Hilary Clinton on Internet Freedom, BW--Before Wikileaks...

From Foreign Policy's website (ht Drudge), an excerpt from a speech by the US Secretary of State at the Newseum in Washington, DC on January 21, 2010:

SYNCING PROGRESS WITH PRINCIPLES

On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress. But the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognize that the world's information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it.

This challenge may be new, but our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our republic. The words of the First Amendment to the Constitution are carved in 50 tons of Tennessee marble on the front of this building. And every generation of Americans has worked to protect the values etched in that stone.

Franklin Roosevelt built on these ideas when he delivered his Four Freedoms speech in 1941. At the time, Americans faced a cavalcade of crises and a crisis of confidence. But the vision of a world in which all people enjoyed freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear transcended the trouble of his day.

Years later, one of my heroes, Eleanor Roosevelt, worked to have these principles adopted as a cornerstone of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They have provided a lodestar to every succeeding generation - guiding us, galvanizing us, and enabling us to move forward in the face of uncertainty.

As technology hurtles forward, we must think back to that legacy. We need to synchronize our technological progress with our principles. In accepting the Nobel Prize, President Obama spoke about the need to build a world in which peace rests on the "inherent rights and dignity of every individual." And in my speech on human rights at Georgetown I talked about how we must find ways to make human rights a reality. Today, we find an urgent need to protect these freedoms on the digital frontiers of the 21st century.

There are many other networks in the world - some aid in the movement of people or resources; and some facilitate exchanges between individuals with the same work or interests. But the internet is a network that magnifies the power and potential of all others. And that's why we believe it's critical that its users are assured certain basic freedoms.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

First among them is the freedom of expression. This freedom is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go into the town square and criticize their government without fear of retribution. Blogs, email, social networks, and text messages have opened up new forums for exchanging ideas - and created new targets for censorship.

As I speak to you today, government censors are working furiously to erase my words from the records of history. But history itself has already condemned these tactics. Two months ago, I was in Germany to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The leaders gathered at that ceremony paid tribute to the courageous men and women on the far side of that barrier who made the case against oppression by circulating small pamphlets called samizdat. These leaflets questioned the claims and intentions of dictatorships in the Eastern Bloc, and many people paid dearly for distributing them. But their words helped pierce the concrete and concertina wire of the Iron Curtain.

The Berlin Wall symbolized a world divided, and it defined an entire era. Today, remnants of that wall sit inside this museum - where they belong. And the new iconic infrastructure of our age is the internet.

Instead of division, it stands for connection. But even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping up in place of visible walls.

Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world's networks. They have expunged words, names and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. Beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.

As in the dictatorships of the past, governments are targeting independent thinkers who use these tools. In the demonstrations that followed Iran's presidential elections, grainy cell phone footage of a young woman's bloody murder provided a digital indictment of the government's brutality. We've seen reports that when Iranians living overseas posted online criticism of their nation's leaders, their family members in Iran were singled out for retribution. And despite an intense campaign of government intimidation, brave citizen journalists in Iran continue using technology to show the world and their fellow citizens what is happening in their country. In speaking out on behalf of their own human rights the Iranian people have inspired the world.

And their courage is redefining how technology is used to spread truth and expose injustice.

All societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence, such as the agents of al Qaeda who are - at this moment - using the internet to promote the mass murder of innocent people. And hate speech that targets individuals on the basis of their ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is reprehensible. It is an unfortunate fact that these issues are both growing challenges that the international community must confront together. We must also grapple with the issue of anonymous speech. Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property cannot divorce their online actions from their real world identities. But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes.

Julian Assange: Murdoch Inspired Wikileaks

Writing in Rupert Murdoch's flagship paper Down Under, The Australian:

WIKILEAKS deserves protection, not threats and attacks.

IN 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide's The News, wrote: "In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win."

His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch's expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.

Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public.

I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth.

These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created around these core values. The idea, conceived in Australia, was to use internet technologies in new ways to report the truth.

WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?

Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.

People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.

If you have read any of the Afghan or Iraq war logs, any of the US embassy cables or any of the stories about the things WikiLeaks has reported, consider how important it is for all media to be able to report these things freely.

WikiLeaks is not the only publisher of the US embassy cables. Other media outlets, including Britain's The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais in Spain and Der Spiegel in Germany have published the same redacted cables.

Yet it is WikiLeaks, as the co-ordinator of these other groups, that has copped the most vicious attacks and accusations from the US government and its acolytes. I have been accused of treason, even though I am an Australian, not a US, citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls in the US for me to be "taken out" by US special forces. Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.

And Australians should observe with no pride the disgraceful pandering to these sentiments by Julia Gillard and her government. The powers of the Australian government appear to be fully at the disposal of the US as to whether to cancel my Australian passport, or to spy on or harass WikiLeaks supporters. The Australian Attorney-General is doing everything he can to help a US investigation clearly directed at framing Australian citizens and shipping them to the US.

Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organisations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small.

We are the underdogs. The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings.

Has there been any response from the Australian government to the numerous public threats of violence against me and other WikiLeaks personnel? One might have thought an Australian prime minister would be defending her citizens against such things, but there have only been wholly unsubstantiated claims of illegality. The Prime Minister and especially the Attorney-General are meant to carry out their duties with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two mean to save their own skins. They will not.

Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?

It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US, with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone.

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.

But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts:

► The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

► King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran.

► Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran's nuclear program stopped by any means available.

► Britain's Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect "US interests".

► Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.

► The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.

In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government". The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth.

Julian Assange is the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.

IMHO, it might have been nice if Rupert Murdoch had published this article in his Wall Street Journal, as a counterpart to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's oped this morning...

Document of the Week: US State Department Cable Declares Saudi Arabia 'a critical source of terrorist funding'

This 2009 Wikileaks cable from US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was published by The Guardian (UK):

Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, LeT, and other terrorist groups, including Hamas, which probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources, often during Hajj and Ramadan. In contrast to its increasingly aggressive efforts to disrupt al-Qa'ida's access to funding from Saudi sources, Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT-groups that are also aligned with al-Qa'ida and focused on undermining stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mathew Ingram: Wikileaks Defends Freedom of the Press

From gigaom.com (ht Jeff Jarvis):

The past week has seen plenty of ink spilled — virtual and otherwise — about WikiLeaks and its mercurial front-man, Julian Assange, and the pressure they have come under from the U.S. government and companies such as Amazon and PayPal, both of which have blocked WikiLeaks from using their services. Why should we care about any of this? Because more than anything else, WikiLeaks is a publisher — a new kind of publisher, but a publisher nonetheless — and that makes this a freedom of the press issue. Like it or not, WikiLeaks is fundamentally a journalistic entity, and as such it deserves our protection.

