Archive for November, 2010

A Superpower’s View of the World

Monday, November 29th, 2010

By SPIEGEL Staff
Spiegel Online International

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and US President Barack Obama: Never before in history has a superpower lost control of such vast amounts of such sensitive information. (Getty Images)

251,000 State Department documents, many of them secret embassy reports from around the world, show how the US seeks to safeguard its influence around the world. It is nothing short of a political meltdown for US foreign policy.

What does the United States really think of German Chancellor Angela Merkel? Is she a reliable ally? Did she really make an effort to patch up relations with Washington that had been so damaged by her predecessor? At most, it was a half-hearted one.

The tone of trans-Atlantic relations may have improved, former US Ambassador to Germany William Timken wrote in a cable to the State Department at the end of 2006, but the chancellor “has not taken bold steps yet to improve the substantive content of the relationship.” That is not exactly high praise.

And the verdict on German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle? His thoughts “were short on substance,” wrote the current US ambassador in Berlin, Philip Murphy, in a cable. The reason, Murphy suggested, was that “Westerwelle’s command of complex foreign and security policy issues still requires deepening.”

Such comments are hardly friendly. But in the eyes of the American diplomatic corps, every actor is quickly categorized as a friend or foe. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? A friend: Abdullah can’t stand his neighbors in Iran and, expressing his disdain for the mullah regime, said, “there is no doubt something unstable about them.” And his ally, Sheikh bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi? Also a friend. He believes “a near term conventional war with Iran is clearly preferable to the long term consequences of a nuclear armed Iran.”

A time lapse of 251,287 documents: The world map shows where the majority of the cables originated from, and where they had the highest level of classification.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emissaries also learn of a special “Iran observer” in the Azerbaijani capital of Baku who reports on a dispute that played out during a meeting of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. An enraged Revolutionary Guard Chief of Staff Mohammed Ali Jafari allegedly got into a heated argument with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and slapped him in the face because the generally conservative president had, surprisingly, advocated freedom of the press.

A Political Meltdown

Such surprises from the annals of US diplomacy will dominate the headlines in the coming days when the New York Times, London’s Guardian, Paris’ Le Monde, Madrid’s El Pais and SPIEGEL begin shedding light on the treasure trove of secret documents from the State Department. Included are 243,270 diplomatic cables filed by US embassies to the State Department and 8,017 directives that the State Department sent to its diplomatic outposts around the world. In the coming days, the participating media will show in a series of investigative stories how America seeks to steer the world. The development is no less than a political meltdown for American foreign policy.

Never before in history has a superpower lost control of such vast amounts of such sensitive information — data that can help paint a picture of the foundation upon which US foreign policy is built. Never before has the trust America’s partners have in the country been as badly shaken. Now, their own personal views and policy recommendations have been made public — as have America’s true views of them.

Continue reading at Spiegel Online International

Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano discuss TSA abuse on Freedom Watch

Friday, November 26th, 2010

My TSA Encounter

Friday, November 26th, 2010

By Matt Kernan
NO BLASTERS!

“You don’t need to see his identification.”

On November 21, 2010, I was allowed to enter the U.S. through an airport security checkpoint without being x-rayed or touched by a TSA officer. This post explains how.

Edit: For the sake of brevity, most of the quotes below are paraphrases. I have uploaded the actual audio and it is available here.

This past Sunday, I was returning from a trip to Europe. I flew from Paris to Cincinnati, landing in Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport.

As I got off my flight, I did all of the things that are normally requested from U.S. citizens returning from abroad. I filled out the customs declarations, confirmed that I hadn’t set foot on any farmland, and answered questions about the chocolates that I had purchased in Switzerland. While I don’t believe that these questions are necessary, I don’t mind answering them if it means some added security. They aren’t particularly intrusive. My passport was stamped, and I moved through customs a happy citizen returning home.

But wait – here was a second line to wait in.

