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

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

ID card costs rise amid security concerns

Monday, November 10th, 2008

Opponents of ID cards have renewed their attacks on the scheme, claiming security is being watered down even as the cost of the cards rises.

By Nick Heath | Cards will only be checked against biometric details on the National Identity Register (NIR) in a “minority of cases” according to Home Office documents, prompting accusations it has been relegated to a “flash and go” card.

The Home Office consultation documents said: “Most transactions involving the identity cards are likely to be visual checks of the card, or a local check of the information held on the card (eg using a scanner).

“In only a minority of cases — requiring the highest standard of identity assurance — will it be necessary to check identity against information on the NIR.”

Ian Angell, a professor at the London School of Economics (LSE) and one of the authors of a report into the scheme, said this undermines the government’s claim the ID card system will offer a rock-solid way of verifying a person’s identity by locking an ID to biometric details on a secure database.

And Phil Booth, national co-ordinator for ID cards pressure group NO2ID, said: “It makes the whole system a nonsense; the government is saying that ultimately the whole national identity scheme will come down to a ‘flash and go’ system.

“A system that is presumed secure which is in fact insecure… is worse than having no system at all.”

LSE’s Angell said: “If they do not check the database then fraud will go up as criminals will quickly figure this out and be able to make a copy of the card and change the photo.

“These shortcuts are going to turn it into a hugely expensive failure.”

But an Identity and Passport Service spokesman denied the system would be vulnerable to fraud: “The majority of instances where people use their identity cards will be day-to-day situations where the cards offer a convenient method of proving identity such as a young person proving their age to buy alcohol,” he said.

“Whenever the highest level of identity assurance is vital to prevent fraudulent and criminal activity — such as high-end financial transactions or at our borders — checks will always be made against the national identity register.

“The card itself will be protected against forgery by a number of security features. The Identity and Passport Service has issued more than 12 million e-passports to date and nobody has successfully cloned the chip,” the spokesman said.

It has also been revealed the National Identity Register Number (Nirno) will now not appear on the card or its embedded chip. Director of Privacy International Simon Davies welcomed the removal of the Nirno, following concerns it could be cross referenced across multiple transactions — such as proof-of-age purchases or opening a bank account — to track a person’s everyday activities.

“For five years we expressed concern about publishing the Nirno, it is amazing that it has taken all this time and £150m for the government to decide to take this initiative,” Davies said.

On 6 November the government began touting for high-street businesses and other companies to install the equipment to take the 10 fingerprints, facial and signature scan that will be stored in the NIR. It named the Post Office as an example of possible contenders and said local authorities are also being considered as enrolment centres.

Critics say it will inflate the £30 it will cost for a card as the public also have to pay to have their fingerprints taken, with the Home Office estimating the scanners will generate between £120m and £280m per year for business.

Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve said: “We already know that ID cards will do nothing to improve our security but may make it worse. Now we see that the already substantial cost to the tax payer is going to increase. This is particularly outrageous given the current economic crisis.”

A cost projection for the scheme for British nationals also showed the cost over the next 10 years has increased by £45m to £4.78bn from estimates in May 2008, with a warning that the costs were likely to change as contract negotiations were finalised.

In consultation, businesses expressed fears about the risks of leaving the enrolment to companies, saying they want to see it “delivered by accountable public servants, and particularly not by companies owned and controlled outside the UK”.

These worries about whether government and the private sector could be trusted to handle and transfer scans of people’s fingerprints, faces and signatures were echoed by the public, particularly in light of the recent spate of data breaches.

Home Office consultation documents revealed: “One of the key concerns raised regarding the market delivering biometric enrolment services is the security and integrity of the application process.

“This is also our key concern and we will not deliver these services through the market unless we think security and integrity principles can be upheld.

“Where application and enrolment services are provided by an open market, we will set integrity and security standards which will be enforced consistently across the network of market providers.”

Small businesses were also anxious about the cost of introducing the scheme and equipment to check identity on the cards, stressing the “need for particular support” from the government and citing difficulties with the introduction of chip and PIN equipment.

A national identity scheme commissioner will also be appointed to work alongside the information commissioner to ensure data for the scheme is being properly stored, secured and collected by government and the private sector.

The government says it will continue talking to business about the commercial benefits of taking part in the enrolment and “improved identity assurance”.

Have Your Say: ID card costs rise amid security concerns
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

European Union summit in Brussels: The EU prepares for Obama

Monday, November 10th, 2008

By Peter Schwarz | On Friday, the 27 government leaders of the European Union (EU) met for a special summit in Brussels. The invitation had been extended by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who currently holds the presidency of the European Council. It marked the seventh summit meeting since France took over the presidency in July.

The official aim of the meeting was to draw up a common European position for the world economic summit that is taking place next weekend in Washington. This gathering of the so-called G-20, comprising the old industrialised countries (the G-8) and newly industrialised countries such as China, India, Brazil and Mexico, will discuss proposals to confront the international financial crisis.

If one is to believe the host of Friday’s meeting, Sarkozy, the EU reached a common position in Brussels. “We held very comprehensive discussions, and I can say that Europe has a very detailed point of view,” he said at the end of the summit. “We will be defending a common position, a vision for restructuring our financial system.”

However, if one examines the concrete results of the summit, it becomes clear that they do not go further than a series of vague and superficial proposals to better supervise the international financial markets. The meeting agreed on five guidelines that the Europeans will be advocating in Washington.

First, the rating agencies that evaluate the credit-worthiness of financial firms should be regulated and supervised. Second, accounting standards should be harmonised worldwide. Third, all banks, funds and other financial instruments should be subject to “appropriate rules,” and this should also apply to tax havens. Fourth, “codes of conduct” should be established to avoid “excessive risk-taking” in the financial sector. And fifth, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) should oversee these new global rules and become the “axis of a renewed international system.”

Precisely how the IMF should do this remains unclear. This question caused sharp disputes in the run-up to the summit. French proposals for the IMF to direct international economic policy met with vigorous opposition in Germany and Britain. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt also warned against “over-regulating our economy once again.”

The German newspaper Die Welt warned that Sarkozy’s proposals would lead to the “primacy of politics in economic questions” and said they represented an attack on the “independence of the European Central Bank in monetary policy.”

The same newspaper summed up the Brussels meeting with the words: “The Europeans are not exactly staking their claim to play a leading role in the building of a new world financial order from a position of strength. The differences of opinion are still too great within the union, and are barely covered over by the newly found unity around a common negotiating position.”

More important than the vague proposals to regulate the financial markets was the demand of the Brussels gathering for a new world financial summit to be held in 100 days in order to formulate concrete measures following the discussion at next weekend’s meeting. By that time, the newly elected President Barack Obama will have been in office for one month. The European heads of government are obviously less concerned with making agreements with the outgoing Bush administration than with determining whether the new administration is prepared to make any concessions.