Jeff Jarvis: Transparency Only Sure Defense Against Secrecy

Jeff Jarvis's reasoned defense of Wikileaks, from the Huffington Post:

But as we can see from what has been leaked, there is much we should know -- actions taken in our name -- that government holds from us. We also know that the revelation of these secrets has not been devastating. America's and Germany's relationship has not collapsed because one undiplomatic diplomat called Angela Merkel uncreative. WikiLeaks head Julian Assange told the Guardian that in four years, "there has been no credible allegation, even by organizations like the Pentagon, that even a single person has come to harm as a result of our activities."

So perhaps the lesson of WikiLeaks should be that the open air is less fearsome than we'd thought. That should lead to less secrecy. After all, the only sure defense against leaks is transparency.

But that is not what's happening. In the U.S., the White House announced a new security initiative to clamp down on information. The White House even warned government workers not to look at WikiLeaks documents online because they were still officially secret, which betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of secret as something people do not know. I fear that one legacy of WikiLeaks' work will be that officials will communicate less in writing and more by phone, diminishing the written record for journalism and history.

I have become an advocate of openness in government, business, and even our personal lives and relationships. The internet has taught me the benefits of sharing and connecting information.

This is why I have urged caution in not going overboard with the privacy mania sweeping much of modern society and especially Germany. Beware the precedents we set, defaulting to closed and secret, whether in pixelating public views in Google Street View, or in disabling the advertising targeting that makes online marketing more valuable and will pay for much of the web's free content.

I fear that a pixel fog may overcome us, blurring what should be becoming clearer. I had hoped instead that we would pull back the curtain on society, letting the sunlight in. That is our choice.

More from Charles Crawford on WikiLeaks

The former British ambassador to Poland says the cables released so far show that "US diplomats are doing a fine job."

A key point to remember in all this Wikileaks business is that what you are seeing blabbed out on the Web is only part of what has been sent - it is stupid to draw definitive policy conclusions from any one piece of work or even larger blocs of work.

In particular, if one or two cables contain some disobliging remarks on foreign people and their policies, so what?

One of the key strengths of the US/UK reporting style (unlike eg those of many EU partners) is that diplomats at the coal-face are able to give their personal comments.

But a comment is just that - the thought of the drafter, not a policy conclusion or even recommendation. Policies come from HQ taking myriad comments and working out what is best.

Haitian Election Ousts Ruling Party

No clear winner yet, but a clear loser has emerged, according to Bloomberg:

Haiti’s government will honor the results of the disputed Nov. 28 election, the nation’s ambassador to the United Nations said after ruling party presidential candidate Jude Celestin said he may have lost.

“We are moving forward in terms of a democratic transition of power,” Ambassador Leo Merores said at a UN meeting on Haiti in New York. “The government is firm in its resolve to transition power on Feb. 7 to the newly elected president.”

Results in the election, Haiti’s first since January’s earthquake, aren’t expected until at least Dec. 7. About 4.5 million people were eligible to cast ballots for a new leader to replace President Rene Preval, along with 11 of 30 senators and all 99 parliament deputies.

The election was marred by allegations of fraud and incidents of violence that resulted in a call by 12 of 18 presidential candidates for the vote to be annulled. Celestin, who didn’t support that demand, said on Nov. 30 that he may have lost, Agence France-Presse reported.

More, in French, at HaitiElections2010.com.

Charles Crawford on Wikileaks

The former British ambassador to Poland has an insider's response to Julian Assange's leaks:

Nothing much smaller and faster than a USB stick with tens of thousands of stolen documents on it.

Events such as the latest Wikileaks embroglio exemplify the pell-mell course we are all now on towards a dangerous 'randomising' of world events and a decay in institutional authority.

In the looming conflicts as long-established but in any case Big systems abruptly decay (see the Eurozone), the most ruthless - and least committed to freedom in any sense that matters - may have a clear edge.

Thanks for that, Julian Assange.

Why Aren't Media Companies Helping Wikileaks?

I don't understand why the major media companies that printed excerpts from Wikileaks have not set up mirror sites for all the raw documents to show solidarity and support the public's right to know. Instead, they seem to want to serve as some sort of censorship arm of the US government, "vetting" the material for suitability. If anything undermines media credibility, it is this sort of two-faced exploitation of Wikileaks for raw material (they recycle the documents for their articles) without providing the public with the information needed to make independent judgements.

As noted by Yale Law School Professor Stephen Carter in the Daily Beast:

Indeed, as several observers have pointed out, an interpretation of the Espionage Act sufficiently broad to encompass what WikiLeaks has done would surely cover as well the newspapers that have published the documents. If Assange’s actions have damaged the security of the United States, then the same argument presumably applies to The New York Times. Indeed, it is the publication of the documents by respected institutions of journalism, and not their posting on the Web, that provides sufficient imprimatur to stir the controversy.

The Espionage Act is a broadly written and scary statute. As Geoffrey Stone points out in a recent book, the statute was adopted precisely to chill dissent. Happily, the act has been enforced only rarely over the past half century. Rare is best. Dissent is the lifeblood of democracy, and should be carefully nourished, not scared into hiding. I have no trouble with pursuing the leakers who have done so much damage to the nation’s security; but those who publicize what is leaked are the symptoms, not the problem.

Wikileaks and the Zimmerman Telegram

Richards J. Heuer

The Wikileaks story broke while I was away for Thanksgiving. My own views seem to differ from most of what I've read.

First, I think Julian Assange's redistribution of some 250,000 US State Department documents did the US Government a real favor. Much as the Mark Zuckerberg character told the Harvard committee after he hacked into their databases, in the film "The Social Network," Assange should be rewarded instead of prosecuted.

If one low-level army private could tap into the obviously insecure Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET), it was no damn good in the first place.

So, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange isn't a terrorist. He's not aiding America's enemies. He's helping the USA to make our intelligence agencies better.

As someone I know asked when the news of Wikileaks Cablegate hit the papers: How many agents for foreign governments have been hacking away over the last nine years, secretly secreting secret data from the national SIPRNET, and providing it to countries that might wish to harm American interests?

Has anyone asked, until today? Will Congress investigate this boondoggle?

If one wants to look for someone who has helped America's enemies, one might focus on Richards J. Heuer. Here's a link to his Amazon.com page:

http://www.amazon.com/Richards-J.-Heuer-Jr./e/B0032P1Y7I

From a quick Google search, it looks like Heuer helped set up the defective and easily compromised SIPRNET databank than was easily hacked. According to a short google search, Heuer is a CIA veteran-turned-consultant and author of Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. After 9/11, SIPRNET apparently was part of a move from "stove-piping" to "net-centric" warfare championed by Donald Rumsfeld. Heuer had developed an earlier Automated Briefing System for the intelligence community...which didn't prevent the 9/11 attacks, obviously.

