the Zubaydah sessions. The memo noted that Roberts "posed no objection to what he had heard" and "supported the interrogation effort."

. . . [CIA briefer] Moskowitz told Roberts and the others that the CIA would not allow any additional committee staffers to be briefed on the interrogation program. Nor would the spy service permit any committee staffer to review the interrogations in real time or visit the secret site where these sessions were occurring. Roberts didn't protest. In fact, at that point, according to the CIA memo, Roberts "interjected that he saw no reason for the committee to pursue [Graham's] request and could think of 'ten reasons right off why it is a terrible idea' for the committee to do any such thing as had been proposed." No committee investigation ensued.

That is not the case in 2010.  Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) held a  Judiciary Committee hearing in late February regarding the Justice Department's recently released Office of Professional Responsibility report, which he has condemned.  The Hill - 2/22/10 - had the story on the disappointing report that Senator Leahy investigated. To quote:

. . . a report that allowed two Bush administration officials to escape any formal punishment regarding their role in drafting the legal justification for the harsh interrogations of detainees.

Jay Bybee and John Yoo, two former high-level Bush administration officials who drafted the legal basis for the Bush administration’s treatment of overseas terror suspects, escaped any formal punishment . . .

The new report, written by Deputy Associate Attorney General David Margolis, reversed the recommendations of ethics officials within the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which earlier had concluded the state bar committees should decide whether Bybee’s and Yoo’s law licenses should be revoked.

As the previous year has shown, the current administration has not worked to restore privacy and civil liberties, trampled by the Bush administration.  The Intel community still has too many elements that cannot analyze and communicate effectively.  Few in the previous administration have been held accountable for transgressions of the rule of law.  Congress failed to exercise adequate national security oversight, and remains weak in their responsibilities.  And many Democrats and Republicans have completely different views of what constitutes adequate national security that operates well within the rule of law.

Additional references from CQ Behind the Lines by David C. Morrison (3/30/10). To quote:

Ways and means: The 2002 death of a suspected Afghan militant in the so-called Salt Pit — the only fatality known to have occurred inside the secret post-9/11 CIA prison network — is a cautionary tale, The Associated Press’s Adam Goldman investigates. “I believe that there is a discrepancy between what most Americans believe is legal and what the government is actually doing under the Patriot Act,” Secrecy News’s Steven Aftergood quotes Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. “How does being watched affect the quality of our lives? You can argue that only terrorists and criminals would protest, but the reality is that none of us has the same privacy we had before,” Jay Fidell argues in The Honolulu Advertiser. “If, God forbid, Americans are ever rounded up in large numbers during a natural or man made disaster, where could they be detained?” Mark Anderson asks in The American Free Press, answering that FEMA surely has it figured out.

Trend analysis: is from a current news roundup by David C. Morrison at CQ Behind the Lines (3/30/10):

“The latest wave of jihadists traveling to Pakistan and elsewhere for training may have been motivated by a sense of jihadi cool*,” NPR’s Dina Temple-Raston leads. “A researcher has found that many terrorist organizations, including Hamas, are using their children’s Web sites in order to recruit girls for terrorist activities,” ANI leads.

*Jihadi Cool is from Newsweek Magazine (4/15/2008).  Here is the link to the PDF version: newsweek_jihadi_cool_150408.pdf (application/pdf Object

Reaction to the upcoming 9/11 trials, announced by AG Eric Holder

There was strong reaction to the announcement of the 9/11 trial to be held in a New York court. Liberals and civil libertarians were approving and Republican Right-Wingers were deeply disapproving.

What are we to call the widespread upset among Republicans? Today's post is a digest of opinion from writers whom I regularly follow as well as my own conclusions.

Fear Mongering -- Tom Andrews, writing late Friday night for The Huffington Post, said that, ". . . we all know that Right Wing critics will be out, en masse, using their favorite tactic of fear-mongering while relying on ignorance to manipulate the public." Read the whole thing: Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, others to finally face justice in NYC.

Surrender -- Other nations have trials of high level terrorists within their systems of normal justice. But since 9/11/01 we in the U.S. have not. I think Glenn Greenwald put his finger on the problem in his Saturday post. He minced no words, calling it "The Right's textbook 'surrender to the terrorists'." His intro line said, " 'We're too scared to have real trials in our country' is a level of cowardice unmatched in the world." And Greenwald closed with this straight up opinion:

. . . it's hardly surprising that they exude a level of fear of Terrorists that is unmatched virtually anywhere in the world. It is, however, noteworthy that the position they advocate -- it's too scary to have normal trials in our country of Terrorists -- is as pure a surrender to the Terrorists as it gets.