Even before the Washington meeting, Bush has warned against over-regulation of the international markets and called on the participants not to use the crisis “as an excuse for restricting the free market or for new commercial barriers.” In contrast, Obama after his election victory, telephoned several European leaders and promised joint action regarding the financial crisis. At least this is how German government spokespersons have interpreted a 15-minute discussion between Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel.

However, the Europeans are not prepared simply to wait for the change of administrations in the US. They are far from sure whether politics in the US will fundamentally change under Obama. They are seeking to use the transition period to strengthen their own position. Asked whether it would not be better to wait until Obama takes office on January 20, President Sarkozy responded that the economic crisis was so serious that the world “cannot wait, not even for the world’s largest economy.”

Speculation over a new international financial order, a “Bretton Woods II,” which has been circulating in the European media for weeks must be seen in this context. The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement established the foundations of the post-war financial order.

The agreement was based on the economic and political supremacy of the United States. The present financial crisis, which began in the US, is interpreted in Europe to a large extent as signalling the end of this supremacy. A new financial order, it is said, must be established on a multilateral basis and take more strongly into consideration the interests of newly industrialised countries such as China, India and Brazil—and, above all, Europe.

Thus, the weekly Die Zeit regards the financial crisis as a “rare opportunity to reshape the global economy.” The newspaper writes in its November 6 edition: “This time an order should arise which does not simply serve the old powers of the West, but also the emerging economies in Asia, Latin America and the Gulf, and which makes it possible for the state to re-conquer some of the terrain that it abandoned to the market…. The outlines of a new world order are coming to the fore.” The article adds that states should “cooperate more closely” and that the new, global problems require “a new, global steering committee.”

The same article warns that the crisis not only offers an opportunity to shape the global economy, but also the danger that each individual country “pursues its own interests at the expense of the others.” It asks anxiously, “Which will prevail in the end?”

If one considers the facts presented by Die Zeit itself, the answer to this question is clear: The belief that a new and stable economic order will emerge from the present crisis is a pipe dream. All the experiences of the twentieth century argue that the replacement of one great power by another power or group of powers—i.e., the supplanting of US supremacy by a new order placing Europe and the emerging markets on an equal footing, as Die Zeit proposes—cannot proceed peacefully.

The faint-hearted proposal of the Brussels summit to eliminate some of the worst speculative excrescences from the international financial markets comes at a time when the crisis has already spread into the real economy. According to the IMF, the entire world economy is sinking into a recession for the first time since the Second World War. However, when the survival of whole branches of industry and financial interests in the hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake, there cannot be any peaceful agreement between rival capitalist states.

As far as hopes in Obama are concerned, in the few days since his election he has left no doubt that he is committed to defending the most powerful financial and economic interests in the US. He has surrounded himself with advisors who come from the same circles that have ruled the US for decades.

Europe itself is torn by conflicts. Die Zeit describes some of the disputes raging in the run-up to the Washington summit. “Already it appears that some states could break away in order to secure an advantage for themselves,” the newspaper writes. Britain is suspected of favouring a bigger role for the IMF “because the country enjoys much influence in it and because the financial services industry is particularly important for the country.” Die Zeit quotes an insider who said: “They’re only concerned about protecting the City of London.”

The newspaper sums up the situation in the European Union in the following way: “The EU states are clear that they can have international weight only if they come to an agreement. But because Germany fears for its own influence, and France has, for a long time, produced only populist proposals, there is great resistance to any institutionalisation of collaboration.”

Have Your Say: European Union summit in Brussels: The EU prepares for Obama
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

The age of George Bush is over

Monday, November 10th, 2008

By Stephen Lendman | On November 4, the world exhaled. The age of George Bush ended, and a new one under Barak Obama began. With high hopes he’ll reverse the toxic legacy of the past eight years. Adopt socially progressive policies. End foreign wars. Govern the nation responsibly, democratically for all its people. Show his supporters that their faith in him was justified.

“Let us congratulate ourselves on being alive at such a promising moment,” wrote The Nation magazine’s William Greider. His victory is “a monumental rebuke to tragic history — the ultimate defeat of ‘while supremacy.’ Barak Obama has already changed this nation profoundly. Like King before him, the man is a great and brave teacher. (He) redefined the country for us.”

The Nation endorsed Obama early on and called his candidacy “historic (for) a new generation (with) new possibilities….a sea-change of course (for) progressive-driven reform….(the) end of the Reagan era….an end of the occupation of Iraq….empowering labor (and) challenging our trade policies.” A socially liberal new beginning.

A “transformational presidency,” according to its editor Katrina Vanden Heuvel. A “new era of possibility opened up by Barak Obama’s victory. (His) team’s respect for the core decency, dignity and intelligence of the American people was reflected in the campaign’s” rhetoric. He represents “a historic opportunity for a progressive governing agenda and a mandate for bold action….Tonight we celebrate.”

Early on, The Nation shamelessly endorsed Obama with over-hyped expectations for him. They’re unfounded, and based on early indications, hold the cheers. Obama’s transition team is the first sign of the type people he’ll choose for cabinet and other top posts. Insiders all, including former Clinton administration figures. The usual cast of characters in Democrat or Republican administrations. The parts nearly interchangeable for their common agenda. Progressive? A new beginning? A “mandate for bold action?” A reason to “celebrate?” Indeed so for insiders, who engineered what’s now apparent.

Earlier this writer imagined it, but who then could have known. In a July article titled A Possible September Surprise,” it was suggested that “Republicans may stick with a likely loser, someone many insiders dislike, go for a 1976 repeat, turn things over to a Democrat, let him deal with their mess, then retake the presidency next time around.”

In the 1970s, the Rockefellers (America’s most powerful family) chose Jimmy Carter for president after the turbulent Nixon years. Gerald Ford went along as window dressing. The same process repeated in 2008 to decompress after eight toxic Bush years. A needed respite for the country, the world, and humanity. A new party and face to appear different from the old one. Who better chosen than the first black president (a stroke of genius some believe) to deflect attention from the past and focus it all on him and the task he faces.

McCain-Palin was the vehicle. A perfect foil. A caricature-like ticket. An embarrassment. Supremely unqualified on both ends. By a man with a distinct “passion gap” for conservatives. Known mostly for his unpredictable temperament, unimpressive intellect, instability, and genius for making enemies in his own party. And a woman more knowledgeable about fishing than affairs of state. Pulled from obscurity. Noted only for having been chosen. Now consigned to a footnote in history. One conservatives plan to forget, then erase.

