Abramoff used DeLay to fund anti-intifada militia: "By Joshua Frank | Online Journal Contributing Writer | Nov 25, 2005, 22:23
It shouldn't come as much of a shock that Jack Abramoff, the infamous Washington, DC, super-lobbyist who has been accused of ripping off millions from his Native American clients, is a rabid Zionist.
Abramoff, in the late 1990s, set up a pro-Israel charity front called the Capital Athletic Foundation. Sounds jovial enough. "The pitch . . . was hard to resist," Michael Isikoff reported for Newsweek last summer, "a good way to get access on Capitol Hill, he told his clients . . . was to contribute to [his] worthy charity . . . [which] was supposed to provide sports programs and teach 'leadership skills' to city youth. Donating to it also had a side benefit, Abramoff told his clients: it was a favored cause of Rep. Tom DeLay."
So Abramoff dangled a carrot in front of his clients, advising them to donate to his philanthropic venture. Why not, it was for a good cause. Plus, he boasted, it would buy them access to Rep. Tom DeLay. It may indeed have bought them access, but what Abramoff's customers didn't realize was that a large portion of their money would never be spent on gearing up inner city kids to shoot some b-ball -- rather, their dollars were shipped overseas to help arm Israeli settlers in the occupied territories.
More than $140,000 of the foundation's funds, reports Newsweek, was used to purchase sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, camouflage suits, thermal imagers and other materiel which Abramoff's foundation called "security" equipment.
Newsweek also reports "these payments are part of a larger investigation to determine if Abramoff defrauded his Indian tribe clients." Not surprisingly Abramoff's ex-clients are fuming.
"This is almost like outer-limits bizarre," Henry Buffalo, a lawyer for the Saginaw Chippewa Indians, who contributed $25,000 to the Capital Athletic Foundation, told Newsweek. "The tribe would never have given money for this." ...
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Shake and Bake - Army's own publications talked about using white phosphorus against insurgent positions ... They can burn for hours inside human body
Shake and Bake - New York Times: "Published: November 29, 2005
Let us pause and count the ways the conduct of the war in Iraq has damaged America's image and needlessly endangered the lives of those in the military. First, multilateralism was tossed aside. Then the post-invasion fiasco muddied the reputation of military planners and caused unnecessary casualties. The W.M.D. myth undermined the credibility of United States intelligence and President Bush himself, and the abuse of prisoners stole America's moral high ground.
Now the use of a ghastly weapon called white phosphorus has raised questions about how careful the military has been in avoiding civilian casualties. It has also further tarnished America's credibility on international treaties and the rules of warfare.
White phosphorus, which dates to World War II, should have been banned generations ago. Packed into an artillery shell, it explodes over a battlefield in a white glare that can illuminate an enemy's positions. It also rains balls of flaming chemicals, which cling to anything they touch and burn until their oxygen supply is cut off. They can burn for hours inside a human body.
The United States restricted the use of incendiaries like white phosphorus after Vietnam, and in 1983, an international convention banned its use against civilians. In fact, one of the many crimes ascribed to Saddam Hussein was dropping white phosphorus on Kurdish rebels and civilians in 1991.
But white phosphorus has made an ugly comeback. Italian television reported that American forces used it in Falluja last year against insurgents. At first, the Pentagon said the chemical had been used only to illuminate the battlefield, but had to backpedal when it turned out that one of the Army's own publications talked about using white phosphorus against insurgent positions, a practice well known enough to have one of those unsettling military nicknames: "shake and bake."
The Pentagon says white phosphorus was never aimed at civilians, but there are lingering reports of civilian victims. The military can't say whether the reports are true and does not intend to investigate them, a decision we find difficult to comprehend. Pentagon spokesmen say the Army took "extraordinary measures" to reduce civilian casualties, but they cannot say what those measures were. ...
Let us pause and count the ways the conduct of the war in Iraq has damaged America's image and needlessly endangered the lives of those in the military. First, multilateralism was tossed aside. Then the post-invasion fiasco muddied the reputation of military planners and caused unnecessary casualties. The W.M.D. myth undermined the credibility of United States intelligence and President Bush himself, and the abuse of prisoners stole America's moral high ground.
Now the use of a ghastly weapon called white phosphorus has raised questions about how careful the military has been in avoiding civilian casualties. It has also further tarnished America's credibility on international treaties and the rules of warfare.
White phosphorus, which dates to World War II, should have been banned generations ago. Packed into an artillery shell, it explodes over a battlefield in a white glare that can illuminate an enemy's positions. It also rains balls of flaming chemicals, which cling to anything they touch and burn until their oxygen supply is cut off. They can burn for hours inside a human body.
The United States restricted the use of incendiaries like white phosphorus after Vietnam, and in 1983, an international convention banned its use against civilians. In fact, one of the many crimes ascribed to Saddam Hussein was dropping white phosphorus on Kurdish rebels and civilians in 1991.
But white phosphorus has made an ugly comeback. Italian television reported that American forces used it in Falluja last year against insurgents. At first, the Pentagon said the chemical had been used only to illuminate the battlefield, but had to backpedal when it turned out that one of the Army's own publications talked about using white phosphorus against insurgent positions, a practice well known enough to have one of those unsettling military nicknames: "shake and bake."
The Pentagon says white phosphorus was never aimed at civilians, but there are lingering reports of civilian victims. The military can't say whether the reports are true and does not intend to investigate them, a decision we find difficult to comprehend. Pentagon spokesmen say the Army took "extraordinary measures" to reduce civilian casualties, but they cannot say what those measures were. ...
Monday, November 28, 2005
Congressman Resigns After Admitting He Took Bribes - received cash, cars, rugs, antiques, furniture, yacht club fees, moving expenses and vacations
Congressman Resigns After Admitting He Took Bribes - New York Times: "By JOHN M. BRODER | Published: November 28, 2005
LOS ANGELES, Nov. 28 - Representative Randy Cunningham resigned from Congress today, hours after pleading guilty to taking at least $2.4 million in bribes to help friends and campaign contributors win military contracts.
...
"The truth is, I broke the law, concealed my conduct and disgraced my office," said Mr. Cunningham, who has had a political reputation for emotional outbursts and combative conservatism. "I know that I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation, my worldly possessions and, most importantly, the trust of my friends and family."
Mr. Cunningham, 63, pleaded guilty to one count of tax evasion and one count of conspiracy to commit bribery, tax evasion, wire fraud and mail fraud. He faces up to 10 years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and forfeitures.
Prosecutors said he had received cash, cars, rugs, antiques, furniture, yacht club fees, moving expenses and vacations from four co-conspirators, who were not named in the indictment, in exchange for his assistance in winning military contracts. ...
LOS ANGELES, Nov. 28 - Representative Randy Cunningham resigned from Congress today, hours after pleading guilty to taking at least $2.4 million in bribes to help friends and campaign contributors win military contracts.
...
"The truth is, I broke the law, concealed my conduct and disgraced my office," said Mr. Cunningham, who has had a political reputation for emotional outbursts and combative conservatism. "I know that I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation, my worldly possessions and, most importantly, the trust of my friends and family."
Mr. Cunningham, 63, pleaded guilty to one count of tax evasion and one count of conspiracy to commit bribery, tax evasion, wire fraud and mail fraud. He faces up to 10 years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and forfeitures.
Prosecutors said he had received cash, cars, rugs, antiques, furniture, yacht club fees, moving expenses and vacations from four co-conspirators, who were not named in the indictment, in exchange for his assistance in winning military contracts. ...
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Shift on Suspect Is Linked to Role of Qaeda Figures - Mr. Mohammed had been subjected to excessive use of a technique involving near drowning
Shift on Suspect Is Linked to Role of Qaeda Figures - New York Times: "By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC LICHTBLAU | Published: November 24, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 - The Bush administration decided to charge Jose Padilla with less serious crimes because it was unwilling to allow testimony from two senior members of Al Qaeda who had been subjected to harsh questioning, current and former government officials said Wednesday.
The two senior members were the main sources linking Mr. Padilla to a plot to bomb targets in the United States, the officials said.
The Qaeda members were Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and Abu Zubaydah, a top recruiter, who gave their accounts to American questioners in 2002 and 2003. The two continue to be held in secret prisons by the Central Intelligence Agency, whose internal reviews have raised questions about their treatment and credibility, the officials said.
One review, completed in spring 2004 by the C.I.A. inspector general, found that Mr. Mohammed had been subjected to excessive use of a technique involving near drowning in the first months after his capture, American intelligence officials said.
