BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

What illegal “things” was the government doing in 2001-2004?

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com | For the second consecutive day, The Washington Post has published an excerpt from reporter Barton Gellman’s new book on the Cheney Vice Presidency, and it provides still more details on the intense confrontation in March, 2004 between the Bush Justice Department and the Cheney-led White House over the DOJ’s refusal to certify the legality of the NSA’s domestic spying activities. As has been known ever since Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified before the Senate in May, 2007, all of the top-level DOJ officials — including Attorney General John Ashcroft, Comey and FBI Director Robert Mueller — told President Bush they would resign immediately because Bush ordered the NSA surveillance program to continue even after his own Justice Department told him it was patently illegal. Comey drafted his resignation letter, calling Bush’s spying activities “an apocalyptic situation” because he had “been asked to be a part of something that is fundamentally wrong.”

Such an en masse resignation in the middle of an election year was averted only when Bush finally agreed to change certain aspects of the surveillance program in order to persuade these DOJ officials to endorse its legality. The illegal NSA spying program revealed by The New York Times in December, 2005 that created so much political controversy — whereby the Bush administration was spying on Americans without the warrants required by law — was a program that was actually endorsed and authorized by these same DOJ officials. The program we learned about was the “compromise” program that Bush implemented in 2004 in order to avoid their resignation. That’s how extreme — what right-wing, executive-power-loving ideologues — these DOJ officials are: they are the ones who authorized and endorsed the illegal NSA program that we came to learn about.

But whatever it was that the Bush administration was doing in spying on Americans for years prior to March, 2004 was so extreme, so patently illegal, so unconscionable that even these right-wing DOJ Bush appointees, who approved of the ultimate warrantless eavesdropping program, were ready to resign en masse if those spying activities continued. Here is how Gellman, in his book, describes the March, 2004 “compromise” that resulted in the “less illegal” and less extreme NSA spying program that the DOJ officials approved:

The FBI director was no more tractable than Comey. This was a rule-of-law question, he told the president, and the answer was in the Justice Department. The FBI could not participate in operations that Justice held to be in breach of criminal law. If those were [the President's] orders, he would respectfully take his leave. . . .

Seven days later, Bush amended his March 11 directive. The legal certification belonged again to the attorney general. The surveillance program stopped doing some things, and it did other things differently. Much of the operation remained in place. Not all of it.

Think about that: in order to persuade the DOJ officials not to resign, “the surveillance program stopped doing some things, and it did other things differently.” What “things” did the NSA stop doing in March, 2004 — and what “things” did it start doing differently — in order to convince Ashcroft, Mueller and Comey to remain in their jobs? This is one of the greatest political scandals of the Bush era — not merely the commission of these illegal acts but the fact that they remain concealed from the public– and it’s also one of the most illustrative episodes of how our Government now works, of the extreme secrecy and illegality that characterizes it at its core, and of the complicity of both parties in all of this.

We know (even according to Bush’s own right-wing, highest-level DOJ officials) that, for years, the Government was violating the criminal law (i.e., committing felonies) in how it spied on us, and did so in ways that were so severe that even the President’s own appointees — who proved they were willing to endorse plainly illegal spying programs — were nonetheless ready to destroy the President’s 2004 re-election bid by resigning if those activities continued. At least according to what the Government claims, these illegal activities — what Gellman cryptically calls “these things” — stopped in March, 2004, when Bush ordered the program changed in order to satisfy the DOJ. Thus, what possible rationale exists for continuing to conceal from the country the extreme lawbreaking in which our Government was engaged during this time — more than four years ago?

Of course, we almost certainly would have learned the answers to these questions — or, at the very least, obtained a judicial ruling that the Government broke the law — had the telecom lawsuits been allowed to proceed. But thanks to the Congressional leadership of both parties, with the support of both major presidential candidates (though over the opposition of the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee), those lawsuits were killed, stopped in their tracks, when the telecom industry was retroactively immunized for their lawbreaking.

At this point, it is extremely easy to understand why not only the White House and Congressional Republicans, but also the Democratic leadership, was so eager to ensure that this law-breaking remain concealed from the public and that there are never any consequences for it. It’s because, as is true for so much of the Bush radicalism and lawbreaking over the years, top Democrats were fully aware of what was taking place and either explicitly endorsed the lawbreaking or, with full complicity, allowed it to continue. In his book, Gellman details a March 10, 2004 meeting convened by Dick Cheney regarding the DOJ’s objections to the NSA surveillance programs — in which various Bush national security officials were present along with “the four ranking members of the House and the Senate, and the chairmen and vice chairmen of the intelligence committees” — and this is what Gellman writes:

With a nod from Cheney, [then-NSA Director Gen. Michael Hayden] walked through the program’s vital mission. Gonzales said top lawyers at the NSA and Justice had green-lighted the program from the beginning. Now Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was in the hospital, and James B. Comey, Ashcroft’s deputy, refused to certify that the surveillance was legal.

That was misleading at best. Cheney and Gonzales knew that Comey spoke for Ashcroft as well. They also knew, but chose not to mention, that Jack L. Goldsmith, chief of the Office of Legal Counsel at Justice, had been warning of major legal problems for months.

More than three years later, Gonzales would testify that there was “consensus in the room” from the lawmakers, “who said, ‘Despite the recommendation of the deputy attorney general, go forward with these very important intelligence activities.’” By this account — disputed by participants from both parties — four Democrats and four Republicans counseled Cheney to press on with a program that Justice called illegal.

In fact, Cheney asked the lawmakers a question that came close to answering itself. Could the House and Senate amend surveillance laws without raising suspicions that a new program had been launched? The obvious reply became a new rationale for keeping Congress out.

Though there is dispute about whether these members of Congress expressly endorsed the continuation of the illegal program, there is no dispute that the meeting took place and that these members were repeatedly briefed on the spying program — not only after 2004, but before 2004. This specific meeting described by Gellman, and the briefings generally, included Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Steney Hoyer, and Jay Rockefeller — all of whom voted to put an end to the telecom lawsuits (and thereby ensure that these crimes remain concealed), and the latter two of whom were, far and away, the key forces behind the new law that killed the lawsuits looking into these spying activities (and then joined Bush and Cheney at a festive, bipartisan White House signing ceremony to celebrate their joint victory).

If we had an even minimally transparent and open government, or an even theoretically extant opposition party, it would be unthinkable that these crimes would remain concealed, uninvestigated and unpunished. Instead, we have deeply corrupt and complicit leadership in both parties that act in unison to protect the culpable actors (i.e., themselves), while neither reporters nor citizens seem particularly interested in learning about the illegal “things” our Government did for years in spying on us and our communications. Did they listen in on our exclusively domestic calls, read our emails, do physical searches by breaking into our homes all without warrants, engage in other types of equally intrusive and illegal surveillance?