Now a new beginning under Obama. With hoped for change that he promised. A “bold mandate (for) progressive governing.” A “transformational presidency.” The end of neoliberalism and new era for his faithful. With legions lining up to cheer. Unmindful of how American politics works. The way it is most everywhere. The same old, same old that The New York Times ignored in saying that “Obama began moving (swiftly) to build his administration and make good on his ambitious promises to point the US in a different direction….”

Without a whiff of progressivism in any high-level appointees so far named, suggested, or in his transition team co-chairmen:

John Podesta

From 1998 - 2001, he was Clinton’s chief of staff, and in the 1980s, served as legal counsel for various congressional committees. He’s the founder and current president of the Center for American Progress, a Democrat party front group claiming progressive credentials that got seed money from investor and Obama advisor Warren Buffett. He’s also a visiting law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and since 1988 the head of the Podesta Group, a Washington-based lobbying firm representing corporations like Lockheed Martin, BP, and Walmart as well as trade associations among its other clients. The Washingtonian magazine ranked him the third most powerful city lobbyist.

Valerie Jarrett

A Chicagoan who worked for Mayor Harold Washington in the 1980s as Deputy Corporation Counsel for Finance and Development. She then moved on to the Daley administration in the 1990s as deputy chief of staff and in other positions. She’s currently CEO of the Habitat Company, a real estate development and management firm with a dubious record. She works closely with city officials on public housing and helped the Chicago Housing Authority get public subsidies for its notoriously substandard work.

Habitat managed Grove Parc Plaza from 2001 - 2008 and an even larger complex that the federal government seized in 2006 because of its dilapidated and uninhabitable state. Nonetheless, she’s rumored to become the new housing secretary where she may do for the country what she did to Chicago.

Jarrett is also a Board member of the Chicago Stock Exchange where she served as chairman from 2004 - 2007. She’s one of Obama’s most trusted and longest serving advisors and campaign aides.

Pete Rouse

He’s a long-time Capitol Hill insider for over 30 years. Once served as Senate majority leader Tom Daschle’s chief of staff and was known as “the 101st senator” because of his knowledge, skill and contacts. He’s been allied to Obama since 2004. Wrote his “Strategic Plan” for his first year in the Senate and also served as his chief of staff.

All three individuals are expected to have key roles in the new administration once it takes over in January as well as others on the Transition Project. It’s been around for months as a fund-raising front. The Chicago Sun Times said it was to raise money from individual donors up to a maximum $5000 and do no internet or direct mail solicitations. It helped Obama raise $600 million for his campaign, and though he claimed transparency as one of his principles, he made no “voluntary early disclosures.” Money raised is also being used for his transition period with no mention of how he’ll use any residual amounts.

Other Transition Project Members

Carol Browner

She served as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for eight years under Bill Clinton. The longest of anyone in that position. Earlier she worked for Citizen Action in Washington. As general counsel for the Florida House of Representatives Government Operations Committee and for Senator Lawton Chiles. In addition, as Senator Al Gore’s Legislative Director. In 2001, she joined the Albright Group, a global strategy firm headed by former secretary of state Madeleine Albright.

William Daley

Brother of Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley. He’s a lawyer and was Clinton’s secretary of commerce from 1997 - 2000. He’s a well-connected insider and member of numerous high-powered organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations, Friends of Hillary, Friends of Joe Lieberman, Obama for America, and a number of corporate boards. Companies like Boeing, Abbott Labs, Merck and Boston Properties. He’s also vice-chairman of Evercore Partners, a 1996-founded investment banking “boutique providing advisory services to prominent multinational corporations on significant mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, restructuring, and other strategic corporate transactions.”

In the Clinton administration, Daley was instrumental in getting NAFTA passed. He’s also a past president of SBC Communications and was later Midwest chairman of JP Morgan Bank among other positions, including the practice of law.

Michael Froman

He’s president and CEO of CitiInsurance, a branch of banking giant Citigroup. Also a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a Resident Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Earlier and in the Clinton administration, he served as treasury department chief of staff from 1977 to 1999. From 1993 - 1995, he was director for International Affairs on the National Economic Council and the National Security Council at the White House.

Federico Pena

He held two cabinet posts under Bill Clinton - from 1993 - 1997 as transportation secretary and from 1997 - 1998 as energy secretary. In 1992, he advised then governor Clinton on transportation issues. Since 1998, he’s been affiliated with the investment firm, Vestar Capital Partners, as senior advisor and is now one of its managing directors.

Suggested Obama Administration Members

The first already chosen as Obama’s chief of staff - Rahm Emanuel, but hold the cheers. He’s an influential insider and Democrat member of the House since 2003. In 1991, he joined the Clinton campaign as a fundraiser. Then later was political director and senior advisor.

From 1999 - 2002, he was a managing director for investment bank Dresdner, Kleinwort, Wasserstein in Chicago and also served as mayor Richard Daley’s chief fundraiser.

In 2006, he chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the midterm elections. He’s the fourth ranking House Democrat. A hawk, neoliberal and pro-Israeli hardliner. Now deceased long-time Chicago activist, investigative reporter, and founder and chairman of the Citizens Committee to Clean up the Courts, Sherman Skolnick, called him the “acting deputy chief for North America of the (Israeli intelligence) Mossad.”

He’s the son of Benjamin Emanuel (changed from Auerbach in 1936 by his grandfather Ezekiel), a Chicago pediatrician involved pre-1948 with smuggling weapons to the Irgun. The Israeli group former prime minister Menachem Begin headed that in 1946 bombed the King David Hotel and conducted numerous other terrorist attacks.

Emanuel is hard line like his father in his one-sided support for Israel. He’s dismissive of pro-Palestinian sympathies, and supports a failed peace process that guarantees no chance for one. In 1991, he served as a civilian volunteer in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) during the Gulf war and is believed to hold dual citizenships.

The Nation magazine’s David Corn praised his appointment and called Emanuel “an intelligent, fierce, competent, and sharp Washington partisan….an agent of change….and guy who gets things done.” Corn also hailed Obama’s victory and called him “one of the most progressive (or liberal) nominees in the Democratic Party’s recent history.” Looking ahead to his presidency, he represents “hope and change. He opposed the Iraq war….Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. He was no advocate of let-’er-rip, free market capitalism or American unilateralism. In policy terms, Obama represents a serious course correction….And more.”