When I tried to find the SIPRNET via google, I got this URL:

http://www.rjhresearch.com.

And this message:

This site is no longer active.

The Customizable Security Guide and Adjudicative Desk Reference are now available for viewing or downloading from the PERSEREC website at www.dhra.mil/perserec. At this site, click on Products and then click on the product name.

The Automated Briefing System is also available at this site, but be aware that PERSEREC is no longer providing technical support to users of this product.

Questions regarding this site or these products should be directed to Richards Heuer by e-mail at richards.heuer.ctr@osd.pentagon.mil or telephone (831) 657-3008.

How much has the US spent on "cyber-security" since 9/11? And this is the result? One wonders: Did Heuer's company have a no-bid, sole-source contract to develop SIPRNET? How much did this system cost to develop and deploy? Can American taxpayers now get their money back?

Strange that critics of Wikileaks haven't focused on this issue. Incredible that the Wall Street Journal and Sarah Palin haven't used the scandal to attack the failed national security strategy of the Obama administration (no doubt Republican Secretary of Defense Robert Gates provides political cover).

But now, thanks to Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and Bradley Manning, the American public and media finally have done so.

And at least today the US government has shut down its expensive "net-centric" electronic database network...that no doubt provided similar data to American adversaries, competitors and enemies for years before Assange and Manning blew the whistle. America will be forced to re-think entirely its post-9/11 response...perhaps changing course in our response to Islamist extremist terrorism, just as the release of the Zimmerman Telegram changed American policy in World War I.

For that, Assange deserves thanks, rather than calumny.

President John F. Kennedy on Government Secrecy

From JFK's address to the American Newspaper Publisher's Association at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City on April 27, 1961:

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

I wish some American politician today at least talked like this, with regard to the Wikileaks story...

Daniel Ellsberg Defends Wikileaks

To the BBC.

30 November 2010 Last updated at 11:22 ET

Help

The man who leaked the Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam war in 1971, Daniel Ellsberg, has given his backing to Wikileaks.

Speaking to BBC World Service, Mr Ellsberg disagreed with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement that the latest leaks could endanger lives.

"That's a script that they role out every time there's a leak of any sort," he said.

It is not leaks, but "silences and lies" that put peoples' lives in danger, he believes.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Going on a Thanksgiving vacation, offline for a few days... Happy Thanksgiving to all our readers!

Bob Woodward: Secret Government Should Be Nation's Greatest Fear

From the Yale Daily News (ht FOIABlog):

lmost 40 years after renowned journalist and author Bob Woodward ’65 reported on the Watergate scandal that brought down Richard Nixon’s presidency, he warned the audience at a Law School panel Thursday that secret government should be the nation’s biggest fear.

Woodward was one of four members on a panel to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the the Freedom of Information Act’s passage in Connecticut. He and the other panelists, including Connecticut Mirror editor Michael Regan and Colleen Murphy, the executive director and general counsel of the state commission that administers FOIA, discussed the difficulties journalists face in obtaining information. The general consensus among the panel was that FOIA had not proven as useful as journalists had hoped.

Woodward started the discussion by sharing an anecdote about a FOIA request he made in the 1980s under the Reagan administration. Just last year, he said, he received heavily redacted copies of the documents he requested almost 30 years ago.

“Government is a closed shop,” Woodward said. “FOIA is one of the tools that should be used to open up government.”

Document of the Week: US State Department Telephone Directory

Thanks to a tweet from PetulantSage, here's a link to the November 15th US State Department Telephone Directory, on Box.Net.

IMHO, this is public information that should be posted on the US State Department's website's home page...

NGOs Banked Aid Donations While Haitians Died of Cholera

No surprise here. Not only is the UN possibly responsible for spreading cholera to Haiti, but NGOs are sitting on piles of unspent cash donated for Haitian relief, according to this oped by Georgianne Nienabe.

House Defeats Republican Move to Cut NPR

Cutting NPR was the top vote-getter on Republican House Whip Eric Cantor's "YouCut" website, I'm pleased to learn. Some people think this has something to do with Juan Williams' firing. I think it is unfinished business from the pre-Bush age...

Here's the story from Radio-Info.com:

Pulling federal funding from NPR, which fired Juan Williams last month, was the latest choice of the "YouCut" website, which lets online users vote on programs that should be cut. Virginia Republican Eric Cantor said "it is not the government's job to tell a news organization how to do its job. But what's equally certain is it should not be the taxpayers' responsibility to fund news organizations with a partisan point of view." The de-funding measure was defeated, 239 to 171. NPR quickly said that "Today, good judgment prevailed, as Congress rejected a move to assert government control over the content of news." It called the bill to prohibit public radio stations from using their CPB grant money to buy programming from NPR "an unwarranted attempted to interject federal authority into local station program decision making."

Let's see, the Republicans gained 61 seats in the 2012 election. If all the Republicans who voted to cut NPR today voted the same way in January, and all the new Republicans voted with them, that would give them 232 votes to cut NPR. There are 435 seats in the House of Representatives. If everyone voted, the next vote could be 232-203 to cut NPR funding.

Message of this vote: Republicans are within spitting distance of eliminating NPR funding (which would clearly reduce media pressure on Congress for increased spending, since it is essentially a DNC lobbying arm, and dominates the radio news business, crowding out possible competition).

Memo to Eric Cantor and the Republicans: If at first you don't succeed--try, try, again!

Swedish Diplomat: Haitian Cholera From Nepal

If true, it means that UN troops brought the cholera epidemic to Haiti--which has killed over 1,000 people so far...

From Haitinews.net:

A Swedish diplomat claimed Wednesday that Haiti's cholera outbreak originated in Nepal.

'Unfortunately that is the case. It has proved that the cholera came from Nepal,' Claes Hammar, Sweden's ambassador to Haiti, told daily Svenska Dagbladet.

Hammar, who visited Haiti two weeks ago, said the information came from 'a diplomatic source. It is 100 percent true. Tests were made and the source was traced to Nepal.'

ACLU Announces TSA Complaint Website

Here's a link to the ACLU online TSA complaint form:https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageNavigator/TSA_Travel_Complaint?JServSessionIdr004=hrq983kwn6.app224a.

From the ACLU's emailed announcement:

Dear ACLU Supporter,

Tell Secretary Napolitano to implement security measures that ensure passenger privacy.

Planning to fly this holiday season? You've probably already braced yourself for long lines, delays and extra fees just to check your luggage.

Unfortunately, you can also expect another hassle at the airport this year. 70 airports around the country are now using controversial body scanners—also known as "naked scanners." These machines use low-dose radiation to produce strikingly graphic images of passengers' bodies, essentially taking a naked picture as passengers pass through security checkpoints.

Yes, authorities at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) say you can opt out of the naked scan. But doing so will subject you to new and highly invasive manual searches of your body, including your breasts, buttocks and inner thighs.

