SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: coug who wrote (79130)4/23/2009 3:46:48 PM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 89467
 
Obama Earth Day Flights Burned More Than 9,000 Gallons Of Fuel

cbsnews.com



To: coug who wrote (79130)4/28/2009 12:08:24 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Torture and truthiness

salon.com

If Dick Cheney believes he can prove that torture saved us from terrorist attacks, why does he oppose a full investigation?

By Joe Conason

Apr. 27, 2009 |

Defenses for the Bush administration’s advocates and perpetrators of “enhanced interrogation” –- that euphemism for torture from the Nazi era –- are narrowing as the public learns more about their appalling record. The repeated claims that waterboarding, for example, was not illegal or should not be categorized as torture sound increasingly feeble to anyone who understands that we have prosecuted such acts as war crimes for more than a century, whether committed by our enemies or our own personnel.

So the ultimate justification is not that torture isn’t torture or that torture is lawful and constitutional, but simply that torture works –- as Dick Cheney insists -- and that specific acts of torture curtailed terrorist plots and saved lives. The former vice president says that previously classified information will vindicate the cruelties and abuses endorsed by him, former president George W. Bush, former CIA directors George Tenet and Michael Hayden, and a host of lesser figures from the old regime.

It is a claim long overdue for scrupulous examination, rather than inflated proclamation on talk radio and cable television. The surest sign that Cheney and his supporters don’t believe their own boasts is their horrified resistance to a bipartisan truth commission -- which could undertake the essential task of gathering documents, hearing testimony and sorting out facts from propaganda. Despite the constant repetition of warnings that without torture we would be left vulnerable to terrorism, the record so far offers scant proof that the Bush administration’s crude brutality somehow rescued the nation from disaster.

Set against the assertions of Cheney and company, whose credibility has languished ever since the fiasco of the missing Iraqi WMDs, are the statements of other officials who have had continuing access to highly classified briefings about the “war on terror.” In a floor speech last spring, Senate Intelligence Committee chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) bluntly disparaged the effectiveness of the torture program. “Although the CIA has described the information obtained from its program,” he said, “I have heard nothing that leads me to believe that information obtained from interrogation using harsh interrogation tactics has prevented an imminent terrorist attack.” Two months later, a reporter for Vanity Fair asked FBI director Robert Mueller in London whether he knew of any terrorist attacks on the United States that had been thwarted thanks to intelligence obtained through "enhanced techniques" of interrogation. At first reluctant to answer that question, the FBI chief finally said: “I don't believe that has been the case."

The CIA Inspector General appears to have reached a similar if not identical conclusion in a still-secret report that remains the subject of freedom-of-information litigation by the American Civil Liberties Union. The IG report on the agency’s role in the torture scandal is quoted extensively, however, in the Justice Department documents released by the Obama administration last week –- notably in the long memo of May 30, 2005 sent by Stephen Bradbury of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel to John Rizzo, the CIA’s senior deputy counsel. Although Bradbury himself enthusiastically endorsed the torture program, like nearly every other political appointee in the Bush administration, he acknowledged that the inspector general had found it “difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks.”

In other words, the CIA’s own internal investigation could not confirm that “enhanced interrogation” had in any instance achieved the single goal that supposedly justified violations of American and international law: the disruption of a “ticking bomb” plot.

While Bradbury notes that “interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding Al Qaeda and its affiliates,” torture is supposed to produce not merely more information, even if it is vaguely “actionable,” but critical and timely information that saves lives. Otherwise, there is no excuse for abandoning the traditional law enforcement style of interrogation that has successfully extracted the truth from gangsters, prisoners of war, and terrorists for many years.

That must be why the Bradbury memo goes on to mention what eventually became known as the “Library Tower” plot. “You have informed us that the interrogation of [Al Qaeda leader] KSM [Khalid Sheikh Muhammad] -- once enhanced techniques were employed -- led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles,” namely the Library Tower office building. Virtually every right-wing talk jock and Fox News personality, as well as former Bush aide Mark Thiessen, has cited that passage as proof of the virtues of torture. But that claim is implausible, as astute critics have deduced, because the Bush administration has long claimed that the Library Tower plot was busted in early 2002 -- months before KSM was turned in by an informant claiming a $25 million reward.

Nothing we have learned so far about the individual cases when interrogators employed various kinds of torture -- including a number when detainees were in fact killed -- inspires confidence in the program’s efficacy, let alone its morality or legality. Former CIA agent John Kiriakou admitted publicly in December 2007 that he had first-hand knowledge about the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, allegedly a high-ranking lieutenant to Osama bin Laden. According to Kiriakou, Zubaydah had resisted questioning until he underwent simulated drowning for 35 seconds. “It was like flipping a switch,” said the former officer in a widely quoted interview with ABC News. "The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate. From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."

Except that today we know that turning Zubaydah wasn’t like flipping a switch, because he was actually subjected to waterboarding not once but more than 80 times –- and at least one of those sessions seems to have been demanded by CIA headquarters against the advice of the agents conducting the interrogation.

Moreover, as Ron Suskind reported in "The One Percent Doctrine," his 2007 book on counter-terrorism, Zubaydah was neither a top operational aide to bin Laden, as Bush and other officials claimed, nor a source of useful intelligence. He was instead a mid-level functionary, afflicted with bouts of mental illness, and unable to provide real information on any impending plots. Whatever useful information Zubayda could divulge, he had revealed before the waterboarding began under questioning by Ali Soufan, a top FBI counterterrorism agent fluent in Arabic, who persuaded the prisoner to reveal useful information about Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the alleged mastermind of 9/11, and Jose Padilla, the Chicago-born al-Qaida footsoldier later accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive bomb in the United States. “There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics,” wrote Soufan in a blistering New York Times op-ed article published last Wednesday.

Yet by applying the right amounts of pain and fear, someone like Zubaydah might be induced to “confess” that al-Qaida was working on weapons of mass destruction with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq –- so the CIA turned the hoses on after Soufan’s FBI team was removed from the case (as Jane Mayer first reported in her award-winning book, "The Dark Side"). Zubaydah later recanted most of what he had told his interrogators, including stories of plots to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty as well as nuclear plants, shopping malls and dozens of other places, all of which kept lots of agents busy with pointless investigations. He had told them what he thought they wanted to hear, simply to get them to stop hurting him.

The same dismal pattern can be traced in the case of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaida operative also known as the Libyan, who told CIA interrogators in 2002 –- after several interludes of threatened and actual torture –- that Saddam’s Iraq had trained two of his fellow jihadis in the use of chemical and biological weapons. After still more abuse, he recalled that three more al-Qaida men had visited Iraq to learn about nuclear weapons. It was all nonsense, invented by the Libyan to fend off the torturers and later recanted by him, but not before his claims tainted several intelligence reports, including the crucial National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq of November 2002.

None of this is meant to suggest that prisoners who had water poured into their noses -- or were hung up by their hands or shoved into little coffins for hours on end -– never blabbed any useful intelligence. Perhaps there were truly dozens of examples of terrifying conspiracies that were only trumped at the eleventh hour, thanks to a well-administered bout of torture. Perhaps there was just one or, as seems most likely, none. In any case, we need to learn what Cheney meant when he referred to “memos that showed the success of the effort” and “reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity.” The establishment of a truth commission would allow the former vice president or anyone else to tell us what we supposedly gained from official crimes that have been banned since the earliest days of the republic.



To: coug who wrote (79130)5/1/2009 5:13:14 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
The Big Takeover: The global economic crisis isn't about money - it's about power. How Wall Street insiders are using the bailout to stage a revolution.

rollingstone.com



To: coug who wrote (79130)5/3/2009 12:58:37 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Swine Flu Pandemic Still ‘Imminent,’ WHO Officer Says (Update3)

By Tom Randall and Dermot Doherty

May 2 (Bloomberg) -- The World Health Organization probably will go to phase 6 on its pandemic alert scale because of the outbreak of swine flu, said Michael Ryan, the WHO’s director of global alert and response.

The WHO still isn’t seeing sustained community transmission of the virus, known formally as influenza A H1N1, outside of North America, Ryan said at a news conference in Geneva, where the UN health agency is based.

Still, swine flu has reached 15 countries and there’s evidence the new virus is spreading in five nations among people unconnected to Mexico. The symptoms may be no more severe than seasonal flu, health officials said.

“I would still propose that a pandemic is imminent,” Ryan said. “At this stage we have to expect that phase 6 will be reached; we have to hope that it won’t be reached.”

In little more than a week, world health authorities have tracked the emergence of swine flu from a few cases in Texas and California to the brink of the first influenza pandemic since 1968. Thousands of cases were suspected. At least 433 U.S. schools closed yesterday, a hotel was quarantined in Hong Kong and Continental Airlines Inc. cut seating capacity on flights to Mexico in half.

Unconnected to Mexico

The U.K., U.S., Germany, Canada and Spain each confirmed cases in people who hadn’t traveled to Mexico, where the virus has struck hardest. The expanding wave of sickness has been similar to seasonal flu, though health authorities are taking no chances with a virus that may flash across the globe, infecting a population with no natural immunity, said the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Even though we might be seeing only mild cases now, we cannot say what will happen in the future,” Gregory Hartl, a WHO spokesman, told reporters yesterday. “If at the end of the day it remains a mild pandemic or if we can somehow avert the worst of the disease or stop the worst of the disease, then that’s fantastic. We will have done our job well.”

South Korea confirmed its first case today, in a 51-year- old nun who returned home April 26 after a week-long period of aid activities in Morelos, Mexico, health authorities in the North-Asian nation said. They’re treating a 44-year-old colleague as a “probable” infection and the nation’s first case of human-to-human transmission.

Tokyo Testing

A Tokyo laboratory is testing to determine if a baby at a U.S. military base in Japan is infected.

Hong Kong, France and Denmark confirmed their first cases yesterday. Hong Kong declared a public-health emergency after detecting the virus in a 25-year-old traveler from Mexico, and cordoned off the hotel in which he was staying, confining guests and staff.

The WHO raised its six-tier pandemic alert to 5 on April 29. Stage 6 would signal a pandemic and alert governments to enact plans against the disease.

The virus is already at pandemic level, according to Ira Longini, a researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle who advises the U.S. government on flu.

“The definition of a pandemic is that the new virus has spread to several countries and is transmissible,” Longini said in an interview yesterday. “It’s hard to imagine it’s not going to continue to spread in some form.”

1,000 Suspected

Laboratory tests verified that at least 615 people in North America, Europe, Asia and New Zealand had the illness, with 10 deaths, according to WHO’s Web site. New York officials said they suspect more than 1,000 cases, so many that the government has stopped testing all but the sickest there.

“We need to prepare for the long-term,” President Barack Obama said yesterday in Washington. “Even if it turns out that the H1N1 is relatively mild on the front end, it could come back in a more virulent form during the actual flu season.”

Evidence suggests “transmission is widespread, and that less severe illness is common,” the Atlanta-based CDC said in a report yesterday. In Mexico, where WHO said nine of the world’s 10 confirmed deaths from the virus occurred, “a large number of undetected cases of illness might exist in persons seeking care in primary-care settings or not seeking care at all,” the CDC report said.

New York Tests

New York health officials will test for swine flu only in patients with a severe illness or if there’s a cluster of cases, Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said at a news conference yesterday. All of New York’s 49 confirmed cases and the more than 1,000 suspected have had symptoms similar to those of seasonal flu, he said.

In the U.S., at least 433 schools closed yesterday in 17 states, leaving parents to find other arrangements for 245,449 students, according to the Education Department. Five colleges closed, the department said in an e-mail.

The CDC raised its flu count to 160 cases in 21 states, including the only U.S. fatality, a 22-month-old child who died April 27 at a Houston hospital.

The new influenza strain, a conglomeration of genes from swine, bird and human viruses, poses the biggest threat of a flu pandemic since 2003, when the H5N1 strain killed millions of birds and hundreds of people, William Schaffner, an influenza expert at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview yesterday.

Mild Flu

“In Nashville, we are getting the sense that out in our community there is a lot of relatively mild influenza illness among children and increasing among their parents -- much of this is suspected to be H1N1,” Schaffner said. “By now our usual influenza season is over by weeks, but that’s clearly not the case.”

The 2003 avian flu killed more than half of the people who got it. It didn’t spread from person to person and only infected 421 people. The Spanish flu of 1918, another version of bird flu, killed as many as 50 million people in one of history’s deadliest outbreaks.

“There are some genetic tests that have shown the virus we’re dealing with right now does not have the factors that we think made the 1918 virus so bad,” said Julie Gerberding, former head of the CDC, in an interview yesterday on ABC News. “But we have to be careful not to over-rely on that information, because these flu viruses always evolve.”

Seed Virus

Batches of seed virus are being developed for potential vaccine production, according to WHO. Paris-based Sanofi-Aventis SA, Baxter International Inc. of Deerfield, Illinois, and GlaxoSmithKline Plc of London are talking with world health authorities about producing shots, the agency said.

“It seems most likely that the manufacturers will proceed and we will certainly support them,” Marie-Paule Kieny, WHO’s vaccine director, told reporters in Geneva.

Production of vaccines against the new H1N1 influenza will be completed “in parallel with or after the seasonal vaccine is produced,” Nancy Cox, chief of the flu division at the CDC’s Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, at a news conference today in Atlanta.

Jose Cordova, the health minister in Mexico, said yesterday the number of H1N1 flu cases confirmed by laboratory tests climbed to 381 and the death toll rose to 16. Deaths will probably continue, he said.

Flights Cut

Continental Airlines Inc. cut seating to Mexico in half, AirTran Holdings Inc. trimmed two weekly flights and Delta Air Lines Inc. began using smaller planes as swine flu concerns reduced travel.

WHO’s statistics, which lag behind those reported by national and local agencies, confirmed cases in the U.S., Mexico, Canada, the U.K., Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Spain, Israel, Hong Kong and New Zealand. France and South Korea have also confirmed cases.

The three main seasonal flu strains -- H3N2, H1N1 and type- B -- cause 250,000 to 500,000 deaths a year globally, according to WHO. The new flu’s symptoms are similar, including fever and coughing, nausea and vomiting, according to the CDC.

Authorities advised hand-washing, hygiene and staying home if sick as the most effective ways to control the outbreak.

To contact the reporters on this story: Tom Randall in New York at trandall6@bloomberg.net.



To: coug who wrote (79130)5/12/2009 11:01:43 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
I totally blame Bush for this kind of tragic accident...our former president drove our country into a reckless, ELECTIVE war and has pushed some of our troops to the breaking point (it's not an accident that we're seeing record levels of PTSD in our troops coming back from multiple tours in Iraq)...IMO, what Bush has done is worse than what Maddoff did -- and that's bad...fyi...

Soldier rampage hints at stress of repeated deployments

csmonitor.com



To: coug who wrote (79130)11/8/2009 6:00:02 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
'US foreign policy is straight out of the mafia'

guardian.co.uk

Noam Chomsky is the west's most prominent critic of US imperialism, yet he is rarely interviewed in the mainstream media. Seumas Milne meets him

The Guardian, Saturday 7 November 2009

Noam Chomsky is the closest thing in the English-speaking world to an intellectual superstar. A philosopher of language and political campaigner of towering academic reputation, who as good as invented modern linguistics, he is entertained by presidents, addresses the UN general assembly and commands a mass international audience. When he spoke in London last week, thousands of young people battled for tickets to attend his lectures, followed live on the internet across the globe, as the 80-year-old American linguist fielded questions from as far away as besieged Gaza.

But the bulk of the mainstream western media doesn't seem to have noticed. His books sell in their hundreds of thousands, he is mobbed by students as a celebrity, but he is rarely reported or interviewed in the US outside radical journals and websites. The explanation, of course, isn't hard to find. Chomsky is America's most prominent critic of the US imperial role in the world, which he has used his erudition and standing to expose and excoriate since Vietnam.

Like the English philosopher Bertrand Russell, who spoke out against western-backed wars until his death at the age of 97, Chomsky has lent his academic prestige to a relentless campaign against his own country's barbarities abroad – though in contrast to the aristocratic Russell, Chomsky is the child of working class Jewish refugees from Tsarist pogroms. Not surprisingly, he has been repaid with either denunciation or, far more typically, silence. Whereas a much slighter figure such as the Atlanticist French philosopher Bernard Henri-Lévy is lionised at home and abroad, Chomsky and his genuine popularity are ignored.

Indeed, his books have been banned from the US prison library in Guantánamo. You'd hardly need a clearer example of his model of how dissenting views are filtered out of the western media, set out in his 1990's book Manufacturing Consent, than his own case. But as Chomsky is the first to point out, the marginalisation of opponents of western state policy is as nothing compared to the brutalities suffered by those who challenge states backed by the US and its allies in the Middle East.

We meet in a break between a schedule of lectures and talks that would be punishing for a man half his age. At the podium, Chomsky's style is dry and low-key, as he ranges without pausing for breath from one region and historical conflict to another, always buttressed with a barrage of sources and quotations, often from US government archives and leaders themselves.

But in discussion he is warm and engaged, only hampered by slight deafness. He has only recently started travelling again, he explains, after a three-year hiatus while he was caring for his wife and fellow linguist, Carol, who died from cancer last December. Despite their privilege, his concentrated exposure to the continuing injustices and exorbitant expense of the US health system has clearly left him angry. Public emergency rooms are "uncivilised, there is no health care", he says, and the same kind of corporate interests that drive US foreign policy are also setting the limits of domestic social reform.

All three schemes now being considered for Barack Obama's health care reform are "to the right of the public, which is two to one in favour of a public option. But the New York Times says that has no political support, by which they mean from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies." Now the American Petroleum Institute is determined to "follow the success of the insurance industry in killing off health reform," Chomsky says, and do the same to hopes of genuine international action at next month's Copenhagen climate change summit. Only the forms of power have changed since the foundation of the republic, he says, when James Madison insisted that the new state should "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority".

Chomsky supported Obama's election campaign in swing states, but regards his presidency as representing little more than a "shift back towards the centre" and a striking foreign policy continuity with George Bush's second administration. "The first Bush administration was way off the spectrum, America's prestige sank to a historic low and the people who run the country didn't like that." But he is surprised so many people abroad, especially in the third world, are disappointed at how little Obama has changed. "His campaign rhetoric, hope and change, was entirely vacuous. There was no principled criticism of the Iraq war: he called it a strategic blunder. And Condoleezza Rice was black – does that mean she was sympathetic to third world problems?"

The veteran activist has described the US invasion of Afghanistan as "one of the most immoral acts in modern history", which united the jihadist movement around al-Qaida, sharply increased the level of terrorism and was "perfectly irrational – unless the security of the population is not the main priority". Which, of course, Chomsky believes, it is not. "States are not moral agents," he says, and believes that now that Obama is escalating the war, it has become even clearer that the occupation is about the credibility of Nato and US global power.

This is a recurrent theme in Chomsky's thinking about the American empire. He argues that since government officials first formulated plans for a "grand area" strategy for US global domination in the early 1940s, successive administrations have been guided by a "godfather principle, straight out of the mafia: that defiance cannot be tolerated. It's a major feature of state policy." "Successful defiance" has to be punished, even where it damages business interests, as in the economic blockade of Cuba – in case "the contagion spreads".

The gap between the interests of those who control American foreign policy and the public is also borne out, in Chomsky's view, by the US's unwavering support for Israel and "rejectionism" of the two-state solution effectively on offer for 30 years. That's not because of the overweening power of the Israel lobby in the US, but because Israel is a strategic and commercial asset which underpins rather than undermines US domination of the Middle East. "Even in the 1950s, President Eisenhower was concerned about what he called a campaign of hatred of the US in the Arab world, because of the perception on the Arab street that it supported harsh and oppressive regimes to take their oil."

Half a century later, corporations like Lockheed Martin and Exxon Mobil are doing fine, he says: America's one-sided role in the Middle East isn't harming their interests, whatever risks it might bring for anyone else.

Chomsky is sometimes criticised on the left for encouraging pessimism or inaction by emphasising the overwhelming weight of US power – or for failing to connect his own activism with labour or social movements on the ground. He is certainly his own man, holds some idiosyncratic views (I was startled, for instance, to hear him say that Vietnam was a strategic victory for the US in southeast Asia, despite its humiliating 1975 withdrawal) and has drawn flak for defending freedom of speech for Holocaust deniers. He describes himself as an anarchist or libertarian socialist, but often sounds more like a radical liberal – which is perhaps why he enrages more middle-of-the-road American liberals who don't appreciate their views being taken to the logical conclusion.

But for an octogenarian who has been active on the left since the 1930s, Chomsky sounds strikingly upbeat. He's a keen supporter of the wave of progressive change that has swept South America in the past decade ("one of the liberal criticisms of Bush is that he didn't pay enough attention to Latin America – it was the best thing that ever happened to Latin America"). He also believes there are now constraints on imperial power which didn't exist in the past: "They couldn't get away with the kind of chemical warfare and blanket B52 bombing that Kennedy did," in the 1960s. He even has some qualified hopes for the internet as a way around the monopoly of the corporate-dominated media.

But what of the charge so often made that he's an "anti-American" figure who can only see the crimes of his own government while ignoring the crimes of others around the world? "Anti-Americanism is a pure totalitarian concept," he retorts. "The very notion is idiotic. Of course you don't deny other crimes, but your primary moral responsibility is for your own actions, which you can do something about. It's the same charge which was made in the Bible by King Ahab, the epitome of evil, when he demanded of the prophet Elijah: why are you a hater of Israel? He was identifying himself with society and criticism of the state with criticism of society."

It's a telling analogy. Chomsky is a modest man who would balk at any such comparison. But in the Biblical tradition of the conflict between prophets and kings, there's not the slightest doubt which side he represents.