Another review, completed in April 2003 by American intelligence agencies shortly after Mr. Mohammed's capture, assessed the quality of his information from initial questioning as "Precious Truths, Surrounded by a Bodyguard of Lies." ...
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 - The Bush administration decided to charge Jose Padilla with less serious crimes because it was unwilling to allow testimony from two senior members of Al Qaeda who had been subjected to harsh questioning, current and former government officials said Wednesday.
The two senior members were the main sources linking Mr. Padilla to a plot to bomb targets in the United States, the officials said.
The Qaeda members were Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and Abu Zubaydah, a top recruiter, who gave their accounts to American questioners in 2002 and 2003. The two continue to be held in secret prisons by the Central Intelligence Agency, whose internal reviews have raised questions about their treatment and credibility, the officials said.
One review, completed in spring 2004 by the C.I.A. inspector general, found that Mr. Mohammed had been subjected to excessive use of a technique involving near drowning in the first months after his capture, American intelligence officials said.
Another review, completed in April 2003 by American intelligence agencies shortly after Mr. Mohammed's capture, assessed the quality of his information from initial questioning as "Precious Truths, Surrounded by a Bodyguard of Lies." ...
Padilla is proof the government is fallible and needs the checks of the judicial system. If is innocent, he wvictim of a terrible injustice
Um, About That Dirty Bomb? - New York Times: "Um, About That Dirty Bomb? | Published: November 23, 2005
Almost three and a half years ago, the Bush administration announced that it had arrested a Chicago-born man named Jose Padilla while he was entering the United States to explode a 'dirty bomb' and blow up apartment buildings. The attorney general, John Ashcroft, said Mr. Padilla was a Qaeda-trained terrorist so dangerous that he was being tossed into a Navy brig and the key was being thrown away.
The administration hotly defended its right to hold Mr. Padilla without legal process because he was declared an unlawful enemy combatant, one of the new powers that President Bush granted himself after 9/11. The administration fought the case up to the Supreme Court. Mr. Padilla's plot was thwarted, the Justice Department claimed, only because of the government's ability to hold suspected terrorists in secretive prisons where they were sweated, to put it mildly, for information. The 'dirty bomb' plot supposedly was divulged by a top Qaeda member who had been interrogated 100 times at one such location.
...
Never mind. As of yesterday, Mr. Padilla stopped being an unlawful combatant, and the new attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, refused even to talk about that issue. Mr. Padilla is not going to be charged with planning to explode bombs, dirty or otherwise, in the United States. Just in time for the administration to prod Congress on extending the Patriot Act and to avoid having to argue the case before the Supreme Court, Mr. Padilla was charged with aiding terrorists in other countries and will be turned over to civilian authorities.
Mr. Padilla was added late in the game, and in a minor role, to a continuing case against four other men....
..
...If he was only an inept fellow traveler in the terrorist community, he is excellent proof that the government is fallible and needs the normal checks of the judicial system. And, of course, if he is innocent, he was the victim of a terrible injustice.
The same is true of the hundreds of other men held at Guantánamo Bay and in the C.I.A.'s secret prisons. This is hardly what Americans have had in mind hearing Mr. Bush's constant assurances since Sept. 11, 2001, that he will bring terrorists to justice.
Almost three and a half years ago, the Bush administration announced that it had arrested a Chicago-born man named Jose Padilla while he was entering the United States to explode a 'dirty bomb' and blow up apartment buildings. The attorney general, John Ashcroft, said Mr. Padilla was a Qaeda-trained terrorist so dangerous that he was being tossed into a Navy brig and the key was being thrown away.
The administration hotly defended its right to hold Mr. Padilla without legal process because he was declared an unlawful enemy combatant, one of the new powers that President Bush granted himself after 9/11. The administration fought the case up to the Supreme Court. Mr. Padilla's plot was thwarted, the Justice Department claimed, only because of the government's ability to hold suspected terrorists in secretive prisons where they were sweated, to put it mildly, for information. The 'dirty bomb' plot supposedly was divulged by a top Qaeda member who had been interrogated 100 times at one such location.
...
Never mind. As of yesterday, Mr. Padilla stopped being an unlawful combatant, and the new attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, refused even to talk about that issue. Mr. Padilla is not going to be charged with planning to explode bombs, dirty or otherwise, in the United States. Just in time for the administration to prod Congress on extending the Patriot Act and to avoid having to argue the case before the Supreme Court, Mr. Padilla was charged with aiding terrorists in other countries and will be turned over to civilian authorities.
Mr. Padilla was added late in the game, and in a minor role, to a continuing case against four other men....
..
...If he was only an inept fellow traveler in the terrorist community, he is excellent proof that the government is fallible and needs the normal checks of the judicial system. And, of course, if he is innocent, he was the victim of a terrible injustice.
The same is true of the hundreds of other men held at Guantánamo Bay and in the C.I.A.'s secret prisons. This is hardly what Americans have had in mind hearing Mr. Bush's constant assurances since Sept. 11, 2001, that he will bring terrorists to justice.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
PADILLA CHARGED: There years after being detained ... All defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law [!!!]
www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish: "Tuesday, November 22, 2005 |
PADILLA CHARGED: There years after being detained. I like this detail:
An indictment is merely an accusation. All defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law.
I have no brief for Padilla or any other al Qaeda mass-murderers. But he is an American citizen, presumed innocent, and it took the government three years even to charge him. Anyone who cares about liberty - which obviously does not include many members of the Bush administration, should be appalled by what has occurred and what it means for the future of freedom in this country."
PADILLA CHARGED: There years after being detained. I like this detail:
An indictment is merely an accusation. All defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law.
I have no brief for Padilla or any other al Qaeda mass-murderers. But he is an American citizen, presumed innocent, and it took the government three years even to charge him. Anyone who cares about liberty - which obviously does not include many members of the Bush administration, should be appalled by what has occurred and what it means for the future of freedom in this country."
Bush during which the latter suggested attacking the headquarters of the Arab satellite television channel al-Jazeera, based in Qatar, a key Gulf ally
: "Warning over leaked secrets | By Neil Tweedie | (Filed: 23/11/2005)
The Attorney General sought yesterday to squash further reports concerning the leaked record of a conversation between the Prime Minister and President Bush during which the latter suggested attacking the headquarters of the Arab satellite television channel al-Jazeera, based in Qatar, a key Gulf ally.
Lord Goldsmith warned media organisations that they might face prosecution under the Official Secrets Act if they published the contents of the top secret document.
According to the Daily Mirror, Mr Blair reportedly managed to talk Mr Bush out of the operation, which appeared to have been prompted by the station's broadcasting of statements by Osama bin Laden and pictures of dead Americans.
Last week, two men were charged under the Official Secrets Act for leaking the five-page transcript. David Keogh, 49, an official in the Cabinet Office, is alleged to have passed the document to Leo O'Connor, 42, last year."
The Attorney General sought yesterday to squash further reports concerning the leaked record of a conversation between the Prime Minister and President Bush during which the latter suggested attacking the headquarters of the Arab satellite television channel al-Jazeera, based in Qatar, a key Gulf ally.
Lord Goldsmith warned media organisations that they might face prosecution under the Official Secrets Act if they published the contents of the top secret document.
According to the Daily Mirror, Mr Blair reportedly managed to talk Mr Bush out of the operation, which appeared to have been prompted by the station's broadcasting of statements by Osama bin Laden and pictures of dead Americans.
Last week, two men were charged under the Official Secrets Act for leaking the five-page transcript. David Keogh, 49, an official in the Cabinet Office, is alleged to have passed the document to Leo O'Connor, 42, last year."
US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon' ... [when used by Iraq, not when used by US]
Independent Online Edition > Americas: "23 November 2005 19:41 | US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon' | By Peter Popham and Anne Penketh |
Published: 23 November 2005
The Italian journalist who launched the controversy over the American use of white phosphorus (WP) as a weapon of war in the Fallujah siege has accused the Americans of hypocrisy.
Sigfrido Ranucci, who made the documentary for the RAI television channel aired two weeks ago, said that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP after the first Gulf War as a "chemical weapon".
The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders."
In late February 1991, an intelligence source reported, during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory against Iraq, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships."
According to the intelligence report, the "reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas" across the border into Turkey.
...
In the television documentary, eyewitnesses inside Fallujah during the bombardment in November last year described the terror and agony suffered by victims of the shells . Two former American soldiers who fought at Fallujah told how they had been ordered to prepare for the use of the weapons. ....