All of us have a right to travel without such crude invasions of our privacy. Tell DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to put in place security measures that respect passengers' privacy rights.

The government is also violating travelers' privacy in another way: by searching and seizing the laptops and other electronic devices of international travelers. Never before in history have customs officers been able to routinely pour through a lifetime's worth of letters, photographs, purchase records and other data. This enormous invasion of privacy peers into people's lives in a way that has never been done before.

There's already an outcry building over all of these new searches. In fact, travelers and the ACLU have pushed back before against invasive screening, and the TSA quietly retreated back to a lighter touch. But if we want to stop these invasive practices, we've got to put our voices together.

Tell DHS to rein in these invasive, out-of-control searches and to implement security measures that ensure passenger privacy.

The ACLU has prepared a useful guide to help you navigate your options at the airport. It details ways to protect your privacy during air travel. It also describes how to file official complaints about any TSA trouble you encounter. View it here.

If you think your rights have been violated while you're traveling, please let us know about it. Just fill out this form online to share your story.

You shouldn't have to check your rights when you check your luggage. With the holiday travel season fast approaching, we need to make sure that security measures are in place that actually make us more secure without compromising passenger privacy.

Please write Secretary Napolitano today.

Thanks for speaking out,


Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
ACLU
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004

I was surprised Romero didn't make explicit reference to the Fourth Amendment from the Bill of Rights in his email. Sounds like the relevant text in this regard, so here it is:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The issues of reasonableness and of probable cause have been ignored, IMHO, because of political paranoia about charges of Islamophobia--with the result that worse injustice has been done to a larger population, the violation of the Fourth Amendment by treatment of ordinary citizens as potential criminals. Unreasonable searches and seizures, without probable cause, have become routine, as a result.

I hope the ACLU litigates this matter on behalf of ordinary airline passengers, in order to end unwarranted police-state tactics by the federal government...

Bottom Line for the TSA, and I hope ACLU: Reasonable search and seizure with probable cause: OK. Unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause: NOT.

UPDATE: More reaction from Tools of Renewal:

I am writing this because I just read about John Tyner’s TSA experience. He refused to have his genitals grabbed by TSA screeners, and they forced him to miss a flight. They even manufactured a bogus lawsuit threat, ordering him to leave the airport and then telling him he would be fined and sued if he obeyed. They acted the way threatened bureaucrats always act. The way the Founding Fathers had seen colonial bureaucrats act, prior to the Constitutional Congress.

One commenter on Tyner’s blog said he was making a big fuss over a brief grope. Here is what another commenter said: “Anonymous 3:22: it probably seemed excessive for Rosa Parks to risk arrest over a bus seat.”

Exactly. I guarantee you, there were people who said Rosa Parks was crazy. All she had to do was sit in the back of the bus. She would have arrived at her destination at the same time as the white people up front. She wasn’t even required to let a stranger feel her breasts. But she was right. Dignity matters. A good deal of the Bill of Rights exists purely to protect our dignity. And dignity is exactly what we gave up when we agreed to be photographed naked and allow TSA agents to handle our children’s crotches.

Ask yourself if George Washington would have let the TSA feel up Martha.

Liberals like to tell us “slippery slope” arguments are nonsense, but of course, that’s wrong. The Jews in Germany and Austria lost their rights incrementally. We went from a modest Social Security system to a bankrupt socialist ponzi scheme incrementally. The “slippery slope” concept exists because it has been proven right, time and again. We are seeing it now, in our airports. If you will let a stranger palm your wife’s crotch, what exactly would it take to offend you?

Just blow me up. Really. Kill me. Today. How bad can death be? I am not that scared of it. I ride motorcycles. I’ve flown in private planes. The other day I ate tomato sauce from a dubious can, just because I didn’t want to drive to the store. I’m not that scared of death. A low risk of death is preferable to certain repeated humiliation.

If you think things are bad now, wait until the first rectum bomb goes off on a plane. I guarantee you, most Americans will gladly submit to random rectal exams. When we reach that point, consider me grounded. Eventually, you have to put a firm price on your dignity. I don’t like the idea of being molested just so I can have a short vacation, and when they reach the stage where they’re looking inside anuses and vaginas, there will be no destination I consider sufficiently tempting. Seriously, if I offered you a ticket to California in exchange for letting me sodomize you, would you go for it?

I’ve always been like this. When I was in college, I thought fraternities were disgusting because they made young men strip naked and perform in gay rites.

I can’t wait to see what the next “necessary” violation will be. I don’t think Americans have the guts to stand up to the TSA, so I think the abusive searches will continue, and that will encourage the government, and they’ll go ahead and make things worse.

John Tyner is an inspiration. I don’t have a tenth of the character he has. People like John Tyner are our only hope of an acceptable quality of life in the future. Let the commenters criticize him. Capos criticized people who resisted the Nazis, and history passed judgment. History will be very kind to our John Tyners. It always has.

And from PopeHat.com:

The proponents of the Security State — and the people who make their living from it — think just shut up and obey. Take the blogger Mom vs. the World, a former TSA agent. Even though she questions the value of the scanners, and even though she thinks the enhanced pat-downs are bullshit, she remains captured by the TSA mindset. Her view of the proper relationship between the state and the citizen is typified by her post Shut Up And Get In The Scanner. Aside from asserting, basically, that what should really embarrass us is not being scanned or groped, but the fact that we’re a pack of quarreling, vibrator-carrying, trash-dressing, child-abusing trailer trash, she offers this:

Flying is a privilege not a right. As such, it can be and is regulated. Requirements can and are set up to ensure that everyone who flies is safe. If you don’t like it, then don’t fly. You may not be as concerned as the next guy about the safety or you may be more concerned. Point is the job of TSA is to ensure the entire traveling public is safe not just you. TSA officers don’t care what you as an individual want, they can’t, it just isn’t possible. You may be ok with lax security but what about the next passenger who wants thorough security?

Your right to privacy isn’t being violated at all. You always have the option to drive a car, take a train, grab the bus or start rowing a boat. You do not have to fly, you just want to fly. The minute you decide you want to fly then you have to accept that security is involved and you are going to have consent and submit to it period the end.

Now if you want to fly, suck it up and accept that you have to submit to the security procedures. Yes you think they are stupid or unnecessary but TSA officers and TSA don’t care what you think. They try to make it all warm and fuzzy but they can’t because it is security not a trip to Disney World. Shut up and get in the scanner or don’t fly.

Well, “Mom”, if flying is a “privilege, not a right,” it’s because over the last century we have gradually accepted the proposition that anything the government tells us it can regulate, it can regulate. Unlike “Mom”, Justice Stewart knows a right when he sees it: “The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.” Of course, rights are subject to limitations. Should the right to travel be limited by forced subservience to groping for purposes of Security Theater?