Cowardice -- At emptywheel Marcy Wheeler wrote a pungent little piece that asked, "Why is it that Republicans are such scardey-cats?" I love what Gregg Levine said in "Elephants on Parade" on Friday at Firedoglake, about the difference between Democratic and Republican reaction to the announcement of upcoming 9/11 trials. To quote Levine:

Cowards. Cowards. And again, cowards.

I can’t say that word enough because no one else seems to say it at all.

Contrast what a sampling of Republicans (and Republican wannabe) have to say about today’s decision . . .

Guilt -- Guilt and anxiety/fear are first cousins in the world of emotional motivation. Daily Kos' "thereisnospoon," thinks he has figured out why Republicans are having such a fear mongering fit. The author concluded:

There's a reason Republicans are pissing in their pants. . . they're afraid that their own policies of torture and indefinite detention will get the terrorists acquitted. So, like a stupid criminal, they're upping the ante by doubling down on their original criminal idiocy.

Un-American Demagoguery -- Leaders who make use of popular prejudices or false claims in order to gain power does not deserve followers. Representative Jim Moran used even stronger words than fearfulness in a post by Evan McMorris-Santoro at TPMDC. To quote from the story Friday:

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) has strong words for the Republicans opposing Attorney General Eric Holder's plan to bring five 9/11 suspects to New York City to face trial.

"They see this as an opportunity to demagogue," he said. "They will seize on any opportunity to do that, and that means they'll even take a stand that's un-American."

"It's un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial," Moran added. "It's against our principles as a nation."

Medieval Romanticism -- These are probably the kindest words I found in my little news survey. Professor Juan Cole at Informed Comment defined the Republican reaction to AG Eric Holder's decision to prosecute as "medieval romanticism." To quote:

Predictably, Republican critics vowed to fight the decision, since they much prefer to hold people forever without trial while torturing them, sort of the way some English kings did in North America before there was that pesky American constitution. . . . its fascination with arbitrary arrest and imprisonment and with torture more recalls the star chambers of yore than the deliberations at Philadelphia over 200 years ago.

Fear is a natural and normal reaction to accurately perceived danger. But the key is using one's whole brain to ascertain just what constitutes a real danger. The terrorists acts in 2001 were very dangerous. Over three thousand people lost their lives as a result. This is 2009, however, and it is important to make distinctions that today's realities warrant. Wiser people than knee-jerk reactionaries are now in charge, thank goodness. The United States government must continue to act out of calculation toward confidence-building, out of justice and healing, out of intelligence and courage, and out of genuine patriotism. It is time.

Related articles by Zemanta:

• 9/11 Suspects Could Be Moved to New York for Trial
• New York's 9/11 trial justice | Ken Gude
• "New York is not afraid of terrorists"
• Do Conservatives Trust Our Criminal Justice System?

Posted via email from Southwest Postings

Even though it is Friday the 13th things are looking up.

Saying no to superstition as the day wears on -- Those of us leaning Left feel a sense of relief that a return to justice may be on the way again, after eight years of Georgw W. Bush ignoring the rule of law. Attorney General Holder announced that several detainees will be brought to New York City to stand trial in federal court. And President Obama confirmed his belief that justice surely will be served there. Unfortunately, but predictably, Republican leaders quickly took up their old, tired-out tactics of fear mongering. I am beginning to believe that some of them are truly fearful, though I believed for a long time that it was a political tactic. What an awful way to live. What a pitiful way to lead.

Superstition and fear are first cousins. So it is wonderfully ironic that the worst fears of Republicans (almost the worst) came true on this Friday the 13th. Over the next few months they will be found out, branded as wrong-headed and seen for their lack of imagination and capacity to move on. What this administration is doing is returning to the way it was over most of our history, normal. And for all the Right Wing's accusations of radicalism from the President, it turns out he is just methodically normal.

For example -- Congress is to be treated as a more co-equal branch of government, though the President objected to their knee-jerk military spending on an unneeded airplane. In the end Congress gets to write the legislation and the President signs it, or not. Courts are where guilt and innocence are decided and where the rule of law is defined. The Executive branch executes the law of the land, adheres to treaty obligations. President Obama is on a trip to foreign lands, talking and listening, thank goodness. He does not seem to be bound by fears, or by anger, or by angst, or by jealousy, or by ignorance. He's just sort of a normal president running a normal administration. Eight years of the Bush administration made us forget what that is like.

Illustration is from Wordle.net.

Posted via email from Southwest Postings

Kuddos to ProPublica for its good investigative journalism.