...
The US State Department and the Pentagon have shifted their position repeatedly in the aftermath of the film's showing. After initially saying that US forces do not use white phosphorus as a weapon, the Pentagon now says that WP had been used against insurgents in Fallujah. The use of WP against civilians as a weapon is prohibited. ...
Published: 23 November 2005
The Italian journalist who launched the controversy over the American use of white phosphorus (WP) as a weapon of war in the Fallujah siege has accused the Americans of hypocrisy.
Sigfrido Ranucci, who made the documentary for the RAI television channel aired two weeks ago, said that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP after the first Gulf War as a "chemical weapon".
The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders."
In late February 1991, an intelligence source reported, during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory against Iraq, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships."
According to the intelligence report, the "reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas" across the border into Turkey.
...
In the television documentary, eyewitnesses inside Fallujah during the bombardment in November last year described the terror and agony suffered by victims of the shells . Two former American soldiers who fought at Fallujah told how they had been ordered to prepare for the use of the weapons. ....
...
The US State Department and the Pentagon have shifted their position repeatedly in the aftermath of the film's showing. After initially saying that US forces do not use white phosphorus as a weapon, the Pentagon now says that WP had been used against insurgents in Fallujah. The use of WP against civilians as a weapon is prohibited. ...
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Junior Republican Congresswoman calls Democratic Semper Fidelis Award Winner a coward ... Republicans can sink no lower?
www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish: "SHE CALLED MURTHA A COWARD: Republican Congresswoman Jean Smith called Jack Murtha a coward this afternoon, unworthy of the Marines, on the House floor. Money quote:
The fiery, emotional debate climaxed when Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, the most junior member of he House, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel. 'He asked me to send Congress a message - stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message - that cowards cut and run, Marines never do,' Schmidt said.
She later withdrew her remarks from the record. But those words linger as a reminder of what these Republicans have become. For the record: Murtha served 37 years in the Marines, and has Purple Hearts to his name. He visits wounded soldiers at Walter Reed every week. Three years ago, he won the Semper Fidelis Award of the Marine Corps Foundation, the highest honor the Marines can confer. Every time you think these Republicans can sink no lower, even after their vile smears against Kerry's service last year, they keep going. They make me sick to my stomach."
... he has been visiting our wounded troops weekly at Walter Reed Army Medical Center since the war began. I reported this last year in Wired, in a story about a new kind of battlefield anesthesia pioneered in Iraq that was funded by Murtha. This man walks the talk, and Cheney and McClellan should hang their heads in shame." I couldn't agree more. I have to say the right-wing's attempt to belittle, marginalize and even question the patriotism of Mutha is one of the most disgusting things I've yet seen from people who get more shameless by the day.
The fiery, emotional debate climaxed when Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, the most junior member of he House, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel. 'He asked me to send Congress a message - stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message - that cowards cut and run, Marines never do,' Schmidt said.
She later withdrew her remarks from the record. But those words linger as a reminder of what these Republicans have become. For the record: Murtha served 37 years in the Marines, and has Purple Hearts to his name. He visits wounded soldiers at Walter Reed every week. Three years ago, he won the Semper Fidelis Award of the Marine Corps Foundation, the highest honor the Marines can confer. Every time you think these Republicans can sink no lower, even after their vile smears against Kerry's service last year, they keep going. They make me sick to my stomach."
... he has been visiting our wounded troops weekly at Walter Reed Army Medical Center since the war began. I reported this last year in Wired, in a story about a new kind of battlefield anesthesia pioneered in Iraq that was funded by Murtha. This man walks the talk, and Cheney and McClellan should hang their heads in shame." I couldn't agree more. I have to say the right-wing's attempt to belittle, marginalize and even question the patriotism of Mutha is one of the most disgusting things I've yet seen from people who get more shameless by the day.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Admiral Stansfield Turner, former CIA director, labelled Dick Cheney 'a vice president for torture'. ... Bush on torture: 'I do not believe him'.
'Cheney is vice president for torture': "9.02AM, Fri Nov 18 2005
A former CIA director has claimed that torture is condoned and even approved by the Bush government.
The devastating accusations have been made by Admiral Stansfield Turner who labelled Dick Cheney 'a vice president for torture'.
He said: 'We have crossed the line into dangerous territory'.
The American Senate says torture should be banned - whatever the justification. But President Bush has threatened to veto their ruling.
The former spymaster claims President Bush is not telling the truth when he says that torture is not a method used by the US.
Speaking of Bush's claims that the US does not use torture, Admiral Turner, who ran the CIA from 1977 to 1981, said: 'I do not believe him'."
A former CIA director has claimed that torture is condoned and even approved by the Bush government.
The devastating accusations have been made by Admiral Stansfield Turner who labelled Dick Cheney 'a vice president for torture'.
He said: 'We have crossed the line into dangerous territory'.
The American Senate says torture should be banned - whatever the justification. But President Bush has threatened to veto their ruling.
The former spymaster claims President Bush is not telling the truth when he says that torture is not a method used by the US.
Speaking of Bush's claims that the US does not use torture, Admiral Turner, who ran the CIA from 1977 to 1981, said: 'I do not believe him'."
Thursday, November 17, 2005
''We do not torture,'' President Bush said on Monday.... Never mind all those torture pictures, stories, memo, rendition, Cheney lobbbying ...
Sound off: Where the views and opinions of our staff and others are expressed on various topics that relate to Bush: "We've slipped from the moral high ground | by Leonard Pitts Jr. | Miami Herald | November 11, 2005
Well, I guess that settles that.
''We do not torture,'' President Bush said on Monday.
Never mind all those torture pictures from Abu Ghraib.
Never mind all those torture stories from Guant�namo Bay.
Never mind the 2002 Justice Department memo that sought to justify torture.
Never mind reports of U.S. officials sending detainees to other countries for torture.
Never mind Dick Cheney lobbying to exempt the CIA from rules prohibiting torture.
''We do not torture,'' said the president. And that's that, right? I mean, if you can't believe the Bush administration, who can you believe? No torture. Period, end of sentence."
Well, I guess that settles that.
''We do not torture,'' President Bush said on Monday.
Never mind all those torture pictures from Abu Ghraib.
Never mind all those torture stories from Guant�namo Bay.
Never mind the 2002 Justice Department memo that sought to justify torture.
Never mind reports of U.S. officials sending detainees to other countries for torture.
Never mind Dick Cheney lobbying to exempt the CIA from rules prohibiting torture.
''We do not torture,'' said the president. And that's that, right? I mean, if you can't believe the Bush administration, who can you believe? No torture. Period, end of sentence."
Criticism of [Georgia] Voting Law Was Overruled ... requires card from motor vehicle offices in only 59 of the state's 159 counties
Criticism of Voting Law Was Overruled: "By Dan Eggen | Washington Post Staff Writer | Thursday, November 17, 2005; Page A01
Justice Dept. Backed Georgia Measure Despite Fears of Discrimination
A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it was likely to discriminate against black voters, but they were overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice, according to department documents.
The Justice Department has characterized the 'pre-clearance' of the controversial Georgia voter-identification program as a joint decision by career and political appointees in the Civil Rights Division. Republican proponents in Georgia have cited federal approval of the program as evidence that it would not discriminate against African Americans and other minorities.
...
The program requires voters to obtain one of six forms of photo identification before going to the polls, as opposed to 17 types of identification currently allowed. Those without a driver's license or other photo identification are required to obtain a special digital identification card, which would cost $20 for five years and could be obtained from motor vehicle offices in only 59 of the state's 159 counties.
Proponents said the measure was needed to combat voter fraud, but opponents charged that Republicans were trying to keep black voters, who tend to vote Democratic, away from the polls. ...
Justice Dept. Backed Georgia Measure Despite Fears of Discrimination
A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it was likely to discriminate against black voters, but they were overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice, according to department documents.
The Justice Department has characterized the 'pre-clearance' of the controversial Georgia voter-identification program as a joint decision by career and political appointees in the Civil Rights Division. Republican proponents in Georgia have cited federal approval of the program as evidence that it would not discriminate against African Americans and other minorities.
...
The program requires voters to obtain one of six forms of photo identification before going to the polls, as opposed to 17 types of identification currently allowed. Those without a driver's license or other photo identification are required to obtain a special digital identification card, which would cost $20 for five years and could be obtained from motor vehicle offices in only 59 of the state's 159 counties.
Proponents said the measure was needed to combat voter fraud, but opponents charged that Republicans were trying to keep black voters, who tend to vote Democratic, away from the polls. ...