Now, I’m not saying that Mom is herself a perverted thug, like the people she’s saying we should just obey. I’m saying that she’s a sneering, entitled apologist for perverted thugs — and for the canine, un-American value of slobbery submission to the state. Even though she concedes that the groping is retaliatory bullshit, and even though she has no basis to assert that Security Theater actually increases real security, she’s deeply resentful that people are not putting up with it. Her righteous anger — like the anger of of the TSA thugs groping just a little bit harder to punish you for saying no to the body scanner — is the result we should expect from the small-time thugs whose identity is tied up in their petty authority.

Throughout my career — both as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney — I’ve observed a consistent inverse relationship: the more petty a government officer’s authority, the more that officer will feel a need to swagger and demand that you RESPECT HIS AUTHORITAH. Your average FBI agent might search your house based on a crappy perjured warrant, invade your attorney-client emails, and flush your life down the toilet by lying on the stand at your mail fraud trial. But he doesn’t feel a need to vogue and posture to prove anything in the process. He’s the FBI. But God above help you when you run into the guy with a badge from some obscure and puny government agency with a narrow fiefdom. He and his Napoleon syndrome have got something to prove. And he’s terrified that you’ll not take him very, very seriously. When I call FBI agents on behalf of my clients, they’re cool but professional and nonchalant. When I call a small agency — say, state Fish & Game, or one of the minor agency Inspector Generals — they’re hostile, belligerent, and so comically suspicious that you’d think I was asking for their permission to let my client smuggle heroin into the country in the anuses of handicapped Christian missionary orphans. They are infuriated, OUTRAGED, when a client asserts rights, when a client fails to genuflect and display unquestioning obedience. They are, in short, the TSA.

The media is trying out the story-of-the-week that the populace is revolting against the TSA, and against Security Theater. It might even be a little bit true.

It’s about godammed time.

Israeli Expert: TSA Full-Body Scanners "Useless"

Israeli airline security expert Rafi Sela testified in Canada against full-body scanners (ht Ann Coulter):

"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747," Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.

"That's why we haven't put them in our airport," Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.

Sela, former chief security officer of the Israel Airport Authority and a 30-year veteran in airport security and defence technology, helped design the security at Ben Gurion.

He told MPs on the House of Commons transport committee via video conference from Kfar Vradim, Israel, that he wouldn't reveal how to get past the virtual strip-search scanners, but said he can provide briefings to officials with security clearance.

Canada this year bought 44 body scanners for major Canadian airports -- three of them for Vancouver International. Each machine cost $250,000 and is being use for secondary screening to detect non-metallic threats, unless the passenger prefers a physical pat-down.

CATSA, the Canadian agency in charge of screening airline passengers, declined to provide comment on Sela's analysis.

Junior Transport Minister Rob Merrifield, who is responsible for the agency, defended the $11-million investment in the machines.

"Full-body scanners are used by dozens of countries around the world and are considered one of the most effective methods of screening," Merrifield said in a statement.

Sela testified it makes more sense to create a "trusted traveller" system so pre-approved low-risk passengers can move through an expedited screening process. That would leave more resources in the screening areas, where automatic sniffing technology would detect any explosive residue on a person or their baggage.

Behavioural profiling also must be used instead of random checks, he said.

BTW, when I last flew to Israel, not only did I not go through a full-body scan, I didn't even have to take off my shoes. On the other hand, they did ask me a few questions...

WSJ: Save Election Day!

From Eliot Cutler's op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal:

Finally, I am convinced that we lose something intangible but important when we make voting just another item on our fall to-do list.

As I greeted voters at polling stations around Maine on Election Day, I saw countless sons and daughters casting their first votes, proudly accompanied by their parents. Squeezing into the booths with elders, younger children learn a civics lesson that no book can teach.

The act of voting together on Election Day has represented an important affirmation of democracy and citizenship since the earliest days of our nation. However inconvenient, standing in line to vote reminds us that our democracy is a shared enterprise and that, no matter our individual circumstances, every person in line has just one vote.

Jack Matlock's Blog

I leafed through Jack Matlock's latest book, Superpower Illusions: How Myths and False Ideologies Led America Astray--And How to Return to Reality, about Russian-American relations, in Politics & Prose yesterday--he had been President Reagan's ambassador to Moscow--and thought it looked interesting.

What Matlock has to say about the failure of the Bush administration's "unipolar" strategy made some sense to me. Likewise, his critique of Clinton's war on the former Yugoslavia and other adventures. Also, his interpretation that Russians believe that Russians dismantled Communism, perhaps with American pressure, rather than surrendered to the US, also makes sense. So, it was interesting to see that he has a blog of his own, here: http://jackmatlock.com/here-now/.

Here's Matlock's own summary of his latest book, from his blog:

Superpower Illusions:
How Myths and False Ideologies Led America Astray—And How to Return to Reality

by Jack F. Matlock, Jr.

Summary Argument

Myths about the way the Cold War ended, along with ideologies divorced from reality led America into a series of blunders that drained its power and increased the dangers to its national security.

Myth #1: The Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

NO! It ended well before the Soviet Union broke up.

Myth #2: Military and economic pressure destroyed Communist rule in the USSR.

NO! Mikhail Gorbachev undermined the Party’s control of the country because it was blocking the reforms he considered necessary.


Myth #3: The USSR collapsed under pressure from the United States and its allies.

NO! Internal contradictions caused its collapse, not external pressure.

These myths stem from a tendency to conflate three geopolitically seismic events which were separate, though connected:

(1) The end of the Cold War (1988-89)

(2) Weakening of Communist Party control of the USSR (1989-91)

(3) Break-up of the Soviet Union (December, 1991)

The Cold War ended peacefully, by negotiation, on terms that were in the interest of a reforming Soviet Union. President Reagan had defined the terms of settlement on the basis of common interests. In time, Gorbachev accepted his agenda, since it was in the Soviet interest. As Gorbachev subsequently observed, “We all won the Cold War.”

The end of the arms race permitted Gorbachev to concentrate on reform at home, which in turn led to his ending the Communist Party’s monopoly of power, using contested elections as a major tool. President Reagan recognized, and stated publicly, that Gorbachev’s Soviet Union was no longer an “evil empire.”

While the United States supported the restoration of independence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, it favored Gorbachev’s effort to create a voluntary federation of the remaining twelve union republics. The break-up of the USSR, caused by internal factors, was a defeat for American policy, not a victory.

Myth #4: Russia was defeated in the Cold War.

NO! Today’s Russian Federation was not a party to the Cold War. It was part of a Communist-ruled empire. Its elected leaders in 1990 and 1991 were strongly pro-Western and aspired to replace communist with democratic values.

Myth #5: The Cold War should be considered World War III.

