Inquiry Criticizes U.S. Broadcasting Official Over Hiring

WASHINGTON, Aug. 29 — State Department investigators have concluded that Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the head of the federal agency that oversees most government broadcasts to foreign countries, improperly hired a friend on the public payroll for nearly $250,000 over two and a half years, according to a summary of their report made public this afternoon by Democratic Congressional staff members.

They also said that Mr. Tomlinson, whose job puts him in charge of the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, used his government office for personal business, including running a “horse racing operation” in which he supervised a stable of thoroughbreds he named after leaders from Afghanistan, including President Hamid Karzai and the late Ahmed Shah Massoud, that have raced at tracks across the United States. They also said that Mr. Tomlinson repeatedly used government employees to do his personal errands and that he billed the government for more days of work than the rules permit.

The State Department inspector general presented those findings in a report last week to the White House and on Monday to some members of Congress. Three Democratic lawmakers, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Representatives Howard Berman and Tom Lantos of California, requested the inquiry last year after they were approached by a whistleblower from the agency about the possible misuse of federal money by Mr. Tomlinson and the possible hiring of phantom or unqualified employees.

In providing the report to the members of Congress, the State Department warned that making it public could be a violation of federal law, people who have seen the report said. Today, Mr. Berman’s staff released a summary of the report.

Mr. Tomlinson was ousted from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting last year following a separate inquiry that found evidence that he had violated rules meant to insulate public television and radio from political influence. His renomination by President Bush to another term as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors is pending before the Senate.

The summary of the State Department inspector general’s report said the United States attorney’s office in Washington had been given the report and decided not to conduct a criminal inquiry into the matter. It said the Justice Department was pursuing a civil investigation that focused on a contract Mr. Tomlinson had awarded to his friend.

The three lawmakers who had requested the inquiry sent a letter to the president this afternoon urging him to remove Mr. Tomlinson from his position immediately “and take all necessary steps to restore the integrity of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.”

Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said President Bush continues to support Mr. Tomlinson’s renomination. She declined to comment about the State Department report.

Asked about the report and the call for his ouster, Mr. Tomlinson and his lawyer, James Hamilton, would not immediately comment.

Mr. Tomlinson is a 62-year-old Republican and former editor of Reader’s Digest who has close ties to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s political strategist and senior adviser. Mr. Rove and Mr. Tomlinson served together on the board of predecessor agency to the Broadcasting Board in the 1990’s. Mr. Tomlinson has been chairman of the Broadcasting Board since 2002.

The board, whose members include the secretary of state, plays a central role in public diplomacy. It supervises the government’s foreign broadcasting operations, including Radio Marti, Radio Sawa and al-Hurra; transmits programs in 61 languages; and says it has more than 100 million listeners each week.

Mr. Tomlinson’s ouster last November from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was prompted by a separate investigation by that organization’s inspector general. That inquiry found evidence that Mr. Tomlinson had violated rules as he sought more conservative programs and that he improperly intervened to help the staff of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page win a $4.1 million contract — one of the largest programming contracts issued by the corporation — to finance a weekly program on public television.

The heavily edited State Department report on Mr. Tomlinson’s activities at the Broadcasting Board of Governors did not specify the identity of the friend who received the improper contract at the direction of Mr. Tomlinson. Agency officials said he was a retired worker already on a government pension who was rehired by Mr. Tomlinson, without the knowledge of the board or any competitive bidding process, to work on projects for him. The employee was known by other employees as “the phantom” because he was often not at work, other agency employees said.

Mr. Tomlinson was rebuked in the earlier inspector general report by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for improperly hiring an acquaintance from a journalism center founded by the American Conservative Union to monitor several public radio and television shows, including Bill Moyer’s “Now” program, for political bias.

The State Department report said that from 2003 through 2005 Mr. Tomlinson had requested compensation in excess of the 130 days permitted by law for the post he holds. It said that he had requested and received pay from both the broadcasting board and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for the same days worked on 14 occasions, but that investigators were unable to substantiate whether they were for the same hours worked on the same days.

Investigators who seized Mr. Tomlinson’s e-mail, telephone and office records found that he had improperly and extensively used his office at the Broadcasting Board to do nongovernmental work, including work for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and horse racing and breeding ventures. The material seized included racing forms and evidence that he used the office to buy and sell thoroughbreds.

Mr. Tomlinson’s longstanding interest in foreign affairs has carried over to his horse breeding operation. As the owner of Sandy Bayou Stables near Middleburg, Va., his most recent horses have been named after Afghanistan leaders who have opposed Russian and Taliban control of the country. The horses include Massoud, Karzai and Panjshair, the valley that was the base used by forces to overthrow the Taliban. Most of the horses have not been in the money, although Massoud appears to have been quite successful, earning purses of more than $140,000 over the last two years, according to track records.

People who have seen the report said it noted that in the middle of in interview with investigators, Mr. Tomlinson terminated the interview on the advice of his lawyer. One person familiar with the inquiry said Mr. Hamilton ended the interview as the investigators started to ask about the use of Mr. Tomlinson’s office for his horse-racing venture.

Mr. Hamilton declined to comment about the interview.

Original Article

Health Care: It's What Ails Us by Doug Pibel and Sarah van Gelder

For Joel Segal, it was the day he was kicked out of George Washington Hospital, still on an IV after knee surgery, without insurance, and with $100,000 in medical debt. For Kiki Peppard, it was having to postpone needed surgery until she could find a job with insurance -- it took her two years. People all over the United States are waking up to the fact that our system of providing health care is a disaster.

An estimated 50 million Americans lack medical insurance, and a similar and rapidly growing number are underinsured. The uninsured are excluded from services, charged more for services, and die when medical care could save them—an estimated 18,000 die each year because they lack medical coverage.

But it’s not only the uninsured who suffer. Of the more than 1.5 million bankruptcies filed in the U.S. each year, about half are a result of medical bills; of those, three-quarters of filers had health insurance.

Businesses are suffering too. Insurance premiums increased 73 percent between 2000 and 2005, and per capita costs are expected to keep rising. The National Coalition on Health Care (NCHC) estimates that, without reform, national health care spending will double over the next 10 years. The NCHC is not some fringe advocacy group--its co-chairs are Congressmen Robert D. Ray (R-IA) and Paul G. Rogers (D-FL), and it counts General Electric and Verizon among its members.

Employers who want to offer employee health care benefits can’t compete with low-road employers who offer none. Nor can they compete with companies located in countries that offer national health insurance.

The shocking facts about health care in the United States are well known. There’s little argument that the system is broken. What’s not well known is that the dialogue about fixing the health care system is just as broken.

Among politicians and pundits, a universal, publicly funded system is off the table. But Americans in increasing numbers know what their leaders seem not to — that the United States is the only industrialized nation where such stories as Joel’s and Kiki’s can happen.

And most Americans know why: the United States leaves the health of its citizens at the mercy of an expensive, patchwork system where some get great care while others get none at all.