This new line led to a TSA security checkpoint. You see, it is official TSA policy that people (both citizens and non-citizens alike) from international flights are screened as they enter the airport, despite the fact that they have already flown. Even before the new controversial security measures were put in place, I found this practice annoying. But now, as I looked past the 25 people waiting to get into their own country, I saw it: the dreaded Backscatter imaging machine.

Now, I’ve read a fair amount about the controversy surrounding the new TSA policies. I certainly don’t enjoy being treated like a terrorist in my own country, but I’m also not a die-hard constitutional rights advocate. However, for some reason, I was irked. Maybe it was the video of the 3-year old getting molested, maybe it was the sexual assault victim having to cry her way through getting groped, maybe it was the father watching teenage TSA officers joke about his attractive daughter. Whatever it was, this issue didn’t sit right with me. We shouldn’t be required to do this simply to get into our own country.

So, since I had nobody waiting for me at home and no connecting flight to catch, I had some free time. I decided to test my rights.

After putting all my stuff through the x-ray, I was asked to go through the Backscatter. I politely said that I didn’t want to. The technician quipped to his colleague, “We’ve got an opt-out.” They laughed. He turned back and started to explain.

After he finished, I said, “I understand what the pat-down entails, but I wanted to let you know that I do not give you permission to touch my genitals or the surrounding area. If you do, I will consider it assault.”

He called his manager over, who again informed me of the policy. Throughout this event, this happened quite a few times. After raising my concerns regarding the policy to an officer, they often simply quoted back the policy. For the sake of brevity, I will simply say “Policy restatement.”

I said, “I am aware that it is policy, but I disagree with the policy, and I think that it is unconstitutional. As a U.S. citizen, I have the right to move freely within my country as long as I can demonstrate proof of citizenship and have demonstrated no reasonable cause to be detained.”

Policy restatement. “You have two options – the Backscatter or the pat down. It is your choice, but those are the only ways you can go through security.”

I asked if I could speak to his manager.

“I’m the supervisor here.”

“Do you have a manager?”

“Yes, but he’s very far away at the moment. And he’ll say the same thing I am.” Policy restatement.

At this point, I took out my iPhone, activated the voice recorder, and asked The Supervisor, “Per my constitutional rights, I am not allowed to be detained without reasonable cause for arrest. Now, am I free to go?”

He answered, “If you leave, we will call the APD.”

I asked, “Who is the APD?”

“The Airport Police Department.”

I said, “Actually, that’s probably a good idea. Let’s call them and your manager.”

The Supervisor turned and walked away without saying anything. I stood and waited, chatting to The Technician about how they aren’t allowed to wear radiation badges, even though they work with radiation equipment. He said, “I think I’m a couple steps ahead of you regarding looking out for my own health.”

I stood and waited for 20 minutes. Two cops showed up. Big ones. I admit, I did not want to be handcuffed by these guys.

One cop was older than the other, but they were still clearly partners. Neither of them took the lead on answering my questions, and neither of them told the other what to do. They came over to me and asked me to explain the issue. I first showed them the iPhone. After I explained my position, they restated the policy to me.

I said, “Yes sir. I understand the policy, but I still disagree and I still don’t think that I can be made to do these searches in order to go home. Now am I free to go?”

They didn’t answer.

I repeated the question. “Since you are actual police officers and not simply TSA, I am sure you have had much more training on my rights as a U.S. citizen, so you understand what is at stake here. So, am I free to go? Or am I being detained?”

Young Cop answers, “You aren’t being detained, but you can’t go through there.”

“Isn’t that what detaining is? Preventing me from leaving?”

“You can leave if you want, but it has to be that direction.” He points back towards customs. Young Cop asks, “Why are you doing this?”

I explain that I’m worried that the Backscatter has unproven health risks. And that for all he knows, I might be a sexual assault victim and don’t feel like being touched. I say that the policy is needlessly invasive and it doesn’t provide any added security.

He asks, “But didn’t you go through this when you left on your flight?”

“Yes,” I say, grinning, “But I didn’t want to miss my flight then.”