NO WAY! “Cold War” is a metaphor, not the real thing. There was never any direct combat between the United States and its allies with the Soviet Union. If there had been, we would probably not be here today to write about it.

The myths are also connected with the mistaken notion of “superpower.” The United States and the USSR were considered superpowers because they had the means to destroy the world. They were not superpowers in the sense that they could change the world using their superior military power. The end of the Cold War diminished American power since much had derived from its ability to defend countries against Communist aggression and infiltration. The world did not suddenly become “unipolar;” there was not even a “unipolar moment.” (So far as the power to destroy the world is concerned, the United States and Russia both still have that capability with their nuclear arsenals.)

While not a superpower in the sense that it could successfully rule other countries, the United States emerged from the Cold War the pre-eminent power in the world. It had the opportunity to create a safer world by strengthening international structures to deal with local conflicts, failed states, organized crime, and the threat of terrorism. It had the opportunity to reduce its military commitments abroad (there was no longer a Soviet Union to contain) and to accelerate the destruction of nuclear weapons started by Reagan, Bush I, and Gorbachev. Nevertheless, the Clinton administration, lacking a coherent strategy, was drawn into local conflicts not vital to U.S. security and without UN Security Council authority. It failed to bring Russia into the European security structure as a responsible partner but treated it as a defeated nation, thus undermining the prospects for democracy and full cooperation in dealing with global issues.

If the Clinton administration missed opportunities, the Bush-Cheney administration destroyed them. Having ignored warnings of an impending terrorist attack on the United States—which could and should have been prevented—it invaded Iraq without adequate cause or international sanction, ignored or withdrew from treaty commitments, stalled verified nuclear arms reductions, and took a series of actions that encouraged rather than deterred nuclear weapons proliferation. It is ironic that a president who professed to admire President Reagan followed policies that were often the opposite of his, both in substance and in execution.

Myths about the Cold War and its end combined with theories taken to logical but unrealistic extremes undermined America’s strength at home. Market fundamentalism ruled the day and the loosening of controls on banks and financial markets contributed to the sub-prime bubble and a near collapse of the financial system in 2008. Tax cuts despite two wars produced an unprecedented budget deficit and the country as a whole began to live beyond its means, even as education and infrastructure were allowed to deteriorate. The United States became the world’s largest debtor.

Meanwhile what passed for political debate was reduced to distorted slogans. The very meaning of many terms came under assault. There is nothing “conservative” about running large budget deficits, invading countries that are no direct and imminent threat, and exaggerating and sometimes fabricating intelligence reports, yet political spinmasters convinced a significant portion of the public that radical, high-risk, arguably illegal policies were “conservative.” In fact, foreign policy cannot be calibrated on a “conservative-liberal” scale, and neither can many domestic issues.

The Obama administration has made a start, turning the ship of state toward a more constructive course. The book makes illustrative suggestions regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea, relations with Russia, nuclear arms reduction, missile defense, and the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Though President Obama has, in general, set a moderate course of change, obstacles both abroad and at home are substantial. He still must deal with damage to the nation inherited from past administrations and overcome entrenched special interests—some in his own administration–that resist change.

Melanie Sloan: Obama Administration Must Do More to Lift Government Secrecy

Melanie Sloan

Yesterday, I attended an interesting panel discussion about National Security and Open Government at the Carnegie Institution, sponsored by the American Constitution Society (sort of a liberal Federalist Society). Among the speakers was Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Her comments have been posted on the ACS website. An excerpt of her criticism of Obama administration failures to make records available to the public--or to keep emails properly stored and inventoried:

All of this sounds great and we applaud the president for his clear desire to create a more open government. Still, it all hasn't gone quite as planned. Based on our own experiences and those of some of our colleagues in the transparency community, government openness, has not necessarily been remarkably better under the Obama administration than it was under the Bush administration. CREW conducted a survey of FOIA officers to discover their perceptions of whether information is more freely and easily disseminated. Overwhelmingly, the answer is no. First, FOIA offices do not have adequate resources to handle the volume of requests they get. Officers also report a lack of training and political interference. The new chief FOIA officers, intended to bring more accountability to the agency FOIA process, were described by one survey respondent as a "useless position filled by someone who is already wearing too many managerial hats."

Another major problem confronting the administration is the preservation of records. Record keeping laws are not keeping pace with technology. Electronic records seem to routinely become lost. For example, the Department of Justice was unable to locate many of torture memo author John Yoo's e-mails - were they deliberately deleted or just lost - it is difficult to know.

E-mails are probably some of the most important records for uncovering the truth. While surely, some are just junk - planning lunch or passing jokes, they can also include unguarded truths. Though we all know e-mails are forever and can come back to haunt us - we have Jack Abramoff as exhibit 1 - somehow, we generally still treat them like phone conversations and do not consider they may one day become public. As a result, a trove of information may be contained in these documents and one day, someone may uncover and view an e-mail from a top ranking Obama administration official with as much interest as we view Lincoln's letter to his general today.

Beth Noveck

BTW, the event was moderated by NY Times Supreme Court reporter (and former corporate lawyer) Adam Liptak. I haven't seen a word about the event in his paper, where keynote speaker Beth Noveck, Director of the White House Open Government Inititative, in Liptak's own words, was "disparaging about FOIA." Liptak added: "I don't know any journalist who has ever gotten anything valuable under FOIA, particularly because it takes so long." Yet nothing about this dissing of FOIA by the Obama administration, to a conference of Open Government advocates no less, was reported in the NY Times--by Liptak or anyone else...

What did Noveck say? Bender's Immigration Bulletin has this account:

FOIA? Nah, I've got Beth Noveck on speed dial!
"The White House's open government leader said Americans should not bother filing requests for government documents under the Freedom of Information Act and instead should contact open government officials at agencies who can post or e-mail the materials faster. ... A more effective way to obtain information would be to contact the designated open government officer at a particular agency -- or herself, Noveck said." NextGov, Nov. 15, 2010.

Federal News Radio story here. And here's an excerpt from the cited NextGov story by Aliya Silverstein:

Bypass FOIA and seek data from agencies, says Obama official
BY ALIYA STERNSTEIN 11/15/2010

The White House's open government leader said Americans should not bother filing requests for government documents under the Freedom of Information Act and instead should contact open government officials at agencies who can post or e-mail the materials faster.

Beth Noveck, deputy chief technology officer for open government, on Monday said the purpose of the Obama administration's transparency agenda is to institutionalize a culture in which agencies proactively release data so that disclosing government information is the default. She was addressing complaints about denials of FOIA requests at an event hosted by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, a liberal think tank. The talk centered on the conflict between national security and government transparency.