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force ... denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force: "By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum | Washington Post Staff Writers | Wednesday, November 16, 2005; Page A01
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.
In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know....
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.
In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know....
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Iraq Intelligence Phase II Report Being Stonewalled, Senators Charge
Think Progress � Phase II Report Being Stonewalled, Senators Charge: "Phase II Report Being Stonewalled, Senators Charge
Yesterday was the deadline for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to report its progress on Phase II of the investigation into the administration’s use of pre-war intelligence. The prognosis is not good, according to Senators Rockefeller, Levin and Feinstein. They have released a letter, and here is its main finding:
At this time, we are unable to provide an estimated completion date of the Phase II investigation given the substantial amount of work that remains to be done.
This assessment differs greatly from the one offered by Sen. Pat Roberts on November 1st: “It isn’t like it’s been delayed. As a matter of fact, it’s been ongoing. As a matter of fact, we have been doing our work on Phase 2.” In reality, as the letter makes clear at various points, the work of the committee has been stonewalled by an unwillingness on the part of conservatives to investigate the administration. The Senators report that the investigation has been unable to proceed due to the following issues:
(1) Chairman Roberts is unwilling to investigate the “Cabal” inside the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans because he is deferring to the administration to investigate itself.
(2) Roberts has been unwilling to allow for “additional interviews and documents” to conduct a thorough inquiry.
Also, it is important to note that while Bush continues to falsely claim that the Senate Intelligence Committee found the administration had not “manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war,” the Intel Committee Senators say just the opposite:
The Committee staff work on two other sections of the investigation is not finished: whether public statements were substantiated by intelligence information and the use of intelligence information provided by the Iraqi National Congress.
Copy of Rockefeller, Levin, and Feinstein letter here." ...
Yesterday was the deadline for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to report its progress on Phase II of the investigation into the administration’s use of pre-war intelligence. The prognosis is not good, according to Senators Rockefeller, Levin and Feinstein. They have released a letter, and here is its main finding:
At this time, we are unable to provide an estimated completion date of the Phase II investigation given the substantial amount of work that remains to be done.
This assessment differs greatly from the one offered by Sen. Pat Roberts on November 1st: “It isn’t like it’s been delayed. As a matter of fact, it’s been ongoing. As a matter of fact, we have been doing our work on Phase 2.” In reality, as the letter makes clear at various points, the work of the committee has been stonewalled by an unwillingness on the part of conservatives to investigate the administration. The Senators report that the investigation has been unable to proceed due to the following issues:
(1) Chairman Roberts is unwilling to investigate the “Cabal” inside the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans because he is deferring to the administration to investigate itself.
(2) Roberts has been unwilling to allow for “additional interviews and documents” to conduct a thorough inquiry.
Also, it is important to note that while Bush continues to falsely claim that the Senate Intelligence Committee found the administration had not “manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war,” the Intel Committee Senators say just the opposite:
The Committee staff work on two other sections of the investigation is not finished: whether public statements were substantiated by intelligence information and the use of intelligence information provided by the Iraqi National Congress.
Copy of Rockefeller, Levin, and Feinstein letter here." ...
US used white phosphorus in Iraq ... earlier denied it had been used in Falluja at all ... not a signatory of an international treaty
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq: "Tuesday, 15 November 2005,
The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year's offensive in the northern Iraqi city of Falluja.
"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.
The US earlier denied it had been used in Falluja at all.
Col Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon.
Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices. ...
The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year's offensive in the northern Iraqi city of Falluja.
"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.
The US earlier denied it had been used in Falluja at all.
Col Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon.
Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices. ...
Monday, November 14, 2005
Detainees Deserve Court Trials ... Senate prepared to vote to abolish the writ of habeas corpus ... [Prince John reappears on the throne in 1216 !]
Detainees Deserve Court Trials: "By P. Sabin Willett | Monday, November 14, 2005; Page A21
As the Senate prepared to vote Thursday to abolish the writ of habeas corpus, Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl were railing about lawyers like me. Filing lawsuits on behalf of the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Terrorists! Kyl must have said the word 30 times.
As I listened, I wished the senators could meet my client Adel.
Adel is innocent. I don't mean he claims to be. I mean the military says so. It held a secret tribunal and ruled that he is not al Qaeda, not Taliban, not a terrorist. The whole thing was a mistake: The Pentagon paid $5,000 to a bounty hunter, and it got taken.
The military people reached this conclusion, and they wrote it down on a memo, and then they classified the memo and Adel went from the hearing room back to his prison cell. He is a prisoner today, eight months later. And these facts would still be a secret but for one thing: habeas corpus.
Only habeas corpus got Adel a chance to tell a federal judge what had happened. Only habeas corpus revealed that it wasn't just Adel who was innocent -- it was Abu Bakker and Ahmet and Ayoub and Zakerjain and Sadiq -- all Guantanamo "terrorists" whom the military has found innocent.
Habeas corpus is older than even our Constitution. It is the right to compel the executive to justify itself when it imprisons people. But the Senate voted to abolish it for Adel, in favor of the same "combatant status review tribunal" that has already exonerated him. That secret tribunal didn't have much impact on his life, but Graham says it is good enough. ...
As the Senate prepared to vote Thursday to abolish the writ of habeas corpus, Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl were railing about lawyers like me. Filing lawsuits on behalf of the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Terrorists! Kyl must have said the word 30 times.
As I listened, I wished the senators could meet my client Adel.
Adel is innocent. I don't mean he claims to be. I mean the military says so. It held a secret tribunal and ruled that he is not al Qaeda, not Taliban, not a terrorist. The whole thing was a mistake: The Pentagon paid $5,000 to a bounty hunter, and it got taken.
The military people reached this conclusion, and they wrote it down on a memo, and then they classified the memo and Adel went from the hearing room back to his prison cell. He is a prisoner today, eight months later. And these facts would still be a secret but for one thing: habeas corpus.
Only habeas corpus got Adel a chance to tell a federal judge what had happened. Only habeas corpus revealed that it wasn't just Adel who was innocent -- it was Abu Bakker and Ahmet and Ayoub and Zakerjain and Sadiq -- all Guantanamo "terrorists" whom the military has found innocent.
Habeas corpus is older than even our Constitution. It is the right to compel the executive to justify itself when it imprisons people. But the Senate voted to abolish it for Adel, in favor of the same "combatant status review tribunal" that has already exonerated him. That secret tribunal didn't have much impact on his life, but Graham says it is good enough. ...
Sunday, November 13, 2005
How to lose friends and alienate people: The Bush administration's approach to torture beggars belief
Torture | How to lose friends and alienate people | Economist.com: "Nov 10th 2005 | From The Economist print edition | The Bush administration's approach to torture beggars belief
...
... This week saw the sad spectacle of an American president lamely trying to explain to the citizens of Panama that, yes, he would veto any such bill but, no, “We do not torture.” Meanwhile, Mr Bush's increasingly error-prone vice-president, Dick Cheney, has been across on Capitol Hill trying to bully senators to exclude America's spies from any torture ban. To add a note of farce to the tragedy, the administration has had to explain that the CIA is not torturing prisoners at its secret prisons in Asia and Eastern Europe—though of course it cannot confirm that such prisons exist.
Advertisement
The nub of the torture debate is an amendment sponsored by John McCain, a Republican senator who was himself tortured by the Vietnamese. The amendment, based on the American army's own field manual and passed in the Senate by 90 votes to nine, states that “no individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Mr McCain's aim was simple enough: to clear up any doubt that could possibly exist about America's standards.
That doubt does, alas, exist—and has been amplified by the administration's heavy-handed efforts to stifle the McCain amendment. This, after all, is a White House that has steadfastly tried to keep “enemy combatants” beyond the purview of American courts, whose defence secretary has publicly declared that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the battle against al-Qaeda and whose Justice Department once produced an infamous memorandum explaining how torture was part of the president's war powers. The revelation in the Washington Post that the CIA maintains a string of jails, where it can keep people indefinitely and in secret, only heightens the suspicion that Mr Cheney wants the agency to keep using “enhanced interrogation techniques”. These include “waterboarding”, or making a man think he is drowning. ...
...
... This week saw the sad spectacle of an American president lamely trying to explain to the citizens of Panama that, yes, he would veto any such bill but, no, “We do not torture.” Meanwhile, Mr Bush's increasingly error-prone vice-president, Dick Cheney, has been across on Capitol Hill trying to bully senators to exclude America's spies from any torture ban. To add a note of farce to the tragedy, the administration has had to explain that the CIA is not torturing prisoners at its secret prisons in Asia and Eastern Europe—though of course it cannot confirm that such prisons exist.