The overwhelming majority — 75 percent, according to an October 2005 Harris Poll — want what people in other wealthy countries have: the peace of mind of universal health insurance.

A wild experiment?

Which makes the discussion all the stranger. The public debate around universal health care proceeds as if it were a wild, untested experiment -- as if the United States would be doing something never done before.

Yet universal health care is in place throughout the industrialized world. In most cases, doctors and hospitals operate as private businesses. But government pays the bills, which reduces paperwork costs to a fraction of the American level. It also cuts out expensive insurance corporations and HMO's, with their multimillion-dollar CEO compensation packages, and billions in profit. Small wonder "single payer" systems can cover their entire populations at half the per capita cost. In the United States, people without insurance may live with debilitating disease or pain, with conditions that prevent them from getting jobs or decent pay, putting many on a permanent poverty track. They have more difficulty managing chronic conditions — only two in five have a regular doctor -- leading to poorer health and greater cost.

The uninsured are far more likely to wait to seek treatment for acute problems until they become severe.

Even those who have insurance may not find out until it’s too late that exclusions, deductibles, co-payments, and annual limits leave them bankrupt when a family member gets seriously ill.

In 2005, more than a quarter of insured Americans didn't fill prescriptions, skipped recommended treatment, or didn’t see a doctor when sick, according to the Commonwealth Fund’s 2005 Biennial Health Insurance Survey.

People stay in jobs they hate — for the insurance. Small business owners are unable to offer insurance coverage for employees or themselves. Large businesses avoid setting up shops in the United States — Toyota just chose to build a plant in Canada to escape the skyrocketing costs of U.S. health care.

All of this adds up to a less healthy society, more families suffering the double whammy of financial and health crises, and more people forced to go on disability.

But the public dialogue proceeds as if little can be done beyond a bit of tinkering around the edges. More involvement by government would create an unwieldy bureaucracy, they say, and surely bankrupt us all. The evidence points to the opposite conclusion.

The United States spends by far the most on health care per person — more than twice as much as Europe, Canada, and Japan which all have some version of national health insurance. Yet we are near the bottom in nearly every measure of our health.

The World Health Organization (WHO) ranks the U.S. health care system 37th of 190 countries, well below most of Europe, and trailing Chile and Costa Rica. The United States does even worse in the WHO rankings of performance on level of health -- a stunning 72nd. Life expectancy in the U.S. is shorter than in 27 other countries; the U.S. ties with Hungary, Malta, Poland, and Slovakia for infant mortality — ahead of only Latvia among industrialized nations.

The cost of corporate bureaucracy

Where is the money going? An estimated 15 cents of each private U.S. health care dollar goes simply to shuffling the paperwork. The administrative costs for our patched-together system of HMO's, insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, hospitals, and government programs are nearly double those for single-payer Canada. It’s not because Americans are inherently less efficient than Canadians — our publicly funded Medicare system spends under five cents per budget dollar on administrative overhead. And the Veterans Administration, which functions like Britain’s socialized medical system, spends less per patient but consistently outranks private providers in patient satisfaction and quality of care.

But in the private sector, profits and excessive CEO pay are added to the paperwork and bureaucracy. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry averages a 17 percent profit margin, against three percent for all other businesses. In the health care industry, million-dollar CEO pay packages are the rule, with some executives pulling down more than $30 million a year in salary and amassing billion-dollar stock option packages.

Do those costs really make the difference?

Studies conducted by the General Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and various states have concluded that a universal, single-payer health care system would cover everyone -- including the millions currently without insurance -- and still save billions.

Enormous amounts of money are changing hands in the health-industrial complex, but little is going to the front line providers — nurses, nurse practitioners, and home health care workers who put in long shifts for low pay. Many even find they must fight to get access to the very health facilities they serve.

Doctors complain of burnout as patient loads increase. They spend less time with each patient as they spend more time doing insurance company mandated paperwork and arguing with insurance company bureaucrats over treatments and coverage.

Americans know what they want

In polls, surveys, town meetings, and letters, large majorities of Americans say they have had it with a system that is clearly broken and they are demanding universal health care. Many businesses -- despite a distaste for government involvement -- are coming to the same view. Doctors, nurses, not-for-profit hospitals, and clinics are joining the call, many specifically saying we need a single-payer system like the system in Canada. And while we hear complaints about Canada’s system, a study of 10 years of Canadian opinion polling showed that Canadians are more satisfied with their health care than Americans. Holly Dressel’s article shows why.

Although you’d never know it from the American media, the number of Canadians who would trade their system for a U.S.-style health care system is just eight percent.

Again, the public dialogue proceeds from a perplexing place. Dissatisfied Canadians or Britons are much talked about. But there’s little mention of the satisfaction level of Americans. The Commonwealth Fund’s survey, for instance, shows that, in 2005, 42 percent of Americans doubted whether they could get quality health care. At a series of town hall meetings in Maine, facilitators asked participants to discuss dozens of complex health care policies but excluded single-payer as an option. (See Tish Tanski’s article. Only after repeated demands by participants was the approach that cuts out the corporate middle-men allowed on the list.

The same story played out across the country at town meetings convened by the congressionally mandated Citizens’ Health Care Working Group. In Los Angeles, New York, and Hartford, participants simply refused to consider the questions they were given about tradeoffs between cost, quality, and accessibility. They insisted that there’s already enough money being spent to pay for publicly funded universal health care.

But it’s not only about the money. Comments from participants in the town meetings, from Fargo to Memphis, from Los Angeles to Providence, revealed an understanding that this is about a deeper question. It is an issue of the sort of society we want to be -- one in which we all are left to sink or swim on our own or one in which we recognize that the whole society benefits when we each can get access to the help we need.

Likewise, when we asked readers of the YES! email newsletter what would make you healthier, nearly all answered in terms of “we.” Any one of us could get sick or be injured. Any one could lose a job and with it insurance. Our best security, they said, is coverage for all.

What form might this take?

As elections near and the issue of health care tops opinion polls as the most pressing domestic issue, various proposals for universal health care are circulating. The bipartisan NCHC looked at four options: employer mandates, extending existing federal programs like Medicaid to all those uninsured, creating a new federal program for the uninsured, and single-payer national health insurance. All the options saved billions of dollars compared to the current system, but single payer was by far the winner, saving more than $100 billion a year.

Meanwhile, the Citizens’ Health Care Working Group, which held those town meetings around the country, has issued interim recommendations. They state the values participants expressed: All Americans should have affordable health care, and assuring that they do is a shared social responsibility. Sadly, that bold statement is followed by inconclusive recommendations: more study, no preference for public funding, and a strong commitment to get everybody covered by 2012—but with no means to do it. The commission will make final recommendations to the president and Congress, and is accepting public comment through the end of August.

What is the obstacle?

With all the support and all the good reasons to adopt universal health care, why don’t we have it yet? Why do politicians refuse to talk about the solution people want?