ProPublica is a nonprofit investigative news organization that shares its material with all of us, making it available to freely republish. Following are a couple of very good articles.
The story of Alhurra has been on their agenda for over a year. The latest piece by Dafna Linzer (9/17/09) reports that Alhurra will now be reviewed by the State Department Inspector General. Alhurra is essentially a propaganda broadcast operation set up by former President George W. Bush to put out information on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The original ProPublica investigation was undertaken jointly with CBS's 60 Minutes. It's investigation, according to Linzer,

revealed serious staff problems, financial mismanagement and long-standing concerns inside the U.S. government and Congress regarding Alhurra's content. Those stories led to congressional inquiries in the House and Senate. The station has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $600 million since it began broadcasting in 2004.

The problems that have plagued this broadcast operation are only part of what is currently on the Obama administration's radar screen. The State I.G. has sent out a questionnaire to all employees to begin its work. Alhurra, which has cost taxpayers $600 million so far, is rated very low in popularity in the Middle East, it has experienced high rates of staff turnover and it was investigated last year by both the House and the Senate.
The current administration's intentions are not clear at this point. The article reports that Walter Isaacson will be nominated to head the Broadcasting Board of Governors that oversees international government broadcasting, and believes that no decisions about the controversial broadcasting station will be made before the new BBG chairman is seated. Visit ProPublica's web page for a complete list of links to its previous articles on Alhurra.

**********

ProPublica recently published another very useful article by Emily Witt (9/10/09), titled: "Bush and Obama: A Counterterrorism Comparison." It is a side by side comparison to the two administrations' stances regarding "Interrogation, Rendition and CIA Black Sites, Detention, Military Commissions, Secrecy and Warrantless Wiretapping and Surveillance." Witt summarized by saying,

. . . what exactly has changed? Abusive interrogations have been banned, but renditions to other countries will continue. The prison at Guantanamo Bay has been ordered closed, but that hasn’t proven easy to do. Meanwhile, prisoners at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan — even those detained in other countries -- can still be held without charge. Memos on CIA interrogation practices have been released, but the details of some programs are still smothered In sum, there are clear differences between Bush and Obama, but some policies have stayed the same in the name of national security.

[Post date - September 18, 2009]

My all-in-one Home Page of websites where I post regularly: Carol Gee - Online Universe
Technorati tags: news news and politics middle east ProPublica

Posted via email from Southwest Postings

Intelligence bytes --

Intelligence refers to being smart, to finding out things that protect the national security of the U.S. and its allies, as well as - in my book - to operating under the rule of law, as the Constitution requires. The Obama administration has had a difficult time moving away from the previous administration's lack of intelligence regarding national security matters. There are still far too many secrets. We are increasingly mired down in Afghanistan. We are still too dependent on civilian contractors for war fighting. And the intelligence services are still in need of more diversity. But some things are in a state of flux. Today's post gives a few bytes about the latest. (Image credit: Von Rosen)

American Civil Liberties Union fights an important intelligence document transparency battle -- Even though Attorney General Eric Holder has started an investigation of the C.I.A.'s abuses involved in the Bush administration's so-called "enhanced interrogation" programs, the Obama administration's lawyers are still trying to avoid revealing important classified documents in court related to the highly questionable programs. The petitioner, the ACLU is going to ask that the documents be declassified similarly to the documents opened last week by the current administration.

Afghanistan loses an important Intelligence official -- With some questioning the wisdom of U.S. presence in Afghanistan and others questioning the validity of its presidential election, the Taliban continue to target Afghanistan officials cooperating with the United States. In Mehterlam in an eastern province of Afghanistan considered to be relatively safe, the second in command of the Intelligence services for the country, Dr. Abdullah Laghmani, has been assassinated by a suicide bomber outside of a mosque. At least 23 people were killed in the Taliban attack and it will be a big blow to the Afghani government, according to Al Jazeera.

Important CRS report cites vulnerability because of the lack of intelligence shown by this trend -- According to the New York Times, contractors outnumber U.S. troops in Afghanistan. And when they are not properly managed you have a setup for another Abu Ghraib or Blackwater murder of civilians. This also means that it is the highest contractor to military ratio in the history of any war in the history of the U.S. Over the past two years it has averaged 65%, according to the Congressional Research Service report cited.

Importance of diversity spotlighted by Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair -- On a more positive note, C-SPAN rebroadcast an appearance Tuesday by former Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, before a gathering of representatives of Historically Black Colleges. The event was to announce grants and give recognition to partnerships with minority educational institutions who have recruitment and training programs in national intelligence work. Multi million grants were announced. along with awards for participation in the Intelligence Community's Centers of Academic Excellence program. (See Blair's and others' remarks, pdf-10 p.)

National Intelligence, long an area of focus for this blog, is challenging, maddening, confusing and occasionally heartening. Today brings some bad news and a bit of good. Stay tuned.

[Post date - September 2, 2009]

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Blogs: My general purpose/southwest focus blog is at Southwest Progressive. My creative website is at Making Good Mondays. And Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics national intelligence obama administration