In fact, Obama is mostly opposite of what Corn suggests. On financial and economic matters alone, his Transitional Economic Advisory Board reveals it. All its 17 members are high-level corporate and financial types plus Democrat party insiders. CEOs like Warren Buffet, Robert Rubin and head of four major corporations Penny Pritzker with more about her below regarding her dubious business dealings and influential role in an Obama administration. His other Brain Trust members (as the Wall Street Journal calls them) are:

– Roel Campos - former SEC commissioner;

– Daniel Tarullo - Georgetown University professor and former deputy director for international affairs of the National Economic Council (NEC) from 1993 - 1998;

– Eric Schmidt - CEO of Google;

– Antonio Villaraigosa - mayor of Los Angeles;

– William Donaldson - former SEC chairman, under secretary of state, chairman and CEO of the New York Stock Exchange, CEO of Aetna, and founder and head of the investment firm Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette;

– Laura Tyson - former chairman of the National Economic Council (NEC);

– David Bonier - former congressman;

– vice president-elect Joe Biden;

– Jennifer Granholm - governor of Michigan;

– Paul Volker - former Fed chairman with more on him below;

– Rahm Emanuel - congressman and incoming White House chief of staff; it’s the most important administration post after the president and a Dick Cheney type vice-presidency;

– Richard Parsons - chairman of Time Warner;

– Anne Mulcahy - CEO of Xerox;

– Lawrence Summers - former Treasury secretary with more on him below;

– Roger Ferguson - CEO of TIAA-CREF financial services;

–John Podesta - transition team head;

– Robert Reich - former labor secretary; and

– William Daley - former commerce secretary.

Noticeably absent - anyone representing ordinary people. Workers, homeowners, the unemployed, the disadvantaged, the poor who’ve been hurt the most by Wall Street’s-caused financial crisis now morphed into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Their omission is clear evidence where Obama’s administration is headed, where his allegiance lies, and what his policy directives will look like. A rigid class society, white supremacism, and neoliberalism are safe in his hands.

– he’s for permanent occupation of Iraq;

– America’s imperial agenda;

– militarism and foreign wars;

– new ones against Pakistan; possibly Iran as well;

– an enlarged military;

– more troops to Afghanistan;

– a new Cold War with Russia;

– in 2006, campaigned for Joe Lieberman against anti-war candidate Ned Lemont;

– opposes impeaching Bush and Cheney;

– in July 2005, backed reauthorizing the Patriot Act with its police state provisions;

– supports Homeland Security funding to enforce them;

– supports the death penalty;

– privatized in lieu of public education;

– is one-sidedly pro-Israel;

– opposes universal single-payer national health care;

– supports medical providers in wrongful injury cases;

– backs “free trade” and initiatives like NAFTA;

– the right of mining companies to strip mine everything;

– is unresponsive to labor;

– supports biofuels production, big agribusiness subsidies, and the industry’s rage to make all foods GMO;

– supports the Bush administration’s energy policy; its huge subsidies and other generous handouts;

– backs nuclear power, loose industry regulation, and multi-billions in subsidies;

– supports the Paulson bailout plan and the fraudsters that get it;

– backs repressive immigration legislation affecting people of color;

– is beholden to his corporate backers; and

– is committed to a pro-business agenda overall.

He steered clear of criticizing Wall Street, and appears ready to back down on his campaign pledge to cut taxes for earners under $200,000 and raise them on incomes over $250,000. When asked point blank, he waffled and said this policy may be reconsidered, which is clear evidence it’s been scrubbed.

He’s reputed not to be a member of the far-to-the-right-of-center Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), but according to its founder, Al From, he’s on board for “a good part of the strategy we have articulated over the years.” He added that Obama has an “intellectual” and “tactical” connection to the DLC. It was clear in his first appointment - Rahm Emanuel.

He’s a key DLC member in good standing. The organization Ralph Nader calls “corporatist (and) soulless.” Governing from the far right no different than Republicans. Founded in 1985, it grew dominant in the party under then governor Clinton and Senators Gore, Lieberman and John Breaux.

Its ideology is anti-labor, anti-populist, anti-welfare, pro-business, and very amenable to imperialism, militarism, and foreign wars. Again Ralph Nader: “To the DLC mind, Democrats are catering to ’special interests’ when they stand up for trade unions, regulatory consumer-investor protections, a pre-emptive peace policy overseas, pruning the bloated military budget now devouring (the federal budget), defending Social Security from Wall Street schemes, and pressing for universal health care coverage. So right-wing is the DLC….that even opposing Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy….is considered ultra-liberal and contrary to winning campaigns.”

DLC “special interests” include the rights of blacks, Hispanics, Latino immigrants, Muslims, labor, the poor, consumer justice groups, populism, progressivism, environmental protection, anti-war activists, peace supporters, groups demanding corporate and war criminals be prosecuted, and anyone believing that America should have honest elections and be governed democratically.

Based on early indications, these “interests” appear sidelined in a new Obama administration. But not according to New York Times columnist Bob Herbert in his “Take a Bow, America” article. “The nation deserves to take (one). This is not the same place it used to be.”

In his latest Times commentary, our newest economics Nobel laureate, Paul Krugman, agreed in calling November 4 “a date that will live in fame. If the election of our first African-American president didn’t stir you, if it didn’t leave you teary-eyed and proud of your country, there’s something wrong with you. But will the election also mark a turning point in the actual substance of policy? Can Barak Obama really usher in a new era of progressive policies? Yes he can.”

Times writer Frank Rich agreed as well in his article titled “It Still Felt Good the Morning After (as) America’s tears of catharsis gave way to unadulterated joy….millions of….Americans were….waiting for a leader. This was the week that they reclaimed their country.”

It will await a future one before they realize they were fooled again. The nation will remain in safe elitist hands. It won’t get “a new New Deal” Krugman advocates given the names being floated to serve in it who seem to have passed under the radar screens of the above commentators.

Tom Daschle

The former Senate majority leader. Now a special policy advisor at the Alston & Bird law firm and visiting professor at Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute. He’s also a senior fellow at John Podesta’s Center for American Progress. Possible posts mentioned include secretary of state, health and human resources for his work on health care, and agriculture for the same reason.

Richard Holbrooke

Another long-time insider. He twice served as assistant secretary of state. From 1977 - 1981 under Jimmy Carter for Asia and from 1994 - 1996 for Europe under Bill Clinton. From 1993 - 1994, he was ambassador to Germany, and from 1999 - 2001 served as UN ambassador. It’s rumored he’s being considered for secretary of state, a position he failed to get to replace Warren Christopher when Madeleine Albright got the job as the first ever woman in it.

Richard Lugar

A senior Republican senator and man, who as mayor of Indianapolis in 1975, gave an impressive welcoming address to a group assembled by this writer for an event unrelated to world or national affairs. He’s now served 30 years in the Senate where he’s been chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1987 - 1995 and again from 2003 - 2007. He’s been mentioned as a possible secretary of state.

Lawrence Summers

From 1982 - 1983, he served on the Reagan administration’s Council of Economic Advisors. Then in 1993 in the Clinton administration as under-Treasury secretary for international affairs and as Treasury secretary from 1999 - 2001. Earlier from 1991 - 1993, he was chief economist for the World Bank where he authored a controversial memo stating that “the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.”