Advertisement
The nub of the torture debate is an amendment sponsored by John McCain, a Republican senator who was himself tortured by the Vietnamese. The amendment, based on the American army's own field manual and passed in the Senate by 90 votes to nine, states that “no individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Mr McCain's aim was simple enough: to clear up any doubt that could possibly exist about America's standards.
That doubt does, alas, exist—and has been amplified by the administration's heavy-handed efforts to stifle the McCain amendment. This, after all, is a White House that has steadfastly tried to keep “enemy combatants” beyond the purview of American courts, whose defence secretary has publicly declared that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the battle against al-Qaeda and whose Justice Department once produced an infamous memorandum explaining how torture was part of the president's war powers. The revelation in the Washington Post that the CIA maintains a string of jails, where it can keep people indefinitely and in secret, only heightens the suspicion that Mr Cheney wants the agency to keep using “enhanced interrogation techniques”. These include “waterboarding”, or making a man think he is drowning. ...
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Report Warned on C.I.A.'s Tactics in Interrogation
Report Warned on C.I.A.'s Tactics in Interrogation - New York Times: "By DOUGLAS JEHL | Published: November 9, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 - A classified report issued last year by the Central Intelligence Agency's inspector general warned that interrogation procedures approved by the C.I.A. after the Sept. 11 attacks might violate some provisions of the international Convention Against Torture, current and former intelligence officials say.
The previously undisclosed findings from the report, which was completed in the spring of 2004, reflected deep unease within the C.I.A. about the interrogation procedures, the officials said. A list of 10 techniques authorized early in 2002 for use against terror suspects included one known as waterboarding, and went well beyond those authorized by the military for use on prisoners of war.
The convention, which was drafted by the United Nations, bans torture, which is defined as the infliction of 'severe' physical or mental pain or suffering, and prohibits lesser abuses that fall short of torture if they are 'cruel, inhuman or degrading.' The United States is a signatory, but with some reservations set when ratified by the Senate in 1994.
The report, by John L. Helgerson, the C.I.A.'s inspector general, did not conclude that the techniques constituted torture, which is also prohibited under American law, the officials said. But Mr. Helgerson did find, the officials said, that the techniques appeared to constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under the convention." ...
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 - A classified report issued last year by the Central Intelligence Agency's inspector general warned that interrogation procedures approved by the C.I.A. after the Sept. 11 attacks might violate some provisions of the international Convention Against Torture, current and former intelligence officials say.
The previously undisclosed findings from the report, which was completed in the spring of 2004, reflected deep unease within the C.I.A. about the interrogation procedures, the officials said. A list of 10 techniques authorized early in 2002 for use against terror suspects included one known as waterboarding, and went well beyond those authorized by the military for use on prisoners of war.
The convention, which was drafted by the United Nations, bans torture, which is defined as the infliction of 'severe' physical or mental pain or suffering, and prohibits lesser abuses that fall short of torture if they are 'cruel, inhuman or degrading.' The United States is a signatory, but with some reservations set when ratified by the Senate in 1994.
The report, by John L. Helgerson, the C.I.A.'s inspector general, did not conclude that the techniques constituted torture, which is also prohibited under American law, the officials said. But Mr. Helgerson did find, the officials said, that the techniques appeared to constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under the convention." ...
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Bush Condemned Property Via Eminent Domain to Build Rangers Stadium - And Made $14 Million Off the Deal
Pensito Review � Bush Condemned Property Via Eminent Domain to Build Rangers Stadium - And Made $14 Million Off the Deal: "Posted November 5th, 2005 at 12:48 pm by Jon
Governing elite: The recent Supreme Court decision that allows local governments to use eminent domain to evict property owners in order to use their property for private development set off a howl on the Right.
[It was the first time in Texas history that the power of eminent domain has been used to assist a private organization like a baseball team.”]
To counter the ruling, Republicans in Congress are working on legislation that would cut off all federal funding to local governments who use eminent domain to evict property owners.
The president may have a hard time keeping a straight face when he signs the bill, however. In his past life as a baseball team owner, Mr. Bush profited from exactly this sort of eminent domain eviction - to the tune of $14.3 million. ...
Governing elite: The recent Supreme Court decision that allows local governments to use eminent domain to evict property owners in order to use their property for private development set off a howl on the Right.
[It was the first time in Texas history that the power of eminent domain has been used to assist a private organization like a baseball team.”]
To counter the ruling, Republicans in Congress are working on legislation that would cut off all federal funding to local governments who use eminent domain to evict property owners.
The president may have a hard time keeping a straight face when he signs the bill, however. In his past life as a baseball team owner, Mr. Bush profited from exactly this sort of eminent domain eviction - to the tune of $14.3 million. ...
Kerry Suspects Election 2004 Was Stolen ... “But he didn’t have the evidence to do more.”
Consortiumnews.com: "Kerry Suspects Election 2004 Was Stolen | By Robert Parry | November 6, 2005
Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, has told acquaintances over the past year that he suspects that the election was stolen, but that he didn’t challenge the official results because he lacked hard proof and anticipated a firestorm of criticism if he pressed the point.
“Kerry heard all the disquieting stories” about voting irregularities in Ohio and other states, said Jonathan Winer, a longtime Kerry adviser and a former deputy assistant secretary of state. “But he didn’t have the evidence to do more.”
...
Mark Crispin Miller, a New York University professor and author of a new book about the 2004 election entitled Fooled Again, said he discussed the voting issue with Kerry on Oct. 28 when he encountered the senator at a political event.
In a Nov. 4 interview on Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now,” Miller said he gave Kerry a copy of Fooled Again, prompting Kerry’s comments about the 2004 election results.
“He told me he now thinks the election was stolen,” Miller said. “He said he doesn’t believe that he is the person who can go out front on the issue because of the sour grapes … question. But he said he believes it was stolen. He says he argues about this with his Democratic colleagues on the Hill. He had just had a big fight with Christopher Dodd.”" ...
Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, has told acquaintances over the past year that he suspects that the election was stolen, but that he didn’t challenge the official results because he lacked hard proof and anticipated a firestorm of criticism if he pressed the point.
“Kerry heard all the disquieting stories” about voting irregularities in Ohio and other states, said Jonathan Winer, a longtime Kerry adviser and a former deputy assistant secretary of state. “But he didn’t have the evidence to do more.”
...
Mark Crispin Miller, a New York University professor and author of a new book about the 2004 election entitled Fooled Again, said he discussed the voting issue with Kerry on Oct. 28 when he encountered the senator at a political event.
In a Nov. 4 interview on Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now,” Miller said he gave Kerry a copy of Fooled Again, prompting Kerry’s comments about the 2004 election results.
“He told me he now thinks the election was stolen,” Miller said. “He said he doesn’t believe that he is the person who can go out front on the issue because of the sour grapes … question. But he said he believes it was stolen. He says he argues about this with his Democratic colleagues on the Hill. He had just had a big fight with Christopher Dodd.”" ...
[McCain: Sponsors of Anti-torture] "amendment will seek to add it to every piece of important legislation voted on in the Senate"
- toledoblade.com -: "Saturday, November 5, 2005 | McCain vows torture ban in Senate bills
WASHINGTON - Girding for a potential fight with the Bush Administration, supporters of a ban on torture of prisoners of war by U.S. interrogators threatened yesterday to include the prohibition in nearly every bill the Senate considers until it becomes law.
The no-torture wording, which proponents say is supported by majorities in both houses of Congress, was included last month in the Senate's version of a defense spending bill. The measure's final form is being negotiated with the House, and the White House is pushing for either a rewording or deletion of the torture ban.
At the urging of Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), the Senate by a voice vote added the ban to a related defense bill as a backup.
Speaking from the Senate floor, Mr. McCain said, "If necessary - and I sincerely hope it is not - I and the co-sponsors of this amendment will seek to add it to every piece of important legislation voted on in the Senate until the will of a substantial bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress prevails," Mr. McCain said on the Senate floor. "Let no one doubt our determination." ...
WASHINGTON - Girding for a potential fight with the Bush Administration, supporters of a ban on torture of prisoners of war by U.S. interrogators threatened yesterday to include the prohibition in nearly every bill the Senate considers until it becomes law.