It could be the fact that the health care industry, the top spender on Capitol Hill, spent $183.3 million on lobbying just in the second half of 2005, according to PoliticalMoneyLine. com. And in the 2003–2004 election cycle, they spent $123.7 million on election campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Politicians dread the propaganda barrage and political fallout that surrounded the failed Clinton health care plan. But in the years since, health care costs have outpaced growth in wages and inflation by huge margins, Americans have joined the ranks of the uninsured at the rate of 2 million each year, and businesses are taking a major competitiveness hit as they struggle to pay rising premiums.

Healthcare-Now (www.healthcare-now.org) is holding town hall meetings throughout the United States (they’ve held 93 so far), and people are pressing their representatives to take action. Over 150 unions have called for action on universal health care, and polls show overwhelming majorities of Americans feel the same way.

Some political leaders are pressing for universal health care. Remember Joel, who was kicked out of the hospital with $100,000 in medical debt? He started giving speeches about the catastrophe of our health care system, and eventually got hired by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) to head his universal single payer health care effort. Conyers’ "Medicare for All" bill now has 72 co-sponsors. Rep. Jim McDermott’s (D-WA) Health Security Act has 62.

Around the United States, state and local campaigns for universal health care are making progress. (See Rev. Linda Walling’s update).

One of these days, the lobbyists and their clients in government may have to get out of the way and let Americans join the rest of the developed world in the security, efficiency, and quality that comes with health care for all.

"Ethnic Profiling" and the "War on Terrorism" on Board Northwest Flight 42
All Muslims on board were handcuffed

Most of you must have read or heard of the drama in the air where 12 passengers, all Indian businessmen/traders in textile, all of them Muslims, 10 of them from Mumbai, were handcuffed and detained, after the Northwest Airlines flight No. 42 with US sky marshals on board on its way to Mumbai , was escorted by F-16 fighter jets back to Amsterdam . Who pays for these F-16 escorts is another matter ....

After several hours a statement was made by the Dutch authorities that they were " NOT TERRORISTS ".

Without giving you my own subjective remarks on the incident I would like to quote a Dutch national A. Slotboom who was on board the same flight who has stated that the 12 Indians on board were treated " inhumanely ".... when the plane arrived in Amsterdam " I thought it was inhuman......They were treated like dogs ....." He deserves to be applauded for his courage ,as it was an act of solidarity with those being persecuted and terrorized all over the world, whether they are Muslims , or working people or poorer farmers or employees increasingly working for over 10 to 12 hours in offices.

The Dutchman further stated in a statement reproduced in a newspaper that:

"....When the plane was in the air we just heard over the address system that the flight was being diverted to Amsterdam and did not know that anyone was going to be detained . Once we landed there the police authorities seemed to treat the 12 persons very badly and handcuffed them and humiliated them in front of all the others...."

He emphasized that " their arrest seemed part of the of an offensive against Arabic people.....they did not hit them , but they pushed them . They let them surely feel that they have no power ........"

He further said that he too was taken off the aircraft when he commented "that the way the Indians were being treated reminded him of what the Germans had done under Hitler." They came to him and said" Okay , you come with us."

Meanwhile, during a TV debate, the issue was raised, that since there have been so many random and indiscriminate arrests made of Indian Muslims in India , in Mumbai , Gujarat and other places in India with so many defamatory statements and so much prejudice orchestrated through the media against Indian Muslims within India; whether the Government in India was on strong moral grounds in condemning this treatment by the Dutch authorities, as increasingly Indians who are Muslim are being openly discriminated against in India and some political leaders without any action by law enforcing agencies ,are repeatedly permitted to openly abuse citizens who are culturally Muslim, with some regions of increased foreign investment being termed the laboratories for " Indian fascism "

One way of identifying which governments are a part of the overt or covert alliance in this " War of Terror " which has seen merciless bombing operations using Depleted Uranium and Bunker Busters with DU against defenseless people in Yugoslavia , Iraq , Afghanistan , Palestine , Lebanon is the nature of articulation of the " Terrorist " threat from Muslims / Arabs in these countries , and the bombings organized against working citizens even as the oligarchy remains safe and protected .

The maximum bombings of innocent citizens are taking place in countries occupied by foreign troops .

We also have the memories of Ireland and the covert bombing operations . It now appears a part of an Imperial tradition to bomb citizens .

There are terrorist acts by armed groups in Assam , the North East and other places in India, admittedly non-Muslim regions aided and abetted by covert agencies . Yet the political class and the oligarchy, instruct official agencies to identify terrorism with people of Muslim origins , and day in and day out this is repeated on all television channels to the disgust of citizens of all communities in India though there are no trains or buses or airplanes segregated on the on the basis of religion .

The very suggestion therefor that people of one religious group are terrorists, and will bomb a plane or a train or a bus, is absurd as people of every religion and denomination including Shia and Sunni walk on the roads and travel by the same facilities whether Christian , Jewish, Hindu , Buddhist , Tamil etc .....

What is significant however the world over, is only the rich and those holding high office have private cars and are therefore not bombed along with working citizens.

Moreover the Generals are based in the occupied countries in the Green Zone . Only the lowly foot soldier is exposed .The pilots have special facilities in the former palaces or elite residential areas of occupied countries .

The travel advisory for citizens of the world ,is to avoid countries resorting to Islamophobia or where frequent bomb blasts take place . In any case the Airlines of the USA , Britain , Israel and those NATO countries with occupation forces in Afghanistan and Iraq should be avoided by people from South Asia

Similarly travel to Pakistan , India and Bangladesh where authorities are co-operating in this " War of Terror " on Arabs, Muslims , should also be avoided by citizens of Europe ,Asia and the Arab world .

As of now the maximum number of people dying in India are farmers from suicides and government figures itself indicates more than on lakh , whereas unofficial figures average a few lakhs all over India .This indicates that farmers are being "Terrorized " by their conditions .

Moreover India is the sixth country on the list of countries where children's lives are seriously endangered says an official International report .Also evidence of children being indiscriminately terrorized by the nature of their society.

There is no doubt that we are being seriously terrorized in South Asia ,we only differ on the nature of our threat.

Please avoid South Asia on your travels ,apart from the USA, UK and Israel and those countries of Europe and other continents who are partners in the " War of Terror" against citizens , as millions have been killed in one form or another.

South Asia includes Sri Lanka, a country which was once the role model for nutrition , health care and education, though formally not socialist , which became a " basket case " for the IMF and World Bank , after neo-liberal policies were introduced, the rest is history where no peace plan is allowed to succeed, and both sides were trained according to a book by a former Mossad agent , in Israel .

There are collaborators in every country , in every religious group ,however in this crazy world , one time collaborators themselves will be handcuffed and face trial ......the tragic fate of President Saddam Hussain . The former President Diem of South Vietnam. Keneth Lay of Enron . The Dayton accord did not save the former President of Yugoslavia and the country was mercilessly divided and broken up for a " New Eurasia " .

There are plans for a " New Middle East " and a " New South Asia " . There are also plans for a " New European Union" and a " New United States " minus all social security , with 12 hour working days upto the age of 65-70 with no health care .

A recent Judgement of a court of the United States in a Suit filed by the American Union for Civil Liberties among other Plaintiffs , indicates what is the state and predicament of the " Rule of Law" in America.

Original Article at GlobalResearch.ca

The Sins of September 11
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

I am beginning to despise reading. I have lost count of the number of times I have read some passage in a politically-oriented book, and then been uncontrollably motivated to hurl said book against a wall or across the room in fury. My library looks like someone took a weed-whacker to it; all the dust-jackets have taken a fearsome beating.

The book currently on my desk has begun to retain a damaged appearance. Sidney Blumenthal's "The Clinton Wars" is a meticulously researched and foot-noted tour de force through the last ten years of the brainless savagery of American politics. The retelling of the contrived scandals clarioned by a media establishment which abandoned any pretense of journalistic integrity, pushed by a cabal of House members and right-wing activists whose worshipped altar was the desire for raw power, and the sad and sorry tale of the impeachment itself, is a difficult but necessary review of a truly pathetic time in our history. Blumenthal manages to bring his readers back to that tar pit, and keep them enthralled, with an excellent and deft literary touch.

Since I have read most of the other books on the scandal-gasm and impeachment, there was not much through the middle of this book that brought me up short, though Blumenthal does present interviews and perspectives of players on both sides of that aisle which are not present in the other histories (It was amusing to read Congressional impeachment warrior James Rogan speak of being "On the wrong side of history" regarding the trial in the Senate). No, the book began to take its obligatory pounding when I reached page 656, and the second part of the chapter entitled "The Twenty-First Century."

The astounding level of blunt ignorance within the American populace about the events surrounding the attacks of September 11 cannot be easily quantified. In a nation with thousands of newspapers, thousands of radio stations, and a ceaseless data stream from CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS and PBS, some 70% of the population believed as late as a month ago that Saddam Hussein was centrally involved in and personally responsible for the attacks which destroyed the Towers and struck the Pentagon. Beyond that, what most people know about the single most important event in American history does not go much beyond "evildoers" who "hate our freedom."

That is, simply, incredible. It is also not an accident. This ignorance has a great deal to do with the stunning mediocrity of the television news media, that empty well where most Americans go to become informed. This ignorance also, and far more importantly, has a great deal to do with the Clinton-era actions of a large number of conservatives, many of whom are in positions of power today, many of whom are now making careers out of September 11.

The two great myths that have settled across the nation, beyond the Hussein-9/11 connection, are that Clinton did not do enough during his tenure to stop the spread of radical terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, and that the attacks themselves could not have been anticipated or stopped. Blumenthal's insider perspective on these matters bursts the myths entirely, and reveals a level of complicity regarding the attacks within the journalistic realm and the conservative political ranks that is infuriating and disturbing.

Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory, despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden's Military Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory lived in bin Laden's villa in Khartoum. The book "Age of Sacred Terror" quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat."

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement. According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system of dirty money was short-circuited."

This laundry list of partisan catastrophes goes on and on. Far from being inept on the matter of terrorism, Clinton was profoundly activist in his attempts to address terrorism. Much of his work was foiled by right-wing Congressional conservatives who, simply, refused to accept the fact that he was President. These men, paid to work for the public trust, spent eight years working diligently to paralyze any and all Clinton policies, including anti-terror initiatives that, if enacted, would have gone a long way towards thwarting the September 11 attacks. Beyond them lay the worthless television media, which ignored and spun the terrorist issue as it pursued salacious leaks from Ken Starr's office, leaving the American people drowning in a swamp of ignorance on a matter of deadly global importance.

Over and above the theoretical questions regarding whether or not Clinton's anti-terror policies, if passed, would have stopped September 11 lies the very real fact that attacks very much like 9/11 were, in fact, stopped dead by the Clinton administration. The most glaring example of this came on December 31, 1999, when the world gathered to celebrate the passing of the millennium. On that night, al Qaeda was gathering as well.

The terrorist network planned to simultaneously attack the national airports in Washington DC and Los Angeles, the Amman Raddison Hotel in Jordan, a constellation of holy sites in Israel, and the USS The Sullivans at dock in Yemen. Each and every single one of these plots, which ranged from one side of the planet to the other, was foiled by the efforts of the Clinton administration. Speaking for the first time about these millennium plots, in a speech delivered to the Coast Guard Academy on May 17, 2000, Clinton said, "I want to tell you a story that, unfortunately, will not be the last example you will have to face."

Indeed.

Clinton proved that Osama bin Laden and his terror network can be foiled, can be thwarted, can be stopped. The multifaceted and complex nature of the international millennium plots rivals the plans laid before September 11, and involved counter-terrorism actions within several countries and across the entire American intelligence and military community. All resources were brought to bear, and the terrorists went down to defeat. The proof is in the pudding here. September 11, like the millennium plots, could have been avoided.

Couple this with other facts about the Bush administration we now have in hand. The administration was warned about a massive terror plot in the months before September by the security services of several countries, including Israel, Egypt, Germany and Russia. CIA Director George Tenet delivered a specific briefing on the matter to the administration on August 8, 2001. The massive compendium of data on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda compiled by Sandy Berger, and delivered to Condoleezza Rice upon his departure, went completely and admittedly unread until the attacks took place. The attacks themselves managed, for over an hour, to pierce the most formidable air defense system in the history of the Earth without a single fighter aircraft taking wing until the catastrophe was concluded.

It is not fashionable these days to pine for the return of William Jefferson Clinton. Given the facts above, and the realities we face about the administration of George W. Bush, and the realities we endure regarding the aftermath of September 11, the United States of America would be, and was, well served by its previous leader. That we do not know this, that September 11 happened at all, that it was such a wretched shock to the American people, that we were so woefully unprepared, can be laid at the feet of a failed news media establishment, and at the feet of a pack of power-mad conservative extremists who now have a great deal to atone for.

Had Clinton been heeded, the measures he espoused would have been put in place, and a number of powerful bulwarks would have been thrown into the paths of those commercial airplanes. Had the news media been something other than a purveyor of masturbation fantasies from the far-right, the American people would have know the threats we faced, and would have compelled their Congressmen to act. Had Congress itself been something other than an institution ruled by narrow men whose only desire was to break a sitting President by any means necessary, we would very probably still have a New York skyline dominated by two soaring towers.

Had the Bush administration not continued this pattern of gross partisan ineptitude and heeded the blitz of domestic and international warnings, instead of trooping off to Texas for a month-long vacation, had Bush's National Security Advisor done one hour's worth of her homework, we probably would not be in the grotesque global mess that currently envelops us. Never forget that many of the activists who pushed throughout the 1990s for the annihilation of all things Clinton are now foursquare in charge of the country today.

These are the sins of September 11. Thank you, Sidney. I'm sorry I broke your book.

Swords ban to beat violent crime

Swords were handed in and destroyed during a knife amnesty

A crackdown on the sale of swords has been launched as part of a campaign to tackle knife crime and violence.

Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson announced laws to ban swords unless sold for legitimate reasons.

Shops selling swords will need a licence, as will businesses dealing with non-domestic knives and other bladed weapons such as machetes.

The measures are the latest steps from the Scottish Executive to curb the problem of knife crime.

They come weeks after a nationwide knife amnesty.

A total of 12,645 blades - including lock knives, machetes, swords, meat cleavers, bayonets and axes - were handed in during the five-week amnesty.

People must realise that swords cause horrific injuries when they get into the wrong hands Det Chief Supt John Carnochan Violence Reduction Unit

Exemptions to the ban on sword sales include swords that are to be used for Highland dancing, museum displays, historical re-enactments, fencing and martial arts.

Ms Jamieson said: "Knife-carrying is all too prevalent in some communities, particularly in the west of Scotland, and has cut short and scarred too many young lives.

"In these areas police, doctors and law-abiding citizens have seen the damaging effects of swords, including samurai swords, being wielded on the streets.

"It is simply far too easy at present for these weapons to be bought and sold."

Anyone selling swords under the exemptions would have to take "reasonable steps" to establish that the intended use was a legitimate one.

Commercial sellers will have to comply with strict new licensing conditions, including keeping records of all sales.

'Deep-rooted culture'

Ms Jamieson added: "The licensing regime for sales of all non-domestic knives should help weed out unscrupulous traders and help legitimate traders take steps to avoid these dangerous weapons falling into the wrong hands."

Shops selling swords under exemption would need a licence

The measures will be included in a new Sentencing Bill, which will go before the Scottish Parliament later in the year.

It comes after First Minister Jack McConnell announced a five-point plan to tackle knife crime in November 2004.

Other parts of the plan brought in under the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act doubled the maximum penalty for carrying a knife to four years, gave police the unconditional power to search someone they suspect of carrying a weapon and increased the minimum age for buying a knife from 16 to 18.

Det Ch Supt John Carnochan, head of the police's violence reduction unit, hailed the measures as "another major step forward in the fight against knife crime and violence".

More than half the murders in Scotland each year are carried out with knives or other sharp weapons.

Det Ch Supt Carnochan said a licensing scheme alone would not solve "the deep-rooted culture of violence which is prevalent in parts of Scotland" but added that combined with the other measures it would have a positive impact.

Cultural problem

He added: "People must realise that swords cause horrific injuries when they get into the wrong hands. We routinely see incidents involving swords, which result in appalling injuries."

Kenny MacAskill MSP, justice spokesman for the SNP, said: "We must continue to recognise that knives are as much of a cultural problem in our communities as they are a criminal one.

"We must ensure we tackle the causes as well as the symptoms of this scar on our communities."

Margaret Mitchell, justice spokeswoman for the Scottish Conservatives , said: "I broadly welcome these moves but legislation alone is never going to be enough.

"We have to make sure that anyone who would use any kind of knife or weapon feels the full force of the law and the strongest possible custodial sentence."

Rep. Harris Condemns Separation of Church, State

By Jim Stratton
Orlando Sentinel

ORLANDO, Aug. 25 -- Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) said this week that God did not intend for the United States to be a "nation of secular laws" and that the separation of church and state is a "lie we have been told" to keep religious people out of politics.

"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris told interviewers from the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention. She cited abortion and same-sex marriage as examples of that sin.

Harris, a candidate in the Sept. 5 Republican primary for U.S. Senate, said her religious beliefs "animate" everything she does, including her votes in Congress.

Witness editors interviewed candidates for office, asking them to describe their faith and their positions on certain issues.

Harris has always professed a deep Christian faith. But she has rarely expressed such a fervent evangelical perspective publicly.

Political and religious officials responded to her published remarks with outrage and dismay.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said she was "disgusted" by the comments "and deeply disappointed in Representative Harris personally."

Harris, Wasserman Schultz said, "clearly shows that she does not deserve to be a representative."

Ruby Brooks, a veteran Tampa Bay Republican activist, said Harris's remarks "were offensive to me as a Christian and a Republican."

"This notion that you've been chosen or anointed, it's offensive," Brooks said. "We hurt our cause with that more than we help it."

Harris told the journalists "we have to have the faithful in government" because that is God's will. Separating religion and politics is "so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers," she said.

"And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women," then "we're going to have a nation of secular laws. That's not what our Founding Fathers intended, and that certainly isn't what God intended."

Harris campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Marks would not answer questions about the Harris interview. Instead, she released a two-sentence statement.

"Congresswoman Harris encourages Americans from all walks of life and faith to participate in our government," it stated. "She continues to be an unwavering advocate of religious rights and freedoms."

Original Story

Police property: It’s finders keepers in NH

Thursday, Aug. 24, 2006

The state Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the government can keep and destroy more than 500 CDs taken from Michael Cohen, owner of Pitchfork Records in Concord, in 2003 even though the state failed to prove that a single disk was illegal.

Cohen was arrested for attempting to sell bootleg recordings. But the police case collapsed when it turned out that most of the recordings were made legally. Police dropped six of the seven charges, and Cohen went to trial on one charge. He beat it after the judge concluded that the recording was legal.

However, the police refused to return Cohen’s CDs. In the state Supreme Court’s Tuesday ruling, Chief Justice John Broderick, writing for the majority, reasoned so poorly that it appeared as if he’d made up his mind ahead of time.

Dissenting, Justice Linda Dalianis wrote, perceptively, that “the majority does not explain how statutes prohibiting the production, publication, or sale of certain works render possession of such works unlawful.”

Further, Dalianis concluded that “the state’s failure to establish in any way that the seized property constitutes contraband” made it impossible to justify keeping Cohen’s property.

Indeed, the majority’s reasoning is chilling. The majority concedes that no crime or illegal act was proven, but allows the confiscation anyway by concluding that a crime might have been committed. The majority used words such as “apparently,” “likely” and “would have” to describe the alleged illegal activity.

It should go without saying that speculation by a few judges that a crime might have been committed is a frightening basis for taking someone’s property.

Earlier this year, Nashua police confiscated video recordings of two officers being rude to a citizen at his own home. Though police dropped all charges against Michael Gannon and admitted they could not prove the recordings were illegal, they still kept the tapes.

If someone is found with cocaine or any other item clearly illegal to possess, confiscation is easily justified. But the illegality of these items was never proven, and mere possession was not itself illegal.

If the government can seize and keep a citizen’s property by simply asserting that it is contraband, even when the assertion is unsupported by the facts, then we have entered into dangerous territory.

Biotech Firm, Govt. Hid Rice Contamination from Public
by Megan Tady

The recently revealed spread of genetically modified rice has critics alarmed on two levels: the problem itself and the fact that authorities suppressed the news.