Summers was later president of Harvard University from 2001 - 2006 where controversy again dogged him. For his contentious relations with faculty members and for suggesting that the presence of few women in upper-level science and math positions was because of innate differences between men and women. The combination led to his 2006 resignation.

He now teaches at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, is a consultant to Goldman Sachs, and is a managing director of the DE Shaw & Company hedge fund. His name is being floated as the leading candidate for Treasury secretary, and as Michel Chossudovsky states: “Putting a Hedge Fund manager (with links to the Wall Street financial establishment) in charge of the Treasury is tantamount to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coup,” and more evidence that Obama plans the kind of business as usual that he pledged to get rid of.

Jon Corzine

Former CEO of Goldman Sachs who was forced out by the current Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, in a palace coup. He’s now New Jersey governor and according to the New Jersey Star-Ledger “is being actively vetted by the Obama transition team as a possible candidate for Treasury secretary in the new administration, two New Jersey Democrats familiar with the process said (on November 5)….Neither Corzine nor his aides would respond to a request for comment.”

Paul Volker

The former Fed chairman from 1979 under Jimmy Carter and under Ronald Reagan until Alan Greenspan replaced him in 1987. He’s a key Obama economic advisor and another possible Treasury secretary. Timothy Geithner, the New York Fed chairman, is also being mentioned. He’s allied with Henry Paulson and worked closely with him on his bailout plan.

James Steinberg

An academic and political advisor, he served as deputy National Security Advisor to Bill Clinton in his second term. He’s currently dean of the Lyndon Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas. He’s reported most likely to become National Security Advisor.

Senators John Kerry and Republican Chuck Hagel are mentioned as possible secretary of state choices, and the AP reports that Kerry wants the job. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson also who under Clinton was energy secretary and UN ambassador but then broke with the Clintons to support Obama.

Dennis Ross

The former State department director for policy planning and special Middle East coordinator under Clinton. Under Republicans and Democrats he’s been instrumental in shaping Middle East policy with an extreme pro-Israeli bias. He may do it again under Obama or serve in another key role.

Susan Rice

A National Security Council member and assistant secretary of State under Clinton. Rumored to become UN ambassador.

Some observers think the current defense secretary Robert Gates may stay on, but an anonymous source close to Obama discounts it. Others mentioned include John Hamre, a former deputy defense secretary from 1997 - 2000 and current president of the far right Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) that specializes in crisis management and “advancing (US) global interests.” Senator Jack Reed’s name is also mentioned as well as Marine general and former NATO commander Jim Jones and general Anthony Zinni when he’s available in 2010.

Penny Pritzker

According to some, she’s the most powerful woman in America. At the least one of them and one of the richest as heiress to a portion of the Pritzker family fortune (believed in excess of $40 billion) and its grandfathered in (free from taxation) offshore trusts. Hundreds of them for secrecy that were set up in the Caribbean by her grandfather Abram.

Forbes magazine did a feature 2005 story on her saying she “was chosen by her late uncle (and family patriarch) Jay (Pritzker) to help oversee the family’s vast portfolio of investments” that includes Hyatt hotels, other real estate investments, and 40% of the Marmon Group after 60% was sold to Warren Buffett for $4.5 billion.

In its “Power of Penny Pritzker” article, Bloomberg called her the “billionaire head of Barack Obama’s fundraising machine (and) the person to call when you want to ‘get the job done,’ says Warren Buffett,” who’s had a long-standing business relationship with the family going back decades. Today, it’s with Penny, the multi-billion dollar fortune she controls, and the enormous influence she wields in Washington as a Democrat party insider and fund-raiser extraordinaire.

According to Bloomberg, Penny gets much of the credit for getting Obama elected. For “organizing the best-financed campaign in US history.” For tapping wealthy and first-time contributors through her influence, contacts, and “no-nonsense” style.

Her controversial one also, according to Fran Sweet, a retired Ameritech manager, who lost $100,000 in the failed (suburban Chicago) Hinsdale-based Superior Bank that collapsed in 2001 with some $2.3 billion in assets. The result of poor lending practices, sloppy bookkeeping, and likely fraud at a time Pritzker was on its Board and in charge.

Superior was a predatory lender very heavily into subprime mortgages in the late 1990s. Pritzker was one of its originators, and some call her the “subprime queen.” The doyenne of predatory lending that cost the FDIC $700 million and depositors $65 million.

Fran Sweet for one. She calls the Pritzkers “crooks. They don’t care anything about people who spent their whole lives trying to save.” Many lost everything in Superior accounts in amounts over the FDIC $100,000 limit.

Bloomberg reported controversy about another Pritzker company - the credit reporting firm TransUnion. “It controls the $3.3 billion market in equal shares with Atlanta-based Equifax and Dublin-based Experian Group Ltd. After widespread consumer complaints about shoddy service in the credit checking industry, the US Congress passed legislation in 2003 that allowed people to get free copies of credit reports so they could check for mistakes and block information obtained from identity theft.”

“That same year, a jury awarded Judy Thomas of Klamath Falls, Oregon, $5.3 million after she claimed TransUnion took six years to correct a mistake in her credit report.” On appeal, it was reduced to $1.3 million.

Pritzker will have a seat at the table in the new Obama administration. Not an appointed one but powerfully behind the scenes. The accustomed role she prefers in business and politics.

More on the Obama Administration Taking Shape

Many other prominent current or former Democrats will be chosen for the new administration. Possibly some Republicans as well. In the coming days, names will be announced and things will begin taking shape. But hold the cheers. They’ll all be insiders on the same page, committed to the same agenda. Tackling the current financial/economic crisis as top priority plus continued imperialism, militarism, corporatism, neoliberalism, and no more for the public than urgencies and expediency dictate.

The same failed fundamentalism that’s been around for decades with maybe some (temporary) softening around the edges given the severity of the current crisis. So dire it’s impossible to avoid providing something in the form of aid. Enough to constrain growing anger and maintain the fiction of a progressive new era. Its arrival has been postponed for a date to be named later under a leader who’s yet to be chosen.

Obama’s First Order of Business

The “urgent priority” of the severe financial crisis. What economist Nouriel Roubini calls “The Economic Mess and Financial Disaster that Obama Will Inherit.” A sign progressivism will have to wait until it’s arrested and cleared up. But no short-term fix will do it. Perhaps not even a longer-term one given the extent of the damage and no assurance new policy choices will improve on current dubious ones.

Roubini believes that the nation is in more dire straits than anything seen in decades. He calls it:

“the most severe recession in 50 years; the worst financial and banking crisis since the Great Depression; a ballooning fiscal deficit that may be as high as a trillion dollars in 2009 and 2010.”