"Why are you writing to the lawyers? We all know it's going to take months and months. That's how FOIA works," said Noveck, who is on leave as a professor at New York Law School, where she researches intellectual property and constitutional law. "The manual nature of the process is so egregious . . . so burdensome." A more effective way to obtain information would be to contact the designated open government officer at a particular agency -- or herself, Noveck said.

For example, in response to public requests, the Patent and Trademark Office this summer partnered with Google to offer bulk downloads of patent materials, such as published applications, grants and assignments, as well as trademark documents, including registrations and applications.

But legal experts debating data disclosure disagreed with Noveck's advice about bypassing FOIA, arguing that the White House needs to expedite the process. "They should make FOIA work," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "You shouldn't have to go around [the process] and call Beth Noveck," she added, noting the general public probably does not know who she is...

BTW, I just googled Noveck's phone number and looked for it on the White House website and Open Government Initiative blog. So far as I can tell, Beth Noveck's phone number is unlisted.

For background on Noveck's world-view, her 2008 Democracy Journal article on "Wiki Government" can be found by clicking here.

UPDATE: ACS has posted this video recording of the event on its website:

Interesting Presentation on the Banking Crisis...

Found this interesting PPT analysis presented at the Darden Business School on my LinkedIn account, sent by a friend:

Understanding and Profiting from the Next Banking Crisis

.

Also, this interesting PPT from Niall Ferguson (ht Charles Crawford): http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/ferguson201005.pdf.

Eid Mubarak!

Happy Eid ul-Adha to our Muslim readers!

Document of the Week: Justice Department OSI Report on Nazis Working for US Government

Link from the New York Times, to full report as PDF file, here: http://documents.nytimes.com/confidential-report-provides-new-evidence-of-notorious-nazi-cases?ref=us#p=1.

From the NY Times story:

The 600-page report, which the Justice Department has tried to keep secret for four years, provides new evidence about more than two dozen of the most notorious Nazi cases of the last three decades.

IMHO, the real question is: Why the secrecy? Tom Lehrer wrote a satirical song about Werner von Braun in the 1960s, after all.

My guess is that it sets a precedent for disclosure of documents relating to Islamist extremist terrorists working for the US government, paid for by the US government, killing Americans and American allies while receiving US government subsidy--which, after 9/11, would be hard to explain to the American people.

Especially since, unlike Nazis, Islamist extremist terrorists haven't been defeated yet...

UPDATE: FOIABlog linked to this item from the Federation of American Scientists:

A side-by-side review of the leaked and the redacted versions compels the conclusion that the Department of Justice exceeded its authority to withhold information from the public, and violated the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. “Now that we can compare the redacted document with the complete text of the original report, it is clear that the Justice Department is withholding information without legal justification,” said attorney David Sobel, who represented the National Security Archive in its request for the document. “For an administration — and an Attorney General — supposedly committed to an ‘unprecedented’ level of transparency, this case provides a troubling example of how far the reality is from the rhetoric.”

More from the National Security Archive.

Your Tax Dollars At Work...

Official TSA video of airport security screening (ht Drudge)...

Good Opening Move...

From Politico.com:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Wednesday he intends to take commercial flights home when he moves up to speaker in the new Congress.

“Over the last 20 years, I have flown back and forth to my district on commercial aircraft, and I am going to continue to do that,” he told reporters.

Now, if Boehner could get those announced TSA airport "strip searches" cancelled...

Happy Diwali!

Washington Times: Election Was Obamacare Referendum

From today's Washington Times editorial:

The most odious aspects of Obamacare are yet to hit. The law was crafted so that the harsh provisions would kick in after the election, a failed attempt to insulate Democrats from voter backlash. Obamacare is not only bad law, it is the symbol of a broken system. The legislation was slapped together hurriedly and without adequate staff - or lawmaker - review. It became a grab bag of regulations and loopholes favoring Democratic-leaning special interests. Republican suggestions for reform were never given a hearing, and the GOP was unceremoniously shut out of the process. The bill was forced through the Congress in a riot of arm-twisting and secretive backroom deals. Few if any members of Congress read the bill before they voted on it. The American people were denied the transparency and open process Mr. Obama had promised during his campaign. Obamacare was the poster child for everything wrong with the contemporary legislative process. It is the fruit of a poisoned tree.

Saudi Leader Bashes Republican Congressional Victory

From the Washington Times:

A senior member of the Saudi royal family warned Thursday that Republican victories in this week's elections will encourage what he called "neoconservatives" and "warmongers" to push back against the Obama administration's peace initiative in the Middle East.

Observers said that Prince Turki al-Faisal, the kingdom's former intelligence head who also served as ambassador to the United States, was likely delivering a message on behalf of the Saudi government when he launched an outspoken attack on the supporters of Israel in Washington.

"Neocon advisers, American conservatives and Zionist extremists" promoted policies "that continually throw a wrench into the progress of peace," the prince told an audience at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

Quoting from an article by Robert Satloff, director of "the pro-Israeli" think tank Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Prince Turki characterized these policies as an opposition to the idea that an Israeli settlement freeze was vital; a call for the United States not to force Israel's hand to make concessions in the negotiations; and the conviction that a tough U.S. stand on Iran, including the possibility of military action, was an essential prerequisite for peace in the region.

President Obama's victory in 2008 encouraged many "to believe that the neocon movement had died, the victim of its own, failed delusional policies," he said. But he added that neoconservative ideas were "crawl[ing] from their grave of failure," and their proponents would be encouraged by the election results Tuesday, which gave Republicans control of the House and reduced the Democratic majority in the Senate by at least six seats.

"This recent election," the prince said, "will give more fodder for these warmongers to pursue their favorite exercise — war-making."

"I think these comments were out of line and not well received," David Pollock of the Washington Institute told The Washington Times. "If he really wants to promote Arab-Israeli peace," he added, "This is not the way to do it."

John Boehner's Republican Manifesto

From today's Wall Street Journal:

The political landscape has been permanently reshaped over the past two years. Overreaching by elected officials—in the form of pork-laden "stimulus" spending, permanent bailouts, and policies that force responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior—has awakened something deep in our national character. This has led to a surge of activism by citizens demanding smaller, more accountable government and a repudiation of Washington in Tuesday's elections.

Tired of politicians who refuse to listen, Americans who previously were not involved or minimally involved in the political process are now helping to drive it. While their backgrounds are as diverse as the country itself, their message to Washington is the same: Government leaders are servants of the people; the people are not servants of their government.

The members of the 112th Congress must heed this message if there is to be any hope of repairing the shattered bonds of trust between the American people and their elected leaders. And that begins with the speaker of the House, who as leader of the institution must lead by example.

Accordingly, there are several steps I believe the next speaker should be prepared to take immediately. Among them:

• No earmarks. Earmarks have become a symbol of a broken Washington, and an entire lobbying industry has been created around them. The speaker of the House shouldn't use the power of the office to raid the federal Treasury for pork-barrel projects. To the contrary, the speaker should be an advocate for ending the current earmark process, and should adhere to a personal no-earmarks policy that stands as an example for all members of Congress to follow.