Aug. 24 – Last week, the US Department of Agriculture announced that US commercial long-grain rice supplies are contaminated with "trace amounts" of genetically engineered rice unapproved for human consumption.

The genetically engineered (GE) rice is known as Liberty Link (LL) 601. Its genetic code has been modified to provide resistance to herbicides and is illegal for marketing to humans because it has not undergone environmental and health impact reviews by the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). LL601 was field-tested from 1998 to 2001 under permits granted by the USDA, but Bayer Corp Science, the developer of the experimental rice, did not seek commercial approval for it.

The contamination was only disclosed after Bayer notified the USDA itself. Currently, the government relies on self-reporting from food companies to determine genetically engineered (GE) contamination, rather than a federal testing system. The USDA dismissed concerns that companies may not always "self-report" or even be aware of their mistakes, which would lead to further undetected contamination of unapproved GE food.

It appears a separate company first detected the contamination in January of this year and that Bayer may have known about the contamination since May. But the government was not notified until July 31. It took another 18 days for the USDA to tell the public.

At a press conference, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns would not divulge how the contamination had happened, or how far it had spread. It was unclear whether he even knew. Jim Rogers, a USDA spokesperson, told The NewStandard the contaminated rice was detected in barrels sent to Missouri and Arizona.

"But the rice could have come from anywhere [in the US]," Rogers said.

Riceland, a farmer-owned cooperative that markets rice produced by Southern farmers, issued a press release on August 18, saying it first discovered the contamination in January. Riceland conducted its own tests from several grain-storage locations and found: "A significant number tested positive for the Bayer trait. The positive results were geographically dispersed and random throughout the rice-growing area."

Riceland notified Bayer of the contamination in May, but did not notify the public or the government.

Johanns indicated that an economic motive was behind the government's delay of nearly three weeks before informing the public about the contamination, as the government anticipated foreign rice importers might reject the product. The Secretary said the USDA spent the time preparing tests for rice importers to check the product for contamination. The US constitutes about 12 percent of the world's rice trade.

There are currently no plans to destroy or recall the rice, and Rogers is unsure if Bayer will be fined. While the government "validates" its tests for the rice, Johanns directed people to Bayer's website, saying the company "has made arrangements with private laboratories to run tests" on the rice.

Although the field tests for LL601 ended in 2001, the contamination appeared in a 2005 harvest, leaving some food-safety advocates to worry that the contamination has been present for several years and suggesting that genetically modified strains can persist in the environment well after they have been discontinued in experiments.

Two other varieties of rice with the same gene and from the same company have already been approved for human consumption, though never marketed. There is currently no known, intentional commercial US production of genetically engineered rice.

Johanns said that based on "available scientific data" provided by Bayer, the USDA and the FDA have concluded "that there are no human-health, food-safety or environmental concerns associated with this GE rice."

When pressed about the health implications of the contaminated rice, Rogers noted that foods from pesticide- and herbicide-resistant crops are already on the market. In fact, according to the USDA, 70 percent of processed foods on grocery store shelves contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Rogers dismissed concern that, because the government relies on companies' self-reporting, there could be widespread contamination of unapproved GE ingredients in the US food supply. He said the government did not have plans to begin testing food itself.

But this is not the first time unapproved genetic material has escaped detection in the food supply. In 2004, the company Syngenta admitted that for four years, it had sold unapproved GE maize in the US.

In response to the Bayer revelation, Greenpeace has called for a worldwide ban on imports of US rice. Already, Japan has suspended US rice imports.

The Center for Food Safety, a public-interest organization, is also calling for a moratorium on all new permits for open-air field testing of GE crops. The Center is concerned that open-air testing allows GE crops to cross pollinate with neighboring non-GE crops.

"We see this as an opportunity to get out the message that this is a radically new technology," said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center. "These foods have not been tested, and we don't know if they're safe."

Original

Universal Health Care: Is Senate Bill 840 too good to be true?

By Kevin Uhrich

As health care costs continue to spiral out of the financial reach of average citizens, state Sen. Sheila Kuehl is sponsoring legislation that would provide universal health coverage for every resident of California, regardless of their ability to pay.

Sound too good to be true? Perhaps.

Is it about time? Absolutely, says Jackie Knowles of the League of Women Voters Pasadena Area, which is presenting a public forum on March 2 on Kuehl’s legislation.

The forum, which is being co-sponsored by a number of religious, legal and social service organizations, is at 7 p.m. at the Community Education Center, 3035 E. Foothill Blvd., Pasadena

“I know it sounds too good to be true. That’s why we want people to come to this forum. We want to hear what questions other people might ask,” said Knowles, a former writer for the Pasadena Star-News.

“The League of Women Voters considers this to be right on a par with women’s suffrage; a cause to crusade for,” said Knowles. “Every person in California owes it to themselves to learn everything they can about this bill.”

Co-sponsors of tonight’s forum include the Pasadena Senior Advocacy Council, the Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church, the Southern California Ecumenical Council, the San Gabriel Valley Pharmacists Association, Health Care for All Los Angeles, Move-On-Pasadena, the NAACP, the Latino Issues Forum and the ACLU.

Introduced in 2004 by Kuehl, a Democrat from Santa Monica, SB 840 has passed the Senate and has cleared the Assembly Health Committee. Presently, the bill requires language that addresses the funding mechanisms that would cover the medical, dental, optical and other health needs of each Californian.

Hundreds of consumer, labor, civic and faith-based organizations are rallying together to support the bill. Insurance companies and brokers and chambers of commerce are lining up against it.

SB 840 would establish a nonprofit insurance plan to reduce administration costs. A single insurer would be chosen and each person could choose their own physicians and other health care providers. By comparison, Kaiser uses a single insurance plan, as does the Veterans Administration and Medicare.

Kuehl’s research indicates such a plan could save California taxpayers $5 billion a year by cutting prescription drug and medical equipment costs.

In addition, each person would be covered for life, even if they have a pre-existing condition. In addition, all services, drugs, hospital stays, therapies and medical equipment would also be covered.

Kuehl’s bill would establish the position of Health Czar, a nonpartisan elected Commissioner of Health who would serve no more than two 8-year terms, a Health Policy Board and a network of consumer advocates, including community-based Partnerships for Health to identify and help solve local service problems.

Ample parking is available under the power lines on the west side of the Community Education Center, which is located between Sunnyslope and Santa Paula avenues. The fee is 75 cents to park for the entire evening.

Israeli Police Investigating Sex Case Take Items From President’s Home
By GREG MYRE

JERUSALEM, Aug. 22 — The Israeli police have confiscated a computer and documents from the official residence of President Moshe Katsav and plan to question him as part of an investigation into sexual harassment accusations, the police said Tuesday.

Mr. Katsav’s position is largely ceremonial, and any legal proceedings against him would not directly threaten the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

But the case comes at a time when several senior government figures have been involved in legal or political controversies. In addition, many Israelis have been sharply critical of the country’s political and military leadership over the handling of the recent fighting in Lebanon.

The case involving Mr. Katsav surfaced almost two months ago when a woman who previously worked for him told an Israeli newspaper that he had sexually harassed her. Later, a second woman made similar allegations. Neither woman has been identified.

Mr. Katsav wrote to the attorney general, saying one of the women had demanded money from him before she made her accusation publicly.

The attorney general, Menachem Mazuz, ordered an investigation last month, but the case was overshadowed by the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.

The police said they entered the president’s official residence on Monday night, taking the computer and documents. The authorities are searching for communications between Mr. Katsav and his accusers, according to Israel radio.

Police investigators will return to Mr. Katsav’s residence on Wednesday to question him, according to a police spokesman, Micky Rosenfeld.

Mr. Katsav has denied any wrongdoing, and his office said Tuesday that he was fully cooperating with the investigation.

No charges have been filed, but if they are, Mr. Katsav is expected to resign.

Israel’s justice minister, Haim Ramon, resigned Sunday after he was charged with forcibly kissing a female soldier last month.

In other recent controversies, the state comptroller has been investigating the circumstances surrounding Mr. Olmert’s sale of his Jerusalem home two years ago, and the purchase of a new one nearby. Critics contend that he received an above-market price for the sale of his old home and that he paid below the market rate for his new one.

Also, the army’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, has faced a storm of criticism after a newspaper disclosed that he spoke to his bank and sold mutual fund shares several hours after Hezbollah staged its cross-border raid on July 12, precipitating the fighting in Lebanon.

Mr. Katsav was appointed to his post in 2000, after his predecessor, Ezer Weizman, resigned amid a corruption scandal. Mr. Weizman quit after it was disclosed that during the 1980’s, when he was a member of parliament and a government minister, he received hundreds of thousands of dollars from a French businessman with interests in Israel.

In other developments Tuesday, an Israeli military court in the West Bank charged the speaker of the Palestinian parliament, Aziz Dweik, a Hamas member, with belonging to an illegal organization, The Associated Press reported.

Israel considers Hamas a terrorist organization, and membership in the group is banned under Israeli law.

Original

Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime
Eighth Circuit Appeals Court ruling says police may seize cash from motorists even in the absence of any evidence that a crime has been committed.

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the case entitled, "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a "lack of significant criminal history" neither accused nor convicted of any crime.

On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez's name was not on the rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez -- who did not speak English well -- and search the car. The trooper found a cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.

Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez's story.

Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."

Judge Donald Lay found the majority's reasoning faulty and issued a strong dissent.

"Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money," Judge Lay wrote. "There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of
drug use or distribution."

"Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense," Judge Lay Concluded.

The full text of the ruling is available in a 36k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: US v. $124,700 (US Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 8/19/2006)

Original Story

Out of sight, out of mind

[Like something out of a Star Trek flashback]

Authorities in Padua have decided to seal off a crime-ridden estate from the rest of the city rather than tackle its problems, reports Barbara McMahon

Monday August 14, 2006
Guardian Unlimited


The wall built on the outskirts of Padua to seal off the Serenissima housing estate. Photograph: Marco Bruzzo/EPA

The Serenissima housing estate in the suburbs of Padua was once a place that lived up to its name. It was a tranquil location with doctors, lawyers, architects, journalists and students populating the 273 apartments spread out over six blocks.

A former resident remembers the friendly atmosphere. "When one of the youngsters graduated, the whole staircase would go into action," she said. "One person brought the pasta, someone else prepared the salad and we all had a big party in the yard."

Those days are over. Nobody seems able to pinpoint exactly when the area began to change but slowly, local people moved out and groups of immigrants, mostly from Africa, moved in. Many Italians took advantage of the new arrivals, snapping up multiple apartments and renting bedsits at speculative rates of up to 1,000 euros a month.

Six, seven or eight immigrants shared each space and slept in shifts to reduce the rent even further. Unable to work legally, and with little money, the new arrivals hung around with nothing to do. Petty crime flourished and prostitutes and drug dealers targeted the area. Italians who couldn't afford to move out became too scared to open their doors at night.

In a recent editorial, Corriere della Sera described the area as "the worst possible example of failed integration" and said it was an example of what can happen if ghettos are allowed to form. It pointed out that Italian immigrants themselves were in the same situation a century ago in Bayard Street in New York's Little Italy, where 1,324 immigrants huddled in 132 rooms, and their miserable existence was chronicled by anti-slums campaigner Jacob Riis.

Matters came to a head last month, when a pitched battle raged for several hours one night between gangs of Moroccans and Nigerians wielding clubs, machetes, knives and crowbars. Tear gas was used to break up the fight and the incident shook the citizens of Padua. The city known for its artworks by Giotto, Donatello and Mantegna, and which is home to Italy's second-oldest university, where Galileo was once a professor of mathematics, had the distinction of having the most dangerous housing development in northern Italy.

Now Padua has another dubious claim to fame. A large and ugly barrier has been erected to help protect local residents from the run-down apartment blocks, largely filled with immigrants. Stretching for 84 metres, three metres high and made of thick steel panels, there is a police checkpoint at the entrance as well as CCTV cameras. The project has been welcomed by local people but is highly controversial. The barricade has already been dubbed Padua's Berlin wall and has reignited a debate about how to treat foreign migrants.

"It's obscene and racist," said Aurora D'Agostin, head of the local Green party. Another local group COBAS denounced the barricade as "segregation, like the concentration camps or the Jewish ghettos." Gian Carlo Galan, the centre-right president of the Veneto region, said that Padua's centre-left council had simply "given in to criminality" and that it had failed to tackle the social problems rife in the area. The hard-right Northern League party took another tack. "Raze the casbah of foreign delinquency to the ground," it roared. Some of the immigrants themselves hit back after the construction of the wall by stoning the windows of a local bar.

Some 210,000 people live in Padua, of whom 20,000 are legally resident non-EU citizens. A further 30,000 non-EU residents live in the surrounding province, which has a total population of almost a million. There are also several thousand asylum seekers, all hoping to be given leave to stay.

The mayor of Padua, Flavio Zanonato, a member of the Democrats of the Left party, has agreed that the barricade is not ideal but said he had to respond to the concerns of local people living near the estate, who were concerned about the level of violence and drug dealing. He is looking at a plan to employ immigrant police officers to patrol what has been nicknamed the Padua Bronx, on the grounds that they might be able to bring calm to the area.

He has also sharply criticised Italian property owners who are making a mint out of the immigrants. "This is a phenomenon we must face and resolve," he said about the problems of integration. "That's why shorter waiting times for obtaining Italian nationality and the right to vote are necessary instruments. The multi-ethnic society is firmly entrenched in Italy. We have to encourage integration and non-EU immigrants themselves can lend a hand."

Three of the Serenissima's apartment blocks have already been emptied of tenants and sealed up so that they cannot be reoccupied, and there are plans to move everyone else out in the next year or two "We've had no problems with the families that were relocated," pointed out the mayor. The key to assimilation, he argued, is to distribute immigrants around various areas of Padua and not to put them up in one place.

Dershowitless

Alan Dershowitz is sick, demented, ghoulish. Yes, you say, but how does that distinguish him from other lawyers? Good point. But Dershowitz is so twisted, so skin-crawlingly brutish that he really missed a bet, career-wise.

I would not hesitate to cast Dershowitz as Hannibal Lechter, or in a remake of “Nosferatu.” Maybe the sequel to “The Hills Have Eyes,” planing the flesh off unsuspecting suburbanites. He could outdo pustuled, gray-fleshed Johnny Depp at the end of “The Libertine”---without make-up.

Anyone who decrees that it is acceptable for innocent little kids to die, or dirt-poor, ignorant, uneducated families to be wiped out---merely because of their physical proximity to suspected terrorists---is a fiend.

And please save the charges of naivete, and how it’s a murderous world where “morally pure” positions have no bearing in reality. I’ve heard it all before. I say that humans have grown so bellicose and bloodthirsty that “morally pure” positions are the only sensible ones left.

You know, ideas like “no war.” And “killing is bad.”

Dershowitz, like many who are so emotionally invested in the Middle East madness, has lost his witz, if not his humanity. If you missed it, the famed Harvard law professor and interruptive TV talking head wrote a commentary in the L.A. Times a couple weeks ago in which he proposed a bullgoose looney concept called a “continuum of civilianality.”

Sounds like something the Wizard of Oz would have bestowed on the Cowardly Lion, but it’s more like something that Holocaust point-man Heinrich Himmler would have dreamed up. It is a method of assigning relative worth to human life. It justifies the murder of human beings who live, work, or drink coffee near the home of a suspected “militant” who opposes Israel.

Wrote Dershowitz:
“Hezbollah and Hamas militants. . .are difficult to distinguish from those ‘civilians’ who recruit, finance, harbor and facilitate their terrorism. Nor can women and children always be counted as civilians, as some organizations do. Terrorists increasingly use women and teenagers to play important roles in their attacks.”

Nor can women and children always be counted as civilians. Can it be any plainer? Dershowitz has created a gray area in order to justify the indiscriminate killing of Lebanese women and children because some of them might be tools of Hezbollah. He has cast suspicion over an entire populace.

Kristallnacht, anyone?

Because some women and children might have been recruited to aid Hezbollah, he says, whether as cooks and errand-boys or suicide bombers, therefore it is okay to bomb areas where they might be, even if this incinerates other women and children as they twiddle their thumbs, kick a soccer ball, or watch Al-Jazeera.

After all, as Uncle Al the Kiddies’ Pal, notes, those tykes and their mommies were given fair warning:
“The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit. Some---those who cannot leave on their own---should be counted among the innocent victims.”

He’s right that all were given “well-publicized notice” to get out of southern Lebanon. We know this because some fleeing civilians were blown up by U.S.-built Israeli bombs. As for the notion of complicity by geography, this puts Dershowitz in good company with another child murder endorser, Israeli justice minister Haim Ramon, who announced on Israeli army radio that "all those in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah."

Right. Here in Los Angeles, I live near a lot of latino gangs who regularly engage in shooting, drug sales, burglary. I must be a sympathizer.

To his credit, the Dershbag doesn’t quite go as far as Ramon. He still has a shred of humanity. He allows that those dead women and children who were unable to “leave on their own”---who couldn’t hop into their Escalades and cruise to Beirut Airport---are “innocent victims.” How gratifying! This will be a great comfort to those who lay burned, dismembered, disemboweled, dying. Good thing that Alan Dershowitz has determined that I am an innocent victim, they will think. Praise be to Allah!

The alleged point of Dershowitz’s chillingly detached commentary is to urge that the media reassess their “body count methods,” so as to separate the more circumstantially “complicit” men, women, and children from the less circumstantially “complicit” dead men, women, and children. Translation: he is upset with all the (accurate) recent reports of innocent civilians killed by Israel, and is exerting pressure on mainstream U.S. media to slant the story in Israel’s favor.

But let’s take his proposal seriously for a moment. Could such a change in media coverage be accomplished? Sure. Just investigate the deaths of each civilian in order to learn their exact motivations and political beliefs. Talk to schoolmates of dead children and ask if they ever bought a cup of coffee for a member of Hezbollah. Why, we could deputize Al “C.S.I.” Dershowitz to do it. Give him a nice flak jacket and send him to southern Lebanon to get busy. . .

On the surface, Dershowitz’s monstrous “continuum of civilianality” (say it fast ten times) is based on the ruse that there is an ongoing war---the same ruse that Bush uses to justify destroying Constitutional rights, flauting Congressionally enacted laws, rationalizing torture. “We need a new vocabulary,” Dershowitz writes, “to reflect the realities of modern warfare. . .” And: “this concept aptly captures the reality and nuance of warfare today and provides a more fair way to describe those who are killed, wounded and punished.”

Nuance of warfare. Who wrote this, Dr. Strangelove? This is like “delicate disemboweling.” Listen: we are not at war. The “war on terror” is the Big Dershowitz/Bush Lie. The United States cannot fight a “war on terror” by brute military force, and neither can Israel. No one can. Brute force spawns more terrorists. Terrorism, no matter how ideological, is crime, not war. One side blows up buildings, the other invades nations in response? Doesn’t work. Dershowitz inadvertently illustrates this very point. Terrorists, he says, cannot easily be discerned among ordinary citizens. Correct. So what do you call people in a civilian population who blow up buildings, or assassinate innocents? Soldiers? How about “criminals?”

Of course, this really isn’t only about fighting terrorism, as Uncle Al would have you believe. The Dershowitz/Bush agenda is all gummed up with the subjugation of the Middle East, oil (read about the BTC oil pipeline?), the “democratization” of the world (read: empire) by force, good old-fashioned bloodsport, and a healthy dose of Jesus-is-coming Biblical prophecy.

As for the chorus of “what’s Israel supposed to do?” now being shouted into computer screens around the world, yes, this is the salient question. First, here’s what Israel should not do: earn the condemnation of much of the world’s press and populace, if not governments; unite Arab nations in new heights of hatred for Israel and Jews and the U.S.; embolden existing terrorists and terrorist groups sworn to destroy Israel and Jews and the U.S.; create generations of new terrorists sworn to destroy Israel and Jews and the U.S.; stoke anti-Semitism around the world; selfishly put the entire human population at risk of war and annihilation. (And drive Mel Gibson to drink.)

Yet this is just what Israel is accomplishing, with full U.S. support, as it turns tiny, beautiful Lebanon into a place of refugees, rubble, orphans (and yes, an unknown number of dead terrorists), and new terrorists.

And Alan Dershowitz-approved dead children.