The no-torture wording, which proponents say is supported by majorities in both houses of Congress, was included last month in the Senate's version of a defense spending bill. The measure's final form is being negotiated with the House, and the White House is pushing for either a rewording or deletion of the torture ban.
At the urging of Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), the Senate by a voice vote added the ban to a related defense bill as a backup.
Speaking from the Senate floor, Mr. McCain said, "If necessary - and I sincerely hope it is not - I and the co-sponsors of this amendment will seek to add it to every piece of important legislation voted on in the Senate until the will of a substantial bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress prevails," Mr. McCain said on the Senate floor. "Let no one doubt our determination." ...
Republicans - disgracefully - targeted most of the cuts on the elderly and the poor ... deserves all that may be coming to it
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | It's the poor that gets the blame: "Leader | Saturday November 5, 2005 | The Guardian
...
If the budget cuts passed by the US senate on Thursday are anything to go by, the whole thing will end in tears. Republicans - disgracefully - targeted most of the cuts on the elderly and the poor through restructuring (ie cutting) some Medicare and Medicaid programmes. Worst of all, part of the cuts originally aimed (creditably) at cutting America's ludicrously high agriculture subsidies was amended so the brunt would be taken by chopping $844m from food stamps for the poor rather than from farm subsidies. Meanwhile, Republicans are hoping to pass yet more tax cuts for the wealthy. An administration that can tackle a serious budget problem in this way deserves all that may be coming to it. ...
...
If the budget cuts passed by the US senate on Thursday are anything to go by, the whole thing will end in tears. Republicans - disgracefully - targeted most of the cuts on the elderly and the poor through restructuring (ie cutting) some Medicare and Medicaid programmes. Worst of all, part of the cuts originally aimed (creditably) at cutting America's ludicrously high agriculture subsidies was amended so the brunt would be taken by chopping $844m from food stamps for the poor rather than from farm subsidies. Meanwhile, Republicans are hoping to pass yet more tax cuts for the wealthy. An administration that can tackle a serious budget problem in this way deserves all that may be coming to it. ...
Ousted from board of the Corporation then Spending Inquiry for Top Official on Broadcasting - if substantiated, they could involve criminal violations
Spending Inquiry for Top Official on Broadcasting - New York Times: "By STEPHEN LABATON | Published: November 5, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 - Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the head of the federal agency that oversees most government broadcasts to foreign countries, including the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, is the subject of an inquiry into accusations of misuse of federal money and the use of phantom or unqualified employees, officials involved in that examination said on Friday.
Mr. Tomlinson was ousted from the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting on Thursday after its inspector general concluded an investigation that was critical of him. That examination looked at his efforts as chairman of the corporation to seek more conservative programs on public radio and television.
...
But Mr. Tomlinson remains an important official as the chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. ...
The board has been troubled lately over deep internal divisions and criticism of its Middle East broadcasts. Members of the Arab news media have said its broadcasts are American propaganda.
People involved in the inquiry said that investigators had already interviewed a significant number of officials at the agency and that, if the accusations were substantiated, they could involve criminal violations.
Last July, the inspector general at the State Department opened an inquiry into Mr. Tomlinson's work at the board of governors after Representative Howard L. Berman, Democrat of California, and Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, forwarded accusations of misuse of money. ...
WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 - Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the head of the federal agency that oversees most government broadcasts to foreign countries, including the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, is the subject of an inquiry into accusations of misuse of federal money and the use of phantom or unqualified employees, officials involved in that examination said on Friday.
Mr. Tomlinson was ousted from the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting on Thursday after its inspector general concluded an investigation that was critical of him. That examination looked at his efforts as chairman of the corporation to seek more conservative programs on public radio and television.
...
But Mr. Tomlinson remains an important official as the chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. ...
The board has been troubled lately over deep internal divisions and criticism of its Middle East broadcasts. Members of the Arab news media have said its broadcasts are American propaganda.
People involved in the inquiry said that investigators had already interviewed a significant number of officials at the agency and that, if the accusations were substantiated, they could involve criminal violations.
Last July, the inspector general at the State Department opened an inquiry into Mr. Tomlinson's work at the board of governors after Representative Howard L. Berman, Democrat of California, and Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, forwarded accusations of misuse of money. ...
Friday, November 04, 2005
'Producer Gets Access,' by Dana Rohrabacher - television project was at the heart of an elaborate swindle ...
'Producer Gets Access,' by Dana Rohrabacher - Los Angeles Times: "November 4, 2005 | By Greg Krikorian and Christine Hanley, Times Staff Writers
U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) used his influence to open doors in Washington for a Hollywood producer pitching a television show after the producer paid him a $23,000 option on a screenplay, records and interviews show.
Before the option deal in late 2003, Rohrabacher's script, 'Baja,' had kicked around Hollywood for so many years that its conservative protagonist had morphed from a Vietnam veteran to a soldier who had served in the Persian Gulf War. ...
...
Federal authorities now allege that Medawar's television project was at the heart of an elaborate swindle in which Medawar defrauded dozens of people — many of them Orange County and South Los Angeles churchgoers — by selling $5.5 million of stock in Steeple.
Medawar, arrested last month, has pleaded not guilty to a 23-count indictment. He faces the possibility of life in prison if convicted.
Rohrabacher said Thursday in an interview that he had done nothing improper by accepting the option payment from Medawar before introducing him to congressmen and Homeland Security officials. ...
U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) used his influence to open doors in Washington for a Hollywood producer pitching a television show after the producer paid him a $23,000 option on a screenplay, records and interviews show.
Before the option deal in late 2003, Rohrabacher's script, 'Baja,' had kicked around Hollywood for so many years that its conservative protagonist had morphed from a Vietnam veteran to a soldier who had served in the Persian Gulf War. ...
...
Federal authorities now allege that Medawar's television project was at the heart of an elaborate swindle in which Medawar defrauded dozens of people — many of them Orange County and South Los Angeles churchgoers — by selling $5.5 million of stock in Steeple.
Medawar, arrested last month, has pleaded not guilty to a 23-count indictment. He faces the possibility of life in prison if convicted.
Rohrabacher said Thursday in an interview that he had done nothing improper by accepting the option payment from Medawar before introducing him to congressmen and Homeland Security officials. ...
American gulag - The Boston Globe
American gulag - The Boston Globe: "November 4, 2005
NEWS THAT the Central Intelligence Agency is running a system of secret prisons in far-off countries has shocked the nation. The clandestine jails are an affront to American values and an embarrassment in the world community. They are probably illegal, and ineffective as well.
But their existence may solve one of Washington's recent minor mysteries. Members of Congress were dismayed last month when Vice President Dick Cheney, joined by CIA Director Porter Goss, lobbied them to exempt CIA employees from a bill that would bar cruel or degrading treatment of all prisoners in US custody. Their efforts were spurned in the Senate, where the provision, advanced by Senator John McCain, passed with 90 votes. ...
NEWS THAT the Central Intelligence Agency is running a system of secret prisons in far-off countries has shocked the nation. The clandestine jails are an affront to American values and an embarrassment in the world community. They are probably illegal, and ineffective as well.
But their existence may solve one of Washington's recent minor mysteries. Members of Congress were dismayed last month when Vice President Dick Cheney, joined by CIA Director Porter Goss, lobbied them to exempt CIA employees from a bill that would bar cruel or degrading treatment of all prisoners in US custody. Their efforts were spurned in the Senate, where the provision, advanced by Senator John McCain, passed with 90 votes. ...
Former Powell aide links Cheney's office to abuse directives
Former Powell aide links Cheney's office to abuse directives - Print Version - International Herald Tribune: "Agence France-Presse | THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2005
WASHINGTON Vice President Dick Cheney's office was responsible for directives that led to U.S. soldiers' abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, a former top State Department official said Thursday.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, then the secretary of state, told National Public Radio he had traced a trail of memos and directives authorizing questionable detention practices up through Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's office directly to Cheney's staff.
'The secretary of defense under cover of the vice president's office,' Wilkerson said, 'regardless of the president having put out this memo' - 'they began to authorize procedures within the armed forces that led to what we've seen.'
He said the directives contradicted a 2002 order by President George W. Bush for the U.S. military to abide by the Geneva conventions against torture.
'There was a visible audit trail from the vice president's office through the secretary of defense, down to the commanders in the field,' authorizing practices that led to the abuse of detainees, Wilkerson said.
The directives were 'in carefully couched terms,' Wilkerson conceded, but said they had the effect of loosening the reins on U.S. troops, leading to many cases of prisoner abuse, including at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, that were contrary to the Geneva Conventions." ...