I have maintained a no-earmarks policy throughout my time of service in Congress. I believe the House must adopt a moratorium on all earmarks as a signal of our commitment to ending business as usual in the spending process.

• Let Americans read bills before they are brought to a vote. The speaker of the House should not allow any bill to come to a vote that has not been posted publicly online for at least three days. Members of Congress and the American people must have the opportunity to read it.

Similarly, the speaker should insist that every bill include a clause citing where in the Constitution Congress is given the power to pass it. Bills that can't pass this test shouldn't get a vote. House Republicans' new governing agenda, "A Pledge to America," calls for the speaker to implement such reforms immediately.

• No more "comprehensive" bills. The next speaker should put an end to so-called comprehensive bills with thousands of pages of legislative text that make it easy to hide spending projects and job-killing policies. President Obama's massive "stimulus" and health-care bills, written behind closed doors with minimal public scrutiny, were the last straw for many Americans. The American people are not well-served by "comprehensive," and they are rightly suspicious of the adjective.

• No more bills written behind closed doors in the speaker's office. Bills should be written by legislators in committee in plain public view. Issues should be advanced one at a time, and the speaker should place an emphasis on smaller, more focused legislation that is properly scrutinized, constitutionally sound, and consistent with Americans' demand for a less-costly, less-intrusive government.

IMHO, Congressman Boehner might have added one additional promise:

That as incoming Speaker he will introduce a private member's bill to sell Nancy Pelosi's private jet, on the opening day of the new session of Congress in 2011, as HR 1. Such a move would have significant symbolic, as well as financial, value in providing a new direction for Congress.

Could the Health Care Bill Be Repealed?

CNBC says yes. It happened once before, with President Ronald Reagan's catastrophic coverage bill (IMHO a good bill that could be a model for a replacement, unfortunately a victim of partisan politics at the time):

IS THERE A PRECEDENT?

Yes. In June 1988 Republican President Ronald Reagan and the Democratic Congress passed the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, which was intended to fill gaps in coverage in the government insurance program for older Americans.

It was celebrated as a bipartisan success that would provide new medical benefits for the elderly. However, older Americans had to pay for it, in the form of an extra Medicare premium and a surtax for people over 65 with higher incomes. The tax led to a protest campaign and Congress, in another bipartisan vote, repealed it in 1989.

FOIABlog: What Do The Mid-Term Elections Mean For FOIA?

From FOIABlog:

Gazing into the crystal ball, one can see positive and negative fallout from the midterm elections that saw a change in leadership in the House of Representatives.

The positive is that there may be more oversight of the Executive Branch, which will include FOIA Operations. House Leadership may use their new powers to have actual hearings concerning FOIA Operations, especially in those agencies that view the twenty working day time to respond to FOIA requests as a guidepost, not a law. Agencies such as Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS" a component of the Department of Homeland Security) and FEMA (a component of the Department of Homeland Security) take yearsto respond to simple FOIA requests. The previous House Leadership failed to ask any questions about this practice, of course four years ago, when the new House Leaders were in power, they failed to use their oversight practice on FOIA Operations. However, this time, the President is in an opposition party so they may take the opportunity to tweak his administration for this failure (which started in many cases in the George W. Bush administration or earlier).

On a negative note, many FOIA Operations are clearly underfunded. With a large deficit, no one is going to be in the mood to increase spending for what many consider a discretionary practice (even though I fail to see how informing the public on what its government is doing is discretionary). So, I don't see the budgets of agency FOIA Operations increasing -- those agencies that are swamped will continue to have to get by with less, which is not a good thing for the agencies or requesters.

Finally, I don't see much FOIA legislation taking place. While there are a number of things that could be fixed in the current FOIA law, I don't foresee them taking place during the upcoming Congress. For instance, the current discretionary disclosure standard could, and should be put in the actual FOIA. However, the administration will say it is our policy (albeit without any statutory authority to get judicial review of whether an agency reviewed the documents for this purpose--it is my belief that many do not) and the new House Leadership, eyeing the White House in 2012 will want to preserve its next President's FOIA options--no matter what they say about their belief in transparency.

The most important FOIA venue in the next few months will be the Supreme Court, where a number of FOIA issues are pending, such as whether corporations have privacy under the FOIA's privacy exemptions (such as Exemption 7(C)). I believe Congress will react to these decisions rather than proactively moot those disputes.

What do the FOIA blog's readers think the new Congress will do?

Virginia Closes Borders to Proposed DC Raccoon Relocations

From the "they can't make this stuff up" department, this item from the Washington Examiner today:

Virginia won't accept the District's unwanted raccoons, opossums and other "nuisance" critters, calling into question key components of a D.C. Council bill designed to make life easier for pesky animals.

The legislation introduced by Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh sets new standards for the treatment of wild animals by the professionals hired to boot the critters out of homes received tentative approval from the full council last month. The new law would limit the tools wildlife managers can use to kill the beasts. In many cases it requires the animals to be kept alive and relocated "to safe location where nuisance problems are unlikely to occur."

But "since relatively few areas within the District of Columbia are likely to meet this definition, we are concerned that wildlife control operators may be inclined to transport the nuisance wildlife into Virginia for release," Robert Ellis, deputy director of the commonwealth's Bureau of Wildlife Resources, wrote this week in a letter addressed to Council Chairman Vince Gray.

If wildlife managers want to transport their catches across the Potomac River, they'll have to get special permission from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Ellis told The Washington Examiner that they won't receive permission.

"We really see no reason for them to bring these animals here," Ellis said. "We have our own nuisance animals, more than we can handle."

The term "nuisance animal" covers every animal imaginable, Ellis said, and it's simply illegal for any wild animal to be transported across state lines without permission.

Ellis said he sent the letter because "we wanted to make sure [the Council] is aware that Virginia won't be able to accept these animals."

In the letter Ellis suggested the Council adopt language specifically prohibiting exporting captured animals outside of the District, have the District Department of Environment clearly inform wildlife managers that transporting the animals across state lines is illegal.

Cheh did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday afternoon...

President Obama's Post-Election Press Conference

From WhiteHouse.gov:

Q    Is there anything in the “Pledge to America” that you think you can support?

THE PRESIDENT:  You know, I’m sure there are going to be areas, particularly around, for example, reforming how Washington works, that I’ll be interested in.  I think the American people want to see more transparency, more openness.  As I said, in the midst of economic crisis, I think one of the things I take responsibility for is not having pushed harder on some of those issues.  And I think if you take Republicans and Democrats at their word this is an area that they want to deliver on for the American people, I want to be supportive of that effort.

I'd like to see more transparency and openness, myself...