Given $2 trillion in announced borrowing; around another $1.8 trillion in loans, investments and commitments; and whatever fiscal stimulus is added this year and next, the total looks to be much higher.

On top of a “huge current account deficit; a financial system that is in a severe crisis and where deleveraging is still occurring at a very rapid pace, thus causing a worsening of the credit crunch; a household sector where millions of (them) are insolvent, into negative equity territory and on the verge of losing their homes; a serious risk of deflation as the slack in goods, labor and commodity markets becomes deeper; the risk that we will end in a deflationary liquidity trap as the Fed is fast approaching the zero-bound constraint for the Fed Funds rate; the risk of a severe debt deflation as the real value of nominal liabilities will rise given price deflation while the value of financial assets is still plunging. This is the bitter gift that the Bush administration has bequeathed to Obama and the Democrats.”

New macro data supports the dire state of things. It’s been “worse than awful: collapsing retain sales and consumption, free fall in capex spending, sharply falling production,” employment as well, “housing still in free fall and home prices bound to fall 40% from the peak, collapsing auto sales, forward looking business and consumer confidence indicators dropping to multi-decade lows, sharp surge in corporate defaults, a wrecked banking and financial system that will have to be partially nationalized.”

Overall the most daunting economic and financial challenges since FDR in the Great Depression, and adding to it, the rest of the world as bad off. Severe recession is hitting Europe, Japan and other advanced countries. China risks a hard landing. So do many emerging economies. A severe global recession and financial crisis are certain. We’re already in it despite some observers still in denial. Especially on its severity and likely duration.

According to Roubini, “the US and global recession train has left the station.” The financial and banking one as well. It will be long and severe for at least two years regardless of the best of policy actions going forward. Stock market rallies are deceptive. They’re classic bear market ones. At a time when 2009 earnings projections are “delusional.” Projected to rise 15% from 2008 when, if fact, they’ll fall off sharply. Roubini thinks the S & P 500 could drop as low as 600 or over one-third lower than its 931 valuation on November 7. And if things are worse than expected, 500 may be a bottoming low. It’s no exaggeration to say the downside risks are significant at a time of severe economic contraction.

“The worst is ahead of us rather than behind us.” Beware of excessive optimism that each time has been wrong. A severe meltdown possibility may have passed but it’s not out of the question if poor future policy choices are made. That’s for the new Obama team to avoid plus having to deal with whatever else the Bush administration does in its final weeks. It’s botched things so badly up to now so there’s no telling how much more piling on they’ll do into January. Whatever happens until then, they’ll be no joy in 2009, and no simple task for the ablest of appointees or assurance that their best efforts will work.

Have Your Say: The age of George Bush is over
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Prescription Drugs Kill 300 Percent More Americans than Illegal Drugs

Monday, November 10th, 2008

By David Gutierrez | A report by the Florida Medical Examiners Commission has concluded that prescription drugs have outstripped illegal drugs as a cause of death.

An analysis of 168,900 autopsies conducted in Florida in 2007 found that three times as many people were killed by legal drugs as by cocaine, heroin and all methamphetamines put together. According to state law enforcement officials, this is a sign of a burgeoning prescription drug abuse problem.

“The abuse has reached epidemic proportions,” said Lisa McElhaney, a sergeant in the pharmaceutical drug diversion unit of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office. “It’s just explosive.”

In 2007, cocaine was responsible for 843 deaths, heroin for 121, methamphetamines for 25 and marijuana for zero, for a total of 989 deaths. In contrast, 2,328 people were killed by opioid painkillers, including Vicodin and Oxycontin, and 743 were killed by drugs containing benzodiazepine, including the depressants Valium and Xanax.

Alcohol directly caused 466 deaths, but was found in the bodies of 4,179 cadavers in all.

While the number of dead bodies containing heroin jumped 14 percent from the prior year, to a total of 110, the number of deaths influenced by the painkiller oxycodone increased by 36 percent, to a total of 1,253.

Across the country, prescription drugs have become an increasingly popular alternative to the more difficult to acquire illegal drugs. Even as illegal drug use among teenagers have fallen, prescription drug abuse has increased. For example, while 4 percent of U.S. 12th graders were using Oxycontin in 2002, by 2005 that number had increased to 5.5 percent.

It’s not hard for teens to come by prescription drugs, according to Sgt. Tracy Busby, supervisor of the Calaveras County, Calif., Sheriff’s Office narcotics unit.

“You go to every medicine cabinet in the county, and I bet you’re going to find some sort of prescription medicine in 95 percent of them,” he said.

Adults can acquire prescriptions by faking injuries, or by visiting multiple doctors and pharmacies for the same health complaint. Some people get more drugs than they expect to need, then sell the extras.

“You have health care providers involved, you have doctor shoppers, and then there are crimes like robbing drug shipments,” said Jeff Beasley of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. “There is a multitude of ways to get these drugs, and that’s what makes things complicated.”

And while some people may believe that the medicines’ legality makes them less dangerous than illegal drugs, Tuolumne County, Calif., Sheriff’s Office Deputy Dan Crow warns that this is not the case. Because everybody reacts differently to foreign chemicals, there is no way of predicting the exact response anyone will have to a given dosage. That is why prescription drugs are supposed to be taken under a doctor’s supervision.

“All this stuff is poison,” Crow said. “Your body will fight all of this stuff.”
Tuolumne County Health Officer Todd Stolp agreed. A prescription drug taken recreationally is “much like a firearm in the hands of someone who’s not trained to use them,” he said.

While anyone taking a prescription medicine runs a risk of negative effects, the drugs are even more dangerous when abused. For example, many painkillers are designed to have a delayed effect that fades out over time. This can lead recreational users to take more drugs before the old ones are out of their system, placing them at risk of an overdose. Likewise, the common practice of grinding pills up causes a large dose of drugs to hit the body all at once, with potentially dangerous consequences.

“A medication that was meant to be distributed over 24 hours has immediate effect,” Stolp said.

Even more dangerous is the trend of mixing drugs with alcohol, which, like most popularly abused drugs, is a depressant.

“In the case of alcohol and drugs, one plus one equals more than two,” said Tuolumne County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Lt. Dan Bressler.

Florida pays careful attention to drug-related deaths, and as such has significantly better data on the problem than any other state. But a recent study conducted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) suggests that the problem is indeed national. According to the DEA, the number of people abusing prescription drugs in the United States has jumped 80 percent in six years to seven million, or more than those abusing cocaine, Ecstasy, heroin, hallucinogens an inhalants put together.

Not surprisingly, there has been a corresponding increase in deaths. According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network, the number of emergency room visits related to painkillers has increased by 153 percent since 1995. And a 2007 report by the Justice Department National Intelligence Drug Center found that deaths related to the opioid methadone jumped from 786 in 1999 to 3,849 in 2004 - an increase of 390 percent.