WASHINGTON Vice President Dick Cheney's office was responsible for directives that led to U.S. soldiers' abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, a former top State Department official said Thursday.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, then the secretary of state, told National Public Radio he had traced a trail of memos and directives authorizing questionable detention practices up through Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's office directly to Cheney's staff.
'The secretary of defense under cover of the vice president's office,' Wilkerson said, 'regardless of the president having put out this memo' - 'they began to authorize procedures within the armed forces that led to what we've seen.'
He said the directives contradicted a 2002 order by President George W. Bush for the U.S. military to abide by the Geneva conventions against torture.
'There was a visible audit trail from the vice president's office through the secretary of defense, down to the commanders in the field,' authorizing practices that led to the abuse of detainees, Wilkerson said.
The directives were 'in carefully couched terms,' Wilkerson conceded, but said they had the effect of loosening the reins on U.S. troops, leading to many cases of prisoner abuse, including at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, that were contrary to the Geneva Conventions." ...
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Wal-Mart: rock-bottom wages, obliges employees to resort to government subsistence, including food stamps
Independent Online Edition > Americas: "3 November 2005 23:16 | Wal-Mart: is this the worst company in the world?
There can be few chief executives in corporate America more uncomfortable at the moment than Lee Scott of Wal-Mart. Not that he should necessarily have our sympathy: his company, known unaffectionately as the Beast of Bentonville, after its corporate home, is the biggest single private employer in the United States. Its network of more than 3,500 discount retail stores has been lambasted repeatedly in recent years for its rock-bottom wages, which oblige thousands of its lower-end employees to resort to government subsistence, including food stamps, to make ends meet.
...
But all the careful public relations work was demolished by the leak of an internal memo last week which acknowledged some shocking home truths about Wal-Mart - including the fact that 46 per cent of the children of company employees either had no health insurance or relied on emergency government programmes nominally set up for the indigent and unemployed. The memo, written by Wal-Mart's executive vice-president for benefits in conjunction with the management consultants McKinsey, also showed the true purpose of rearranging the company's health plan was to cut costs further.
Sure enough, close examination of the health plan revealed that, while monthly insurance payments were being lowered in some cases, they came with a hefty deductible that many company employees were unlikely to be able to afford. The memo went so far as to suggest adding a physical element to sedentary jobs such as cashiering to deter unhealthy people from applying. ...
There can be few chief executives in corporate America more uncomfortable at the moment than Lee Scott of Wal-Mart. Not that he should necessarily have our sympathy: his company, known unaffectionately as the Beast of Bentonville, after its corporate home, is the biggest single private employer in the United States. Its network of more than 3,500 discount retail stores has been lambasted repeatedly in recent years for its rock-bottom wages, which oblige thousands of its lower-end employees to resort to government subsistence, including food stamps, to make ends meet.
...
But all the careful public relations work was demolished by the leak of an internal memo last week which acknowledged some shocking home truths about Wal-Mart - including the fact that 46 per cent of the children of company employees either had no health insurance or relied on emergency government programmes nominally set up for the indigent and unemployed. The memo, written by Wal-Mart's executive vice-president for benefits in conjunction with the management consultants McKinsey, also showed the true purpose of rearranging the company's health plan was to cut costs further.
Sure enough, close examination of the health plan revealed that, while monthly insurance payments were being lowered in some cases, they came with a hefty deductible that many company employees were unlikely to be able to afford. The memo went so far as to suggest adding a physical element to sedentary jobs such as cashiering to deter unhealthy people from applying. ...
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. ruled in a 2002 case in favor of the Vanguard mutual fund company at a time when he owned more than $390,000 in funds
Plaintiff alleges Alito conflict - The Boston Globe: "Says judge should have recused self | By Sarah Schweitzer and Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | November 3, 2005
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. ruled in a 2002 case in favor of the Vanguard mutual fund company at a time when he owned more than $390,000 in Vanguard funds and later complained about an effort to remove him from the case, court records show -- despite an earlier promise to recuse himself from cases involving the company.
The case involved a Massachusetts woman, Shantee Maharaj, who has spent nearly a decade fighting to win back the assets of her late husband's individual retirement accounts, which had been frozen by Vanguard after a court judgment in favor of a former business partner of her husband.
Her lawyer, John G. S. Flym, a retired Northeastern law professor, said in an interview yesterday that Alito's ''lack of integrity is so flagrant' in the case that he should be disqualified as a Supreme Court nominee. ...
Maharaj, 50, discovered Alito's ownership of Vanguard shares in 2002 when she requested his financial disclosure forms after he ruled against her appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit."
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. ruled in a 2002 case in favor of the Vanguard mutual fund company at a time when he owned more than $390,000 in Vanguard funds and later complained about an effort to remove him from the case, court records show -- despite an earlier promise to recuse himself from cases involving the company.
The case involved a Massachusetts woman, Shantee Maharaj, who has spent nearly a decade fighting to win back the assets of her late husband's individual retirement accounts, which had been frozen by Vanguard after a court judgment in favor of a former business partner of her husband.
Her lawyer, John G. S. Flym, a retired Northeastern law professor, said in an interview yesterday that Alito's ''lack of integrity is so flagrant' in the case that he should be disqualified as a Supreme Court nominee. ...
Maharaj, 50, discovered Alito's ownership of Vanguard shares in 2002 when she requested his financial disclosure forms after he ruled against her appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit."
Bush last week appointed nine campaign contributors, including three longtime fund-raisers, to his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
In the Company of Friends - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com: "By Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey | Updated: 6:45 p.m. ET Nov. 2, 2005
Bush may be besieged by charges of cronyism, but they don’t seem to have affected his picks for a panel assessing intelligence matters. Plus, Alito, the talkie.
President Bush last week appointed nine campaign contributors, including three longtime fund-raisers, to his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a 16-member panel of individuals from the private sector who advise the president on the quality and effectiveness of U.S. intelligence efforts. After watching the fate of Michael Brown as head of FEMA and Harriet Miers as Supreme Court nominee, you might think the president would be wary about the appearance of cronyism—especially with a critical national-security issue such as intelligence. Instead, Bush reappointed William DeWitt, an Ohio businessman who has raised more than $300,000 for the president’s campaigns, for a third two-year term on the panel. Originally appointed in 2001, just a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, DeWitt, who was also a top fund-raiser for Bush’s 2004 Inaugural committee, was a partner with Bush in the Texas Rangers baseball team.
Other appointees included former Commerce secretary Don Evans, a longtime Bush friend; Texas oilman Ray Hunt; Netscape founder Jim Barksdale, and former congressman and 9/11 Commission vice chairman Lee Hamilton. Like DeWitt, Evans and Hunt have also been longtime Bush fund-raisers, raising more than $100,000 apiece for the president’s campaigns. Barksdale and five other appointees—incoming chairman Stephen Friedman, former Reagan adviser Arthur Culvahouse, retired admiral David Jeremiah, Martin Faga and John L. Morrison—were contributors to the president’s 2004 re-election effort. ...
Bush may be besieged by charges of cronyism, but they don’t seem to have affected his picks for a panel assessing intelligence matters. Plus, Alito, the talkie.
President Bush last week appointed nine campaign contributors, including three longtime fund-raisers, to his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a 16-member panel of individuals from the private sector who advise the president on the quality and effectiveness of U.S. intelligence efforts. After watching the fate of Michael Brown as head of FEMA and Harriet Miers as Supreme Court nominee, you might think the president would be wary about the appearance of cronyism—especially with a critical national-security issue such as intelligence. Instead, Bush reappointed William DeWitt, an Ohio businessman who has raised more than $300,000 for the president’s campaigns, for a third two-year term on the panel. Originally appointed in 2001, just a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, DeWitt, who was also a top fund-raiser for Bush’s 2004 Inaugural committee, was a partner with Bush in the Texas Rangers baseball team.
Other appointees included former Commerce secretary Don Evans, a longtime Bush friend; Texas oilman Ray Hunt; Netscape founder Jim Barksdale, and former congressman and 9/11 Commission vice chairman Lee Hamilton. Like DeWitt, Evans and Hunt have also been longtime Bush fund-raisers, raising more than $100,000 apiece for the president’s campaigns. Barksdale and five other appointees—incoming chairman Stephen Friedman, former Reagan adviser Arthur Culvahouse, retired admiral David Jeremiah, Martin Faga and John L. Morrison—were contributors to the president’s 2004 re-election effort. ...