The cops leave, and I stand around and wait some more. It should be noted that throughout this time, no fewer than 10 TSA officers and technicians are standing around, watching me. I was literally the only one still waiting to go through security.

The cops, The TSA Supervisor, and another guy were standing behind the checkpoint deliberating about something. I explained this to my iPhone and The Supervisor shouted, “Does that thing have video?”

“No sir. Just audio.” I was telling the truth – I’m still on an iPhone 3G.

After a while, Young Cop comes and asks me for my papers. My passport, my boarding pass, my driver’s license, and even a business card. I give him everything except the business card. He told me that he was just gathering information for the police report, which is standard procedure. I complied – I knew that this was indeed standard.

He left, and a Delta Airlines manager comes over and starts talking to me. He is clearly acting as a mediator. He asks what I would consent to, if given my options. I explain that I want the least intrusive possible solution that is required. I say, “I will not do anything that is not explicitly stated on recording as mandatory.” He leaves.

Let me pause and clarify the actors’ moods here, because they will soon start to change:

* The Supervisor: Very standoffish. Sticking to policy, no exceptions.
* The TSA Officials: Mainly amused. Not very concerned otherwise.
* The Cops: Impartial observers and consultants. Possibly a bit frustrated that I’m creating the troubles, but being very professional and respectful regardless.
* The Delta Supervisor: Trying to help me see the light. He doesn’t mind the work – he’s here all day anyway, so he’d rather spend it ensuring that his customer is happy.

After another wait, Old Cop returns, and asks me what I want. I tell him, “I want to go home without going through the Backscatter and without having my genitals touched. Those are my only two conditions. I will strip naked here if that is what it takes, but I don’t want to be touched.”

He offers as an alternative, “What if we were to escort you out with us? It would involve a pat-down, but it would be us doing it instead.”

“Would you touch my balls?”

“I don’t want to touch your – genital region, but my hand might brush against it.”

I clarify, “Well, like I said, I’ll do whatever you say is mandatory. If you tell me that you have to touch my balls—“

“—I said no such thing. You’re putting words in my mouth.”

“OK. I apologize. If you say that a pat-down is mandatory, and that as a condition of that pat-down, I may have my genitals brushed against by your hand, even though you don’t want to, I will do that. But only if you say it is mandatory.”

“I’m not going to say that.”

“OK. So am I free to go?”

“You are free to go in that direction.” He points back towards customs. Then he walks away to commune with the others.

My iPhone is running out of battery, so I take out my laptop, sit in a corner, and plug it in. I have some work to do anyway, so I pull up Excel and start chugging away for about 20 minutes.

This is where the turning point happens.

The cops come back and start talking with me. Again, they are asking why I’m doing it, don’t I have a connection to make, etc. They are acting more curious at this point – no longer trying to find a contradiction in my logic.

I eventually ask what would happen if I got up and left, and just walked through security. They shrugged. “We wouldn’t do anything on our own. We are only acting on behalf of the TSA. They are in charge of this area.”

“So if he told you to arrest me, you would? And if he didn’t, you wouldn’t?”

“That’s right,” Young Cop says.

“OK well then I think it is best if we all talk together as a group now. Can you call them over?”

The Supervisor returns, along with the Delta Manager. The Supervisor is quite visibly frustrated.

I explain, “The police have explained to me that it is your call on whether or not I am being detained. If I walked through that metal detector right now, you would have to ask them to arrest me in order for them to do anything.”

He starts to defer responsibility to the officers. They emphasize that no – they have no issue with me and they are only acting on his behalf. It is his jurisdiction. It is policy. They won’t detain me unless he tells them to.

So I emphasize the iPhone again, and ask,” So, if I were to get up, walk through the metal detector, and not have it go off, would you still have them arrest me?”

The Supervisor answers, “I can’t answer that question. That is no longer an option because you were selected for the Backscatter.”

“Well you can answer the question because it is a yes or no question. If I got up and left, would you have them arrest me?”

“I can’t answer that question.”