As former DOJ official Marty Lederman wrote last year in the wake of the Comey revelations — after detailing how extraordinary were these threats to resign from these right-wing DOJ officials — in a post entitled: “Can You Even Imagine How Bad it Must Have Been?”:

If that’s the narrow version of the NSA program, just how broad and indiscriminate was the surveillance under the program that Ashcroft, et al. would not approve? . . . This is the real heart of the Comey story — What happened between September 2001 and October 2003, before Comey and Goldmsith came aboard? Just how radical were the Administration’s legal judgments? How extreme were the programs they implemented? How egregious was the lawbreaking?

We still have no idea, and we (meaning our political and media class) don’t seem to care all that much. We know the President committed felonies by engaging in activities which his own ideologically-sympathetic DOJ officials declared were violative of the criminal law. We know this went on for years, and that he stopped only when it became clear that his political career would be destroyed by massive DOJ resignations if he continued. But we are content not to know what he did, what the extent of the lawbreaking was, and what was done with the criminally-obtained information about U.S. citizens.

Have Your Say: What illegal “things” was the government doing in 2001-2004?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

The Gang’s All Here - Bush, McCain and the Old Iran-Contra Team

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

By PAM MARTENS | The vetting of Sarah Palin for the McCain campaign by an Iran-Contra alumnus brought an epiphany. (See “The Man Who Vetted Palin,” CounterPunch, September 8, 2008.) The American people’s inability to control this crime spree we call the Bush administration is not because we’re lazy, narcissistic or willfully blind to human rights violations, as much of the world now views us. It’s because we’ve been misidentifying this crime spree as “the Bush administration.” What we’re clearly confronting is the Iran-Contra Alumni Association masquerading as the Executive Branch, replete with domestic spying, dark ops, fake journalists, fake news reels, press intimidation, protester arrests, infiltration and torture. Their latest maneuver is the woman with zero foreign policy experience a heart beat from taking that 3 a.m. call. A call which, of course, they’ll answer for her as they have done for Bush II.

We can’t counter this massive operation with Code Pink, despite my undying gratitude for their bravery and brains. We need to give the pink slips to the Iran-Contra gang. We need a full blown Congressional Committee on Corruption in the Federal Government – a truth commission with subpoena power. And we need the hearings to air live, for however long it takes, to get to the bottom of this syndication of crime.

Here’s five top questions the Committee can put on its priority list: did the Iran-Contra gang shake down Bush II for keeping the secrets of Bush I; did Bush II just decide on his own to reward the Iran-Contra gang for not writing tell-all books and for demonstrating they value loyalty over lawfulness. Why did Senator McCain call Iran-Contra central casting to round out his campaign? Why are these lawyers that hold the secrets to Iran-Contra vetting Federal candidates and judges?
Here’s a look at the amazing reemergence of the cast of recycled characters from Iran-Contra days:

Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense: On December 6, 2006, the United States Senate voted 95-2 to confirm Mr. Gates, despite the fact that he occupies a full chapter, Chapter 16, in the “Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters.” Mr. Gates spent 26 years at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). When the Iran arms sales and illegal diversion of funds to the Contras and other unknown pockets were taking place right under his nose, he was the CIA’s deputy director for intelligence (DDI) from 1982 to 1986. Despite his murky history, he was recycled as Director of the CIA by President George H.W. Bush in 1991, who, let’s not forget, was also a former Director of the CIA.

The Independent Counsel’s report concedes that while there was not enough evidence to indict Mr. Gates for his role in Iran-Contra, the Independent Counsel, Lawrence E. Walsh, heavily implies Mr. Gates lied about what he knew and when he knew it.

During the 2006 confirmation hearings, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) questioned Mr. Gates about his role in Iran-Contra and Mr. Gates obfuscated, to say the least. Here are excerpts:

LEVIN: It is no secret that I voted against Dr. Gates’ nomination to be director of central intelligence in 1991. I did so because I thought that he had been less than candid about the role that he played in the Iran-Contra affair. As I have said before, however, I, for one, intend to take a fresh and fair look at Dr. Gates’ record…However, you gave a number of further explanations about these events and your lack of memory. You said that the matter had been investigated exhaustively by the Intelligence Committee. The key figures in the affair were interviewed or testified and affirmed that they had not shared important information with you… However, there was one thing that you said in support of your answer which troubled me, and I wanted to give you an opportunity to comment on it. And that’s when you said that the Iran-Contra independent counsel, after seven years of investigation, could not find a single witness to testify that my role in the matter was other than I described it…

GATES: Sure. I think the short answer, Senator, is: In the very short time that I had to prepare the answers to the questions that came from the committee, that it seemed, without having access to any of the documents or the records that I had seen before, that the best way to answer this current committee’s question was simply to refer to the note to the response that I was invited to place in the record of the Iran-Contra report.

And the sentence that you quoted in terms of not finding any other witnesses was the central part of a three- or four-, I think, sentence response that I wrote to the report of the Iran-Contra independent counsel.

In other words, Mr. Gates refused to answer the question about his role in Iran-Contra while applying for one of the most important jobs in the United States; a job where he will take over for the train wreck left by Donald Rumsfeld to continue a war that has thus far cost hundreds of thousands of lives along with the credibility of the United States and left us a financial basket-case.

Mr. Gates assertion “that the Iran-Contra independent counsel, after seven years of investigation, could not find a single witness to testify that my role in the matter was other than I described it…” is more than a little problematic. The Independent Counsel did, indeed, find someone, namely Richard Kerr, a CIA colleague of Mr. Gates at the time. Here’s the relevant passage from the Independent Counsel’s report:

“…the evidence was clear that Gates’s statements concerning his initial awareness of the diversion were wrong: Kerr brought him the information from Allen over a month earlier than Gates admitted. This would have been material because it suggested that the CIA continued to support [Oliver] North’s activities without informing North’s superiors or investigating. …In the end, although Gates’s actions suggested an officer who was more interested in shielding his institution from criticism and in shifting the blame to the NSC than in finding out the truth, there was insufficient evidence to charge Gates with a criminal endeavor…”

Fred Fielding, White House Counsel: Mr. Fielding was appointed White House Counsel to President George W. Bush on January 9, 2007. Mr. Fielding was White House Counsel to President Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1986, a period which saw secret Presidential “findings” that led the U.S. intelligence apparatus to illegally thwart the will of Congress with secret arms sales to Iran and illegal diversion of arms proceeds to the Nicaraguan Contras as well as millions in unaccounted for funds. The Contras were a U.S. funded mercenary army to a large degree, similar to Blackwater in Iraq. Mr. Fielding was a part of Blackwater’s legal team before becoming White House Counsel according to Legal Times. Blackwater is under criminal investigation over a Baghdad shooting by its armed guards that left 17 Iraqis dead.

During the period that Mr. Fielding was giving counsel to President Reagan, according to the International Court of Justice “the President of the United States authorized a United States government agency to lay mines in Nicaraguan ports; that in early 1984 mines were laid in or close to the ports of El Bluff, Corinto and Puerto Sandino, either in Nicaraguan internal waters or in its territorial sea or both, by persons in the pay and acting on the instructions of that agency, under the supervision and with the logistic support of United States agents; that neither before the laying of the mines, nor subsequently, did the United States Government issue any public and official warning to international shipping of the existence and location of the mines; and that personal and material injury was caused by the explosion of the mines…”

The man who admits in his autobiography, A Spy for All Seasons, that he was the mastermind behind planting mines in the ports of a country with which we were not at war is Duane R. “Dewey” Clarridge. This act was viewed as an act of terrorism by many. Mr. Clarridge was a career employee at the CIA. His major posts included chief of the Latin American Division, chief of the European Division and Chief of the Counterterrorism Center. On November 26, 1991, a federal Grand Jury indicted Mr. Clarridge on perjury charges as part of the Independent Counsel’s investigation. On December 24, 1992, George H.W. Bush pardoned Clarridge while his court case was ongoing. According to Clarridge, as reported in the Los Angeles Times, he was to be hired as a national security deputy in the Bush administration in 2001 but opposition arose (reported elsewhere as Democratic opposition).

John Negroponte: On January 5, 2007, John Negroponte was appointed Deputy Secretary of State after the President had previously appointed him to three other posts, including Director of National Intelligence, a post invented by the Bush administration. (On July 30, 2008, President Bush signed another of his notorious Executive Orders, Executive Order 13470, putting the Director of National Intelligence office and its budget under the direct control of the President of the United States, making it the “head of the Intelligence Community” and making the CIA subordinate to it.)

Negroponte was Ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985. He has been widely linked to turning a blind eye to human rights abuses in Honduras during that time, overseeing a Contra staging operation in the country, and falsifying reports to Congress on the existence of death squads operating in the country.

Elliott Abrams, Deputy National Security Advisor: In the first term of Bush II, Mr. Abrams held the post of Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs. On February 2, 2005, President George W. Bush appointed Mr. Abrams to the posts of Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy.

Mr. Abrams also occupies a full chapter in the Independent Counsel’s report, Chapter 25. Mr. Abrams held numerous posts in the Reagan administration, most notably Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American affairs beginning in July 1985. He became the chief cheerleader for aid to the Contras in Nicaragua. Mr. Abrams pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information in the Iran-Contra matter and admitted the following: he withheld from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) his knowledge of Oliver North’s Contra activities. He also admitted that he withheld from HPSCI the fact that he had solicited $10 million in aid for the contras from the Sultan of Brunei. That would be the same $10 million that ended up in a private bank account and has yet to be adequately explained. There is, of course, the typo explanation offered by Mark Belnick, a lawyer who assisted in the Senate investigation of Iran-Contra but was later himself tried in a 9-count indictment by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office for stealing millions from Tyco International while General Counsel. Mr. Belnick was acquitted. Mr. Abrams was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush on December 24, 1992.
This is just a small sampling of the Iran-Contra gang that found an equal employment opportunity waiting for them in jobs requiring background checks and security clearances in the Bush administration.
Equally troubling, Senator John McCain appears to be adopting a similar mind set. In addition to Arthur B. Culvahouse, the man who vetted Sarah Palin and read a treasure trove of classified Iran-Contra documents as White House Counsel to President Reagan, the McCain-Palin campaign web site lists another of their advisors as Robert (Bud) McFarlane. Mr. McFarlane is Chapter 1 in the Independent Counsel’s report. On March 11, 1988, Mr. McFarlane pleaded guilty to unlawfully withholding information from Congress about Oliver North’s Contra activities and foreign solicitation of funds. On December 24, 1992, President George H.W. Bush pardoned him.

What’s Bud McFarlane doing for the McCain campaign? He’s part of a “Truth Squad.” (Memo to Truth Squad: Focus your sights on Sarah Palin’s $40 Billion natural gas pipe dream that exists only on paper and in Republican convention speeches to 37 million Americans.)

McCain has also signed on Theodore (Ted) Olson to be Co-Chair of his Justice Advisory Committee to vet future Federal judges for lifetime appointments. Mr. Olson was Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Reagan administration. During this time, he became the target of a different Independent Counsel investigation. Alexia Morrison investigated Mr. Olson for a potential coverup of Environmental Protection Agency conduct. No charges were brought. He then became President Reagan’s personal attorney representing him in the Iran-Contra matter, spending much time refusing to turn over documents. Mr. Olson is also the attorney who argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, securing the 5 to 4 decision that put George W. Bush in the White House. Mr. Olson was appointed Solicitor General in the first term of George W. Bush.

The off balance sheet secrets that Wall Street has hidden away under this administration’s free market madness are now imploding and saddling our children with trillions more in national debt. The secrets that the Iran-Contra gang have hidden away for two decades are an equally dangerous brew, especially if they are now influencing the selection of Federal candidates and judges and creating new rogue operations to ensnare our country in more preemptive attacks.

Dark secrets and democracy cannot live side by side. The American people have waited long enough for the truth.

Pam Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years. She has no securities position, long or short, in any company mentioned in this article. She writes on public interest issues from New Hampshire. She can be reached at pamk741@aol.com.

Have Your Say: The Gang’s All Here - Bush, McCain and the Old Iran-Contra Team
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Irish politicians back calls for universal arms trade treaty

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

Politicians from all the main parties have given their support to a global campaign to ban the sale of arms to conflict zones such as Darfur and Burma, where they are likely to be used for violations of human rights.

Launching a report which details the catastrophic effect of unrestrained arms trading on human rights in conflict zones, Amnesty International said 56 TDs, senators and MEPs had signed a parliamentary declaration supporting a comprehensive Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

These signatures will be added to those of 1,600 parliamentarians across the world who have signed the same declaration, and will be handed over to the United Nations, where a universal treaty is due to be discussed next month.

“The absence of a common binding standard on international trade in weapons has resulted in the widespread abuse of human rights in the form of rape, murder and violence,” said Noeleen Hartigan of Amnesty’s Irish section.

“The Irish Government has to date been a strong advocate for a comprehensive arms trade treaty. In the face of opposition from powerful states like the USA, China, India and Russia, Ireland must support the use of a human rights criterion as the basis for negotiations for a universal arms trade treaty.”

According to Amnesty’s report, Blood at the Crossroads , large quantities of arms are making their way to Iraq despite human rights violations by all parties in the conflict there, and there is a lack of monitoring by the Iraq, US and UK governments over where the weapons end up.

It also states that China and Russia remain the largest suppliers of conventional arms to Sudan, while in Burma, despite persistent human rights violations committed by government forces, China, Serbia, Russia and Ukraine have supplied armoured personnel carriers, trucks, weapons and munitions.

“The time for an arms trade treaty is now. Sixty years after the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the same governments can and should deliver an effective agreement on international arms transfers with human rights at its heart,” Ms Hartigan said.

Have Your Say: Irish politicians back calls for universal arms trade treaty
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Taxis Get CCTV Cameras

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

TAXI drivers have welcomed proposals to improve passenger and driver safety, including tougher driver testing and compulsory installation of CCTV.

Changes to the licensing of cabs operating in Gravesham were recommended for approval at a Gravesham Borough Council Cabinet meeting on Monday with a final decision expected in January next year.

If the initiative is approved, Gravesham will be the first borough in the country to introduce compulsory CCTV into its taxis.

The idea was first discussed after 71-year-old taxi driver Gian Chand Bajar, of Darnley Road, Gravesend, was murdered by passenger Luke Aujila, of no fixed abode, in May 2007, by running him over in his own cab. He was sentenced to life in prison in May this year.

Rick Davis, 54, the current joint secretary of the United Taxi Group which represents all taxi drivers in Gravesham, said: “I think as a whole, taxi drivers in the borough will welcome the changes that could be made.

“There will obviously be some who have problems with certain aspects, but I think if it improves the safety of both the drivers and the passengers, then you have to support it.”

Other changes could include the introduction of a penalty points system for drivers breaking the rules, a revision of driver application procedures, enhanced testing which will question candidates on the knowledge of the area and specific landmarks, and drivers will also have to have knowledge of Hackney Carriage and Private Hire law.

Mr Davis had his CCTV fitted last Thursday, at a discounted cost. Currently all drivers will have the opportunity to have CCTV fitted for £97, with funding being provided by Gravesham Borough Council and an EU grant.

The full cost of the installation could be as high as £700.

Mr Davis added: “Having this CCTV fitted will make it far safer for me to be a taxi driver in Gravesend.

“But the high price tag could mean people are put off becoming taxi drivers in the first place, which could mean a shortage of drivers.

“On the other hand, it will weed those people out that don’t want to be proper cabbies

“Overall, safety is the most important issue, and improvements in things like driver testing and the penalty points will help us make travelling in taxis in Gravesham far safer.”

John Cubitt, cabinet member for community safety, said: “The introduction of CCTV in taxis across the borough will improve both public and driver safety immensely.”

A consultation period with drivers, Kent County Council, Kent Police and parish councils will be held until November 28.

Source

Have Your Say: Taxis Get CCTV Cameras
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Government whittles down ID scheme suppliers

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

By Nick Heath | The government has taken another step towards tying up which companies will be in charge of the UK ID cards scheme.

The Identity and Passport Service (IPS) has further whittled down the companies shortlisted to deliver parts of the ID card system and passport-application scheme.

IBM and Thales are through to the next round of discussions for a £500m contract to deliver the National Biometric Identity Service programme to replace the existing passport-photo database with a new system able to store photos and fingerprints.

CSC, Fujitsu and IBM have been chosen to take part in further talks for the £500m contract to deliver the application and enrolment programme, which will replace the current passport-application system.

The IPS said that procurement for the design and production of ID cards has also begun and that suppliers should be shortlisted in the coming months.

Earlier this year it was announced that an early version of the UK ID card biometric database will be delivered by Thales for £18m. It will produce cards for airport workers, who will have to start using the cards from 2009.

Suppliers 3M, SP&SL, De La Rue, Gemalto and Thales have also been chosen to discuss replacing existing arrangements for the design and production of passports for when the current supplier arrangements expire, with contracts expected to be awarded in 2009.

Foreign nationals coming to the UK will be issued with ID cards from 25 November under a separate system developed by the UK Border Agency, and the government recently announced an initial run of 50,000 ID cards will be produced.

Have Your Say: Government whittles down ID scheme suppliers
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

So, the President May Kill Anybody He Pleases, Right?

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

Lew Rockwell | Among the many cock-and-bull stories set afoot by the Bush administration during the lead-up to its attack on Iraq was the one about the now-infamous drones of death. Later, it became sufficiently clear that this alleged threat had no more substance than the others the administration and the lapdog mainstream media had served up to a credulous public.

Although the ludicrously primitive Iraqi drones had no capacity whatsoever to harm the American public, the lethality of U.S. drones is another matter. Predator drones equipped with Hellfire missiles now provide the U.S. government with a means of flying over territory that U.S. ground troops dare not penetrate, observing activities on the ground, and killing people there with, shall we say, a minimum of due process.

In November 2002, for example, BBC News reported: “America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) carried out an attack in Yemen that killed six suspected members of Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network, according to US officials. The men died when the jeep they were travelling in was hit by a missile fired from an unmanned CIA plane – believed to be a Predator drone, the US sources said.”

U.S. forces have also used the Predator actively in Afghanistan and, most recently, in the Waziristan region of Pakistan. Today, I read an account of a drone attack near the town of Miramshah in North Waziristan that is reported to have “killed at least 14 people and injured 12 others,” including “at least six women and children.”

In Afghanistan, such aerial attacks, not always by drones, of course, have created a ticklish dilemma for the Karzai government as it pretends to be a real government, rather than the U.S. puppet it actually is. Official protests have become increasingly vociferous, though I have seen no evidence that the U.S. forces intend to change their operations in response.

What an awesome power the president and, with his authorization, his subordinate officers possess: they can kill people at will, including those persons’ wives and children, with no risk whatever of receiving return fire or other retribution. Surely this is the long-sought culmination of the Republican’s quest to establish ”law and order.”

What leads me to remark on this matter, however, is not its technological nuts and bolts or its connection with master-puppet relations in southwest Asia, but rather the complete insouciance with which the American public greets reports of deaths by drone. I do not exaggerate if I say that the general reaction is “ho-hum.” Well, the average American says, that disposes nicely of another “bad guy.” The gratuitous murder of the bad guy’s family members, neighbors, and other innocent persons in the vicinity appears to create no blip on the average American’s moral radar screen. Perhaps Americans do not consider Yemenis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis to be real human beings whose right to life we are obliged to respect?

Is death by drone simply another occasion when the president, having labeled a set of actions as a “war,” believes and acts as though he has carte blanche to dish out death and destruction willy nilly?

Of course, reports of drone attacks usually refer to militants, Taliban forces, or al Qaeda members. To this information, we might well respond: yeah, who says? If we are content to assume that U.S. intelligence agents, who nearly always get their information from collaborators in the target territories, really know whom they are targeting, then we are certainly easily satisfied. One does not have to make an extensive survey of U.S. government claims about Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other places in southwest Asia over the past seven years to see that for the most part the U.S. commanders, from the Commander in Chief on down to the sweatiest noncom on patrol, are either more or less clueless or the biggest liars on the planet. I do not rule out that they are both.

The upshot is that the people who cooperate in getting to the point at which someone pushes the button to send the Hellfire toward its selected target may in fact not know for sure whom they are about the kill, or how many others will be killed along with this ostensible ”enemy” or who those others are.

Without launching into a massive geopolitical inquiry, we might well pause from time to time to ask, What are U.S. forces doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan anyhow? Surely they are not there to capture or kill the persons responsible for the crimes of 9/11, because they have already proved beyond all doubt that they are incapable of doing so (as Osama bin Laden’s videos periodically remind us). They are, however, all too capable of diverting their energies from that objective toward unrelated goals, such as attacking and occupying Iraq.

We Americans find ourselves, then, observing with extreme moral disengagement as the president and his subordinates murder persons whose identities remain uncertain along with assorted others whose only crime is being in the same area as the targeted individuals – after all, the Hellfire, which makes a very big blast, can scarcely be described as a surgically precise killing instrument.

Moreover, the president’s use of this remote-control-execution device apparently has no geographical limits, because, as he assures us, the “war on terror” has none. Today, a dirt road in Waziristan; tomorrow, the Santa Monica Freeway. It will be interesting to see, when drone attacks are carried out in this country, whether the American public gives a damn.

Robert Higgs [send him mail] is senior fellow in political economy at the Independent Institute and editor of The Independent Review. He is also a columnist for LewRockwell.com. His most recent book is Neither Liberty Nor Safety: Fear, Ideology, and the Growth of Government. He is also the author of Depression, War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy, Resurgence of the Warfare State: The Crisis Since 9/11 and Against Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society.

Have Your Say: So, the President May Kill Anybody He Pleases, Right?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Top Ten Ways to Reduce Plastic Consumption

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

By Neil McLaughlin | By now you have likely heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a tragic byproduct of the plastics industry and consumerism that is an island of garbage floating in the northern Pacific Ocean. Originally the size of Texas and approaching the size of the Sun, this gargantuan pile of plastic is collected by currents that swirl around in a big circle. Most of the debris is picked up from the shores of both China and North America that sandwich it.

As plastic never goes away, it eventually crumbles up into tiny bits (photo-degrades). These bits of plastic enter the food supply and are passed from the jelly fish all the way back up to humans where it is stored in their livers (that part is only fair). Plastic also pollutes the water with PCB’s (PolyChlorinated Biphenyls, dangerous carcinogens and hormone disruptors).

While no one person is to blame, every person has contributed to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (it’s a safe bet the Atlantic also has one lurking somewhere). Whether one throws litter on the ground or trusts in their municipal trash companies to do it for them, everyone throws away plastic and it ends up in the ocean and then back in our bodies.

While some say cleanup is impossible, hopefully someday someone will find a solution. Perhaps they will find a way to convert plastic to energy (it is made of oil after all), and they can make a ship refueling station out there that will produce energy from plastic. Or perhaps nanotech robots can disassemble it and bring it to the recycler. (Such technology would be extremely dangerous as it would have to be careful not to accidentally disassemble Kenny Rogers face). In the meantime there are many things people can do to at least help prevent this pile of garbage from getting any larger.

Ways to Reduce Plastic in Landfills

1) Avoid Products that use Plastic to Begin With

Plastic is made from petroleum hence it is so ubiquitous today. Plastic is convenient but most of the cheaper grades (the clear stuff) find its way into our food, often leaving a film on anything that is wrapped in it and which we then eat. Microwaving anything in plastic cooks plastic residues right into the food, vaporizing other chemicals that contaminate the food and air. Consider the amount of sheer waste a single meal or even serving produces (Kraft Singles is second only to Individually Wrapped Breaths of Air ™ in the Most Wasteful Products Award). Reuse glass or Tupperware containers for leftovers instead of plastic wrap. Store water in the high grade blue plastic bottles only. Prefer cheese that is made from raw milk.

2) Kick the Bottle

High on the list of most wasteful products is Individually Wrapped Drinks of Water, a lingering 1990’s fad for those pretending to be health conscious. Picture a lake compared to a lake of plastic bottles and that is basically what we now have in the Pacific. Corporations are taking over town aquifers and selling it back to the people for $2 per bottle. Shipping one bottle of water costs on average 1/3 bottle of fuel. It is best to filter or distill your own water and use metal or glass containers. Companies like Nalgene make trendy reusable water containers of high grade plastic. Opt for tap water with lemon in restaurants. Note: wait staff seem trained to always supply a plastic straw with every drink (probably so you don’t notice the lipstick on the rim of the glass), so remember to request no straw with your drink.

3) Recycle or Reuse Materials

Plastic can be recycled and you will find that when you start recycling you at least save money on trash bags. Many containers can be washed out and reused (though they should be sterilized with apple cider vinegar). Note that only the higher grade plastics can be reused.

4) Choose Products with Biodegradable Plastic

Now many plastic cups along with packaging peanuts and other supplies are available in a biodegradable form. Companies like Ecosafe and Natur-Tec are providing real solutions to the plastic problem.

5) Repair, Sell or Upgrade Gadgets

Many people run out and buy the latest new cell phone or iPod more often than needed, discarding their old phones in the rubbish where they not only add to plastic landfill but also leak out various other contaminants like Mercury. Meanwhile older components, while larger, are often superior as they tend to be constructed of much more solid materials. By repairing your items you can keep things in top shape much longer. Tackle small problems when they arise. Take the time to fix things right. Buy used products when possible and sell your items when they are no longer needed. Prefer products that offer replacement parts.

6) Recycle Computer Parts

If you must discard items like monitors or printers, at least take them to an electronics recycler. Staples accepts old monitors, etc. for a small fee.

7) Use Cloth Grocery Bags

While this is more of a challenge for men as they look like pocketbooks, it is important to avoid bringing home so many plastic bags. Cloth bags can help. Some shoppers at the farmers market seem afraid to let any vegetables touch any other vegetables, insisting that each be individually wrapped. A better method is to use as few bags as possible, to reuse those taken, recycle them when they tear, and especially to avoid using them to begin with by bringing your own bag. Eventually this will save money as stores are considering charging for them.

8)Do Sweat the Small Stuff
The worst pieces of plastic are the tiny bits. These are the ones that birds, turtles and fish mistake for food and eat and then can’t pass them. Eventually these poor animals become full of plastic and they die of starvation, or they are consumed by larger animals and the process continues. After these animals die, the plastic is the only part that is left behind where it kills again.

9)Don’t be a Litter Bug
Many feel that if they don’t litter, they will be putting the garbage man out of a job. Some will simply chuck their used car batteries (full of sulfuric acid) into the woods behind their home. The truth is that this debris will persist for decades and humans leave enough of a footprint without adding insult to injury. In the 1970’s there were TV commercials with Woodsy Owl reminding us to “Give a Hoot Don’t Pollute”. In today’s corporate controlled media the best we get is talk about the Carbon Tax. Even the threat of Nuclear War is brushed aside by the media in favor of the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the War on Manners.

10)Clean up your Neighborhood Ponds
Many neighborhoods have small ponds containing water that is cleaner than their municipal tap water. These ponds are often teeming with fish and turtles that help keep them pure. Sadly however these ponds (and wildlife) are normally loaded with plastic debris. By taking 15 minutes each week, one person can really help clean up their neighborhood. The process is surprisingly relaxing and the animals will appreciate it. Do note that random passerby will think you are out on parole, so wearing an orange jumpsuit is not recommended. Ideally, organize a neighborhood trash pickup (nowadays that may require legal waivers in case participants obtain a boo boo).

References

GPGP Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Paci…

Plastic grades:
http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/108/plastic

Have Your Say: Top Ten Ways to Reduce Plastic Consumption
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

FIVE FORMER SECRETARIES OF STATE SUPPORT DIRECT TALKS WITH IRAN

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

National Security Network - Five former American secretaries of state all reaffirmed their support for direct talks with Iran. Henry Kissinger went as far as to say that there must be high-level talks with the Iranians “without conditions.” Barack Obama has called for tough direct diplomacy with Iran, but John McCain who continues to call this approach “naÃ¯ve.”

At the event sponsored by the Center for New American Security, George Washington University, Rice University and City College, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell James Baker, Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher all agreed. Former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright advised that “You need to engage with countries you have problems with,” and said “I believe we need to engage with Iran.” Colin Powell, Secretary of State under George W. Bush echoed the need for negotiations stating: “Let’s get together and talk about nuclear weapons.”

Henry Kissinger, an advisor to John McCain, supports negotiating with Iran “without preconditions.” Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford, not only indicated that he “was in favor of negotiating with Iran,” but said that such negotiations should occur “without conditions,” and should begin at a high level.”

Have Your Say: FIVE FORMER SECRETARIES OF STATE SUPPORT DIRECT TALKS WITH IRAN
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

The Wall Street crisis and the failure of American capitalism

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

By Barry Grey | The end of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, two of the largest Wall Street investment banks, one week after the government takeover of the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, marks a new stage in the convulsive crisis of American capitalism.

On Monday, global markets fell sharply in a sign of mounting panic and doubt over the stability of the entire US banking system. Throughout Europe stock markets plunged by as much as 4 percent.

The fall on Wall Street was even steeper, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average losing 504 points, or 4.42 percent. There is every indication that the sell-off will intensify, with the full implications of the collapse of the two Wall Street banks as yet far from clear.

The immediate concern is the fate of American International Group (AIG), the world’s largest insurance company, and Washington Mutual, the largest savings and loan bank in the US, both of which are teetering on bankruptcy.

The sudden demise of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch has removed a huge amount of liquidity from the economy, as paper values built up over decades of speculation come crashing down. This is capital that is needed to finance business operations, and its elimination will inevitably depress economic activity, fueling unemployment and recession, further undermining home prices and consumer spending, and further weakening the balance sheets of already financially shaken banks.

A sea change is unfolding in the US and world economy that portends a catastrophe of dimensions not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The fall of icons of American capitalism such as 158-year-old Lehman Brothers and 94-year-old Merrill Lynch can only lead to the further discrediting of the “free market” ideology of the US ruling elite, as well as its political and economic system. The spectacle of giants of capitalism drowning in debt piled up over decades of reckless speculation must inevitably discredit the social class—the American capitalist class—which is responsible for the debacle.

The bromides that have been uttered by the official spokesmen for the government, the media, Wall Street and the political parties over the past year of mounting financial crisis have lost all credibility. The assurances that the latest government bailout will stabilize the situation, that the US banking system is “fundamentally sound,” that the housing and credit markets are about to “turn the corner,” etc., reassure no one.

On Monday, President Bush mouthed such phrases in a brief White House appearance. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson at a White House press conference evaded questions about who was responsible for the financial disaster and instead declared that he was “focused on the future.”

The presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, made perfunctory statements that were remarkable only for their brevity and vacuity. What is widely acknowledged, even in ruling class circles, as the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression is unfolding in the midst of a presidential election. But it barely rates a mention by either the Republican or Democratic candidate.

Both parties and their candidates tip toe around a financial scandal of world historic proportions because they are equally implicated. They are both bound hand and foot to Wall Street and single-mindedly dedicated to the defense of American capitalism.

McCain issued a statement demanding “reform” in Washington and on Wall Street and pledging to bring “accountability” to Wall Street. This from a multi-millionaire whose campaign is being run by a bevy of lobbyists for Wall Street and other sections of big business.

His Democratic counterpart, Barack Obama, issued a predictably mealy-mouthed statement complaining that “too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren’t minding the store.” While attempting to pin the blame for the crisis entirely on the Bush administration—ignoring the “free market,” deregulatory policies of Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton—he offered a mutual amnesty between himself and McCain, saying, “I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for these problems…”

These events are signposts in the historic failure of American and world capitalism. For the working class, they mean a rapid growth of unemployment, poverty, homelessness and social misery. The government, Wall Street and both political parties will seek to place the burden for the consequences of their own greed and incompetence squarely on the backs of working people.

The collapse is devastating ever wider layers of the population, including those who have worked on Wall Street and received some of the financial benefits of the speculative boom. Some 26,000 Lehman employees are not only out of a job, with few prospects of finding similar employment elsewhere, but as owners of 25 percent of the company’s stock they have lost a combined $10 billion, wiping out their savings and retirement funds.

Tens of thousands of employees at Merrill Lynch and Bank of America will lose their jobs in the merger of the two firms, adding to the 110,000 jobs slashed in the US financial services industry over the past year.

The broader implications of the mounting financial crisis were signaled by Hewlett-Packard’s announcement Monday that it was cutting 25,000 jobs.

Many of those who precipitated this economic disaster, on the other hand, will profit handsomely from the debris they have left behind. Hedge funds and other short-sellers, who bet on the collapse of corporations, are even now speculating furiously on the demise of the remaining Wall Street firms, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, as well as big commercial banks such as Bank of America.

William Gross of the nation’s largest bond fund, Pimco, took in $1.7 billion last week by betting on—and publicly agitating for—a government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The emergency talks over the weekend, involving the heads of the major commercial and investment banks and led by Treasury Secretary Paulson and top Federal Reserve officials, centered on rescuing Merrill Lynch and orchestrating an orderly liquidation of Lehman. Under pressure from Paulson and the Fed, Merrill agreed to sell itself to Bank of America, the largest consumer commercial bank in the US.

At the same time, there were frantic negotiations over the fate of AIG, which faces bankruptcy unless it can raise tens of billions of dollars in capital. When US markets opened Monday, AIG was asking for emergency loans from the Fed to stave off collapse.

A failure of AIG threatens to bring down the entire credit system both in the US and internationally, because the company holds a large stake in the multi-trillion-dollar, unregulated market in so-called “credit default swaps.” AIG has sold CDS contracts to banks, hedge funds and big investors all over the world, under which it guarantees the mortgage-backed debt of a wide range of companies in the event that they default. If AIG should go under, the value of the debt which it insures would fall to an unknown level, destabilizing the credit markets and threatening a chain reaction of defaults and bankruptcies.

The events of the past two weeks demonstrate that the American financial aristocracy is plunging the entire country into bankruptcy. These events are themselves climatic moments in a protracted process.

For three decades, the “free market” has been elevated to the status of a secular religion in the US, with the capitalist market as its god and socialism as its devil. This period, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, has seen the wholesale dismantling of the productive base of the US economy, at the cost of millions of jobs and the living standards of the American working class.

In the name of the supposed infallibility of the market, the operations of big business have been deregulated, removing all legal restraints on corporate profit-making and fueling the accumulation of ever more obscene levels of wealth in the hands of a financial oligarchy. A vast process of social plunder has occurred, in which the wealth of the country has been redistributed from the bottom to the very top.

The scrapping of huge sections of industry and the immense growth of social inequality are the hallmarks of the historic decline of American capitalism. At the heart of this decay is the separation of the process of personal enrichment of the ruling elite from the material process of production.

The United States has become the world leader not in manufacturing technology or industrial power, but in financial speculation and parasitism. As Floyd Norris, the economics columnist of the New York Times, put it on Friday, “During recent years, Lehman—along with many competitors—went on a borrowing binge to buy assets with as little money down as possible.”

By its very nature, the parasitism of American capitalism has generated corruption and criminality on an unprecedented scale. Wall Street CEOs have awarded themselves tens of millions and even billions in compensation, in an utterly irrational and socially destructive squandering of social resources for the benefit of private greed.

At the end of 2007, for example, the Lehman board awarded CEO Richard S. Fuld a compensation package worth more than $40 million. According to Reda Associates, he can expect to collect $63.3 million if he is terminated. In 2004, he paid $13.75 million for an ocean-front home in Jupiter Island, Florida, adding to his other properties, including a home in Sun Valley, Idaho.

Joe Gregory, a former president of Lehman, used to travel to work in a helicopter. He recently put his 9,500-square-foot ocean-front home in Bridgehampton, New York on the market for $32.5 million.

The Financial Times recently reported that compensation for major executives of the seven largest US banks totaled $95 billion over the past three years, even as the banks recorded $500 billion in losses.

The question of precisely who and what is to blame for the greatest economic disaster in more than three quarters of a century is something that will not and cannot be raised by any section of the political or media establishment.

Since the eruption of the current crisis, there have no been serious congressional hearings, no public investigations, no attempt to hold anyone accountable. Massive government interventions into the supposedly sacrosanct precincts of the “free market,” for the purpose of bailing out giant Wall Street firms, including the biggest government takeover of corporate entities in US history, have been carried out without any public debate or significant opposition from either political party. This, while millions of Americans are losing their homes and their jobs as a result of predatory corporate practices!

Certain conclusions must be drawn from the crisis of the American economic and political system. There is no solution within the framework of the profit system. What is needed is a socialist program that places the needs of the people before the profits and personal fortunes of the ruling elite.

The entire financial system must be taken out of private hands and nationalized in the form of a public utility under the democratic control of the working class, with provisions taken to safeguard the holdings of small depositors and share-holders. It must be subordinated to the social needs of the people and dedicated to developing and expanding the productive forces in order to eliminate poverty and unemployment and vastly improve the living standards and cultural level of the entire population.

Those who are responsible for the economic catastrophe must be called to account. Criminal investigations should be undertaken with appropriate sanctions for those who have plundered the social wealth. A full public accounting should be made of the hundreds of billions that have been diverted to private bank accounts through fraud and criminality. Such gains should be seized and used for the public good.

The only social force that can carry this out is the working class. It requires a clean break with the Democratic Party and the two-party system and the mobilization of the immense social power of the working class in its own party, on the basis of a revolutionary socialist program.

This is the program fought for by the Socialist Equality Party.

Have Your Say: The Wall Street crisis and the failure of American capitalism
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Wiretap Cases a Go Despite FISA Change

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

By Evan Hill | Though Congress put a damper this summer on legal efforts to prove the Bush administration unlawfully spied on Americans’ phone calls and e-mails, flagship litigation in the Northern District of California will still proceed.

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker laid out a briefing schedule at a hearing Friday for In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, MDL 06-1791 — the consolidated suits against the government and numerous telecommunications giants like AT&T, Verizon and Sprint.

Walker first made quick work of the scheduling for Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Bush and granted the Islamic charity the opportunity to file a motion arguing that it’s an “aggrieved party” under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a status that would allow Walker to use classified evidence of government spying to determine if illegal surveillance had occurred.

Al-Haramain’s lawyers say that the government, in the course of investigating the charity, accidentally turned over documents showing they had spied on the organization. Walker has thus far precluded any use of the classified document, but FISA provides for the review and introduction of such evidence.

Walker set a Sept. 23 deadline for Al-Haramain’s motion and the government’s motion to dismiss.

But Walker wasn’t as brief or generous to the plaintiffs in the cases against telecom companies, which represent the other half of the consolidated wiretapping litigation.

Over the arguments of Electronic Frontier Foundation Legal Director Cindy Cohn, co-lead plaintiffs counsel, Walker denied a request to challenge the constitutionality of the recently passed amendments to FISA, which give telecoms retroactive immunity. Walker decided the government should get a chance to argue, by Sept. 19, for the cases to be dismissed before a constitutional challenge is raised.