Guantanamo: 131 Guantanamo inmates on hunger strike, 24 on forced feeding ...network of secret prisons ... Rumsfeld denies Red Cross access ...
Rebellion Against Abuse: "Thursday, November 3, 2005; Page A20
LAST MONTH a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay military base excused himself from a conversation with his lawyer and stepped into a cell, where he slashed his arm and hung himself. This desperate attempted suicide by a detainee held for four years without charge, trial or any clear prospect of release was not isolated. At least 131 Guantanamo inmates began a hunger strike on Aug. 8 to protest their indefinite confinement, and more than two dozen are being kept alive only by force-feeding. No wonder Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has denied permission to U.N. human rights investigators to meet with detainees at Guantanamo: Their accounts would surely add to the discredit the United States has earned for its lawless treatment of foreign prisoners.
Guantanamo, however, is not the worst problem. As The Post's Dana Priest reported yesterday, the CIA maintains its own network of secret prisons, into which 100 or more terrorist suspects have 'disappeared' as if they were victims of a Third World dictatorship. Some of the 30 most important prisoners are being held in secret facilities in Eastern European countries -- which should shame democratic governments that only recently dismantled Soviet-era secret police apparatuses. Held in dark underground cells, the prisoners have no legal rights, no visitors from outside the CIA and no checks on their treatment, even by the International Red Cross. President Bush has authorized interrogators to subject these men to 'cruel, inhuman and degrading' treatment that is illegal in the United States and that is banned by a treaty ratified by the Senate. The governments that allow the CIA prisons on their territory violate this international law, if not their own laws."
LAST MONTH a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay military base excused himself from a conversation with his lawyer and stepped into a cell, where he slashed his arm and hung himself. This desperate attempted suicide by a detainee held for four years without charge, trial or any clear prospect of release was not isolated. At least 131 Guantanamo inmates began a hunger strike on Aug. 8 to protest their indefinite confinement, and more than two dozen are being kept alive only by force-feeding. No wonder Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has denied permission to U.N. human rights investigators to meet with detainees at Guantanamo: Their accounts would surely add to the discredit the United States has earned for its lawless treatment of foreign prisoners.
Guantanamo, however, is not the worst problem. As The Post's Dana Priest reported yesterday, the CIA maintains its own network of secret prisons, into which 100 or more terrorist suspects have 'disappeared' as if they were victims of a Third World dictatorship. Some of the 30 most important prisoners are being held in secret facilities in Eastern European countries -- which should shame democratic governments that only recently dismantled Soviet-era secret police apparatuses. Held in dark underground cells, the prisoners have no legal rights, no visitors from outside the CIA and no checks on their treatment, even by the International Red Cross. President Bush has authorized interrogators to subject these men to 'cruel, inhuman and degrading' treatment that is illegal in the United States and that is banned by a treaty ratified by the Senate. The governments that allow the CIA prisons on their territory violate this international law, if not their own laws."
Why does Bush administration keep forcing policies ...scrapping Geneva Conventions and American law, .. ignored the objections of armed services
The Prison Puzzle - New York Times: "Published: November 3, 2005
It's maddening. Why does the Bush administration keep forcing policies on the United States military that endanger Americans wearing the nation's uniform - policies that the military does not want, that do not work and that violate standards upheld by the civilized world for decades?
When the Bush administration rewrote the rules for dealing with prisoners after 9/11, needlessly scrapping the Geneva Conventions and American law, it ignored the objections of lawyers for the armed services. Now, heedless of the lessons of Abu Ghraib, the civilians are once again running over the people in uniform. Tim Golden and Eric Schmitt reported yesterday in The Times that the administration is blocking the Pentagon from adopting the language of the Geneva Conventions to set rules for handling prisoners in the so-called war on terror.
Senior military lawyers want these standards, as do some Defense and State Department officials outside the inner circle. They say the abuse and torture of prisoners has reduced America's standing with its allies and taken away its moral high ground with the rest of the world. They also know that it endangers any American soldiers who are captured. ...
It's maddening. Why does the Bush administration keep forcing policies on the United States military that endanger Americans wearing the nation's uniform - policies that the military does not want, that do not work and that violate standards upheld by the civilized world for decades?
When the Bush administration rewrote the rules for dealing with prisoners after 9/11, needlessly scrapping the Geneva Conventions and American law, it ignored the objections of lawyers for the armed services. Now, heedless of the lessons of Abu Ghraib, the civilians are once again running over the people in uniform. Tim Golden and Eric Schmitt reported yesterday in The Times that the administration is blocking the Pentagon from adopting the language of the Geneva Conventions to set rules for handling prisoners in the so-called war on terror.
Senior military lawyers want these standards, as do some Defense and State Department officials outside the inner circle. They say the abuse and torture of prisoners has reduced America's standing with its allies and taken away its moral high ground with the rest of the world. They also know that it endangers any American soldiers who are captured. ...
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons ... covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons: "By Dana Priest | Washington Post Staff Writer | Wednesday, November 2, 2005; Page A01
Debate Is Growing Within Agency About Legality and Morality of Overseas System Set Up After 9/11
The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.
The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents. ...
...
It is illegal for the government to hold prisoners in such isolation in secret prisons in the United States, which is why the CIA placed them overseas, according to several former and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government officials. Legal experts and intelligence officials said that the CIA's internment practices also would be considered illegal under the laws of several host countries, where detainees have rights to have a lawyer or to mount a defense against allegations of wrongdoing.
[All this was achieved by the president signing a "finding" on September 17, 2001:]
Under U.S. law, only the president can authorize a covert action, by signing a document called a presidential finding. Findings must not break U.S. law and are reviewed and approved by CIA, Justice Department and White House legal advisers. ...
Debate Is Growing Within Agency About Legality and Morality of Overseas System Set Up After 9/11
The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.
The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents. ...
...
It is illegal for the government to hold prisoners in such isolation in secret prisons in the United States, which is why the CIA placed them overseas, according to several former and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government officials. Legal experts and intelligence officials said that the CIA's internment practices also would be considered illegal under the laws of several host countries, where detainees have rights to have a lawyer or to mount a defense against allegations of wrongdoing.
[All this was achieved by the president signing a "finding" on September 17, 2001:]
Under U.S. law, only the president can authorize a covert action, by signing a document called a presidential finding. Findings must not break U.S. law and are reviewed and approved by CIA, Justice Department and White House legal advisers. ...
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Bush administration has 'serious breakdowns' in procedures promising Wal-Mart Stores 15 days' notice before labor investigators would inspect
Confined Space: "Tuesday, November 01, 2005 | PERMALINK Posted 7:39 AM by Jordan | Labor Dept Rebuked Over Wal-Mart Deal
The Bush administration's bad week continues.
While this won't make the same headlines as the Miers withdrawal or Scooter's journey to the dark side, the underbelly of the Bush administration's coziness with its special corporate friends was revealed for all to see as the Bush Labor Department was taken to the woodshed yesterday by its inspector general who criticized the Department for an agreement promising the stores 15 day notice before labor invstigators woud inspect its stores for child labor violations.
The Labor Department's inspector general strongly criticized department officials yesterday for 'serious breakdowns' in procedures involving an agreement promising Wal-Mart Stores 15 days' notice before labor investigators would inspect its stores for child labor violations."
...
The inspector general also contradicted the Labor Department's claim that there was nothing about this agreement that the Clinton administration hadn't done, finding that
the agreement between Wal-Mart and the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division (W.H.D) "was significantly different from other agreements entered into by W.H.D." and "had the most far-reaching restriction on W.H.D.'s authority to conduct investigations and assess" fines..
The Bush administration's bad week continues.
While this won't make the same headlines as the Miers withdrawal or Scooter's journey to the dark side, the underbelly of the Bush administration's coziness with its special corporate friends was revealed for all to see as the Bush Labor Department was taken to the woodshed yesterday by its inspector general who criticized the Department for an agreement promising the stores 15 day notice before labor invstigators woud inspect its stores for child labor violations.
The Labor Department's inspector general strongly criticized department officials yesterday for 'serious breakdowns' in procedures involving an agreement promising Wal-Mart Stores 15 days' notice before labor investigators would inspect its stores for child labor violations."
...
The inspector general also contradicted the Labor Department's claim that there was nothing about this agreement that the Clinton administration hadn't done, finding that
the agreement between Wal-Mart and the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division (W.H.D) "was significantly different from other agreements entered into by W.H.D." and "had the most far-reaching restriction on W.H.D.'s authority to conduct investigations and assess" fines..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)