The moods have changed. The cops are now frustrated with him because he’s pawning off his decision-making responsibility to them. He’s stopping what is clearly a logical solution to the problem. Meanwhile, the Supervisor is just growing more and more furious with me.

In another deferment of responsibility (which he probably thought was an intimidation factor), “Well then I guess I’m just going to have to call the FSD.”

Unfazed, I ask, “What’s the FSD?”

“The Federal Security Director.” And he walks away.

I can see him talking on the phone to the FSD – a man apparently named Paul – and I can only catch parts of the conversation:

* “No, he’s been perfectly polite…”
* “We tried that…”
* “All he said was … Constitutional rights”

He walks over to Old Cop and hands him the phone. I can hear similar sound bites. They hang up, deliberate some more, and then wait some more.

Meanwhile, I’m typing away on my computer. Answering emails, working on my Excel model – things that I would have done at home regardless.

The Supervisor walks over and stands uncomfortably close to me. After typing for a bit more, I look up. His voice shakes, “I don’t know if I ever introduced myself.” He pulls out his badge. “My name is XXX XXX. Here is my badge. Now, I’ve shown you my credentials.”

Ah – he’s gotten the Miranda talk. I hide my smile.

“Here’s what we’re going to do. I’m going to escort you out of the terminal to the public area. You are to stay with me at all times. Do you understand?”

“Will I be touched?”

“I can’t guarantee that, but I am going to escort you out.”

“OK. I will do this. But I will restate that I still do not give you permission to touch my genitals or the surrounding area. If you do, I will still consider it assault.”

“I understand.”

And then came the most ridiculous scene of which I’ve ever been a part. I gather my things – jacket, scarf, hat, briefcase, chocolates. We walk over to the staff entrance and he scans his badge to let me through. We walk down the long hallway that led back to the baggage claim area. We skip the escalators and moving walkways. As we walk, there are TSA officials stationed at apparent checkpoints along the route. As we pass them, they form part of the circle that is around me. By the end of the walk, I count 13 TSA officials and 2 uniformed police officers forming a circle around me. We reach the baggage claim area, and everyone stops at the orange line. The Supervisor grunts, “Have a nice day,” and leaves.

In order to enter the USA, I was never touched, I was never “Backscatted,” and I was never metal detected. In the end, it took 2.5 hours, but I proved that it is possible. I’m looking forward to my next flight on Wednesday.

Congressional Briefs: Black Farmers, Tax Cuts, John Lewis, War

Wednesday, November 24th, 2010

By Staff – Redding News Review

ATLANTA, Nov. 22, 2010, Midnight –

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, released the following statement after Senate passage of the Pigford/Cobell settlement for Black farmers and Native American trust account holders:
“For far too long justice has been delayed, and thus denied, for African American farmers and Native American trust holders. Today’s action by the Senate brings us one step closer to settling two great injustices that have tragically lingered for decades.

“I urge my colleagues”, Lee continued, “in the House of Representatives to act swiftly to bring closure for the many Black farmers who lost their farms due to racial bias and Native Americans disadvantaged by the federal government’s mismanagement of funds.

Cummings Backs Extending Tax Cuts For All

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (MD-07), a senior member of the Joint Economic Committee, signed on to a letter sent by more than three dozen Members of the House of Representatives, urging Speaker Nancy Pelosi to create a permanent tax cut for all Americans, while allowing the Republican Ambush Tax increase to continue for those making more than 98 percent of the country.

“The tax increase created by Republicans ten years ago, designed to ambush us at the end of this year, cannot be allowed to take place,” said Cummings. “The middle class has suffered too much over the past decade. Wages have stagnated, the middle class has gotten smaller than ever, and repairing the damage while unemployment is near ten percent will be incredibly difficult. We will start the healing by giving all Americans a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income. Everyone in America will see lower taxes than those proposed under the Ambush Tax created by Republicans in 2001 and 2003.

“After exploding the deficit with tax breaks that gave untold millions to the richest of the rich, Republicans designed the tax to ambush Americans by increasing tax rates all at once, rather than incrementally. We must make tough choices in these hard economic times. We must cut our spending, while at the same time restoring revenue to our national Treasury. However, that revenue should not be harvested from the stagnant and broken middle class, while the rich have benefitted so much, for so long, and weathered the economic downturn relatively unscathed.

“Along with my colleagues, I call on Speaker Pelosi to create a tax break for all Americans, keeping in place the lower tax rates that currently apply to all Americans on the first $250,000 of our income. Rich or poor, Black or White, worker or employer; all Americans will be able to reap the benefits of these cuts continuing. Meanwhile, the tax rates for only the upper two percent of earners will return to the rates under President Clinton, when America saw some of her greatest economic gains. I often say we can do better than we are, and this compromise, benefitting all Americans, is the way we can do better than the Ambush Tax increase left to us by Republicans like John Boehner and Eric Cantor.”

CBC Chair Applauds Congressman John Lewis

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, released the following statement on President Barack Obama awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to 15 recipients, including Rep. John Lewis:
“As Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, it gives me great pleasure to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award for receiving our nation’s highest civilian honor.
“I would especially like to congratulate Congressman John Lewis for receiving this prestigious award. Throughout his life, from his days as a foot-soldier for freedom during the Civil Rights Movement in the segregated South to walking the marbled halls of Capitol Hill, Congressman Lewis has dedicated himself to protecting human rights, securing civil liberties, and building a better America of equal opportunities for all.
“Congressman Lewis has been an effective public servant with an unyielding commitment to fairness and equality, and one whose life work has been to create a more perfect union. The Congressional Black Caucus honors and salutes Congressman Lewis for his legacy of service to the residents of Georgia’s 5th Congressional District and to all citizens of the world.”

Congresswoman Lee Opposes Extension of Counterproductive Afghan War

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) issued the following statement in response to reports that the Obama Administration will propose a 2014 timeline for transitioning U.S. and NATO security responsibilities in Afghanistan at the NATO Lisbon Summit scheduled for Nov. 19 – 20, 2010:

“I am deeply opposed to any action that would prolong the military occupation of Afghanistan,” said Lee. “The President’s proposal would delay the exit of U.S. troops by three more years. Where does it end?

“The war in Afghanistan is already the longest war in American history.

“A military solution in Afghanistan is neither feasible, affordable, or in the national security interest of the United States.

“Yet the Pentagon’s response to this situation is predictably the same- a request for more time and more resources.

“The Karzai government is corrupt as ever and the reality is that our mission to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people is unattainable in this environment.

“Our men and women in uniform have performed with incredible courage and commitment – but they have been put in an impossible situation.”

“I will continue to push for a clear exit strategy and timeline for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops and military contractors in Afghanistan.

“We must end this war now.”

Cummings Decries Republican Attacks On Bipartisanship

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (MD-07), a senior member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, called on Minority Leader John Boehner to recognize the need for true progress toward government reform and transparency in the 112th Congress, and to end the Republican strategy of misleading the American people.

This request came after a meeting scheduled between Congressional Republicans and the President of the United States was postponed by Republican leadership. According to Politico, “[S]taffers have been warning the White House not to assume the invitation had been accepted.”

“When the President calls and asks a member of Congress to meet at the White House, you go,” said Cummings. “You put down everything else, you cancel all your other appointments, and you go. This is the leader of the free world and the Commander in Chief of our nation. You do not say, ‘let’s reschedule.’”

The postponement came just days after President Obama committed to bipartisanship by saying, “In the days and weeks to come, I look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to not only end earmark spending, but to find other ways to bring down our deficits for our children.”

Minority Leader Boehner replied, “[N]owhere in his statement does the president urge the leaders of his party to hold simple up-or-down votes on imposing an earmark ban, something House and Senate Republicans will do this week. … Why is President Obama standing in the way of our ability to move forward and take this critical step towards restoring public trust?”

Cummings expressed frustration with the continued deceit.

“Minority Leader Boehner and Republicans in Congress are misleading the American people about their interest in bipartisanship and should be ashamed,” said Cummings. “President Obama reached out to help end earmarks and was blasted by Boehner. President Obama invited Republicans to the White House and they blew him off. President Obama has worked toward landmark transparency in government and just recently, Republican Congressman Issa accused him of corruption. This is partisan hackery cannot be accepted when we have so much work to do.

We can make important reforms in the way Washington works, to create a more efficient and effective government that will help America grow and put people in this country back to work. Instead, Republicans like Minority Leader Boehner and Rep. Issa are misleading the American people and trying to keep the same system that destroyed the voter’s trust in Congress in the first place.

I call on Minority Leader Boehner and Rep. Issa to commit to the American people that they will seek nonpartisan improvements in our system in the 112th Congress, not just play the same old “gotcha” party politics. I hope they will stand with me for the American people, not just continuing their stand against Democrats

Cummings Statement On Deficit Commission Recommendations

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, a senior member of the Joint Economic Committee, reacted to the suggestions by the co-Chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

Cummngs

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.)

“The work by the Commission has not been easy, and I continue to commend President Obama for taking the important steps necessary to begin discussions regarding the creation of a fiscally responsible plan for our nation,” said Cummings. “However, with that said, I believe the Commission made a great mistake by trying to balance the budget by further destroying the middle class, and by conflating the very specific need to adjust Social Security with the general need to change the overall spending and revenue habits of our nation.

“Social Security is reliant on its own revenue stream and spending policies. It is not a function of, nor a cause of, the Federal budget deficit. While Social Security does need to be adjusted, we must ensure that we are not drawn away from the primary goal of re-creating the balanced budget which President Clinton left our nation.

“In the past two years, we have begun this effort by addressing the strain health care costs place on our economy by passing a landmark health reform law that, alone, is expected to reduce our deficit by over one trillion dollars over the next ten years. We also passed financial regulatory reform, which will prevent predatory and shoddy mortgage practices and end the Wall Street recklessness that caused the financial collapse that led to the Great Recession.

“I agree with many of my colleagues that we must return to a sane tax structure. Tax cuts that are not paid for are unfair to future generations and are irresponsible. Most of our current deficit can be traced to tax cuts, the Medicare drug plan and two wars, all unpaid for at the time they began.

“Our problems were not caused by veterans’ healthcare, or education, or crime prevention, as is suggested by proposals to impose co-pays on veterans, cut education spending, and cut the budget for the Department of Justice. We must look seriously at our budget and get our fiscal house in order, but it is neither fair nor economically prudent to balance our budget on the backs of America’s working men and women.

“We cannot have our cake and eat it too. We must end our overseas nation building, and we must at the same time end the Republican Party standard of ‘borrow and spend, then complain about borrowing.’ True fiscal responsibility must be the eventual product of whatever changes we make.”

Supreme Court Justice Thomas signals his vote on Landmark Decision on the Constitution

Tuesday, November 23rd, 2010

ATLANTA, Nov. 22, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/

GCN talk host Katherine Albrecht is a popular media commentator whose views have been featured in over 2,000 radio, television, and print news stories.

– On November 18, Justice Clarence Thomas may have signaled how he will vote on actions filed by William M. Windsor that seek to stop what Windsor says is widespread corruption in the federal courts.

On a simple Application for a Stay (hold on proceedings in the lower courts until the Court rules on Windsor’s petitions), Justice Thomas denied the Application (Docket No. 10-633). Perhaps Justice Thomas had some valid reason for such an order, but it consisted of one word: “denied.”

Windsor says Justice Thomas violated The Supreme Court’s own “law” in
the 2009 decision in Corcoran v. Levenhagen. Justice Thomas erred in disposing of the action “without explanation of any sort.”

On November 23 from 5 to 6 pm EST, Windsor will be interviewed on
Katherine Albrecht’s nationally-syndicated radio program. Hear it at
www.katherinealbrecht.com. For more information, see www.LawlessAmerica.com.