Many experts attribute the trend to the increasing popularity among doctors of prescribing painkillers, combined with a leap in direct-to-consumer marketing by drug companies. For example, promotional spending on Oxycontin increased threefold between 1996 and 2001, to $30 million per year.

Sonora, Calif., pharmacist Eddie Howard reports that he’s seen painkiller prescriptions jump dramatically in the last five years.

“I don’t know that there is that much pain out there to demand such an increase,” he said.
The trend concerns Howard, and he tries to keep an eye out for patients who are coming in too frequently. But he admits that there is little he can do about the problem.

“When you have a lot of people waiting for prescriptions, it’s hard to find time to play detective,” he said.

Still, the situation makes Howard uncomfortable.

“It almost makes me a legalized drug dealer, and that’s not a good position to be in,” he said.

Sources for this story include: www.nytimes.com; www.uniondemocrat.com

Have Your Say: Prescription Drugs Kill 300 Percent More Americans than Illegal Drugs
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Secret US Order Governs Raids Anywhere on Earth

Monday, November 10th, 2008

Antiwar.com | The New York Times is reporting tonight that a secret military order signed by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in spring of 2004 gave the military formal authority to conduct attacks against al-Qaeda anywhere in the world, including nations not current at war with the United States.

The order explicitly mentions 15 to 20 countries across the Muslim world with specific levels of approval needed for missions in each country. A strike in Somalia would only require the defense secretary’s approval, while attacks in Pakistan and Syria need presidential approval.

It is unclear from the report how broadly the directive defines “al-Qaeda terrorist network,” but as it appears to have been the source of the authorizaiton to attack “suspected elements of a robust foreign fighter logistics network” in Syria, not to mention the innumerable attacks in Pakistan over recent months which have targeted everything from Pakistani Taliban-linked religious schools to unfriendly tribes it is being very broadly interpreted.

The report, which cites senior US officials, also brings to light previously undisclosed attacks, such as a 2006 Navy Seal raid in Pakistan’s Bajaur Agency. An attack on September 3 of this year was previously believed to be the first incident of US ground troops attacking targets inside Pakistan.

Have Your Say: Secret US Order Governs Raids Anywhere on Earth
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Bush Spy Revelations Anticipated When Obama Is Sworn In

Monday, November 10th, 2008

By Ryan Singel |

When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on January 20, Americans won’t just get a new president; they might finally learn the full extent of George W. Bush’s warrantless domestic wiretapping.

Since the New York Times first revealed in 2005 that the NSA was eavesdropping on citizen’s overseas phone calls and e-mails, few additional details about the massive “Terrorist Surveillance Program” have emerged. That’s because the Bush Administration has stonewalled, misled and denied documents to Congress, and subpoenaed the phone records of the investigative reporters.

Now privacy advocates are hopeful that a President Obama will be more forthcoming with information. But for the quickest and most honest account of Bush’s illegal policies, they say don’t look to the incoming president. Watch instead for the hidden army of would-be whistle-blowers who’ve been waiting for Inauguration Day to open the spigot on the truth.

“I’d bet there are a lot of career employees in the intelligence agencies who’ll be glad to see Obama take the oath so they can finally speak out against all this illegal spying and get back to their real mission,” says Caroline Fredrickson, the ACLU’s Washington D.C. legislative director.

New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh already has a slew of sources waiting to spill the Bush administration’s darkest secrets, he said in an interview last month. “You cannot believe how many people have told me to call them on January 20. [They say,] ‘You wanna know about abuses and violations? Call me then.’”

So far, virtually everything we know about the NSA’s warrantless surveillance has come from whistle-blowers. Telecom executives told USA Today that they had turned over billions of phone records to the government. Former AT&T employee Mark Klein provided wiring diagrams detailing an internet-spying room in a San Francisco switching facility. And one Justice Department attorney had his house raided and his children’s computers seized as part of the FBI’s probe into who leaked the warrantless spying to the New York Times. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales even suggested the reporters could be prosecuted under antiquated treason statutes.

If new whistle-blowers do emerge, Fredrickson hopes the additional information will spur Congress to form a new Church Committee — the 1970s bipartisan committee that investigated and condemned the government’s secret spying on peace activists, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other political figures.

But even if the anticipated flood of leaks doesn’t materialize, advocates are hopeful that Obama and the Democratic Congress will eventually get around to airing out the White House closet anyway. “Obama has pledged a lot more openness,” says Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which was the first to file a federal lawsuit over the illegal eavesdropping.

One encouraging sign for civil liberties groups is that the Center for American Progress’s president John Podesta is one of the top three heading Obama’s transition team, which will staff and set priorities for the new administration. The center was a tough and influential critic of the Bush administration’s warrantless spying.

Among the unanswered questions:

Were there quid pro quo promises made to the phone companies and internet carriers who cooperated with the secret spying? For example, were co-conspirators promised lucrative government contracts?

Did the program appropriate the CALEA wiretapping infrastructure? Under CALEA, Congress forced telecoms to build surveillance capabilities into the phone and internet network, but promised it would only be used with court orders.

What did the first version of the surveillance program sweep into its net? In March 2004, a squadron of top officials at the Justice Department, including then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI head Robert Mueller, threatened to resign over the illegality of the program. The program was subsequently scaled back, but nobody knows what the NSA was doing that was bad enough to horrify Ashcroft.

What was the legal rationale for the surveillance?FISA explicitly made warrantless domestic eavesdropping illegal, but the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a series of memos justifying the spying anyway. The ACLU is fighting the Bush administration for access to the documents, as well as secret memos justifying torture.

“It’s difficult to see how Sen. Obama could call his administration transparent if his administration continues to suppress non-sensitive information that should have been released a long time ago,” says the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer.

The other looming question is whether, as president, Obama will continue the warrantless spying himself. Obama voted with the majority in Congress to legalize the Bush spying program in July, but the constitutionality of the measure is yet untested. An Obama administration is less likely than Bush to devise convoluted legal end-runs around the Constitution, according to Marc Rotenberg, the head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

“Keep in mind that Obama is a constitutional scholar and has a deep understanding of checks and balance,” says Rotenberg. “It’s hard to imagine that an Obama administration would support … warrantless wiretapping.”

With the financial markets and the economy in deep trouble, it’s unlikely that Obama will quickly turn to the issue of warrantless wiretapping. But the EFF’s lawsuit against AT&T over the surveillance could force the new administration to pick a side quickly. In December, a federal judge in San Francisco will hold a hearing on whether the retroactive immunity granted to AT&T and other telecoms as part of the FISA Amendments Act is Constitutional. Obama voted for the act in order to legalize the spying program, but tried unsuccessfully to strip out the immunity provision.