“I do think we need first to see if the [FISA Amendments Act of 2008] applies to these cases, to let the government make its presentation in that regard … and then decide how the cases are to proceed, if at all,” he said.

Walker also denied Cohn’s request to be given more discovery about the extent to which telecom companies helped the government monitor communications.

Lawyers for the government and the companies, in a joint case management statement, argued that “Congress did not intend to open the door to discovery” but rather “to provide a means to resolve these cases without compromising classified national security information.”

Justice Department attorney Anthony Coppolino indicated that for both Al-Haramain and the telecom cases he would likely continue to introduce much of his evidence, which he has said is classified, under seal for in camera review.

Walker said he’d prefer to see less of that.

“The classified materials that I have viewed in connection with the state secrets issue … frankly have not been very helpful in resolving the issues that I have had to resolve,” he said.

He told Coppolino that it “behooved” him to be sparing when he submits classified materials.

Friday’s hearing was the first in the consolidated wiretapping cases to occur in the wake of President Bush’s signing of the FISA Amendments Act on July 10.

Outside court, Cohn said that the plaintiffs’ strategy going forward will be two-pronged: To argue that the government collected information in a broader fashion than was allowed under FISA and that the FISA Amendments Act is unconstitutional because it grants the executive branch power to usurp the judiciary.

Though the briefing schedule in the cases might be set, the outcomes, shrouded in new law, remain anything but clear.

“I cannot say that I have great familiarity with the statute,” Walker said of the FISA Amendments Act, “and indeed it’s a new statute and an unusual one providing for an unusual procedure.”

Have Your Say: Wiretap Cases a Go Despite FISA Change
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Fears over privacy as police expand surveillance project

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

By Paul Lewis | The police are to expand a car surveillance operation that will allow them to record and store details of millions of daily journeys for up to five years, the Guardian has learned.

A national network of roadside cameras will be able to “read” 50m licence plates a day, enabling officers to reconstruct the journeys of motorists.

Police have been encouraged to “fully and strategically exploit” the database, which is already recording the whereabouts of 10 million drivers a day, during investigations ranging from counter-terrorism to low-level crime.

But it has raised concerns from civil rights campaigners, who question whether the details should be kept for so long, and want clearer guidance on who might have access to the material.

The project relies on automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras to pinpoint the precise time and location of all vehicles on the road. Senior officers had promised the data would be stored for two years. But responding to inquiries under the Freedom of Information Act, the Home Office has admitted the data is now being kept for five years.

Thousands of CCTV cameras across the country have been converted to read ANPR data, capturing people’s movements in cars on motorways, main roads, airports and town centres.

Local authorities have since adapted their own CCTV systems to capture licence plates on behalf of police, massively expanding the network of available cameras. Mobile cameras have been installed in patrol cars and unmarked vehicles parked by the side of roads.

Police helicopters have been equipped with infrared cameras that can read licence plates from 610 metres (2,000ft).

In four months’ time, when a nationwide network of cameras is fully operational, the National ANPR Data Centre in Hendon, north London, will record up to 50m licence plates a day.

The Home Office said in a letter that the Hendon database would “store all ANPR captured data for five years”. The photograph of a person’s licence plate will, in most cases, be stored for one year.

Human rights group Privacy International last night described the five-year record of people’s car journeys “unnecessary and disproportionate”, and said it had lodged an official complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the government’s data watchdog.

In a statement, the ICO said it would take the complaint “seriously” and would be contacting police “to discuss proposed data retention periods”. “Prolonged retention would need to be clearly justified based on continuing value not on the mere chance it may come in useful,” it said.

In 2005 the government invested £32m to develop the ANPR data-sharing programme after police concluded that road traffic cameras could be used for counter-terrorism and everyday criminal investigations. Senior police officers have said they intend the database to be integrated into “mainstream policing”.

Half of all police forces in England and Wales have now been connected to the network, reading between 8 and 10m licence plates a day. The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said the database would be linked to ANPR systems run by all but two police forces by the end of the year. The database will be able to store as many as 18 bn licence plate sightings in 2009.

The Acpo ANPR strategy document, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, envisages the database will be used at all levels of policing. The document, which sets policy up until 2010, states that police forces should “fully and strategically exploit” the database.

Officers can access the database to find uninsured cars, locate illegal “duplicate” licence plates and track the movements of criminals. The Acpo adds that the database will “deter criminals through increased likelihood of detection”.

“Experience has shown there are very strong links between illegal use of motor vehicles on the road and other types of serious crime,” said Merseyside Police’s Assistant Chief Constable, Simon Byrne, who leads Acpo’s ANPR policy.

The director of Privacy International, Simon Davies, said last night the database would give police “extraordinary powers of surveillance”. “This would never be allowed in any other democratic country,” he said. “This is possibly one of the most valuable reserves of data imaginable.”

Peter Fry, of the CCTV User group, said that licence plate images captured by CCTV are generally retained for 31 days. “There’s not a great deal of logic to explain keeping the same images for five years,” he said.

Have Your Say: Fears over privacy as police expand surveillance project
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Capitalism breeds wars and recession

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

Banks go bust, Markets in chaos – Put people before profit

The collapse of Lehman Brothers, the fourth biggest investment bank in the US, has left the world reeling.

Millions of people are worrying for their jobs, homes, savings and pensions.

It was entirely predictable that the financial system would go into crisis. The trigger was the US “subprime” mortgage crisis where lenders targeted poor people with loans at extortionate rates of interest.

It was clear from the beginning that millions would be unable to repay them.But the lenders made money from selling on the debts to other banks.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. No one knows how deep the crisis will be or who will be next to fall.

Faced with this chaos, world leaders keep telling us that the economy is “basically sound” and that any crisis will be mild and short-lived.

As these leaders become increasingly removed from reality, working class people the world over are left to pay the price.

Our only solution is to fight back.

There are immediate demands that we can unite around. As millions face spiralling fuel prices we should demand a windfall tax on the obscene profits of the energy companies.

The fight to beat Gordon Brown’s public sector pay freeze can draw in the millions of workers across Britain whose living standards are under attack.

And as the crisis breeds greater global instability, we should demand that our government stops fuelling the spread of war and brings all the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our leaders have no solution to the crisis because they are unwilling to challenge the priorities of capitalism – a system based on profit, competition and war.

What happens over the next few months depends on what ordinary people do. We should force the bosses to pay for their own crisis.

Have Your Say: Capitalism breeds wars and recession
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 17th, 2008 at 6:23 pm and is filed under Latest News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: