Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lazarre who wrote (16651)	6/29/1998 8:24:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 20981

While it will be difficult, I will give it my best effort. JLA

To: lazarre who wrote (16651)	6/30/1998 6:18:00 AM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

ANOTHER PIECE OF THE PUZZLE Bending the Executive Branch By Bradley Cook RUSSIAN President Boris Yeltsin and U.S. President Bill Clinton have more in common than simply being the primary players in the global game of nuclear chess. They are also the most powerful men within their respective systems of government. Both of these systems allow their presidents to issue decrees and executive orders that can have the force of law, and both men can declare a state of emergency, imprison civilians, seize property, suspend their respective constitutions and declare martial law. Two events in Europe last month received little attention despite their great significance. In May, the Council of Europe, a broadly consultative body that Russia joined in 1996, issued a report warning that Yeltsin's wide powers could in "cases of abuse" lead the country to a "presidential dictatorship," according to an Agence France Press report. Also in May, while Clinton was in Birmingham, England, attending a meeting of the Group of Eight economic powers, he signed Executive Order 13083 which fundamentally alters U.S. federalism. Federalism is the division of power between the states and the federal government as established by the U.S. Constitution. That division of power has radically increased the grasp of the federal government and the president as a result of order 13083, according to excerpts of the order published last week by Worldnet Daily, an electronic publication. The executive order Clinton signed in England lists nine kinds of issues that would justify unilateral federal action. The legal means by which Clinton's government successfully extends its reach are in vaguely worded passages that can affect everything from trees to casinos. What's amazing is that at the same time Clinton is in Europe quietly drafting legislation for more presidential power back in the United States, the Council of Europe issues a "potential presidential dictatorship in Russia" warning because Yeltsin's powers are "too broad." When Yeltsin makes a law without consultation, advice or consent of the legislative or judicial branch he is roundly and rightly criticized. Witness the response to the Russian president's 1994 "Decree on the Struggle Against Crime and Corruption," which allowed for "suspects" to be incarcerated without being told why - a decree that made news worldwide. But when Clinton prepares the legal work to defend martial law in the United States by signing Executive Order 12919 - which he did in 1994 - the American media, with few exceptions, ignores it. Clinton has issued more executive orders than any president in U.S. history, yet most people remain in the dark about them. An archive search of The New York Times' articles for the last year failed to find a single mention of "executive order," for example. Similarly, but more alarming still, the president can declare a national emergency and the Clinton-appointed Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would then be invested with the power to suspend the Constitution and take control of the government. With the stroke of a pen, Clinton could activate executive powers laid down in the 1933 War Powers Act and order FEMA to seize all communication facilities, power supplies, food supplies, airports, transportation of any kind, seaports, waterways and highways - and Congress cannot even debate the president's declaration for half a year. There are even provisions for quartering civilian labor forces without regard to financial remuneration, and the registration of all citizens for the purposes of control of population movement and relocation. You think it can't happen in the United States? It happened to thousands of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and Clinton exercised the option in 1995. After Hurricane Opal, FEMA declared martial law in parts of Florida and citizens were put under house arrest. Clinton can do it again for "any threat to national security, perceived or real." One example of a threat that could activate the War Powers Act is the breakdown in the national "cyber infrastructure." The Millennium Bug that has the world's computer programmers scrambling to fix it before the year 2000 is exactly the kind of cyber breakdown that might call for martial law. Senator Robert Bennett, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on the year 2000 problem recently asked the Department of Defense if the military would be ready "in the event of a Y2K-induced breakdown of community services that might call for martial law?" Under Russia's Constitution, Yeltsin too could declare martial law if the Millennium Bug posed an immediate threat to Russia by instigating a computer-induced breakdown of communications, electrical supplies, satellites or nuclear missiles. The difference is that Hurricane Opal gave Clinton a try-out of the martial law contingency plan, which senators say might be necessary, while the Russian Nuclear Power Ministry has decided that they'll "deal with the problem in the year 2000." times.spb.ru

To: lazarre who wrote (16651)	7/1/1998 11:19:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 20981

More from NYT on US Views, Zuckerman and Fallows: July 1, 1998 LIBERTIES / By MAUREEN DOWD Le Tout Swivet WASHINGTON -- We're all in a new tizzy. No one is paying attention to the Ken-Monica-Bill triangle or the Monica-Linda-Lucianne triangle. Here in this media hotbed, everyone is now obsessed with the Mort-Jim-Harry triangle. Mort Zuckerman, James Fallows and Harry Evans are in a thermonuclear spat over at U.S. News & World Report. First Zuckerman, who goes through editors faster than he once went through girlfriends, decided to dump Fallows. Then Fallows launched a marathon self-defense. Then, in an effort to prove he is not Norman Maine, Tina Brown's husband tried to grab credit from his boss, Zuckerman, for firing Fallows. These three men are forces in journalism. Not positive ones. But forces. Besides U.S. News Zuckerman owns The Daily News of New York and The Atlantic Monthly. Fallows has gotten famous inflaming the self-flagellating tendencies of his profession. And Evans's last cultural masterstrokes were Dick Morris's $2.5 million memoir and those Barneys literary breakfasts. (My favorite was when Evans invited Hugh Downs to be on a panel discussing Proust.) So naturally, le tout Fourth Estate is in a swivet about whom to side with. If we don't side with Mort, will we never get to play in those Sag Harbor Literary Softball Games? Will he snub us at the Four Seasons or sic Rush & Molloy on us? If we don't side with Jim, will we lose our chance to participate in those high-toned panels at the Washington Press Club, sponsored by the Pew Foundation, on the topic of "Why the Media Stink"? If we don't side with Harry, will Tina say mean things about us in The New Yorker? Will Harry and Tina stop inviting us to those intime power dinners at their East Side apartment? In an effort to avoid softball with Mort and dinner with Tina and Harry, I thought I could put aside my qualms and side with Jim. Sure, he had written that pompous screed about journalism, arguing that political reporters should not look behind the veil at the White House but simply accept its pronouncements at face value. Sure, he turned the U.S. Newsroom into a boys' club filled with Crimson cronies. And sure, Fallows does have a problem recognizing a news story. Princess Diana's death, for instance, did not pique his journalistic interest. But I began to waver when he treated his staff to a windy eulogy for himself. Verging on Castro-length, the speech became an instant classic, faxed and E-mailed all over Washington and New York. It was full of Fallows blather about his philosophy of news, which always gives me the creeps. "One concept of 'news' emphasizes the most dramatic breaking event of the week just past," he said. Henry Luce made a fortune on that little concept. Fallows revealed that Andrew Cunanan had claimed another victim. "To choose an example about which Mort and I strongly disagreed: the shooting of Gianni Versace," he said, adding, "Each page we give to, say, Versace is a page we can't use for . . . 'News You Can Use.' " "The question is what kind of news we should emphasize," the sermon continued. "To me the choice is: last week's news, or next week's." Next week's news? Is this a news magazine or the Psychic Hotline? For a profound thinker like Fallows, trends beat news every time. Zuckerman was reported to be upset over his editor's downplaying stories like the Republican coup against Newt Gingrich while producing a high-concept cover on "How Julia Child Invented Modern Life." It was also a wee bit offensive how Fallows's acolytes, still on Zuckerman's payroll, trashed the owner to reporters, saying that Fallows had had to resist Zuckerman's attempt to let his ex-girlfriend Bianca Jagger do a piece on Hispanic culture. Call me crazy, but given a choice between a Jagger piece and yet another story on "Top 10 H.M.O.'s," I'll go with the ex. Fallows' faithful told of other bouts that the ousted editor was having with his renowned conscience, including whether to run a 10-part serialization of Evans's upcoming book on American history. Harry Evans expounding on American history? Well, it will have to do until Fallows delivers his exquisitely sensitive tell-all piece about Zuckerman in two parts in The Atlantic, entitled "The Passionless Publisher." nytimes.com

To: lazarre who wrote (16651)	7/1/1998 11:29:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20981

The Clinton News Network (CNN) lies and then, like their leader, moves on to telling the next whopper: In need of a retraction CNN and Time have yet to retract their story alleging that the U.S. military used poison gas on civilians, the enemy, American defectors and even American soldiers during the Vietnam War. This is true despite the fact that their main source, Robert Van Buskirk, now denies ever claiming that he killed defectors or knew of any nerve gas. This is true even though it has been revealed that broadcast's authors, correspondent Peter Arnett and producer April Oliver, had evidence their story was false and buried it. And it's true despite the fact that neither CNN nor Time has been able to back the story up with any proof. Instead, Time's managing editor Walter Isaacson has announced that he has Time reporters at work trying to verify the Arnett-Oliver opus, and that the magazine "will clarify the charges and countercharges when we have more information." CNN, too, is reinvestigating the story, a task it has given to famed libel-attorney Floyd Abrams. It's nice that CNN and Time are finally trying to get to the truth of the story; but isn't that what they should have done before accusing American soldiers and airmen of committing war crimes? So far, the only fallout at CNN from the "Valley of Death" broadcast was the resignation of the network's long-time military analyst, retired Gen. Perry Smith. Gen. Smith was never consulted about the story in the first place, and once it was aired he was troubled enough to check on how the broadcast had been put together. He viewed the raw videotape of CNN's interview with Eugene McCarley, the Army Captain who had led the "Operation Tailwind" company on its diversionary foray into Laos. Gen. Smith found that Mr. McCarley's remarks had been ridiculously twisted, so that the decorated officer appeared to be confirming the very things he spent hours denying. Gen. Smith tried to convince CNN's management to retract the story then and there, but they would not. He quit in disgust, declaring the broadcast "dishonest." Gen. Smith didn't leave the network without first making it clear just how serious CNN's accusations were, and just how serious it was for the network to make those accusations falsely. He wrote to CNN's top boss, Tom Johnson, and told him that it was time not just to retract the story, but more important, to apologize to the brave servicemen whom CNN had smeared. To emphasize what serious business this is, Gen. Smith told Mr. Johnson that he has an obligation to write -- personally and in his own hand -- letters of apology to each and every one of the soldiers CNN has vilified. That has yet to happen -- no retraction and no apologies. Yet the glaring fact remains that neither CNN nor Time has been able to back up the substance of the accusations made in the stories. To the contrary, with every passing day the last shreds of the bogus story get torn away. CNN and Time need to retract the sarin nerve gas charges now. It's fine if they want to have an investigation and further inquiry. But even if they are now taking the time to do the honest reporting they should have done in the first instance, the original phony accusations are still out there. Until CNN and Time retract the story, they are still standing by their allegations that U.S. servicemen committed atrocities in Laos. If they can't back the story up, now, they have no right to leave those accusations hanging out there. They will have all the time in the world to make their accusations all over again, should they ever find any credible evidence to do so. washtimes.com And the Lib conspiracy theorists say Drudge is the bad one. Yikes!