EFF’s Opsahl hopes that if EFF prevails in December, an Obama administration might let the decision stand, clearing the way for EFF’s lawsuit to proceed.

“If we are victorious in our constitutional challenge, I would hope the Obama administration would accept that loss and move on without an appeal,” says Opsahl. “But we will have to see.”

Have Your Say: Bush Spy Revelations Anticipated When Obama Is Sworn In
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Obama planning US trials for Guantanamo detainees

Monday, November 10th, 2008

President-elect Barack Obama’s advisers are quietly crafting a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials, a plan that would make good on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but could require creation of a controversial new system of justice.

During his campaign, Obama described Guantanamo as a “sad chapter in American history” and has said generally that the U.S. legal system is equipped to handle the detainees. But he has offered few details on what he planned to do once the facility is closed.

Under plans being put together in Obama’s camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.

A third group of detainees — the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information — might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks. Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans are not final.

The move would be a sharp deviation from the Bush administration, which established military tribunals to prosecute detainees at the Navy base in Cuba and strongly opposes bringing prisoners to the United States. Obama’s Republican challenger, John McCain, had also pledged to close Guantanamo. But McCain opposed criminal trials, saying the Bush administration’s tribunals should continue on U.S. soil.

The plan being developed by Obama’s team has been championed by legal scholars from both political parties. But it is almost certain to face opposition from Republicans who oppose bringing terrorism suspects to the U.S. and from Democrats who oppose creating a new court system with fewer rights for detainees.

It drew criticism from some detainee lawyers shortly after it surfaced Monday.

“I think that creating a new alternative court system in response to the abject failure of Guantanamo would be a profound mistake,” said Jonathan Hafetz, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represents detainees. “We do not need a new court system. The last eight years are a testament to the problems of trying to create new systems.”

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and Obama legal adviser, said discussions about plans for Guantanamo had been “theoretical” before the election but would quickly become very focused because closing the prison is a top priority. Bringing the detainees to the United States will be controversial, he said, but could be accomplished.

“I think the answer is going to be, they can be as securely guarded on U.S. soil as anywhere else,” Tribe said. “We can’t put people in a dungeon forever without processing whether they deserve to be there.”

The tougher challenge will be allaying fears by Democrats who believe the Bush administration’s military commissions were a farce and dislike the idea of giving detainees anything less than the full constitutional rights normally enjoyed by everyone on U.S. soil.

“There would be concern about establishing a completely new system,” said Rep. Adam Schiff of California, a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former federal prosecutor who is aware of the discussions in the Obama camp. “And in the sense that establishing a regimen of detention that includes American citizens and foreign nationals that takes place on U.S. soil and departs from the criminal justice system — trying to establish that would be very difficult.”

Obama has said the civilian and military court-martial systems provide “a framework for dealing with the terrorists,” and Tribe said the administration would look to those venues before creating a new legal system. But discussions of what a new system would look like have already started.

“It would have to be some sort of hybrid that involves military commissions that actually administer justice rather than just serve as kangaroo courts,” Tribe said. “It will have to both be and appear to be fundamentally fair in light of the circumstances. I think people are going to give an Obama administration the benefit of the doubt in that regard.”

Though a hybrid court may be unpopular, other advisers and Democrats involved in the Guantanamo Bay discussions say Obama has few other options.

Prosecuting all detainees in federal courts raises a host of problems. Evidence gathered through military interrogation or from intelligence sources might be thrown out. Defendants would have the right to confront witnesses, meaning undercover CIA officers or terrorist turncoats might have to take the stand, jeopardizing their cover and revealing classified intelligence tactics.

In theory, Obama could try to transplant the Bush administration’s military commission system from Guantanamo Bay to a U.S. prison. But Tribe said, and other advisers agreed, that was “a nonstarter.” With lax evidence rules and intense secrecy, the military commissions have been criticized by human rights groups, defense attorneys and even some military prosecutors who quit the process in protest.

“I don’t think we need to completely reinvent the wheel, but we need a better tribunal process that is more transparent,” Schiff said.

That means something different would need to be done if detainees couldn’t be released or prosecuted in traditional courts. Exactly what that something would look like remains unclear.

According to three advisers participating in the process, Obama is expected to propose a new court system, appointing a committee to decide how such a court would operate. Some detainees likely would be returned to the countries where they were first captured for further detention or rehabilitation. The rest could probably be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts, one adviser said. All spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing talks, which have been private.

Waleed Alshahari, who has been following Guantanamo issues for the Yemeni Embassy in Washington, said the plan being discussed by the Obama team was an improvement over the current system. He said, however, he expects most detainees to be released rather than stand trial.

“If the U.S. government has any evidence against them, they would try them and put them in jail,” Alshahari said. “But it has been obvious they have nothing against them. That is why they have not faced trial.”

With more than 90 Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo, the country is home to the largest group of prisoners. The United States and Yemen have negotiated but failed to reach a deal on a prisoner release.

Whatever form it takes, Tribe said he expects Obama to move quickly.

“In reality and symbolically, the idea that we have people in legal black holes is an extremely serious black mark,” Tribe said. “It has to be dealt with.”

The Associated Press

Have Your Say: Obama planning US trials for Guantanamo detainees
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

US ‘in secret overseas strikes’

Monday, November 10th, 2008

The US has carried out nearly a dozen anti-terror attacks in Pakistan, Syria and elsewhere in the past four years, the New York Times has reported.

The previously unreported attacks were authorised in 2004 by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Times quoted senior officials as saying.

The order gave US forces permission to attack terror targets anywhere in the world without prior specific approval.

The Times said the defence department declined to comment on its claims.

The White House also made no comment.

‘Called off’

The paper said it had spoken to more than six officials, “including current and former military and intelligence officials” as well as senior policy makers in the Bush administration.

They said that the order, signed by Mr Rumsfeld with the approval of President George W Bush, was intended to make it easier for the US military to act outside officially declared war zones at short notice.

In total, 15 to 20 countries were covered by the mandate and attacks had been carried out in Pakistan, Syria and “several other countries,” the paper reported.

Some were conducted in coordination with the CIA and one was broadcast live to CIA headquarters in Virginia, via cameras mounted on aircraft.

The paper’s sources also claimed that “as many as a dozen” attacks had been called off - “often to the dismay of military commanders” - due to lack of evidence or because they were considered too dangerous or “diplomatically explosive”.

The US has carried out many attacks along Pakistan’s border areas recently and was blamed for an attack in eastern Syria last month.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7719050.stm

Have Your Say: US ‘in secret overseas strikes’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Monday, November 10th, 2008 at 7:33 pm and is filed under Surveillance, Civil Liberties & Human Rights 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: