tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851695215860268272024-02-08T07:28:45.370-05:00Collateral DamageThe damage is seldom where they say it is...NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.comBlogger197125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-89534216750391664992013-11-17T11:00:00.000-05:002013-11-17T11:00:33.169-05:00TPP, WikiLeaks and the Drone Strike Transparency Bill<br />
<div id="page-logo">
<div class="inside-limiter clear-block">
<h1 id="logo">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/" title="CommonDreams.org"><img alt="CommonDreams.org" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.commondreams.org/images/common-dreams.png" /></a></h1>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="node-header">
<span class="submitted">
Published on Saturday, November 16, 2013 by <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/">Common Dreams</a>
</span>
<div class="node-title">
<h2 class="title">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/11/16-1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;">TPP, WikiLeaks and the Drone Strike Transparency Bill</span></a></h2>
</div>
<div class="author">
</div>
<div class="author">
by <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/robert-naiman">Robert Naiman</a></div>
<div class="author">
</div>
<div class="author">
</div>
</div>
<img alt="" src="http://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/tpp-wikileaks-540px.jpg" style="height: 304px; width: 540px;" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Senate Intelligence Committee recently took an important step by passing an intelligence authorization which <a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/1470">would require</a>
for the first time -- if it became law -- that the administration
publicly report on civilian casualties from U.S. drone strikes.<br />
<br />
Sarah Knuckey, Director of the Project on Extrajudicial Executions at
New York University School of Law and a Special Advisor to the UN
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, <a href="http://justsecurity.org/2013/11/07/key-issues-senate-bill-require-white-house-drone-strike-casualty-reports/">calls this provision</a> "an important step toward improving transparency," and <a href="http://justsecurity.org/2013/11/07/key-issues-senate-bill-require-white-house-drone-strike-casualty-reports/">notes that</a> "Various U.N. officials, foreign governments, a broad range of civil society, and many others, including <a href="http://justsecurity.org/2013/10/28/ending-war-progress-report/">former U.S. Department of State Legal Advisor Harold Koh</a> ... have called for the publication of such basic information."<br />
This provision could be offered as an amendment in the Senate to the
National Defense Authorization Act. It could be offered in the House as
an amendment on the intelligence authorization, or as a freestanding
bill. But it's not likely to become law unless there's some public
agitation for it (you can participate in the public agitation <a href="http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/pass-the-drone-strike?source=c.fwd&r_by=1135580">here</a>.)<br />
<br />
Forcing the administration to publish information is crucial, because
in the court of poorly informed public opinion, the administration has
gotten away with two key claims that the record of independent reporting
strongly indicates are <strong><em>not true</em></strong>: 1) U.S.
drone strikes are "narrowly targeted" on "top-level terrorist leaders,"
and 2) civilian casualties have been "extremely rare." <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/drones-opinion_n_2689813.html">Poll</a> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/drone-program-poll_n_2696352.html">data</a> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/08/drone-support-poll_n_2647051.html">shows</a>
that majority public support of the drone strike policy is
significantly based on belief in these two false claims; if the public
knew that either of these claims were not true, public support for the
policy would fall below 50%. By keeping key information secret, the
administration has been able to avoid having its two key claims in
defense of the policy refuted in media that reach the broad public.<br />
<br />
You might think that if a key reason that it's been difficult to do
anything politically in the U.S. about the drone strike policy has been
the apparent public support for the policy among people who <strong><em>do not know</em></strong> that the strikes <strong><em>have not been</em></strong> "narrowly targeted" on "top-level terrorist leaders" and who <strong><em>do not know</em></strong> that civilian casualties <strong><em>have not been</em></strong>
extremely rare, then if there were a proposed transparency reform that
could force the administration to disclose information that would likely
contribute greatly to knowledge among the general public that these two
key claims are not true, it should be a no-brainer that critics of the
policy should <a href="http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/pass-the-drone-strike?source=c.fwd&r_by=1135580">vigorously support this reform</a>.<br />
<br />
Sadly, it is not, apparently, a no-brainer, because there are people
who claim that transparency reforms are meaningless. And while it is
tempting to try to ignore such people, they have a disproportionate
impact to their numbers because most people don't have the life
experience that would enable them to easily judge between the competing
claims "transparency reforms are important" and "transparency reforms
are meaningless." Our starting point is that many Americans, compared to
Europeans, are politically disengaged, alienated from political
engagement most of the time. So when you put out a call for people to
engage Congress, you have a group of people who get it right away and
take action, and a another group of people who think, "Engage Congress?
Not that again," and treat it as a huge personal sacrifice to engage
Congress, like you asked them to volunteer for a root canal. These
people are looking for any excuse to not take action. So if someone pops
up and says, "transparency reforms are meaningless," these people have
an excuse not to take action. "Oh, this proposed reform is
controversial, not everyone agrees, so I don't have to do anything."<br />
<br />
To people who want to claim that transparency reforms are
meaningless, I want to say this: tell it to WikiLeaks. What was the
fundamental strategic idea of WikiLeaks? What was the fundamental
insight that Julian Assange deeply grasped that caused him to initiate
this project, at great personal risk to himself and his close
collaborators? It was that governments are hiding key information that
the public has the right to know, that allowing governments to continue
to hide this information fundamentally undermines democratic
accountability, and that forcing this information into public debate
fundamentally enables democratic accountability.<br />
<br />
Case in point: Just Foreign Policy <a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/1439/content_item/freetpp">issued a crowd-sourced reward</a>
for WikiLeaks to publish the secret negotiating text of the Trans
Pacific Partnership agreement, which, among many other concerns, <a href="http://infojustice.org/archives/31196">critics like the AARP</a>
have charged threatens the ability of the U.S. government to make
medicines safe and affordable under the Affordable Care Act. This week, <a href="https://wikileaks.org/tpp/pressrelease.html">WikiLeaks delivered</a>,
publishing the negotiating text of the "intellectual property" chapter
of the TPP, the most controversial part of the agreement, including the
negotiating positions of different countries. (If you made a pledge to
the reward, you can fulfill your pledge <a href="https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate">here</a>. )<br />
Publishing this information generated a lot of press. (Google
"WikiLeaks and TPP.") It also allowed critics of the agreement, like <a href="http://www.citizen.org/Wikileaks-publishes-TPP-IP-Chapter">Public Citizen</a>, <a href="http://www.msfaccess.org/content/msf-responds-leak-trans-pacific-partnership-text-wikileaks">Doctors Without Borders</a>, and the <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/tpp-leak-confirms-worst-us-negotiators-still-trying-trade-away-internet-freedoms">Electronic Frontier Foundation</a> to respond directly to the TPP text in making their criticisms.<br />
<br />
Predictably, some journalists wrote what they often write about such
disclosures: that there was nothing really shocking for insiders who
were closely following the issue. And, in a narrow sense, that's not
untrue. But it missed the point. In general, <strong><em>disclosing
"secret" government policies mostly isn't about educating journalists
and other insiders who are closely following the issues. It's about
educating the broad public, which never saw this information clearly
presented in major media.</em></strong> In a democracy, it's hard to
keep the basics of important public policies secret from well-informed
people who are following closely. Official secrecy is mainly about
keeping them from the broad public, because official secrecy allows the
government to keep the broad public in a fog of competing claims that
can't be directly verified and are therefore never resolved in major
media. Critics charge that X, but the government denies it. Who knows
for sure?<br />
<br />
The <em>New York Times</em> recently had an editorial in favor of the
TPP. Critics complained, saying: 1) either you're endorsing an
agreement that you've never seen or 2) you have seen the agreement, and
instead of doing journalism, you're collaborating in keeping the public
in the dark. No, we haven't seen the agreement, the <em>Times</em> responded. We're just endorsing the <em>idea</em>
of an agreement. Never mind what the actual agreement is. That's the
kind of "public debate" you can have when the policy is secret - whether
you like the <em>official story</em> about the policy, rather than the <em>actual policy</em>. (Now that part of the TPP text has been leaked, the <em>Times</em> is quiet.) This is the same problem we face with the drone strike policy: people like the <em>official story</em>
about the drone strike policy, in which drones are a magic super-weapon
that only kills terrorist leaders and not civilians, not the <em>actual policy</em>, about which they have no idea.<br />
<br />
When Edward Snowden leaked information about the NSA's blanket
surveillance on Americans, many insiders said, "Yeah, we thought the NSA
was doing that, we couldn't prove it, but no-one who follows the NSA
was surprised." <em><strong>But the broad public had no clue, because it
had never been clearly reported where most people could see it, because
critics' claims couldn't be directly verified.</strong></em> When
Snowden blew the whistle, the broad public found out, and that's why
it's plausible that Congress will now force a change in policy. And that
shows that transparency matters.<br />
<br />
Where we are now with the drone strike policy is where we were with
the NSA before Snowden's revelations: insiders know what's going on, but
the broad public doesn't.<br />
<br />
An illustration: earlier this week, I and others engaged in some
"street lobbying" of Jeh Johnson, President Obama's nominee to head the
Department of Homeland Security. When he was previously in government,
Johnson was the Pentagon's top lawyer, and thus participated in
constructing the administration's purported legal justifications for the
drone strike policy (which still have not been fully disclosed to
Congress and the public.) Now, as head of DHS, he's not going to play
that role directly. But he's still going to have significant influence,
because he'll be in the meeting of the national security department
heads, because he's well-connected, and because, by his own account, he
cares deeply about the rule of law and working to ensure that the drone
strike policy transparently complies with the rule of law. I was
lobbying Johnson to support the drone strike transparency bill, so that
the administration would have to disclose information about civilian
casualties. He said he would look into the bill and consider it.<br />
<br />
During the discussion, one of my colleagues challenged Johnson about a
particular drone strike. Johnson gave the standard administration
defense, about people who are planning to attack the United States. I
interrupted him: "That's a small percentage of the people being killed
by drone strikes."<br />
<br />
"That's true," Johnson said.<br />
<br />
<em>That's true.</em> When I called him on it, Johnson immediately
conceded that the story that the drone strike policy is all about
narrowly targeting people who are trying to attack the United States is
basically not true. It's true that the U.S. has tried to target some
people who have attacked or tried to attack the United States. But
that's a <em>small percentage</em> of the people who have been killed.
And so, in the main, that's not what the drone strike policy is about;
in particular, the claim that drone strikes have been "narrowly
targeted" on "top-level terrorist leaders" is <em><strong>not true</strong></em>.
("I believe it very likely that one of my enemies is standing in that
crowd of 50 people, therefore I am going to blow up the crowd" does not
constitute "narrow targeting.")<br />
<br />
Why would Johnson concede to <em>me</em> that a central administration claim in defense of its drone strike policy is basically not true?<br />
Because he wasn't giving an interview to a mainstream journalist. He
was just talking to some guy on a street corner who wasn't recording
what he was saying, a person who had little presumed ability to reach
the broad American public, a person who could, at worst, tell some
mainstream journalist what Johnson said, which Johnson could then
promptly deny. He could say he was misquoted or misunderstood, and life
would go on. And so we're left with the usual fog. Critics say X, U.S.
officials deny it. Who really knows what the truth is?<br />
<br />
Johnson was having an insider conversation, conceding that which all
insiders know, but which the broad public does not know: the drone
strike policy is not narrowly targeted on people who are trying to
attack the United States.<br />
<br />
That's why we need to force the administration onto the public record
to document its claims. If the administration wants to claim that
civilian casualties from drone strikes have been extremely rare, and
that those killed were mainly people trying to attack the U.S., make
them show us their numbers, and how they arrived at them. <a href="http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/pass-the-drone-strike?source=c.fwd&r_by=1135580"><strong><em>Pass the drone strike transparency bill</em></strong></a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="copyright-info">
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.</div>
<div class="copyright-info">
</div>
<div class="author-image" style="float: left; padding: 1px 15px 15px 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/robert-naiman"><img alt="Robert Naiman" class="imagecache imagecache-author_photo" height="83" src="https://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imagecache/author_photo/robert_naiman.jpg" title="Robert Naiman" width="90" /></a> </div>
<div class="author-brief-article">
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at <a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/" target="_blank">Just Foreign Policy.</a> Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the <a href="http://www.cepr.net/">Center for Economic and Policy Research</a> and Public Citizen's <a href="http://www.citizen.org/trade/">Global Trade Watch</a>.
He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University
of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East. You can
contact him <a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/about/contact">here</a>.<br />
</div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-30664286552025689082013-08-28T22:27:00.000-04:002013-08-28T22:29:40.400-04:00In Syria, Obama's Calculations Reveal Stupidity of US Imperialism<br />
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/" title="CommonDreams.org"><img alt="CommonDreams.org" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.commondreams.org/images/common-dreams.png" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
Published on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 by <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/">Common Dreams</a><!-- I converted this one --> <!-- (2) if field_source_url url is empty AND the field_source_url title is empty AND field_op_source is NOT empty AND source_profile_url is NOT empty --> <!-- (3) if field_source_url url is empty AND the field_source_url title is NOT empty AND field_op_source is NOT empty AND field_op_source is NOT empty AND source_profile_url is empty --> <!-- (4) if field_source_url url is empty AND the field_source_url title is NOT empty AND field_op_source is NOT empty AND source_profile_url is NOT empty --> <!-- (5) if field_source_url url is NOT empty AND the field_source_url title is empty AND field_op_source is NOT empty --> <!-- (6) if field_source_url url is NOT empty AND the field_source_url title is NOT empty AND field_op_source is NOT empty --> <br />
<div class="node-title">
<h2 class="title">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/28-3" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;">In Syria, Obama's Calculations Reveal Stupidity of US Imperialism</span></a></h2>
</div>
<h3 class="subtitle">
<span style="font-size: large;"></span></h3>
<h3 class="subtitle">
<span style="font-size: large;">As US and NATO plan aerial attack on Assad government, analyses expose cynical and dangerous mindset of those choosing war over peace</span></h3>
<div class="author">
- Jon Queally, staff writer<br />
</div>
<!-- $authors is created within openpublish_core/theme_helpers/node-views_article.tpl.php --> <br />
<div class="node-content clear-block prose">
<div id="node-body">
<span class="image-full" style="width: 540px;"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/warships_banner.jpg" style="height: 326px; width: 540px;" title="Does the planned US/NATO attack on Syria serve a larger strategic goal than simply "saving political face"? Perhaps not, but that doesn't make it any less stupid, illegal, immoral, or repugnant. (AFP Photo/Chad R. Erdmann)" /></span><br />
<span class="image-full" style="width: 540px;"><span class="caption">Does the planned US/NATO attack on Syria serve a larger strategic goal than simply "saving political face"? Perhaps not, but that doesn't make it any less stupid, illegal, immoral, or repugnant. (AFP Photo/Chad R. Erdmann)</span></span><br />
<span class="image-full" style="width: 540px;"><span class="caption"></span></span><br />
<span class="image-full" style="width: 540px;"><span class="caption"></span></span><br />
<span class="image-full" style="width: 540px;"><span class="caption"></span></span><br />
<span class="image-full" style="width: 540px;"><span class="caption"></span></span>With the U.S. war machine <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/28-2">in full gear for an expected air assault</a> on Syria, and with a US media continuing to focus on the inevitability of such an attack but not the true reasons behind it, the fundamental question remains: Why would the U.S., backed by its NATO allies, carry out such a misguided, dangerous, and—not to put too fine a point on it—<em>stupid </em>military campaign?<br />
<br />
Citing reasons strategic, legal, and moral—<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/27">critics of a U.S.-led attack</a> on Syria are being <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/27-2">drowned out</a> by major news outlets, many citing unnamed government sources, who say U.S. cruise missile attacks (and possibly a multi-day aerial bombing campaign) could begin as earlier as Thursday.<br />
<br />
But why? To what end? Who benefits? And who will be left to suffer?<br />
<br />
Though asking these questions may not determine definitive answers, there are at least three points of agreement among experts cautioning against war. First, the details of last week's use of a chemical agent outside remain unclear and government claims about intelligence on the matter should be received with high levels of skepticism. Second, even if the Assad government, or someone loyal to it, was responsible for the attack the idea that cruise missiles would be the appropriate response (legally, morally or otherwise) is simple not true. And lastly, there is simply no military solution to the humanitarian crisis in Syria.<br />
<br />
So what's the real goal of the attack on Syria?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/28/as_strikes_on_syria_loom_is">Asked that question</a> by <em>Democracy Now's</em> Amy Goodman on Wednesday, foreign policy analyst Phyllis Bennis—referencing Obama's August 2012 comment about use of chemical weapons being a "red line" in terms of U.S. military intervention—articulated this answer:<br />
<blockquote>
Well, it seems that the goal is a political goal. It’s to make a statement: "Oh, my god, I used a red line. I said there was a red line, I have to do something." And the only, quote, "something" that seems to be available is a military action.</blockquote>
But is that analysis—that this is all political cover for Obama in the face of neoconservative pressure or the fear that failure to "respond" with military might will look the U.S. look weak—too simplistic?<br />
<br />
Perhaps. But Bennis is not alone in her assessment that what's really at stake in Syria is something overtly fundamental to U.S. power precisely because the calculations being made by the Obama administration to launch strikes are so clearly shrugging off the self-evident complexities and dangerous possibilities predicted to result from military action.<br />
Put another way, the simple political calculation that Obama must "save face" is really an admission that what's most important in terms of U.S. foreign policy is that the potency of U.S. military power should never be questioned by potential rivals or made to look impotent by other nations.<br />
<br />
<span class="pullquote">The simple political calculation that Obama must "save face" is really an admission that what's most important in terms of U.S. foreign policy is that the potency of U.S. military power should never be questioned by potential rivals or made to look impotent by other nations.</span><br />
<span class="pullquote"></span><br />
In that context, as former CIA analyst Ray McGovern <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/28-3">writes</a> at <em>Common Dreams</em>, the real target of U.S. military action is not the Assad regime <em>per se</em>—but Iran.<br />
<br />
"Obviously, there is concern about the human rights catastrophe in Syria," writes McGovern, "but is the main target Syria’s main ally, Iran, as many suspect?"<br />
<br />
Parsing why both the U.S. and and neighboring Israel would risk triggering a regional war when both state that neither "regime change" nor protracted involvement in Syria's civil war is the goal, McGovern argues that,<br />
<blockquote>
Iran’s leaders need not be paranoid to see themselves as a principal target of external meddling in Syria. While there seem to be as many interests being pursued – as there are rag-tag groups pursuing them – Tehran is not likely to see the common interests of Israel and the U.S. as very complicated. Both appear determined to exploit the chaotic duel among the thugs in Syria as an opportunity to deal a blow to Hezbollah and Hamas in Israel’s near-frontier and to isolate Iran still further, and perhaps even advance Israel’s ultimate aim of “regime change” in Tehran.</blockquote>
What has long been known about the conflict within Syria is the manner in which it has served as a proxy war among both regional and world powers, but none of those players have played such a central and pernicious role in fueling global conflict in the last century than the U.S. military which time and time again has chosen military belligerence and imperial self-interest over the option of more peaceful pathways.<br />
<br />
Indeed, as the <em>Guardian's</em> Seumas Milne <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/27/attack-syria-chemical-weapon-escalate-backlash">argues</a>, if the U.S., U.K. and their allies wanted peace in the region, they have a sadistic way of showing it. As he says, it "is the war itself"—the "death and destruction" of ongoing violence—that poses the great threat to Syria's people:<br />
<blockquote>
If the US, British and French governments were genuinely interested in bringing it to an end – instead of exploiting it to weaken Iran – they would be using their leverage with the rebels and their sponsors to achieve a ceasefire and a negotiated political settlement.<br />
Instead, they seem intent on escalating the war to save Obama's face and tighten their regional grip. It's a dangerous gamble [...] </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Even if the attacks are limited, they will certainly increase the death toll and escalate the war. The risk is that they will invite retaliation by Syria or its allies – including against Israel – draw the US in deeper and spread the conflict. The west can use this crisis to help bring Syria's suffering to an end – or pour yet more petrol on the flames.</blockquote>
As <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/26-2">many critics argue</a> and Bennis expressed again Wednesday, the "notion that we are going to somehow escalate these attacks in Syria, rather than saying this is a moment when we desperately need diplomacy" is absurd.<br />
Condemning the U.S. decision to cancel scheduled diplomatic talks with Russia on Wednesday, Bennis said the U.S. is wrong to stave off discussions or any possibility of peace talks.<br />
"This is exactly the time" for such talks, she said, adding:<br />
<blockquote>
We need to be talking to Russia, to Iran, to all of the U.S. allies that are supporting the other side, to force the various parties to peace talks. There is no military solution. This is what Congresswoman Barbara Lee said yesterday, and it’s absolutely true. There is no military solution. Extra assaults from the United States is going to make the situation worse, is going to put Syrian civilians at greater risk, not provide protection.</blockquote>
So let the record show—if and when the U.S. bombs fall on Syria and the predicted death toll and violence spreads—that there was another choice for President Obama and his allies, but that helping to coordinate peace talks or fostering a negotiated settlement between the warring factions was just "something" that the U.S. simply refused to do.<br />
<div align="center">
_____________________________________________</div>
<div class="copyright-info">
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License</div>
</div>
</div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-49831343474289893902013-08-28T20:46:00.000-04:002013-08-28T20:46:02.909-04:00The Specter of Chemical and Biological Weapons<br />
<h1>
<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/"><img alt="Science News" src="http://www.scientificamerican.com/assets/img/logo_new.jpg" title="Scientific American" /></a> </h1>
<!--
<li style="border-right:none !important;"><a href="/page.cfm?section=log-in" title="My Account">My Account</a></li>
--> <div id="subscriptionCenter">
<h2>
<a class="contentType" href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/section.cfm?id=in-depth-reports">In-Depth Reports</a> | <a class="category" href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/health-and-medicine">Health</a> </h2>
</div>
<h2 class="articleTitle">
<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=too-late-chemical-weapons-syria" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;">The Specter of Chemical and Biological Weapons</span></a></h2>
<h3 id="articleDek">
<span style="font-size: small;">Efforts to harness the power of toxic chemicals and deadly organisms have been at the core of chemical and biological attacks throughout history. This package chronicles such incidents before Syria's recent alleged chemical weapon attack on civilians outside Damascus</span> </h3>
<br />
<br />
<div class="articleInfo">
<span class="datestamp">August 22, 2013 |</span> </div>
<div class="articleInfo">
</div>
<div class="articleInfo">
</div>
<div class="articleInfo">
<span class="title">The Specter of Chemical and Biological Weapons</span><a class="moreLink" href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/report.cfm?id=Chemical-and-biological-weapons"> Efforts to harness the power of toxic chemicals and deadly organisms have been at the core of chemical and biological attacks throughout history. This package chronicles such incidents before Syria's recent alleged chemical weapon attack on civilians outside Damascus <span class="linkArrow">»</span> </a> </div>
<div class="articleInfo">
</div>
<div class="articleInfo">
</div>
<div class="articleInfo">
<img alt="" id="articleImg" src="http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/too-late-chemical-weapons-syria_1.jpg" width="277" /></div>
<div class="articleInfo">
</div>
<div class="articleInfo">
</div>
<div class="articleInfo">
</div>
<div class="articleInfo">
The Syrian civil war reached a nadir on August 21 when rockets with toxic <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/talking-back/2013/08/28/a-guide-to-suspected-chemical-weapons-used-in-syria/">chemical agents</a> were launched at the suburbs of the Ghouta region just outside the capital city of Damascus. Officials have not yet confirmed how many died as a result of the chemical attack, but more than 100,000 lives have been claimed by the overall uprising since it broke out two years ago between supporters of Pres. Bashar al-Assad’s regime and those who called for his expulsion.</div>
<div class="articleInfo">
</div>
United Nations inspectors working to determine the nature of the deadly agents used in last week’s attack have faced multiple challenges, including delays in reaching the site where the blasts occurred. Having originally granted investigators permission to access the site on August 25, Syrian officials later said the team could not enter until 24 hours later. On August 26 the team managed to reach the site after coming under fire from unidentified snipers.<br />
<br />
The setback could prove disastrous if the chemical remains of the weapons have evaporated or expired. But if perpetrators used a persistent nerve agent such as <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-can-minute-quantities">sarin</a>, traces of the toxin should linger in the soil for up to 29 weeks.<br />
<br />
<em>Scientific American</em> spoke with Charles Blair, senior fellow on state and nonstate terrorist threats with the Federation of American Scientists, about the challenges of pinning down a toxic culprit.<br />
<br />
[<em>An edited transcript of the interview follows.</em>]<br />
<br />
<strong>What happened at 2:00 A.M. in the Ghouta region of Syria on Wednesday, August 21?</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
There are some visuals, but apparently there were thuds or explosions releasing a chemical agent that was dispersed throughout the area, harming a large number of people in a small space. That begins the debate: What was it? There will never be a definitive answer. The U.N. team’s only charge was determining if there was a chemical agent or not, not who delivered it. But it’s pretty safe to say the attack was chemical. The battle is what people consider counts as proof.<br />
<br />
<strong>What kind of testing is done to find out what chemicals were used in the attack? Is it all done on-site?</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
The team that goes in can either do on-site testing or they can take it to one of 20 facilities outside the country that are certified to conduct off-site testing. One of the benefits of off-site testing is that the devices there are usually more advanced. Usually they do a combination of both. So in this case you take a sample and split it into eight [parts], which are then sealed to prevent contamination. Two of the eight [parts] are analyzed on-site. One goes to the inspector state party, and one is sent to be analyzed off-site. Each sample is weighed and reweighed before and after shipment to ensure no tampering takes place.<br />
<br />
The samples then go through gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) analysis, which breaks down the sample into its various chemicals. Then they identify them by comparing what they have with a database of more than 2,000 chemicals. [Editor’s note: A GCMS instrument comprises two parts. The gas chromatography (GC) component separates the chemical mixture into pure chemicals based on the ease with which they evaporate; the mass spectrometer (MS) identifies and quantifies the chemicals based on their structures.]<br />
<br />
<strong>Is there an expiration date for detection of these chemicals?</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
If it was sarin, they have 29 weeks to detect the degradation components. There have been rumors that it’s too late to detect or that sarin evaporates. What happens is it goes into the soil. If there were bursts of sarin in the area say, nearby a crater, the bottom of that crater would be a great place to find sarin remnants. With such a large number of people killed in this attack, there is evidence that large amounts of the chemical—if it was sarin—was used. I expect it lingered in certain areas.<br />
<div class="articleInfo">
<br /> </div>
<span class="date"><div class="articleInfo">
<strong>Is there a main degradation component that you look for when you’re looking for evidence that sarin may have been used in an attack?</strong></div>
<div class="articleInfo">
<strong></strong> </div>
The main one is IMPA, or isopropylmethylphosphonic acid. That’s the main chemical marker. There are others that exist, but as far as my research goes that’s the one I focus on.<br />
<br />
<strong>Some experts have said it looks like a combination of the nerve agents sarin, used in two terrorist attacks in Japan in the 1990s, and VX, which some suspect was used in the Iran–Iraq War in 1980–88. Is that possible? Do you agree?</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
With VX we’re not sure. Some scientists think it’s more persistent, meaning it sticks around, but there’s also evidence that maybe it doesn’t. To my knowledge VX was not used in the Iran-Iraq War. What we do know is that VX can be up to 100 times more toxic than sarin. If we look at the history of chemical warfare, it used to be that you’d either want an agent that was persistent and did its business on the surface or you’d want a gas agent that did damage in the air quickly and dispersed. If VX were both of those things, that would be a game changer.<br />
<br />
<strong>How easy is it to make these types of weapons?</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
It’s very challenging. Take Libya, for example. They had a chemical weapons program. The first thing they made in high quantities was mustard gas, which is poisonous and lethal, but is not terribly difficult to make. Then they tried nerve agents. That was just a bridge too far for them. One of the things that made it so difficult was that the U.S. was interfering with their ability to get the precursors, the materials they’d need to make the weapons in the first place. In the end they abandoned the effort and chose to rely on their nuclear program.<br />
<br />
<strong>Syria and Israel are among the only countries not to have signed or ratified the </strong><strong>1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (Syria signed but never ratified and Israel never signed), which required signatories to stop bioweapons work and destroy existing stockpiles. Did this play a role in the attack?</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
There are seven states that have not signed. The significance of the Convention is its role in upholding a social construction of reality in which these sorts of weapons are viewed as beyond the pale, as taboo. The more people that adopt that narrative, the bigger the taboo becomes.<br />
<br />
Syria was not a member, but it made sense for them not to be. They wanted a form of defense against Israel. They created a stockpile for defense against other states. I really don’t think they would ever have envisioned using it against insurgents. But because they are not a part of the Convention, and there’s no world government, they didn’t feel compelled not to use chemical weapons.<br />
<br />
There are only three reasons I can think of that the regime would’ve done this: One, they have an incredibly complicated chess game that’s out of this world and somehow part of a rational strategy that I can’t understand. Two, this was an element of Pres. Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Or three, the regime itself is beginning to lose touch with reality, which can happen if you’re isolated. We’ve seen it happen to terrorist regimes over and over.<br />
<br />
You can’t automatically accept any of the answers. So then you look at the opposition—they had a lot more to gain through the use of chemical agents. From their perspective, [the opposition] likely understood that it would trigger a large-scale U.S. intervention. So you could have had a situation where they said yes, people are going to die, but more will die if we don’t do this [to] trigger U.S. intervention.<br />
<div class="articleInfo">
</div>
</span><div class="articleInfo">
<span class="date"></span> </div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-82385124925588196162013-06-12T22:28:00.000-04:002013-06-12T22:37:24.403-04:00The Wages of Cluelessness Is Death<div class="limiter clear-block">
<h1 id="logo">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/" title="CommonDreams.org"><img alt="CommonDreams.org" src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.commondreams.org/images/common-dreams.png" /></a>
</h1>
</div>
<br />
<div class="node-header">
<span class="submitted">
Published on Wednesday, June 12, 2013 by <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175710/tomgram%3A_chase_madar%2C_bradley_manning_vs._seal_team_6/">TomDispatch.com</a></span></div>
<div class="node-header">
<span class="submitted">
</span>
<br />
<div class="node-title">
<h2 class="title">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/06/12-4" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;">How Dystopian Secrecy Contributes to Clueless Wars</span></a></h2>
</div>
<h3 class="subtitle">
<span style="font-size: large;">Bradley Manning has done more for U.S. security than SEAL Team 6 </span></h3>
<div class="author">
</div>
<div class="author">
by <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/author/chase-madar">Chase Madar</a></div>
<div class="author">
</div>
<div class="author">
</div>
</div>
The prosecution of Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks’ source inside the U.S. Army, will be pulling out all the stops when it <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/features/2013/06/bradley-manning-on-trial.html" target="_blank">calls to the stand</a> a
member of Navy SEAL Team 6, the unit that assassinated Osama bin
Laden. The SEAL (in partial disguise, as his identity is secret) is
expected to tell the military judge that classified documents leaked by
Manning to WikiLeaks were found<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="image-right" style="width: 300px;"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/manning_camo300.jpg" style="height: 334px; width: 300px;" title="(Image via Bradley Manning Support Network)" /><span class="caption"> </span></span><br />
<span class="image-right" style="width: 300px;"><span class="caption">(Image via Bradley Manning Support Network)</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
on
bin Laden’s laptop. That will, in turn, be offered as proof not that
bin Laden had internet access like two billion other earthlings, but
that Manning has “aided the enemy,” a capital offense.<br />
<br />
Think of it as courtroom cartoon theater: the heroic slayer of the <i>jihadi</i> super-villain
testifying against the ultimate bad soldier, a five-foot-two-inch gay
man facing 22 charges in military court and accused of the biggest
security breach in U.S. history.<br />
<br />
But let’s be clear on one thing: Manning, the young Army intelligence
analyst who leaked thousands of public documents and passed them on to
WikiLeaks, has done far more for U.S. national security than SEAL Team
6.<br />
<br />
The assassination of Osama bin Laden, the spiritual (but not
operational) leader of al-Qaeda, was a fist-pumping moment of
triumphalism for a lot of Americans, as the Saudi fanatic had come to
incarnate not just al-Qaeda but all national security threats. This was
true despite the fact that, since 9/11, al-Qaeda has been able to do
remarkably little harm to the United States or to the West in general.
(The deadliest attack in a Western nation since 9/11, the 2004 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings" target="_blank">Atocha bombing</a> in Madrid, was not committed by bin Laden’s organization, though <a href="http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/11/29/spains_election_and_us_foreign_policy_after_2012" target="_blank">white-shoe</a> foreign policy magazines and <a href="http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/scr_05.pdf" target="_blank">think tanks</a> routinely get this wrong, “al-Qaeda” being such a handy/sloppy metonym for all terrorism.)<br />
<br />
Al-Qaeda remains a simmering menace, but as an organization hardly
the greatest threat to the United States. In fact, if you measure
national security in blood and money, as many of us still do, by far the
greatest threat to the United States over the past dozen years has been
our own clueless foreign policy.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Wages of Cluelessness Is Death</b></span></h3>
<br />
Look at the numbers. The attacks of September 11, 2001, killed 3,000
people, a large-scale atrocity by any definition. Still, roughly <a href="http://icasualties.org/" target="_blank">double</a>
that number of American military personnel have been killed in
Washington’s invasion and occupation of Iraq and its no-end-in-sight war
in Afghanistan. Add in private military contractors who have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Contractors" target="_blank">died</a> in both war zones, along with recently discharged veterans who have <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/19/veterans-outreach-increases/2001571/" target="_blank">committed suicide</a>, and the figure triples. The number of seriously wounded in both wars is <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/iraq-afghanistan-war-wounded_n_2017338.html" target="_blank">cautiously estimated</a> at 50,000. And if you dare to add in as well the number of <a href="http://web.mit.edu/cis/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf" target="_blank">Iraqis</a>, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-statistics" target="_blank">Afghans</a>, and <a href="http://icasualties.org/" target="_blank">foreign coalition personnel</a> killed in both wars, the death toll reaches at least a hundred 9/11s and probably more.<br />
<br />
Did these people die to make America safer? Don’t insult our
intelligence. Virtually no one thinks the Iraq War has made the U.S.
more secure, though many believe the war created <a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-26-iraq-report_x.htm" target="_blank">new threats</a>. After all, the Iraq we liberated is now in danger of <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/06/why-iraq-is-on-the-precipice-of-civil-war/276562/" target="_blank">collapsing</a> into another bitter, bloody civil war, is a <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2011/07/07/as_iraq_iran_ties_expand_so_do_worries_of_arab_allies_united_states/" target="_blank">close ally</a> of Iran, and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html" target="_blank">sells</a> the preponderance of its oil to China. Over the years, the <a href="http://costsofwar.org/" target="_blank">drain</a>
on the U.S. treasury for all of this will be at least several trillion
dollars. As for Afghanistan, after the disruption of al-Qaeda camps,
accomplished 10 years ago, it is difficult to see how the ongoing
pacification campaign there and the CIA drone war across the border in
Pakistan’s tribal areas have enhanced the security of the U.S. in any
significant way. Both wars of occupation were ghastly strategic choices
that have killed hundreds of thousands, wounded many more, sent <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174892/michael_schwartz_the_iraqi_brain_drain" target="_blank">millions into exile</a>, and destabilized what Washington, in good times, used to call “the arc of instability.”<br />
<br />
Why have our strategic choices been so disastrous? In large part
because they have been militantly clueless. Starved of important
information, both the media and public opinion were <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/9301/jim_lobe_nuclear_drumbeat" target="_blank">putty</a>
in the hands the Bush administration and its neocon followers as they
dreamt up and then put into action their geopolitical fantasies. It has
since become fashion for politicians who supported the war to blame the
Iraq debacle on “bad intelligence.” But as former CIA analyst Paul
Pillar <a href="http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/still-peddling-iraq-war-myths-ten-years-later-8227" target="_blank">reminds us</a>,
the carefully cherry-picked “Intel” about Saddam Hussein’s WMD program
was really never the issue. After all, the CIA’s classified
intelligence estimate on Iraq argued that, even if that country’s ruler
Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction (which he didn’t),
he would never use them and was therefore not a threat.<br />
<br />
Senator Bob Graham, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee in
2003, was one of the few people with access to that CIA report who
bothered to take the time to read it. Initially keen on the idea of
invading Iraq, he changed his mind and voted against the invasion.<br />
<br />
What if the entire nation had had access to that highly classified
document? What if bloggers, veterans' groups, clergy, journalists,
educators, and other opinion leaders had been able to see the full
intelligence estimate, not just the morsels cherry-picked by Cheney and
his mates? Even then, of course, there was enough information around to
convince <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/feb/15/politics.politicalnews" target="_blank">millions of people</a>
across the globe of the folly of such an invasion, but what if some
insider had really laid out the whole truth, not just the cherry-picked
pseudofacts in those months and the games being played by other insiders
to fool Congress and the American people into a war of choice and
design in the Middle East? As we now know, whatever potentially helpful
information there was remained conveniently beyond our sight until a
military and humanitarian disaster was unleashed.<br />
<br />
Any private-sector employee who screwed up this badly would be fired
on the spot, or at the very least put under full-scale supervision. And
this was the gift of Bradley Manning: thanks to his trove of
declassified documents our incompetent foreign policy elites finally
have the <a href="http://wikileaks.org/" target="_blank">supervision</a> they manifestly need.<br />
<br />
Not surprisingly, foreign policy elites don’t much enjoy being
supervised. Like orthopedic surgeons, police departments, and every
other professional group under the sun, the military brass and their
junior partners in the diplomatic corps feel deeply that they should be
exempt from public oversight. Every volley of revealed documents from
WikiLeaks has stimulated the same <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175282/engelhardt_whose_hands_whose_blood" target="_blank">outraged response</a> from that crew: near-total secrecy is essential to the delicate arts of diplomacy and war.<br />
<br />
Let us humor our foreign policy elites (who have feelings too),
despite their abysmal 10-year resumé of charred rubble and mangled
limbs. There may be a time and a place for secrecy, even duplicity, in
statecraft. But history shows that a heavy blood-price is often
attached to diplomats saying one thing in public and meaning something
else in private. In the late 1940s, for instance, the United States
publicly declared that the Korean peninsula was not viewed by Washington
as a vital interest, emboldening the North to invade the South and
begin the Korean War. Our government infamously escalated the Vietnam
War behind a smokescreen of official secrecy, distortion, and lies.
Saddam Hussein rolled into Kuwait after U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April
Glaspie <a href="http://news.antiwar.com/2011/01/02/glaspie-memo-leaked-us-dealings-with-iraq-ahead-of-1990-invasion-of-kuwait-detailed/" target="_blank">told</a>
the Ba’athist strongman that he could do what he pleased on his
southern border and still bask in the good graces of Washington. This is
not a record of success.<br />
<br />
So what’s wrong with diplomats doing more of their business in the
daylight -- a very old idea not cooked up at Julian Assange’s kitchen
table five years ago? Check out the mainstream political science
literature on international relations and you’ll find rigorous,
respectable, borderline-boring studies touting the virtues of relative
transparency in statecraft -- as, for example, in <a href="http://www3.nd.edu/%7Edlindley/handouts/COE.htm" target="_blank">making</a>
the post-Napoleonic Concert of Europe such a durable peace deal. On
the other hand, when nation-states get coy about their commitments to
other states or to their own citizenry, violent disaster is often in the
offing.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Dystopian Secrecy</b></span></h3>
<br />
Foreign policy elites regularly swear that the WikiLeaks example, if
allowed to stand, puts us on a perilous path towards “total
transparency.” Wrong again. In fact, without the help of WikiLeaks and
others, there is no question that the U.S. national security state, as
the most recent phone and Internet revelations indicate, is moving
towards something remarkably like total state secrecy. The
classification of documents has gone through the roof. Washington
classified a staggering <a href="http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/letter-president-obama-security-classification-reform-steering-committee" target="_blank">92 million public records</a>
in 2011, up from 77 million the year before and from 14 million in
2003. (By way of comparison, the various troves of documents Manning
leaked add up to less than 1% of what Washington classifies annually --
not exactly the definition of “total transparency”.)<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the declassification of ancient secrets within the
national security state moves at a near-geological tempo. The National
Security Agency, for example, only finished <a href="http://gawker.com/5810354/national-security-agency-declassifies-200+year+old-book" target="_blank">declassifying documents</a>
from the Madison presidency (1809-1817) in 2011. No less indicative of
Washington’s course, the prosecution of governmental whistleblowers in
the Obama years has burned with a particularly vindictive fury, fueled
by both political parties and Congress as well as the White House.<br />
<br />
Our government secrecy fetishists invest their security clearances (held by an elite coterie of <a href="http://blogs.fas.org/secrecy/2012/07/cleared_population/" target="_blank">4.8 million</a>
people) and the information security (InfoSec) regime they continue to
elaborate with all sorts of protective powers over life and limb. But
what gets people killed, no matter how much our pols and pundits strain
to deny it, aren’t InfoSec breaches or media leaks, but foolish and
clueless strategic choices. Putting the blame on leaks is a nice way to
pass the buck, but at the risk of stating the obvious, what has killed <a href="http://icasualties.org/oef/" target="_blank">1,605</a>
U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan since 2009 is the war in Afghanistan --
not Bradley Manning or any of the other five leakers whom Obama has <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175500/peter_van_buren_silent_state" target="_blank">prosecuted</a>
under the Espionage Act of 1917. Leaks and whistleblowers should not
be made scapegoats for bad strategic choices, which would have been a
whole lot less bad had they been informed by all the relevant facts.<br />
<br />
Pardon my utopian extremism, but knowing what your government is
doing really isn’t such a bad thing and it has to do with aiding the
(American) public, not the enemy. Knowing what your government is doing
is not some special privilege that the government generously bestows on
us when we’re good and obedient citizens, it’s an obligation that goes
to the heart of the matter in a free country. After all, it should be
ordinary citizens like us who make the ultimate decision about whether
war X is worth fighting or not, worth escalating or not, worth ending or
not.<br />
<br />
When such momentous public decisions are made and the public doesn’t
have -- isn’t allowed to have -- a clue, you end up in a fantasy land of
aggressive actions that, over the past dozen years, have gotten
hundreds of thousands killed and left us in a far more dangerous world.
These are the wages of dystopian government secrecy.<br />
<br />
Despite endless panic and hysteria on the subject from both major
parties, the White House, and Congress, leaks have been good for us.
They’re how we came to learn much about the Vietnam War, much about the
Watergate scandal, and most recently, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order" target="_blank">far more</a>
about state surveillance of our phone calls and email. Bradley
Manning’s leaks in particular have already yielded real, tangible
benefits, most vividly their <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/18/tunisia.wikileaks/index.html" target="_blank">small but significant role</a> in sparking the rebellion that ejected a dictator in Tunisia and the way they <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/25/world/la-fg-iraq-haditha-20120125" target="_blank">indirectly expedited</a>
our military exit from Iraq. Manning’s leaked reports of U.S.
atrocities in Iraq, displayed in newspapers globally, made it
politically impossible for the Iraqi authorities to perpetuate domestic
legal immunity for America troops, Washington’s bedrock condition for a
much-desired continuing presence there. If it weren’t for Manning’s
leaks, the U.S. might still be in Iraq, killing and being killed for no
legitimate reason, and that is the very opposite of national security.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Knowledge is Not Evil</b></span></h3>
<br />
Thanks to Bradley Manning, our disaster-prone elites have gotten a
dose of the adult supervision they so clearly require. Instead of
charging him with aiding the enemy, the Obama administration ought to
send him a get-out-of-jail-free card and a basket of fruit. If we’re
going to stop the self-inflicted wars that continue to hemorrhage blood
and money, we need to get a clue, fast. Should we ever bother to learn
from the uncensored truth of our foreign policy failures, which have
destroyed so many more lives than the late bin Laden could ever have
hoped, we at least stand a chance of not repeating them.<br />
<br />
I am not trying to soft-pedal or sanitize Manning’s magnificent act
of civil disobedience. The young private humiliated the U.S. Army by
displaying for all to see their complete lack of real information
security. Manning has revealed the diplomatic corps to be hard at work <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/161057/wikileaks-haiti-let-them-live-3-day" target="_blank">shilling</a> for garment manufacturers in Haiti, for <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/10/wikileaks-cables-show-how-big-pharma-shapes-foreign-policy/43264/" target="_blank">Big Pharma in Europe</a>, and under signed orders from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2010/11/wikileaks_hillary_clinton_and_the_smoking_gun.single.html" target="_blank">collect</a>
biometric data and credit card numbers from their foreign
counterparts. Most important, Manning brought us face to face with two
disastrous wars, forcing Americans to <a href="http://www.collateralmurder.com/" target="_blank">share</a> a burden of knowledge previously shouldered only by our soldiers, whom we love to call heroes from a very safe distance.<br />
<br />
Did Manning violate provisions of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice? He certainly did, and a crushing sentence of possibly decades
in military prison is surely on its way. Military law is marvelously
elastic when it comes to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/opinion/dont-trust-the-pentagon-to-end-rape.html" target="_blank">rape and sexual assault</a> and perfectly easygoing about the <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0124/Marine-demoted-to-private-to-end-Haditha-trial.-Did-military-justice-work" target="_blank">slaughter</a>
of foreign civilians, but it puts on a stern face for the unspeakable
act of declassifying documents. But the young private’s act of civil
defiance was in fact a first step in reversing the pathologies that have
made our foreign policy a string of self-inflicted homicidal disasters.
By letting us in on more than a half million “secrets,” Bradley Manning
has done far more for American national security than SEAL Team 6 ever
did.<br />
<br />
<div class="copyright-info">
© 2013 Chase Madar</div>
<div class="copyright-info">
</div>
<div class="author-image" style="float: left; padding: 1px 15px 15px 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/author/chase-madar"><img alt="Chase Madar" class="imagecache imagecache-author_photo" height="104" src="https://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imagecache/author_photo/screen_shot_2012-04-16_at_6.52.11_am.png" title="Chase Madar" width="90" /></a> </div>
<div class="author-brief-article">
<i>Chase Madar, a </i><a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175414/chase_madar_bradley_manning_american_hero" target="_blank"><i>TomDispatch regular</i></a><i> and author of a new book, </i><a href="http://www.orbooks.com/catalog/bradley-manning/" target="_blank">The Passion of Bradley Manning</a> (OR Books)<i>, is a lawyer in New York.</i><br />
<br /></div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-13420609724018537662013-06-07T00:34:00.001-04:002013-06-07T00:34:18.605-04:00Covert Conflicts, Decried In 'Dirty Wars' <br />
<br />
<a class="nprhome" data-action="Click Logo" data-metrics="{"action":"Click Header Logo", "category":"Global Navigation"}" href="http://www.npr.org/">
<img alt="NPR" src="http://media.npr.org/chrome/news/nprlogo_138x46.gif" /></a><a class="nprhome" data-action="Click Logo" data-metrics="{"action":"Click Header Logo", "category":"Global Navigation"}" href="http://www.npr.org/">
</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="storytitle">
<h1>
Covert Conflicts, Decried In 'Dirty Wars' </h1>
</div>
<div id="story-meta">
<div class=" linkLocation" id="storybyline">
<div class="bucketwrap byline" id="res189204166">
<div class="byline">
<b>by Ella Taylor</b></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="dateblock">
<b><time datetime="2013-06-06"><span class="date">June 06, 2013</span><span class="time"> 5:00 PM</span></time></b></div>
<div class="dateblock">
<time datetime="2013-06-06"><span class="time"> </span></time></div>
<div class="dateblock">
<time datetime="2013-06-06"><span class="time"> </span></time>
</div>
</div>
<div class="imagewrap">
<img alt="Reporter and author Jeremy Scahill, shown in Somalia, visited a range of conflict-plagued areas for the film Dirty Wars, an outgrowth of his writing on American anti-terrorism efforts abroad." class="img" height="359" src="http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/06/06/dirty-wars-film-still-jeremy-scahill-in-somalia_wide-6fb838fa1e3c6a0e654c23795c654925d36557c6-s40.jpg" style="display: block;" title="Reporter and author Jeremy Scahill, shown in Somalia, visited a range of conflict-plagued areas for the film Dirty Wars, an outgrowth of his writing on American anti-terrorism efforts abroad." width="640" /> </div>
<div class="imagewrap">
</div>
<div class="imagewrap">
After the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011, the soldiers of the<em> </em>paramilitary force JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) who carried out the operation were lionized as national heroes.<br />
<br />
They earned more ambivalent treatment in Kathryn Bigelow's <em>Zero Dark Thirty</em>. And according to <em>Dirty Wars</em>,
a documentary based on a book by investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill,
their shadowy outfit has pretty much taken over America's global war on
terrorism — and in flagrantly unconstitutional ways, he claims.<br />
<br />
Founded
in 1980, JSOC has deployed its crack units to carry out night raids,
drone strikes and targeted assassinations, while also outsourcing some
of its work to warlords in Africa, Asia and the Middle East — in wars
declared and undeclared. Worse, in Scahill's view, they do this without
oversight, and with the tacit and/or active collaboration of NATO, the
White House, Congress and the U.S. military's top brass.<br />
<br />
Scahill, who covers national security for the left-leaning <em>Nation</em>
magazine and who has also written a book about the controversial
security firm Blackwater, stumbled on JSOC while digging into the
murders of an American-trained police commander and several members of
his family — two were pregnant women — in the city of Gardez in
Afghanistan. From there he worked his way through Iraq, Yemen and
Somalia, documenting evidence of undercover JSOC operations to root out
al-Qaida terrorists.<br />
<br />
The film details Scahill's efforts to
bring all this to the attention of Congress, the Army and the media,
efforts that met with stonewalling, denials or dismissals of civilian
casualties as "collateral damage."<br />
<br />
Perhaps fearing that <em>Dirty Wars</em>
would get lost in the flood of documentaries probing American
involvement in foreign wars since the invasion of Iraq, Scahill and
director Rick Rowley upped the ante by casting their story as a
real-life thriller, complete with an ill-considered sidebar detailing
the effect of his experiences on Scahill's psyche.<br />
<br />
They've jazzed up their <em>verite</em>
footage with a grainy shooting style and a plaintive score from the
Kronos Quartet. They brought in fiction screenwriter David Riker (<em>La Ciudad</em>, <em>The Girl</em>)
to pep up Scahill's narration, which is laden with clipped three-word
sentences and flights of poetic rhetoric. ("Our car felt thin-skinned
and fragile," he tells us while on an excursion into a terrorist
stronghold.)<br />
<br />
The action is heavily larded with stagey shots of
Scahill shopping lethargically at a supermarket back home in Brooklyn,
where life had come to seem "too ordinary"; listening gravely to
victims' relatives; holding hands with a Yemeni tribesman who's showing
him around a devastated strike site littered with signs of an American
military presence. Returning to Yemen at the end, he wonders whether
he's come for more data, or to apologize on behalf of his country.<br />
<br />
Scarred he may be, but as a journalist Scahill is surely the messenger, not the subject, and the attention he receives in <em>Dirty Wars</em>
distracts us from the bigger picture he paints. The film's larger
argument is that, invited or not, America increasingly fights its global
wars (in an estimated 75 countries, many of which, like Yemen, are not
officially at war) in secret and without checks or balances. This,
Scahill argues, has created a self-fulfilling prophecy of conflict
without end, in which no country is off-limits.<br />
<br />
Given the recent revelations about secret American drone strikes, <em>Dirty Wars</em>
is certainly timely. Scahill's trump card is the case of Anwar
al-Awlaki, an American cleric who left the United States for Yemen,
where he became a hugely influential jihadist mouthpiece for violent
attacks against the United States. The first American citizen to be
placed on a kill list by President Obama, Awlaki was killed in a drone
strike in 2011, as was his 16-year-old son a few weeks later.<br />
<br />
This
last is appalling, and Awlaki's son was probably — though not
certainly, given that Scahill takes family testimony on trust, while
presuming that American authorities must be lying or fudging the truth —
an unwarranted casualty.<br />
<br />
But Scahill goes on to argue, far
more controversially, that the late cleric's militancy was a direct
result of American overkill and hostility toward Islam. Indeed, as we
watch footage of Scahill and surviving relatives gazing sadly at home
movies of the family, Awlaki comes close to being portrayed as an
innocent victim.<br />
<br />
Scahill is right to focus on the price
American security efforts have cost in human rights — and human life.
Yet there are difficult questions hovering just outside the frame of <em>Dirty Wars</em>.
Short of pacifism, and given that there is no such thing as a truly
clean war, what would count as an "acceptable" level of collateral
damage?<br />
<br />
And in an age when terrorist cells and wild-card loners
with grudges strike fear in one corner of the world, then vanish only
to pop up in another, what might count as morally acceptable
counterterrorism?</div>
<div class="imagewrap">
</div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-83692841670313648022013-06-07T00:27:00.001-04:002013-06-07T00:27:33.814-04:00PRISM scandal: tech giants flatly deny allowing NSA direct access to servers<br />
<div class="trackable-component" data-component="Article:guardian logo" id="guardian-logo">
<a href="http://www.guardiannews.com/"><img alt="The Guardian home" height="22" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/static/75497e1d14729b6c288f00be9e7f7a3386c78dec/common/images/logos/the-guardian/news.gif" width="115" /></a>
</div>
<br />
<div class="trackable-component crumb-wrapper" data-component="Article:crumb nav">
</div>
<div id="article-header">
<div id="main-article-info">
<h2 itemprop="name headline ">
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/prism-tech-giants-shock-nsa-data-mining" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;">PRISM scandal: tech giants flatly deny allowing NSA direct access to servers</span></a></h2>
<h3 class="stand-first-alone" data-component="Article:standfirst_cta" id="stand-first" itemprop="description">
<span style="font-size: large;">Silicon Valley executives insist they did not know of secret PRISM program that grants access to emails and search history</span></h3>
</div>
</div>
<ul class="article-attributes trackable-component b4" data-component="Article:byline">
<li class="byline">
<div class="contributor-full">
<span itemprop="author" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span itemprop="name"><a class="contributor" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/dominic-rushe" itemprop="url" rel="author">Dominic Rushe</a></span></span> and <span itemprop="author" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span itemprop="name"><a class="contributor" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesball" itemprop="url" rel="author">James Ball</a></span></span> in New York </div>
</li>
<li class="publication">
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/" itemprop="publisher">guardian.co.uk</a>,
<time datetime="2013-06-06T19:48EDT" itemprop="datePublished" pubdate="">Thursday 6 June 2013 19.48 EDT</time>
</li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul class="crumb-nav">
<li id="crumb3">
<span>
<a data-link-name="US national security" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-national-security" rel="v:url">US national security</a>
</span>
</li>
</ul>
<div id="box">
<div id="content">
<br /><div class="trackable-component" data-component="Article:in body link" id="article-wrapper">
<div id="main-content-picture" itemprop="image" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject">
<img alt="Prism" height="276" itemprop="contentUrl representativeOfPage" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/6/6/1370557489060/Prism-008.jpg" width="460" />
<div class="caption" itemprop="caption">
</div>
<div class="caption" itemprop="caption">
</div>
<div class="caption" itemprop="caption">
Executives at several of the tech firms said they had never heard of PRISM until they were contacted by the Guardian</div>
<div class="caption" itemprop="caption">
</div>
</div>
<div id="article-body-blocks">
Two different versions of the PRISM scandal were emerging on Thursday with Silicon Valley executives denying all knowledge of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data">the top secret program that gives the National Security Agency direct access</a> to the internet giants' servers.<br />
The
eavesdropping program is detailed in the form of PowerPoint slides in a
leaked NSA document, seen and authenticated by the Guardian, which
states that it is based on "legally-compelled collection" but operates
with the "assistance of communications providers in the US."<br />
<br />
Each
of the 41 slides in the document displays prominently the corporate
logos of the tech companies claimed to be taking part in PRISM.<br />
<br />
However,
senior executives from the internet companies expressed surprise and
shock and insisted that no direct access to servers had been offered to
any government agency.<br />
<br />
The top-secret NSA briefing presentation
set out details of the PRISM program, which it said granted access to
records such as emails, chat conversations, voice calls, documents and
more. The presentation the listed dates when document collection began
for each company, and said PRISM enabled "direct access from the servers
of these US service providers: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/microsoft" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Microsoft">Microsoft</a>, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/yahoo" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Yahoo">Yahoo</a>, Google, Facebook, Paltalk, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/aol" title="More from guardian.co.uk on AOL">AOL</a>, Skype, YouTube, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/apple" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Apple">Apple</a>".<br />
<br />
Senior
officials with knowledge of the situation within the tech giants
admitted to being confused by the NSA revelations, and said if such data
collection was taking place, it was without companies' knowledge.<br />
An
Apple spokesman said: "We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide
any government agency with direct access to our servers and any agency
requesting customer data must get a court order," he said.<br />
<br />
Joe
Sullivan, Facebook's chief security officer, said it did not provide
government organisation with direct access to Facebook servers. "When
Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we
carefully scrutinise any such request for compliance with all
applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by
law."<br />
<br />
A Google spokesman also said it did not provide officials
with access to its servers. "Google cares deeply about the security of
our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with
the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time,
people allege that we have created a government 'backdoor' into our
systems, but Google does not have a 'back door' for the government to
access private user data."<br />
<br />
Microsoft said it only turned over data
when served with a court order: "We provide customer data only when we
receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a
voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for
requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a
broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we
don't participate in it."<br />
<br />
A Yahoo spokesman said: "Yahoo! takes
users' privacy very seriously. We do not provide the government with
direct access to our servers, systems, or network. <br />
Within the
tech companies, and talking on off the record, executives said they had
never even heard of PRISM until contacted by the Guardian. Executives
said that they were regularly contacted by law officials and responded
to all subpoenas but they denied ever having heard of a scheme like
PRISM, an information programme internal the documents state has been
running since 2007.<br />
<br />
Executives said they were "confused" by the
claims in the NSA document. "We operate under what we are required to do
by law," said one. "We receive requests for information all the time.
Say about a potential terrorist threat or after the Boston bombing. But
we have systems in place for that." The executive claimed, as did
others, that the most senior figures in their organisation had never
heard of PRISM or any scheme like it.<br />
<br />
The chief executive of
transparency NGO Index on Censorship, Kirsty Hughes, remarked on Twitter
that the contradiction seemed to leave two options: "Back door or
front?" she posted.<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-15106762362103698792013-06-07T00:17:00.004-04:002013-06-07T00:17:39.653-04:00PRISM by the Numbers: A Guide to the Government’s Secret Internet Data-Mining Program<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.time.com/time">TIME</a></span></h2>
<h2 class="site-title" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://newsfeed.time.com/">NewsFeed</a></h2>
<div class="entry-context">
<h3 class="entry-category">
<a href="http://newsfeed.time.com/category/nation/" title="View all posts in Nation">Nation</a></h3>
</div>
<h1 class="entry-title">
<a href="http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/06/06/prism-by-the-numbers-a-guide-to-the-governments-secret-internet-data-mining-program/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">PRISM by the Numbers: A Guide to the Government’s Secret Internet Data-Mining Program</a></h1>
<div class="entry-meta">
<span class="entry-byline">By <a href="http://newsfeed.time.com/author/vluck2012/" rel="author" title="Posts by Victor Luckerson">Victor Luckerson</a></span></div>
<div class="entry-meta">
<span class="entry-byline"> </span></div>
<div class="entry-meta">
<span class="entry-byline"> </span></div>
<div class="entry-meta">
<span class="entry-date">June 06, 2013</span><span class="entry-comments"><a href="http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/06/06/prism-by-the-numbers-a-guide-to-the-governments-secret-internet-data-mining-program/#comments"><span class="livefyre-commentcount" data-lf-article-id="211594" data-lf-site-id="314099"></span></a></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="entry-content">
<figure class="entry-thumb entry-thumb-m "><div class="responsive" data-responsive="">
<img alt="The National Security Administration campus is seen in Fort Meade, Md., June 6, 2013. " height="266" src="http://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/485_us_nsa_0606.jpg?w=360&h=240&crop=1" title="The National Security Administration campus is seen in Fort Meade, Md., June 6, 2013. " width="400" /></div>
<figcaption><small class="entry-thumb-credit">Patrick Semansky / AP</small><div class="entry-thumb-caption">
The National Security Administration campus is seen in Fort Meade, Md., June 6, 2013. </div>
</figcaption></figure></div>
<br /><br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr">
One day after The Guardian <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-2%20Special%20trail:Network%20front%20-%20special%20trail:Position1:sublinks">revealed</a> that the U.S. government has been secretly collecting call log data from millions of Verizon customers, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html">The Washington Post reported</a>
Thursday that the government’s monitoring of American’s data goes much,
much deeper. The FBI and the National Security Agency are mining the
servers of the country’s biggest technology companies for the purpose of
hunting spies and terrorists. The program, code-named PRISM, is massive
in scope and involves web services that many Americans use every day.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
To make all this shadowy surveillance easier to digest, here are the relevant data points about the massive data collection:</div>
<div dir="ltr">
(<strong>MORE: </strong><a href="http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/06/05/7-things-to-know-about-the-governments-secret-database-of-cellular-data/#ixzz2VTpNnhJf" target="_blank">7 Things to Know About the Government’s Secret Database of Telephone Data</a>)</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">9</span></h3>
<div dir="ltr">
The number of tech companies involved in the PRISM program.
Here’s a list, from an NSA slideshow, including the date when
monitoring began:</div>
<ul>
<li>Microsoft (September 2007)</li>
<li>Yahoo (March 2008)</li>
<li>Google (January 2009)</li>
<li>Facebook (June 2009)</li>
<li>PalTalk (December 2009)</li>
<li>YouTube (September 2010)</li>
<li>Skype (February 2011)</li>
<li>AOL (March 2011)</li>
<li>Apple (October 2012)</li>
</ul>
<div dir="ltr">
So far Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Yahoo have
flatly denied that they provide the government backdoor access to their
services, according to a <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/06/google-facebook-apple-deny-participation-in-nsa-prism-program/">variety</a> of <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/06/06/facebook-denies-giving-nsa-direct-access-to-its-servers/">news sources</a>.
Twitter, which says it has been particularly vigilant in protecting
user data from government agencies, is notably absent from the list.
Dropbox is next in line to be added to PRISM, according to the Post.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">10</span></h3>
<div dir="ltr">
The number of different types of data that are collected
through PRISM. E-mails, instant messages, videos, photos, stored data
(likely items stored on cloud services like Google Drive), voice chats,
file transfers, video conferences, log-in times, and social network
profile details have all been monitored by the government. Through PRISM
NSA officials can even conduct live surveillance of someone doing a
Google search, according to the Post.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
(<strong>MORE:</strong> <a href="http://world.time.com/2013/06/06/the-nsa-snooping-scoop-behind-the-guardians-risky-plans-for-global-expansion/#ixzz2VTpiw5zm" target="_blank">The NSA Snooping Scoop: Behind the <i>Guardian</i>‘s Risky Plans for Global Expansion</a>)</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<h2>
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><strong>$20 million</strong></span></h2>
<div dir="ltr">
The annual cost of PRISM, according to NSA documents obtained by the Post</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><strong>2007</strong></span></h3>
<div dir="ltr">
The year PRISM was established. The Post describes an
“exponential growth” in the program since President Obama took office.
The government has snooped on other forms of communication in recent
years as well. On Thursday, Senator Dianne Feinstein confirmed that the
NSA phone log database has been in place for at least seven years.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><strong>1,477</strong></span></h3>
<div dir="ltr">
The number of times PRISM data was cited in 2012 as part of
President Obama’s daily briefing, a high-level intelligence
presentation given to the president, the vice president and select
cabinet members. According to the Post, at least 1 in 7 intelligence
reports from the NSA make use of PRISM data.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<h2>
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><strong>51%</strong></span></h2>
Confidence level intelligence officials are supposed to have of a
target’s “foreignness” to make use of PRISM data. The massive database
is aimed at surveilling spies and foreign terrorists, not Americans.
However, large amounts of American user data is also picked up as
officials hunt for threats. The NSA describes this as “incidental.”<br />
<br />
<strong>MORE: </strong><a href="http://techland.time.com/2013/06/06/verizon-telephony-metadata-the-national-security-agency-and-you/#ixzz2VTq0cqcH" target="_blank">Verizon, Telephony Metadata, the National Security Agency and You</a><br />
<footer class="entry-footer">
<div class="entry-author-module group ">
<a class="avatar-link" href="http://newsfeed.time.com/author/vluck2012/" rel="author"><img alt="" class="avatar avatar-74 photo" src="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/40c4f40351434bf8e04405d4231aaecd?s=74&d=404&r=G" /></a>
<div class="content">
<h3 class="entry-author-name">
<a class="author-articles" href="http://newsfeed.time.com/author/vluck2012/" rel="author">Victor Luckerson</a>
<a class="author-twitter" href="http://www.twitter.com/VLuck">@VLuck</a>
</h3>
<div class="entry-author-bio">
Victor Luckerson is a reporter-producer for Time.com covering business and money. <br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
</footer>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-54218495100226631922013-06-07T00:03:00.001-04:002013-06-07T00:03:17.250-04:00His Target Is Assassinations<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><img alt="New York Times" id="NYTLogo" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo152x23.gif" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="columnGroup first">
<h6 class="kicker">
Snapshot | Jeremy Scahill</h6>
<h2 class="articleHeadline" itemprop="headline">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/movies/jeremy-scahill-on-his-documentary-dirty-wars.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">His Target Is Assassinations</a></span></h2>
<div class="articleSpanImage">
<div class="articleSpanVideoModule" id="articleSpanVideoModule">
<div class="articleSpanVideo" id="articleSpanVid_100000002266735" style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(39, 39, 39); display: block; height: 337px; line-height: 0; overflow: hidden; position: relative; width: 600px;">
<div class="videoOverlayDiv" id="player_100000002266735_player_100000002266735-posterImageContainer" style="height: 337px; width: 600px;">
<img height="337" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/06/multimedia/video-dirty/video-dirty-articleLarge.jpg" width="600" /></div>
<div class="videoPlayButtonDiv standardSize bottomLeft" id="player_100000002266735_player_100000002266735-playButtonContainer" style="height: 50px; left: 20px; opacity: 0.7; top: 267px; width: 55px;">
<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/video/playbutton_arrow.png" style="height: 50px; left: 0px; position: absolute; top: 0px; width: 55px;" /></div>
</div>
<div class="caption noPhotoCredit" id="articleSpanVideoCaption">
<strong class="videoIcon video">Excerpt: 'Dirty Wars':</strong>
The documentary by Jeremy Scahill and Richard Rowley investigates covert American military operations.</div>
</div>
</div>
<h6 class="byline">
By
<span itemid="http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/author/jeremy-egner/" itemprop="author creator" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
<a href="http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/author/jeremy-egner/" rel="author" title="More Articles by JEREMY EGNER"><span itemprop="name">JEREMY EGNER</span></a></span></h6>
<h6 class="dateline">
Published: June 6, 2013 </h6>
<div class="articleBody">
<span itemid="http://www.nytimes.com" itemprop="copyrightHolder provider sourceOrganization" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Organization">
</span>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
Jeremy Scahill, an investigative foreign correspondent whose first documentary, “<a href="http://dirtywars.org/the-film" title="Its Web site">Dirty Wars,</a>” opens Friday, writes for The Nation and achieved his biggest success with “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/weekinreview/29reading.html?_r=0" title="Related article in The Times">Blackwater</a>,”
a best-selling book critiquing security contractors hired by the George
W. Bush administration. Neither of which keeps him from being labeled a
right-wing stooge by detractors. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="articleInline runaroundLeft">
<div class="inlineImage module">
<div class="image">
<div class="icon enlargeThis">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=685169521586026827">Enlarge This Image</a></div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=685169521586026827">
<span itemid="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/09/arts/09SNAPSHOT/09SNAPSHOT-articleInline.jpg" itemprop="associatedMedia" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject">
<img alt="" height="455" itemprop="url" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/09/arts/09SNAPSHOT/09SNAPSHOT-articleInline.jpg" width="190" />
</span>
</a>
</div>
<h6 class="credit">
Tony Cenicola/The New York Times</h6>
<div class="caption">
Jeremy Scahill </div>
<div class="caption">
<br /></div>
<div class="caption">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="articleBody">
<div itemprop="articleBody">
“Most of my hate mail nowadays comes from liberals, not conservatives,” he said. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
This is because Mr. Scahill has also been an outspoken critic of
President Obama. Specifically, he disapproves of what he describes as
the administration’s efforts to “normalize and legitimize” targeted
assassinations — drone-executed and otherwise — Special Operations raids
and other covert military practices that blur the battle lines of the
war on terrorism. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<a class="meta-objTitle" href="http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/470449/History-of-the-Eagles-Movie-/overview">“Dirty Wars”</a>
is his latest salvo. In the film (his book with the same title came out
in April), Mr. Scahill investigates several American strikes that
killed civilians with no apparent ties to terrorist groups, beginning
with a February 2010 raid in the village of Khatabeh, Afghanistan, that
killed several members of a family. An Afghan police chief and three
women were among the dead. (The United States first denied and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/world/asia/05afghan.html" title="Times article">then acknowledged</a> its role in the deaths.) </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
Along the way Mr. Scahill suggests that such acts are radicalizing
Muslims both obscure — a man in Khatabeh talks about wanting to become a
suicide bomber — and well-known, like the American cleric-turned-Qaeda
firebrand <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/world/09awlaki.html" title="Times article">Anwar al-Awlaki</a>, who was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html" title="Times article">killed by drones</a>
in September 2011. “We are encouraging a self-fulfilling prophecy,” Mr.
Scahill said. “We are making more new enemies than we are killing
actual terrorists.” </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
Mr. Scahill, 38, has been a frequent talking head on cable news shows and recently was awarded a $150,000 <a href="http://news.yale.edu/2013/03/04/yale-awards-135-million-nine-writers" title="About the award">Windham Campbell literary prize</a>.
The film stands to raise his profile as it mixes disturbing events in
Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia with Mr. Scahill’s raw emotional
responses. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
He said he had resisted a prominent on-camera role, but allowed that the
approach humanizes the film and builds credibility with viewers by
being transparent about the imperfect art of journalism. Intense but
friendly in conversation, with striking blue eyes, Mr. Scahill talked to
Jeremy Egner about how making the film altered him. These are excerpts
from the interview. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<h3 itemprop="articleBody">
<strong>Q. How did this project begin?</strong></h3>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<strong> </strong> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
A. There was this war within the war in Afghanistan. There was the
conventional war — the Marines in Helmand Province — and then you had
these night raids. But I didn’t know much about it. We started filming
aftermaths of night raids and interviewing people. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<h3 itemprop="articleBody">
<strong>How did it evolve?</strong></h3>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<strong> </strong> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
I was going to be more of a tour guide to this archipelago of undeclared
wars. As we started talking about how we wanted to tell the story, we
realized we didn’t really have a story. We had four or five ministories,
but we weren’t really doing an effective job of connecting them. David
[Riker, the co-writer] said: “You’re burying a big part of the story,
which is that this film has really changed you as a person. You’re not
some dispassionate observer.” </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<h3 itemprop="articleBody">
<strong>How were you changed by it?</strong></h3>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<strong> </strong> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
I feel gutted as a person, to be really honest. When you do this kind of
work you run from one story to the next and you try not to let anything
catch up with you. Once we started doing this as a more personal
journey, it was like a floodgate opened of all of the horrifying stuff
that I’ve seen and the stories I’ve absorbed. I was forced to confront
things that I don’t think I wanted to. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<h3 itemprop="articleBody">
<strong>Many of the images are pretty ghastly.</strong></h3>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<strong> </strong> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
We tried to blur them as much as we could, in some cases, but I think people should see the aftermath. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<h3 itemprop="articleBody">
<strong>What do you hope viewers take away from this?</strong></h3>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<strong> </strong> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
I don’t have any illusions about Congress changing things, but I have
faith in people. If we debate about this in our society, Congress will
be forced to do something about it. If we embrace assassination as a
central component of our foreign policy and continue with the mentality
that we can kill our way to victory — or worse, kill our way to peace —
then we’re whistling past the graveyard. </div>
<div class="articleCorrection">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="articleMeta">
<div class="opposingFloatControl wrap">
<div class="element1">
<h6 class="metaFootnote">
A version of this article appeared in print on June 9, 2013, on page <span itemprop="printSection">AR</span><span itemprop="printPage">2</span> of the <span itemprop="printEdition">New York edition</span> with the headline: His Target Is Assassinations .</h6>
</div>
</div>
</div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-65933707170008001702013-03-10T21:58:00.003-04:002013-03-10T21:58:57.941-04:00Three Democratic Myths Used to Demean the Paul Filibuster<br />
<div id="page-logo">
<div class="inside-limiter clear-block">
<h1 id="logo">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/" title="CommonDreams.org"><img alt="CommonDreams.org" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.commondreams.org/images/common-dreams.png" /></a></h1>
</div>
</div>
<b></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<div class="node-header">
<b><span class="submitted">
Published on Sunday, March 10, 2013 by <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/paul-filibuster-drones-progressives">The Guardian</a>
</span></b>
<div class="node-title">
<h2 class="title">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/10-5" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Three Democratic Myths Used to Demean the Paul Filibuster</span></a></h2>
</div>
<h3 class="subtitle">
<span style="font-size: large;">The progressive 'empathy gap', a strain of
liberal authoritarianism, and a distortion of Holder's letter are
invoked to defend Obama</span></h3>
<div class="author">
by <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/glenn-greenwald">Glenn Greenwald</a></div>
<div class="author">
</div>
</div>
Comencing immediately upon the 9/11 attack, the US government
under two successive administrations has spent 12 straight years
inventing and implementing new theories of government power in the name
of Terrorism.<br />
Literally every year since 9/11 has ushered in increased
authorities of exactly the type Americans are inculcated to believe only
exist in those Other, Non-Free societies: ubiquitous surveillance,
impenetrable secrecy, and the power to imprison and even kill without
charges or due process. Even as the 9/11 attack recedes into the distant
past, the US government still finds ways continuously to increase its
powers in the name of Terrorism while virtually never relinquishing any
of the power it acquires. So inexorable has this process been that the
Obama administration has already exercised the power to target even its
own citizens for execution far from any battlefield, and the process has
now arrived at its inevitable destination: does this due-process-free
execution power extend to US soil as well?<br />
<br />
<span class="image-right" style="width: 325px;"></span><br />
<span class="image-right" style="width: 325px;"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/rand-paul-filibuster-008.jpg" style="height: 195px; width: 325px;" title="This video frame grab provided by Senate Television shows Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. speaking on the floor of the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, March 6, 2013. Photograph: AP" /><span class="caption"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<i><span class="image-right" style="width: 325px;"><span class="caption">This
video frame grab provided by Senate Television shows Sen. Rand Paul,
R-Ky. speaking on the floor of the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington,
Wednesday, March 6, 2013. Photograph: AP</span></span></i><br />
<br />
All of this has taken place with very little public backlash:
especially over the last four years. Worse, it has prompted almost no
institutional resistance from the structures designed to check executive
abuses: courts, the media, and Congress. Last week's 13-hour filibuster
of John Brennan's confirmation as CIA director by GOP Sen. Rand Paul
was one of the first - and, from the perspective of media attention,
easily among the most effective -Congressional efforts to dramatize and
oppose just how radical these Terrorism-justified powers have become.
For the first time since the 9/11 attack, even lowly cable news shows
were forced - by the Paul filibuster - to extensively discuss the
government's extremist theories of power and to debate the need for
checks and limits.<br />
<br />
All of this put Democrats - who spent eight years flamboyantly
pretending to be champions of due process and opponents of mass secrecy
and executive power abuses - in a very uncomfortable position. The
politician who took such a unique stand in defense of these principles
was not merely a Republican but a leading member of its dreaded Tea
Party wing, while the actor most responsible for the extremist theories
of power being protested was their own beloved leader and his political
party.<br />
<br />
Some Democrats, to their credit, publicly supported Paul, including
Sen. Ron Wyden, who went to the Senate floor to assist the filibuster. <a href="http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/03/jeff-merkley-on-brennan.html">Sens. Jeff Merkley</a>, <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/03/leahy-votes-no-on-brennan-158788.html">Pat Leahy</a> and (independent) <a href="http://vtdigger.org/2013/03/07/sanders-votes-against-nomination-of-john-brennan-to-head-cia/">Bernie Sanders</a>
all voted against Brennan's confirmation, citing many of the same
concerns raised by Paul. Some prominent progressive commentators praised
Paul's filibuster as well: <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/07/van-jones-civil-rights-villian-rand-paul-is-a-civil-liberties-hero/">on CNN</a>, Van Jones - while <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/08/opinion/jones-rand-paul-civil-liberties-hero/index.html">vowing</a>
that "I love this president" - said "Sen. Rand Paul was a hero for
civil liberties" and that "liberals and progressives should be ashamed."<br />
<br />
But most Democratic Senators ran away as fast as possible from having anything to do with the debate: <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/democrats-give-excuses-for-not-joining-anti-drone-filibuster">see here</a>
for the pitifully hilarious excuses they offered for not supporting the
filibuster while claiming to support Paul's general cause. All of those
Democratic Senators other than Merkley and Leahy (and Sanders) voted to
confirm the torture-advocating, secrecy-loving, drone-embracing Brennan
as CIA chief.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, a large bulk of the Democratic and liberal commentariat - led, as usual, by the <a href="http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/07/paranoia-on-the-senate-floor-highlights-from-rand-pauls-filibuster/">highly-paid DNC spokesmen</a> <a href="http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/03/07/drones-permanent-war-rand-pauls-filibuster-john-brennan-as-new-cia-director/">called</a> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/msnbc-rand-paul-filibuster_n_2827988.html">"MSNBC</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVroZYDxcvI">hosts</a>" and echoed, as usual, by <a href="http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/03/07/17223003-opportunistically-standing-with-rand">various</a> <a href="http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/03/filibuster-2">liberal</a> <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rand-pauls-paranoid-rant-they-called">blogs</a>,
which still amusingly fancy themselves as edgy and insurgent checks on
political power rather than faithful servants to it - degraded all of
the weighty issues raised by this episode by processing it through their
stunted, trivial prism of partisan loyalty. They thus dutifully devoted
themselves to <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/rand-paul-drones-filibuster-fundraising-campaign">reading from the only script they know</a>: Democrats Good, GOP Bad.<br />
<br />
To accomplish that, most avoided full-throated defenses of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/drones" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Drones">drones</a>
and the power of the president to secretly order US citizens executed
without due process or transparency. They prefer to ignore the fact that
the politician they most deeply admire is a devoted defender of those
policies. After stumbling around for a few days in search of a tactic to
convert this episode into an attack on the GOP and distract from
Obama's extremism, they collectively settled on personalizing the
conflict by focusing on Rand Paul's flaws as a person and a politician
and, in particular, mocking his concerns as "paranoia" (that attack was
echoed, among others, by the <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-washington-post-on-rand-pauls-filibuster-paranoid-fantasies/article/2523667">war-cheering Washington Post editorial page</a>).<br />
<br />
Just as conservatives feared non-existent black helicopters in the
1990s, they chortled, now conservatives are hiding under their bed
thinking that Obama will kill their neighbors or themselves with drones
while they relax at a barbeque in their backyard. In this they echoed
Bush followers, who <a href="http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com.br/2005/12/administrations-very-bad-people.html">constantly mocked</a>
objections to Bush/Cheney executive power abuses as nothing but
paranoia.<br />
Besides, they claim, Attorney General Eric Holder has now made
crystal clear that Obama lacks the authority to target US citizens on
US soil for execution by drone, so all of Paul's concerns are nothing
more than wild conspiracies.<br />
The reality is that Paul was doing nothing more than voicing concerns
that have long been voiced by leading civil liberties groups such as
the ACLU. Indeed, the ACLU <a href="http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/03/aclu-on-ron-paul.html">lavishly praised Paul</a>, saying that "as a result of Sen. Paul's historic filibuster, civil liberties got two wins". In particular, said the ACLU, "<em>Americans
learned about the breathtakingly broad claims of executive authority
undergirding the Obama administration's vast killing program</em>."<br />
<br />
But almost without exception, progressives who defend Obama's
Terrorism policies steadfastly ignore the fact that they are embracing
policies that are vehemently denounced by the ACLU. That's because they
like to tell themselves that only Big, Bad Republicans attack the ACLU -
such as when George H.W. Bush tried to marginalize Michael Dukakis in
1988 by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/27/us/after-the-debate-aclu-reports-rise-in-membership-calls-in-wake-of-bush-s-attacks.html">linking him to that group</a>
- so they ignore the ACLU and instead pretend that only right-wing
figures like Rand Paul are concerned about these matters. It's
remarkable indeed how frequently, in the Age of Obama, standard partisan
Democrats embrace exactly the policies identified by the ACLU as the
most menacing. Such Obama-defending progressives also wilfully ignore
just how much they now sound like Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, and George
Bush when ridiculing concerns about due process for accused Terrorists:<br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2004/04/kerrys_other_war_record.html"><strong>Bush in his 2004 Convention speech</strong></a>
mocking John Kerry: "After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th,
it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers";<br />
<a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8324598/ns/politics/t/white-house-defends-rove-over-remarks/#.T0d29fEgeYg"><strong>Rove in 2005</strong></a> mocking liberals: "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments";<br />
<a href="http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/conventions/videos/transcripts/20080903_PALIN_SPEECH.html"><strong>Palin in her 2008 RNC Convention speech</strong></a>
mocking Obama: "Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic
harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their
rights".<br />
</blockquote>
Find any defender of Obama's claimed power to assassinate accused
Terrorists without due process and that is exactly what you will hear.
That's why it is no surprise that the conservatives whom Democrats claim
most to loathe - from <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/12/cheney_backs_obama_on_drones/">Dick Cheney</a> to <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/john-yoo-rand-paul-andrew-mccarthy-obama-holder-drones">John Yoo</a> to <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lindsey-graham-slams-rand-paul-gopers-cheering-him-pauls-position-on-drones-not-%E2%80%98a-republican-view%E2%80%99/">Lindsey Graham</a> to <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/06/10/obama_defender_rep_peter_king/">Peter King</a>
- have been so outspoken in their defense of Obama's actions in this
area (and so critical of Paul): because the premises needed to justify
Obama's policies are the very ones they so controversially pioneered.<br />
<br />
In sum, virtually all of the claims made by these progressive
commentators in opposition to Paul's filibuster are false. Moreover,
last week's Senate drama, and the reaction to it by various factions,
reveals several critical points about how US militarism and the secrecy
that enables it are sustained. I was traveling last week on a speaking
tour and thus watched all of it unfold without writing about it, so I
want to highlight three key points from all of this, centered around
myths propagated by Democrats to demean Paul's filibuster and the
concerns raised by it:<br />
<h2>
(1) Progressives and their "empathy gap"</h2>
The US government's continuous killing, due-process-free
imprisonment, and other rights abuses under the War on Terror banner has
affected one group far more than any other: Muslims and, increasingly,
American Muslims. Politically, this has been the key fact enabling this
to endure. Put simply, if you're not Muslim, it's very easy to dismiss,
minimize or mock these issues because you can easily tell yourself that
they don't affect you or your family and therefore there is no reason to
care. And since the vast, vast majority of Democratic politicians and
progressive media commentators are not Muslim, one continuously sees
this mentality shaping reaction to these issues.<br />
<br />
Yesterday, the Nigerian-American writer Teju Cole, in <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/03/teju-cole-interview-twitter-drones-small-fates">an interview with Mother Jones</a>, said the key fact about US drone killings is that what "we're facing here is <em>an empathy gap</em>". He added:<br />
<blockquote>
"Killing a bunch of people in Sudan and Yemen and Pakistan, it's
like, 'Who cares - we don't know them.' But the current discussion is
framed as 'When can the President kill an American citizen?' Now in my
mind, killing a non-American citizen without due process is just as
criminal as killing an American citizen without due process - but
whatever gets us to the table to discuss this thing, we're going to take
it."<br />
</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/08/the_invisible_shrinking_democrats/">Writing in Salon</a>,
the South-Asian-American philosophy professor Falguni Sheth blasted
Democrats and progressives for leaving it to Rand Paul to protest "the
White House's radical expansion of executive power". She noted: "rather
than challenge a Democratic administration in defense of constitutional
principles that all citizens should insist be guaranteed, Democrats
embraced party tribalism." She argues in particular that as Democrats
attack Paul on the grounds of his support for racist policies, they
support or acquiesce to all of these War on Terror policies that have an
obvious racial - and racist - component, in light of the very specific
types of individuals who are imprisoned, and whose children are killed
by drones, and whose rights are systematically abridged.<br />
<br />
<span class="pullquote">The reason this question matters so much - <em>can the President target US citizens for assassination without due process on US soil? </em>- is because it demonstrates just how radical the Obama administration's theories of executive power are.</span><br />
Some progressives are unintentionally candid about their
self-interest leading them to dismiss these issues on the ground that it
doesn't affect people like themselves. "I can think of lots of things
that might frighten me, but having a drone attack me in my bed tonight
is not one of them", <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rand-pauls-paranoid-rant-they-called">declared</a> one white progressive at a large liberal blog in the course of attacking Paul's filibuster. <em>Of course</em>
that's not a concern of hers: she's not in the groups who are so
targeted, so therefore the issues are irrelevant to her. Other <a href="http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/01/02/he-never-meant-shit-to-me/">writers at large progressive blogs</a> have <a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com.br/2012/01/no-stoller-and-sullivan-there-is-no.html">similarly admitted</a>
that they care little about "civil liberties and a less bellicose
foreign policy" because they instead are "primarily interested in the
well-being of the American middle-class": ie, themselves. And, of
course, the same is true of all the MSNBC hosts mocking Paul as
paranoid: they are not the kind of people affected by the kinds of
concerns they aggressively deride in order to defend their leader.<br />
<br />
When you combine what Teju Cole describes as this selfish "empathy
gap" among progressives with the authoritarian strain in American
liberalism that worships political power and reveres political
institutions (especially when their party controls them), it's
unsurprising that they are so callous and dismissive of these issues
(I'm not talking about those who pay little attention to these issues -
there are lots of significant issues and one can only pay attention to a
finite number - but rather those who affirmatively dismiss their
significance or rationalize these policies). As Amy Goodman <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/07/america-shamed-rand-paul-drone-executions?CMP=twt_gu">wrote in the Guardian</a>:
"Senator Paul's outrage with the president's claimed right to kill US
citizens is entirely appropriate. That there is not more outrage at the
thousands killed around the globe is shameful … and dangerous."<br />
<br />
For a political faction that loves to depict itself as the champions
of "empathy", and which reflexively accuses others of having their
political beliefs shaped by self-interest, this is an ironic fact
indeed. It's also the central dynamic driving the politics of these
issues: the US government and media collaborate to keep the victims of
these abuses largely invisible, so we rarely have to confront them, and
on those rare occasions when we do, we can easily tell ourselves (<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110908/02534215846/wasnt-patriot-act-supposed-to-be-about-stopping-terrorism.shtml">false though the assurance is</a>)
that these abuses do not affect us and our families and it's therefore
only "paranoia" that can explain why someone might care so much about
them.<br />
<h2>
(2) Whether domestic assassinations are imminent is irrelevant to the debate</h2>
The primary means of mocking Paul's concerns was to deride the notion
that Obama is about to unleash drone attacks and death squads on US
soil aimed at Americans. But nobody, including Paul, suggested that was
the case. To focus on that attack is an absurd strawman, a deliberate
distraction from the real issues, a total irrelevancy. That's true for
two primary reasons.<br />
<br />
<em>First,</em> the reason this question matters so much - <em>can the President target US citizens for assassination without due process on US soil? </em>-
is because it demonstrates just how radical the Obama administration's
theories of executive power are. Once you embrace the premises of
everything they do in this area - we are a Nation at War; the entire
globe is the battlefield; the president is vested with the unchecked
power to use force against anyone he <em>accuses</em> of involvement
with Terrorism - then there is no cogent, coherent way to say that the
president lacks the power to assassinate even US citizens on US soil.
That conclusion is the necessary, logical outcome of the premises that
have been embraced. That's why it is so vital to ask that.<br />
<br />
To see how true that is, consider the fact that a US president - with very little backlash - has <em>already</em> asserted this very theory on US soil. In 2002, <a href="http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com.br/2005/11/true-tyranny-defined-bush-admin-v-jose.html">the US arrested a US citizen</a>
(Jose Padilla) on US soil (at the O'Hare International Airport in
Chicago), and then imprisoned him for the next three-and-a-half years in
a military brig without charges of any kind. The theory was that the
president has the power to declare anyone (including a US citizen) to be
an "enemy combatant" and then punish him as such no matter where he is
found (including US soil), even if they are not engaged in any violence
at the time they are targeted (as was true for Padilla, who was simply
walking unarmed through the airport). Once you accept this framework -
that this is a War; the Globe is the Battlefield; and the
Commander-in-Chief is the Decider - then the President can treat even US
citizens on US soil (part of the battlefield) as "enemy combatants",
and do anything he wants to them as such: imprison them without charges
or order them killed.<br />
<br />
Far from being "paranoid", this theory has already been asserted on
US soil during the Bush presidency. It has been applied to US citizens
by the Obama administration. It does not require "paranoia" to raise
concerns about the inevitable logical outcome of these theories.
Instead, it takes blind authoritarian faith in political leaders to
believe that such a suggestion is so offensive and outlandish that
merely to raise it is crazy. Once you embrace the US government's War on
Terror framework, then there is no cogent legal argument for limiting
the assassination power to foreign soil. If the Globe is a Battlefield,
then that, by definition, obviously includes the US.<br />
<br />
<em>Second</em>, presidents change, and so do circumstances. The
belief that Barack Obama - despite his record - is too kind, too good,
too magnanimous, too responsible to target US citizens for assassination
on US soil is entirely irrelevant. At some point, there will be another
president, even a Republican one, who will inherit the theories he
embraces. Moreover, circumstances can change rapidly, so that - just as
happened with 9/11 - what seems unthinkable quickly becomes not only
possible but normalized.<br />
<br />
The need to object vehemently to radical theories of power has
nothing to do with a belief that the current president will exercise it
in the worst possible way. The need is due to the fact that acquiescing
to these powers in the first instance means that they become
institutionalized - legitimized - and thus become impossible to resist
once circumstances change (another Terrorist attack, a president you
trust less). That's why it is always the tactic of governments that seek
to abuse power to select the most marginalized and easily demonized
targets in the first instance (Anwar Awlaki): because they know that
once the citizenry cheers for that power on the ground that they dislike
the target, the power then becomes institutionalized and impossible to
resist when it expands outward, as it always does.<br />
<br />
That's what Thomas Jefferson meant <a href="http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/03/trust-in-political-leaders.html">when he wrote</a>:
"In questions of power . . . let no more be heard of confidence in man,
but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
It's also what Frederick Douglass meant when <a href="http://www.searchquotes.com/quotation/Find_out_just_what_any_people_will_quietly_submit_to_and_you_have_the_exact_measure_of_the_injustice/126206/">he warned</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="quoted">
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the
exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on
them."<br />
</blockquote>
Human nature means that once you vest a power in political leaders,
once you acquiesce to radical theories, that power will inevitably be
abused. The time to object - the only effective time - is when that
power theory first takes root, not later when it is finally widespread.<br />
<h2>
(3) Holder did not disclaim the power to assassinate on US soil</h2>
Defenders of the Obama administration now insist that this entire controversy has been resolved by <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/holder-no-drone-strikes-american-citizens-not-engaged-192118351--politics.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">a letter written to Paul</a>
by Attorney General Eric Holder, in which Holder wrote: "It has come to
my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the
President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an
American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that
question is no." Despite Paul's declaration of victory, this carefully
crafted statement tells us almost nothing about the actual controversy.<br />
<br />
As Law Professor Ryan Goodman <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/opinion/the-drone-question-obama-hasnt-answered.html?_r=0">wrote yesterday in the New York Times</a>,
"the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has
acted with an overly broad definition of what it means to be engaged in
combat." That phrase - "engaged in combat" - does not only include
people who are engaged in violence at the time you detain or kill them.
It includes a huge array of people who we would not normally think of,
using common language, as being "engaged in combat".<br />
<br />
Indeed, the whole point of the Paul filibuster was to ask whether the
Obama administration believes that it has the power to target a US
citizen for assassination on US soil the way it did to Anwar Awlaki in
Yemen. The Awlaki assassination was justified on the ground that Awlaki
was a "combatant", that he was "engaged in combat", even though he was
killed not while making bombs or shooting at anyone but <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html">after he had left a cafe where he had breakfast</a>.
If the Obama administration believes that Awlaki was "engaged in
combat" at the time he was killed - and it clearly does - then Holder's
letter is meaningless at best, and menacing at worst, because that
standard is so broad as to vest the president with exactly the power his
supporters now insist he disclaimed.<br />
<br />
The phrase "engaged in combat" has come to mean little more than:
anyone the President accuses, in secrecy and with no due process, of
supporting a Terrorist group. Indeed, radically broad definitions of
"enemy combatant" have been at the heart of every War on Terror policy,
from Guantanamo to CIA black sites to torture. As Professor Goodman
wrote:<br />
<blockquote>
"By declining to specify what it means to be 'engaged in combat' the
letter does not foreclose the possible scenario - however hypothetical -
of a military drone strike, against a United States citizen, on
American soil. It also raises anew questions about the standards the
administration has used in deciding to use drone strikes to kill
Americans suspected of terrorist involvement overseas . . .<br />
"The Obama administration's continued refusal to do so should alarm
any American concerned about the constitutional right of our citizens -
no matter what evil they may or may not be engaged in - to due process
under the law. For those Americans, Mr. Holder's seemingly simple but
maddeningly vague letter offers no reassurance."<br />
</blockquote>
Indeed, as both <a href="http://opiniojuris.org/2013/03/07/color-me-unimpressed-by-holders-response-to-paul/">Law Professor Kevin Jon Heller</a>
and Marcy Wheeler noted, Holder, by deleting the word "actively" from
Paul's question (can you kill someone not "actively engaged in
combat"?), raised more questions than he answered. As Professor Heller
wrote:<br />
<blockquote>
<br />
"'Engaged in combat' seems like a much broader standard than 'senior
operational leader'. which the recently disclosed White Paper described
as a necessary condition of killing an American citizen overseas. Does
that mean the President can kill an American citizen inside the US who
is a lower-ranking member of al-Qaeda or an associated force? . . . .<br />
"What does 'engaged in combat' mean? That is a particularly important
question, given that Holder did not restrict killing an American inside
the US to senior operational leaders and deleted 'actively' from Paul's
question. Does 'engaging' require participation in planning or
executing a terrorist attack? Does any kind of direct participation in
hostilities qualify? Do acts short of direct participation in
hostilities - such as financing terrorism or propagandizing - qualify?
Is mere membership, however loosely defined by the US, enough?"<br />
</blockquote>
<br />
Particularly since the Obama administration continues to conceal the
legal memos defining its claimed powers - memos we would need to read to
understand what it means by "engaged in combat" - the Holder letter
should exacerbate concerns, not resolve them. As Digby, comparing Bush
and Obama legal language on these issues, <a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com.br/2013/03/hiding-behind-details-wordsmithing-gwot.html">wrote yesterday about Holder's letter</a>:
"It's fair to say that these odd phrasings and very particular choices
of words are not an accident and anyone with common sense can tell
instantly that by being so precise, they are hiding something."<br />
<br />
At best, Holder's letter begs the question: what do you mean when you
accuse someone of being "engaged in combat"? And what are the exact
limits of your power to target US citizens for execution without due
process? That these questions even need to be asked underscores how
urgently needed Paul's filibuster was, and how much more serious
pushback is still merited. But the primary obstacle to this effort has
been, and remains, that the Democrats who spent all that time parading
around as champions of these political values are now at the head of the
line leading the war against them.<br />
<br />
<div class="copyright-info">
© 2013 The Guardian</div>
<div class="copyright-info">
</div>
<div class="author-image" style="float: left; padding: 1px 15px 15px 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/glenn-greenwald"><img alt="Glenn Greenwald" class="imagecache imagecache-author_photo" height="100" src="https://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imagecache/author_photo/glenn_greenwald.jpg" title="Glenn Greenwald" width="90" /></a> </div>
<div class="author-brief-article">
Glenn Greenwald is a columnist on civil liberties and US national
security issues for the Guardian. A former constitutional lawyer, he
was until 2012 a contributing writer at <a href="http://www.salon.com/">Salon</a>. His most recent book is, <strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805092056?tag=commondreams-20/ref=nosim" target="_blank">With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful</a></strong>. His other books include: <strong><span class="title"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307408663?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0307408663&linkCode=xm2&tag=commondreams-20" target="_blank">Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics</a></span></strong>, <strong><span class="title"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307354288?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0307354288&linkCode=xm2&tag=commondreams-20" target="_blank">A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency</a></span></strong>, and <span class="title"><strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/097794400X?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=097794400X&linkCode=xm2&tag=commondreams-20" target="_blank">How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok</a></strong>. </span>He is the recipient of the first annual I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism.<br />
</div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-54256839668108298572012-09-25T17:21:00.001-04:002012-09-25T17:22:49.037-04:00Pakistan Drone Study Finds 'Damaging And Counterproductive' Consequences From U.S. Policy<br />
<br />
<h2 class="margin_top_7">
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/world/">
<img alt="world" src="http://s.huffpost.com/images/v/logos/bpage/world.gif?29" />
<h2 class="tagline">
<span style="font-size: small;">The Internet Newspaper: News, Blogs, Video, Community</span></h2>
</a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/world/">
</a>
</h2>
<br />
<h1 class="title-news">
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/pakistan-drone-study-stanford_n_1911555.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Pakistan Drone Study Finds 'Damaging And Counterproductive' Consequences From U.S. Policy</a></h1>
<div class="like_box_news margin_bottom_10 clearfix">
<div class="read_more with_verticals clearfix" data-beacon="{"p":{"mnid":"follow_tags"}}" id="follow_tags">
<div class="float_left side_hold">
<div class="fb_like_cont">
<div class="align_left">
<span style="height: 28px; width: 400px;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="read_more with_verticals clearfix" data-beacon="{"p":{"mnid":"follow_tags"}}" id="follow_tags">
</div>
<div class="read_more with_verticals clearfix" data-beacon="{"p":{"mnid":"follow_tags"}}" id="follow_tags">
</div>
<div class="read_more with_verticals clearfix" data-beacon="{"p":{"mnid":"follow_tags"}}" id="follow_tags">
</div>
<div class="read_more with_verticals clearfix" data-beacon="{"p":{"mnid":"follow_tags"}}" id="follow_tags">
</div>
<div class="read_more with_verticals clearfix" data-beacon="{"p":{"mnid":"follow_tags"}}" id="follow_tags">
</div>
<div class="read_more with_verticals clearfix" data-beacon="{"p":{"mnid":"follow_tags"}}" id="follow_tags">
</div>
<div class="read_more with_verticals clearfix" data-beacon="{"p":{"mnid":"follow_tags"}}" id="follow_tags">
</div>
<div class="read_more with_verticals clearfix" data-beacon="{"p":{"mnid":"follow_tags"}}" id="follow_tags">
</div>
<div class="read_more with_verticals clearfix" data-beacon="{"p":{"mnid":"follow_tags"}}" id="follow_tags">
</div>
<div class="read_more with_verticals clearfix" data-beacon="{"p":{"mnid":"follow_tags"}}" id="follow_tags">
<br />
<div class="follow_tags_cont_regular" itemprop="keywords">
</div>
<div class="follow_tags_cont_regular" itemprop="keywords">
</div>
<div class="follow_tags_cont_regular" itemprop="keywords">
</div>
<div class="follow_tags_cont_regular" itemprop="keywords">
</div>
<div class="follow_tags_cont_regular" itemprop="keywords">
</div>
<div class="follow_tags_cont_regular" itemprop="keywords">
</div>
<div class="follow_tags_cont_regular" itemprop="keywords">
</div>
<div class="follow_tags_cont_regular" itemprop="keywords">
<span class="follow_bignews_wrapper"><a class="follow_bignews_link" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/pakistan">Pakistan</a></span>, <span class="follow_bignews_wrapper"><a class="follow_bignews_link" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/video">Video</a></span>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/drone-wars">Drone Wars</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/drones">Drones</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/drones-pakistan">Drones Pakistan</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/fata-region">Fata Region</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/nyu-drone-study">Nyu Drone Study</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/obama-drones">Obama Drones</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/stanford-drone-study">Stanford Drone Study</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/waziristan">Waziristan</a>,
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/world">World News</a><br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="float_left">
<div id="potd_block">
<div class="big_photo" itemprop="photo">
<img alt="Pakistan Drone Report" class="pinit" height="190" id="img_caption_1911555" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/786600/thumbs/s-PAKISTAN-DRONE-REPORT-large.jpg" width="260" /><br />
<br />
<div class="caption">
A new report on American use of drones in Pakistan has
found higher rates of civilian deaths than previously reported. (AP
Photo/Eric Gay, File)<br />
<br />
</div>
<div class="caption">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
A new study conducted by law professors at Stanford and New
York University contends that the U.S. use of drones to target suspected
militants in Pakistan has had a "damaging and counterproductive effect"
on the country and has killed far more civilians than previously
acknowledged.<br />
<br />
The study, <a href="http://livingunderdrones.org/" target="_hplink">which was released on Tuesday</a>,
relies on some 130 interviews with civilians living in the regions of
northern Pakistan where targeted drone strikes have been most frequent.
Working with the activist group Reprieve, the team of professors have
added to the <a href="http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones" target="_hplink">growing body</a> of <a href="http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php" target="_hplink">literature</a>
that argues, contrary to Obama administration claims, that numerous
civilians have been killed, and many more traumatized, by the drone
strike program.<br />
<br />
"Drones hover 24 hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan,
striking homes, vehicles and public spaces without warning," the report
said. "Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a
deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they
are powerless to protect themselves."<br />
<br />
Relying on data compiled by the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/aug/02/us-drone-strikes-data" target="_hplink">Bureau of Investigative Journalism</a>,
the study's authors say that between 2,562 and 3,325 people have been
killed in U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan since June 2004, and between
474 and 881 of them were civilians.<br />
<br />
The heart of the Stanford and NYU report, which is titled "Living
Under Drones," is a close and gripping look at three individual strikes
in Pakistan's Waziristan region, including detailed interviews with 69
survivors, the study authors say.<br />
Some of the interviews appear in a related film that was produced by
the Brave New Foundation, which helped support the study, and that
captured Pakistani citizens speaking about their own experiences with
daily life under drone warfare.<br />
<br />
<br />
In one incident, from June of last year, a drone operator fired
between two and six missiles at a suspect car traveling across
Waziristan, the study authors say. Five people were killed, all of whom
were immediately declared to be "militants" by anonymous Pakistani
government officials. Based on their own interviews, and the reports of
the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has closely reported on
drone strikes in Pakistan, the authors argue that the five killed were
actually civilians, including a retired taxi driver and a teenaged
student.<br />
<br />
Pointing to <a href="http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2012/06/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Project-Pakistan-Report-FINAL-Wednesday-June-27-2012.pdf" target="_hplink">a recent survey</a>
that found that nearly three-fourths of Pakistanis now consider the
U.S. an "enemy," the authors go on to argue that drone strikes may also
be reducing the population's willingness to collaborate against
terrorists.<br />
<br />
After years of denying the existence of the drone program or avoiding answering questions about it, President Barack Obama has <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/obama-drone/" target="_hplink">begun to gingerly address</a> the subject in interviews, mainly in order to promote the rigor with which he approaches the decision to deploy drones.<br />
<br />
But many outside experts have called into question the Obama
administration's claims about the program and its effects, especially
the notion, often repeated by administration officials, that no civilian
deaths have been conclusively linked to U.S. drone strikes.<br />
<br />
The Obama administration has also indicated that it considers any <a href="http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/07/16/targeted-killings-and-signature-strikes/" target="_hplink">"military-aged males"</a> who are killed in the vicinity of a drone-strike target to be likely militants, until proven otherwise.<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/18/the_seven_deadly_sins_of_john_brennan?page=full" target="_hplink">a recent essay in <i>Foreign Policy</i></a>,
Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who has
closely examined the U.S. use of drones, argued that a claim by John
Brennan, Obama's counterterrorism czar, that "the U.S. government has
not found credible evidence of collateral deaths resulting from U.S.
counterterrorism operations outside of Afghanistan or Iraq," was simply
not believable.<br />
<br />
"There were many public reports -- from Pakistani and Yemeni
reporters and anonymous administration officials -- of civilians killed
by U.S. drone strikes," Zenko wrote. "Either Brennan did not receive the
same reports of civilian casualties as other administration officials
did (an implausible notion), he lacks Internet access to read these
anonymous comments (equally implausible because Brennan closely responds
to critics of targeted killings in his following media appearances), or
he was lying."NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-78272456772878998732012-04-28T11:38:00.000-04:002012-04-28T11:38:29.339-04:00Police Departments' New Tool: Drones<h1 id="logo">
<a href="https://www.commondreams.org/" title="CommonDreams.org"><img alt="CommonDreams.org" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.commondreams.org/images/common-dreams.png" /></a></h1>
<br />
<div class="node-header">
<span class="submitted">
Published on Friday, January 20, 2012 by <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/">Common Dreams</a>
</span>
<div class="node-title">
<h2 class="title">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/20-5" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Police Departments' New Tool: Drones</a></span></h2>
</div>
<div class="author">
- Common Dreams staff </div>
<div class="author">
</div>
</div>
<div class="node-content clear-block prose">
<div id="node-body">
<b>Drones are no longer just part of the military's arsenal of tools. Police departments across the U.S. are getting them too.</b><br />
<br />
<span class="image-right" style="width: 275px;"> <img alt="" class="imagecache imagecache-headline_image imagecache-default imagecache-headline_image_default" height="196" src="https://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imagecache/headline_image/article_images/policedrones.jpg" title="" width="275" /> <span class="caption"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="image-right" style="width: 275px;"><span class="caption">Honeywell, manufacturer of the RQ-16A T-Hawk spy drone, likes to say that the device fits in a backpack. (DOD) </span></span><strong>FlaglerLive</strong> <a href="http://flaglerlive.com/32634/police-spy-drones" rel="nofollow">reports</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
With financial help from the federal government, police departments
across the country are marshaling a new generation of remote-controlled
airborne surveillance devices to be their eyes in the sky.<br />
</blockquote>
The Miami-Dade Police Department now has drones ready to use. <strong>NBC Miami</strong> <a href="http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Miami-Dade-Police-Departments-Drones-Ready-To-Fly-137434223.html" rel="nofollow">reports</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
The Miami-Dade Police Department finally stands ready to launch their
two micro air vehicles, or MAVs, the next time a shooting standoff or
hostage situation could use a bird's eye boost, more than two years
after getting the drones.<br />
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"It has no weapons," said Sergeant Andrew Cohen, one of the county's
12 pilot officers. "It's just a camera, basically a flying camera."<br />
</blockquote>
The potential far-reaching surveillance has the <strong>ACLU</strong> <a href="http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-report-domestic-drones-finds-need-new-privacy-protections" rel="nofollow">sounding</a> the need for caution:<br />
<blockquote>
“Our privacy laws are not strong enough to ensure that the new
technology will be used responsibly and consistently with democratic
values,” warns the ACLU report, Protecting Privacy From Aerial
Surveillance. “We need a system of rules to ensure that we can enjoy the
benefits of this technology without bringing us a large step closer to a
‘surveillance society’ in which our every move is monitored, tracked,
recorded and scrutinized by the authorities.”<br />
</blockquote>
<strong>RT</strong> <a href="http://rt.com/news/us-drone-police-privacy-251/" rel="nofollow">notes</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
“There can be a very lucrative market in the United States for drones
in police departments who are already militarized – from tanks to
assault vehicles to assault rifles, flap jackets, the helmets,” John
Whitehead [a constitutional attorney from the Rutherford Institute]
said. “The modern police look like the military so now they are going to
be using military equipment.”<br />
</blockquote>
<a href="https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/20-5" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">RT looks further with this video:</a><br />
<br />
</div>
</div>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-42622623474364190832012-04-28T11:03:00.002-04:002012-04-28T11:03:37.829-04:00Endless Evil: The Drug War’s Continuing Collateral Damage<span style="color: #003399; font-family: Times,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><b> </b></span><a href="http://www.fff.org/index.htm"><img alt="FFF" border="0" height="80" src="http://www.fff.org/images/logo.gif" width="182" /></a><br />
<span style="color: #003399; font-family: Times,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><b> </b></span><a href="http://www.fff.org/comment/index.asp"><img alt="Commentaries" border="0" height="80" src="http://www.fff.org/images/titles/freedom.gif" width="524" /></a><br />
<br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1108e.asp" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="color: #003399; font-family: Times,Times New Roman; font-size: x-large;"><b>Endless Evil: The Drug War’s Continuing Collateral Damage </b></span></a></h2>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Geneva,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">by Radley Balko</span>,
<span style="font-family: Arial,Geneva,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> Posted October 27, 2011</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times,Times New Roman;">
</span><div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times,Times New Roman;"><div align="right">
<b>Part 1</b></div>
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times,Times New Roman;"><div align="right">
</div>
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times,Times New Roman;">
<br />
In September 2009, 28-year-old Jonathan Ayers pulled into a gas station
in Stephens County, Georgia, to withdraw money from an ATM. Ayers, a
pastor, had just given $23, all the cash he had in his pocket, to
Johanna Barrett, a drug addict alleged to be a prostitute to whom Ayers
had been ministering. His purpose was to help Barrett pay rent at the
motel where she was living with her boyfriend. According to friends and
family members, it wasn’t unusual for Ayers to give the money he was
carrying to help those to whom he was ministering get out of a jam.<br />
<br />
Shortly after Ayers returned to his car from the ATM, a black
Escalade tore into the parking lot. Three police officers, all
undercover, got out of the vehicle and raced toward Ayers’s car. The
startled pastor started his car and attempted to flee the parking lot.
As he pulled out of the gas station, his vehicle grazed Officer Chance
Oxner. Officer Billy Shane Harrison opened fire, putting a bullet
through Ayers’s window that struck the pastor in the stomach. Ayers
continued to drive, fleeing down the road for about a thousand yards
before eventually crashing his car. He died at the hospital. His last
words to his family and medical staff were that he thought he was being
robbed. The police found no illicit drugs in his car, and there was no
trace of any illegal substance in his body.<br />
<br />
The police officers were part of a multi-jurisdictional drug task
force. They had been following Barrett, who they say was selling small
amounts of illicit drugs to support her own habit. They latched on to
Ayers when they saw him hand her money while she was under surveillance.
Rather than investigate further, at which point they would have
discovered that Ayers was a pastor with no criminal history, they chose
to confront him as if he were a violent fugitive on the lam. Subsequent
investigations by the DA’s office and the Georgia Bureau of
Investigation found no wrongdoing on the part of the police. It took a
lawsuit by Ayers’s widow and some reporting from a local TV news
reporter to discover that Harrison, the officer who shot Ayers, had
received no training in the use of lethal force. In fact, he had so
little training that under Georgia law he wasn’t legally permitted to
carry a gun or work as an active-duty police officer. Even now, while
Abigail Ayers’s lawsuit is still pending, there has been no disciplinary
action taken against the officers involved in Jonathan Ayers’s death.
He is collateral damage in America’s drug war.<br />
<br />
Ayers’s story is too familiar. Consider Isaac Singletary, an
80-year-old man shot and killed by undercover police in Jacksonville,
Florida, in 2008. The cops were posing as drug dealers, soliciting
clients from Singletary’s front lawn. When Singletary came out of his
home with a rifle to scare off what he thought were loitering drug
pushers, the undercover cops panicked and killed him. Once again, no one
was to blame. Jacksonville Sheriff John Rutherford described Singletary
as “an honest citizen trying to do good.” Gov. Charlie Crist of
Florida called Singletary’s death one of the “challenges in fighting
crime.” The officers who killed Singletary were cleared of any blame.<br />
<br />
There are more examples, from just the last few years. In January of
this year, 68-year-old Eurie Stamps was killed by the Framingham,
Massachusetts, SWAT team that raided his home. Stamps wasn’t a suspect
and he wasn’t armed. In fact, the police nabbed the two suspects they
were looking for — the son of Stamps’s live-in girlfriend and a friend
of his — outside the house.<br />
<br />
In 2008, Gonzalo Guizan was shot and killed by a SWAT team raiding
the Easton, Connecticut, home of Ronald Terebesi Jr. Police were acting
on a tip from a prostitute that Terebesi was using (not selling)
cocaine. Guizan’s family says Guizan was visiting Terebesi to discuss
their opening a business together. Guizan was shot when he ran toward
the invading police officers as they broke into the home.
<br />
Also in 2008, a police officer in Lima, Ohio, shot and killed
26-year-old Tarika Wilson during a drug raid targeting Wilson’s
boyfriend. As one officer shot and killed the boyfriend’s dogs, another
officer mistook those shots for hostile gunfire. That officer then
emptied his weapon into the bedroom where Wilson was on her knees,
holding her infant son, complying with the officers’ orders. Wilson was
killed. Her son lost use of his right hand.<br />
<br />
When Richard Nixon first uttered the phrase “war on drugs” in 1971,
he didn’t choose those words by accident. Government declarations of war
signal to the country that the threat it is facing is so perilous, so
grave, so existential, that in order to defeat it, Americans should
prepare to give up basic freedoms, make significant sacrifices, and
accept the inevitable collateral damage they may endure on “their” way
to victory. Whatever one may think about the justness and morality of
America’s actual wars, they were at least all predicated on the idea
that the United States faced an enemy that threatened its very way of
life. (Of course, that was true only in a small number of cases.) The
drug war doesn’t even put up that sort of pretense. Elected officials
argue — and Americans have mostly played along — that all of this
sacrifice, erosion of civil liberties, and collateral damage are
necessary to ... keep people from getting high.<br />
<br />
The “war on drugs” metaphor grew increasingly literal during the
Reagan administration. And through Reagan’s, Clinton’s, both Bushes’,
and Obama’s administration, both major political parties have only
inflated and doubled down on what has arguably been the most destructive
and wasteful government policy of the last 40 years. The drug war
touches nearly every area of American life, and distorts nearly all
facets of American public policy. But there are a few examples of where
drug prohibition has done more damage than others.
<br />
<br />
<b>Police militarization</b><br />
<b> </b>
<br />
In May 2010, a video of a drug raid in Columbia, Missouri, made its
way to the Internet and went viral. In it, a SWAT team uses a battering
ram to force its way into a home after nightfall. Within seconds, shots
ring out. You next hear the screeches of a dying dog, followed by the
protesting wails of homeowner Jonathan Whitworth upon learning that the
police had shot and killed one of his dogs and wounded the other. The
video then shows police rounding up Whitworth, his wife, and their young
son at gunpoint. Whitworth is handcuffed and arrested. The police found
only a small amount of marijuana in the home, not even enough to charge
him with a misdemeanor. (Marijuana had been decriminalized in
Columbia.)<br />
<br />
Reaction to the video was fascinating. People from all over the
country — indeed the world — condemned the Columbia Police Department
for the violent tactics. The department was inundated with email, phone
calls, and faxes. Within days, more than a million people watched the
video on YouTube. But the interesting thing is that there was nothing
unusual about that video. Everything about it was standard procedure,
from the battering ram, to the paramilitary gear to the perfunctory
slaughter of the dog. Raids just like it happen dozens of times each day
in the United States. It was as if America had suddenly realized just
how militant its war on drugs really was. The outrage was encouraging,
but such invasions have been going on for a generation. And while
reaction to the video did effect some modest reforms in Columbia, it had
almost no substantive effect outside the city.<br />
<br />
The proliferation of SWAT teams began in the 1980s. America’s long
(and wise) constraint on using the military for domestic policing,
codified in the post–Civil War Posse Comitatus Act, began to blur as
states deployed National Guard troops to search for marijuana hidden in
fields and forests and, in some cases, to patrol drug-riddled inner
cities. The line between cop and soldier further blurred when Ronald
Reagan authorized active-duty elite military units to train with
narcotics police.<br />
<br />
But the most significant threat to Posse Comitatus may not come from
the use of soldiers as cops, but from the increasing tendency of cops
to act like soldiers, a troubling trend best seen in the 30-year rise in
the use of paramilitary SWAT teams in America. SWAT teams are
ubiquitous now, thanks in large part to a number of bad federal
incentives, including a Pentagon program that since the late 1980s has
given millions of pieces of surplus military gear to local police
departments for free or at a steep discount.<br />
<br />
In the 1970s, only a handful of police departments had SWAT teams,
and they were deployed only a few hundred times per year across the
entire country. That number soared to around 4,000 per year by the early
1980s, and to an incredible 50,000 per year by the mid 2000s. There are
now 130–150 SWAT raids per day in America. In most, police force their
way into private homes, usually at night, then violently secure the
premises at gunpoint. They sometimes deploy flash grenades, which are
designed to cause sensory paralysis of everyone inside. And the purpose
of the vast majority of these raids is to serve search warrants on
people suspected of nonviolent, consensual drug crimes. According to my
own research, at least 48 innocent people have died in such raids. That
is, people who weren’t caught with — or even suspected of having — any
illicit drugs. Dozens more nonviolent drug offenders have been killed,
as have about 30 police officers.<br />
<br />
Politicians have dressed police like soldiers, trained them in
paramilitary tactics, given them military weapons and armor, and told
them they’re fighting a “war.” And as everyone knows, sometimes in a
war, innocent people die.
<br />
<br />
<b>Foreign policy</b>
<br />
Just months before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S.
government gave $43 million to Afghanistan — a way of compensating
Afghan farmers hurt by the Taliban’s compliance with a U.S. request to
crack down on that country’s opium farms. (As it turns out, the Taliban
eradicated only those farms in competition with the Taliban’s own
producers.)<br />
<br />
Americans don’t seem to have learned. The Western world’s
prohibition on opium has made poppies a lucrative crop for impoverished
Afghan farmers, and is a valuable recruiting tool for insurgents and
remnant Taliban forces. At the same time, DEA agents and U.S. and UN
troops rove the Afghan countryside on search-and-destroy missions,
setting the livelihoods of Afghan farmers — their poppies — aflame
before their very eyes. That is not the way to build alliances. As Misha
Glenny, author of a book on the global drug trade, explained in a 2008
article for the <i>Washington Post,</i>
<br />
<blockquote>
the drug war has become the Taliban’s most effective recruiter in
Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s Muslim extremists have reinvigorated
themselves by supporting and taxing the countless peasants who are
dependent one way or another on the opium trade, their only reliable
source of income.... The “War on Drugs” is defeating the “war on
terror.”
<br />
</blockquote>
But it isn’t just in Afghanistan. The United States has a long
history of turning a blind eye to human-rights abuses and unintended
consequences in the name of eradicating illicit drugs overseas. Between
2001 and 2003, the United States gave more than $12 million to Thailand
for drug interdiction efforts. Over 10 months in 2003, the Thai
government sent out anti-drug “death squads” to carry out the
extra-judicial executions of as many as 4,000 suspected drug offenders.
Many were later found to have had nothing to do with the drug trade.
Though the U.S. State Department denounced the killings, the United
States still continued to give the same Thai regime millions in aid for
counternarcotics operations with little control over how that money was
spent.<br />
<br />
Then there’s the bloody civil war in Mexico, where the U.S.-backed
and heavily U.S.-funded drug war has wreaked incomprehensible carnage.
An estimated 15,000 people were murdered by drug cartels in 2010 alone.
Some 30,000 have been murdered since 2006 when, at the urging of the
U.S. government, President Felipe Calderon of Mexico called up the
Mexican military to put more <i>war</i> in the country’s drug war. Five
years later, the policy has produced enough bodies to populate a small
town. And yet the drug trade still flourishes. News reports indicate
that astonishing numbers of Mexican police forces, politicians, and
customs agents are now on cartel payrolls. Drug lords brazenly murder
journalists, pop singers, and sports stars. The border town of Praxedis
G. Guerrero recently hired 20-year-old college student Marisol Valles
García as its new police chief. The previous chief, like those in nearby
towns, had been assassinated. Garcia was the only one to apply for the
job.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, U.S. drug agents and politicians have callously dismissed
all of this brutal violence in Mexico as collateral damage in the quest
for a drug-free America. One former federal drug warrior wrote in an
Arizona newspaper in 2008 that all the death and carnage in Mexico is
actually <i>good</i> news — Mexicans slaughtering one another is a sign
that “we’re” winning. Other U.S. officials have since echoed that
horrifying claim. This cynical, ends-justifies-the-means mentality isn’t
surprising, but that doesn’t make it any less immoral. If thousands of
Mexicans have to die in order to stop Americans from getting high, well,
that’s a sacrifice U.S. anti-drug officials are willing to make. How
noble of them. In 2009, the U.S. Congress approved another $400 million
in drug-war aid to Mexico, despite concern from human-rights
organizations that the Mexican military may be killing innocent Mexican
citizens in its vigor to crack down on the drug lords.<br />
<br />
In South America, the “Plan Colombia” drug interdiction effort
spearheaded by Bill Clinton has also been a disaster, as U.S. military
aid has funded right-wing paramilitary groups responsible for mass
human-rights abuses and spawned public support for the FARC guerrilla
organization that periodically rises up to threaten the country’s
stability. The other main component of the plan — the mass spraying of
concentrated herbicide on Colombian coca fields — has poisoned vast
tracts of farmland (and, some say, many people), depriving many
Colombians of their livelihood. That, again, isn’t likely to foster warm
feelings toward the United States.<br />
<br />
U.S. citizens occasionally get picked off in U.S. overseas anti-drug
efforts, too. In 2001, the CIA ordered the Peruvian Air Force to shoot
down what they thought was a drug plane. They were mistaken. Instead,
they had shot down a plane filled with U.S. missionaries. Veronica
Bowers, 35, and her seven-month-old daughter Charity died in the ensuing
crash. Just more collateral damage.<br />
</span><div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Part 2 </b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">“The Fourth Amendment has been virtually repealed by court decisions,” Yale law professor Steven Duke told </span><i style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">Wired</i><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"> magazine in 2000, “most of which involve drug searches.” </span><br />
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
The rise of no-knock raids and SWAT teams is one example (discussed
in part one of this series), but there are others. James Bovard once
wrote, for example, of the almost comically comprehensive list of
suspicious “drug mule” behavior for which one can be legally detained
and invasively searched at an airport. The list includes being the first
person off a plane, the last person off a plane, or someone who
authorities believe is conspicuously in the middle of exiting
passengers. Bovard adds that federal courts have upheld detainments and
searches for people who “had nonstop flights — and those who changed
planes; persons traveling alone — and persons traveling with a
companion; people who appeared nervous — and people who appeared too
calm.” </div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
In New York City, police have used suspicionless “stop and frisk”
pat-downs to trick marijuana users into incriminating themselves.
Possession of small amounts of the drug isn’t a criminal offense in the
Big Apple, but publicly displaying the drug is. So when police stop a
suspected pot user on the basis of nothing more than a hunch (which they
now do more than half a million times per year), they ask their mark to
empty his pockets. If doing so requires him to reveal a joint or small
bag of pot, the cops arrest him. It doesn’t matter that pot is
decriminalized, or that the offender had no intention of smoking or
showing the drug in public. The number of marijuana-possession arrests
in New York City has consequently exploded, from 900 in 1992 to more
than 40,000 in 2009. </div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
In many areas of the country, police are also now conducting
“administrative searches” at bars and clubs. These obvious searches for
criminal conduct are cloaked as regulatory inspections, which
conveniently gets around the need for a search warrant. Police in some
cities, including New Haven, Atlanta, Orlando, and Manassas Park,
Virginia, have sent huge SWAT teams into bars, nightclubs, even
barbershops, under the pretense of verifying that the bar is complying
with various administrative regulations. They then search the entire
place, including the persons of customers and employees, for illegal
drugs. </div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
For 20 years now, America’s absurd, drug-war inspired civil
asset-forfeiture laws have operated on the legal fiction that property
can be guilty of a crime. The mere presence of an illicit substance in a
person’s home or car allows the government to seize his property, sell
it, and keep the proceeds. The onus is on the accused to prove he
obtained his property legally, and the cost of fighting the state in
court can often exceed the value of the property cops have taken. They
don’t even need to actually find any drugs. The government has seized
and kept money under the absurd argument that merely carrying large
amounts of cash is indicative of criminal activity. That money then goes
to buy new cop cars, exercise equipment for the police station, plane
tickets for training conferences or junkets for cops and prosecutors,
and, in one of my personal favorite anecdotes, a margarita machine for
the DA’s office. </div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
The drug war has undermined the rule of law in less-obvious ways,
too. As was the case with alcohol prohibition, and is the case with the
prohibition of any consensual activity, the people who are asked to
police those crimes often have to break the very laws they’re enforcing.
The presence of large sums of unaccounted money can be tempting and
corrupting for cops, and there are plenty of stories of police officers
lured into the drug trade. But the drug war breeds corruption in more
mundane ways, too. Politicians and prosecutors like to tout their
successes with statistics — they want lots of arrests, big busts, and
lots of drug seizures. </div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
The temptation for cops to take shortcuts on their way to a big bust
looms large. We saw this in Atlanta in 2006 when, during a botched drug
raid, police shot and killed 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston. Subsequent
investigations revealed not only that police in that case had lied about
nearly every aspect of the Johnston case, but that lying on
search-warrant requests was common among Atlanta’s narcotics cops.
Following the rules simply took too long for cops facing pressure to
meet monthly drug-arrest quotas. </div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
The cops in the Johnston case also lied about their use of a
confidential informant, another
common temptation in drug policing. Police abuse of the drug-informant
system led to the high-profile scandals in Tulia and Hearne, Texas, as
well as other scandals in St. Louis and Cleveland and at the FBI. The
use of street informants is bad enough. But there’s also the problem of
jailhouse informants, convicts facing long sentences who testify against
drug suspects in exchange for a reduction in their time behind bars.
Despite the obvious shortcomings in their trustworthiness — they are
cons who have everything to gain and nothing to lose by lying —
countless innocents have been wrongly convicted on the word of jailhouse
snitches. </div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
The inherent problems with the informant system have fostered
growing distrust and contempt for law enforcement, giving rise in some
cities to the “Stop Snitch’n” movement, which encourages citizens to
never cooperate with police under any circumstances, not even during the
investigation of violent crimes. And so we now have yet another ongoing
American tragedy wrought by the drug war: there are entire communities
in the United States that have completely given up on the people charged
with protecting them. Many people understandably
find the “Stop Snitch’n” movement repugnant, but it’s important to
understand its context. There are places in America where the drug war
has completely eradicated all respect for the law, even among citizens
who aren’t involved in the drug trade.
</div>
<br style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;" />
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<b>Pain treatment</b></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<b> </b>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
By now most people are
familiar with the basics of the medical marijuana debate. The federal
government’s anti-pot hysteria has delayed research into the drug’s
possible medical benefits by decades, and has led to the incredible
sight of gun-toting federal SWAT teams pointing guns at AIDS and cancer
patients during raids on medical marijuana clinics in states where the
therapeutic use of the drug has been legalized. </div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
But less known is the way the drug war has also hampered the
treatment of chronic pain. By some estimates, as many as 30 million
Americans suffer from untreated chronic pain. That number is likely only
to rise as the country continues to age. A promising new treatment
called high-dose opiate therapy has proven successful at keeping chronic
pain at bay in many patients. As patients build up resistance to drugs
such as OxyContin, doctors titrate up their dosages. The resistance
eventually plateaus, but when it does, some patients may be taking 40 or
more pills per day. Those patients don’t get high, and they don’t
suffer any ill effects from the medication. They aren’t addicted;
they’re merely dependent. Take the medication away, and the pain comes
back. </div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
Unfortunately, because some addicts also use opioid painkillers to
get high, the Drug Enforcement Administration has decided to play
doctor, determining that no patient should ever need more than some
arbitrary dose (usually determined by drug cops with
no medical training), and that any doctor prescribing drugs above those
dosages should be assumed to be dealing. This aggressive, unnuanced
pursuit of pain doctors has put the fear of prosecution into physicians
who specialize in pain treatment. (It’s also scaring young doctors from
even entering the field.) Driven by politicians spooked by a spate of
irresponsible press reports warning that an OxyContin fad is sweeping
the country, the DEA’s high-profile pursuit of pain specialists has
created a poisonous relationship of suspicion between pain doctors and
their patients and has left the country with a dire shortage of
physicians willing to prescribe pain medication to people who are
suffering. </div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
Siobhan Reynolds, who started an advocacy group for pain patients
after her now-late husband’s physician was arrested by the DEA, recently
learned that one doesn’t even need to be a doctor to feel the blunt end
of federal drug policy. Reynolds used her public-relations savvy to
launch countercampaigns against federal law-enforcement authorities when
she thought they were targeting a physician. She would encourage
patients such a doctor had successfully treated to speak out. She
deservedly takes credit for shifting the debate on the issue. </div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
That didn’t sit well with federal authorities. When Reynolds
recently launched one of her countercampaigns to defend an accused
doctor in Kansas, Assistant U.S. Attorney Tanya Treadway launched a
criminal investigation ... of Reynolds. In a clear attempt at
intimidation, Treadway issued her an extraordinarily broad subpoena that
jeopardized Reynolds’s relationship with the doctors and patients for
whom she advocated. Reynolds challenged the lawsuit on First Amendment
grounds. She not only lost, but the subpoena, her challenge to it, and
all briefs related to both cases were sealed by federal judges, a clear
violation of her First Amendment rights that, unfortunately, was upheld
in late 2010 by the U.S. Supreme Court.
</div>
<br style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;" />
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<b>The Verdun analogy</b></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<b> </b>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
All just collateral damage. The DEA’s mission is to prevent people
from getting high. If it takes an overbroad, overaggressive,
speech-chilling campaign against doctors, patients, and advocates to do
that, leaving millions of people in needless, sometimes debilitating
pain, so be it. This is a war.
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
Even if the drug war were working — even if all the horrible things
the federal government says are caused by illicit drugs were accurate
(and some of them admittedly are), and even if the war on drugs were
proving successful in eradicating or even significantly diminishing
access to those drugs — it would be difficult to argue that the benefits
would be worth the costs. (And even that, of course, leaves aside the
critical question of whether preventing people from harming themselves
is a legitimate function of government. It isn’t.) </div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
But of course it <i>isn’t</i> working. Most of the federal
government claims about the evils associated with illicit drugs are
either exaggerated or misapplied effects not of the drugs, but of the
government’s prohibition of them. </div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
More to the point, none of it is working, even if one takes the
positions of drug warriors at face value. It is as easy to achieve an
illegal high today as it was in 1981, as it was in 1971, as it was in
1915, when the first federal anti-drug law was passed. Anyone reading
this very likely knows where to get a bag of marijuana or knows someone
who knows where to get one. Specific drugs come into and go out of
vogue, but the desire to alter one’s consciousness, to escape life’s
drab monotonies, or just to call in a different mindset, is as strong
and pervasive as it’s ever been, going back to the Stone Age. And it’s
easier than ever to fulfill. </div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
In a 1986 speech designed to drum up public support for yet another
round of drug-war legislation, Ronald Reagan officially designated
illicit drugs a threat to America’s national security. After declaring,
“We’re running up a battle flag,” he compared America’s determination in
the war on drugs to that of the French troops at the World War I Battle
of Verdun. As the journalist Dan Baum notes while explaining Reagan’s
speech in his book <i>Smoke and Mirrors,</i> Verdun was a protracted,
bloody, brutal battle of attrition. A quarter-million troops lost their
lives and another 700,000 were wounded, all in a months-long battle for a
small strip of land that offered little practical advantage to either
army. In fact, in much of Europe Verdun has come to symbolize the
futility of war and the way callous government leaders can write off a
mass loss of blood and treasure as mere collateral damage in the pursuit
of some supposedly noble but ultimately shallow and elusive aim. As it
turns out, Reagan’s analogy was far more appropriate than he probably
intended. </div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<a href="http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1108e.asp">Part 1</a> | Part 2 </div>
<div align="center" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<i>Radley Balko is a senior writer and investigative reporter for the Huffington Post.</i>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<i>This article originally appeared in the September 2011 edition of <b>Freedom Daily</b>. <a href="http://www.fff.org/support/index.asp#print">Subscribe</a> to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.</i>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: Times,Times New Roman;"><br /></span>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-23497007602275068922012-04-28T10:08:00.002-04:002012-04-28T10:08:58.233-04:00Obama to be challenged over human cost of CIA drone strikes<div id="guardian-logo">
<a href="http://www.guardiannews.com/"><img alt="The Guardian home" height="22" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/static/60ed206dbccc8b808a7792d47862f9cfb7cd3d67/common/images/logos/the-guardian/news.gif" width="115" /></a>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/unmanned-drones">News World news Unmanned drones</a></b><br />
<div id="main-article-info">
<h2 itemprop="name">
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/26/obama-drone-strikes-human-cost" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Obama to be challenged over human cost of CIA drone strikes</span></a></h2>
<h3 class="stand-first-alone" id="stand-first" itemprop="description">
<span style="font-size: large;">Campaigners to meet in Washington to highlight how CIA is operating in seceret and inflicting civilian casualties abroad</span></h3>
<ul class="article-attributes b4">
<li class="byline">
<div class="contributer-full">
<a class="contributor" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/karenmcveigh" rel="author">
Karen McVeigh</a> </div>
</li>
<li class="publication">
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/">guardian.co.uk</a>,
<time datetime="2012-04-26T13:22EDT" pubdate="">Thursday 26 April 2012 13.22 EDT</time>
</li>
<li class="history" style="display: list-item;">
<a class="rollover history-link" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/26/obama-drone-strikes-human-cost#history-link-box">Article history</a>
</li>
</ul>
<div id="article-wrapper">
<div id="main-content-picture">
<img alt="A US Predator unmanned drone sits primed at Bagram air base, Afghanistan" height="276" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/10/5/1286266182370/A-US-Predator-unmanned-dr-006.jpg" width="460" />
<div class="caption">
<i>The US has been criticised for not widely
reporting casualties of CIA drone strikes abroad. Photograph: Bonny
Schoonakker/AFP/Getty Images</i></div>
<div class="caption">
</div>
</div>
<div id="article-body-blocks">
The human cost of the US government's clandestine drone strikes strategy, including the deaths of young children in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/pakistan" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Pakistan">Pakistan</a> and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/yemen" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Yemen">Yemen</a>, will be highlighted this weekend as campaigners attempt to challenge domestic support for the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/obama-administration" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Obama administration">Obama administration</a>'s controversial policy.<br />
<br />
A
conference in Washington, at which new video testimony will be shown
from the relatives of victims, is the first step in a collaborative
campaign to challenge Barack Obama's claim in February that the strikes,
aimed at terror suspects, were kept on a "tight leash" and had not
inflicted huge civilian casualties.<br />
The summit's organisers – the
Center for Constitutional Rights, Reprieve and the peace group Code Pink
– hope it will increase awareness of how the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cia" title="More from guardian.co.uk on CIA">CIA</a>-controlled programme is operating in secret, without a clear legal framework and without any accountability to Congress.<br />
<br />
Earlier
this month, the US government announced it was expanding its
controversial use of drone aircraft to kill suspected terrorists in
Yemen.<br />
<br />
Chris Woods, a journalist at the British-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, who <a href="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/">exposed CIA drone attacks on rescuers and funeralgoers in Pakistan,</a> described the summit as an "extraordinary heavyweight gathering". He said: "Washington has not seen anything like this before."<br />
<br />
Woods
criticised the US media for not widely reporting civilian casualties of
US drone strikes abroad, which he said give a "warped understanding of
what is taking place."<br />
<br />
"Unfortunately, although journalists in
Pakistan are doing a good job of reporting what's going on, it's not
getting through. The American media is doing a bad job of reporting the
civilian side of things."<br />
<br />
He cites the case of the killing of
militant Pakistani leader Badar Mansoor, in North Waziristan this year.
On 9 February, reports of his death were widely reported, but reports of
the others killed were mixed. The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/world/asia/drone-kills-a-top-pakistani-militant-official-says.html">New York Times reported Mansoor's death and said that five others died in the strike</a>;
the Huffington Post quoted intelligence officials as saying five
suspected militants died in the attack; while Reuters reported that
Mansoor was one of five people killed in the strike. It quoted a
Pakistani Taliban commander saying the dead included Mansoor's wife and
two other relatives.<br />
<br />
"Our current understanding is that Mansoor's
wife and one of his young sons died in the strike," said Woods, who
said that the BIJ was still investigating the story.<br />
<br />
The
British-based BIJ's most recent investigation found that since Obama
took office three years ago, 535 civilians have been killed, including
more than 60 children.<br />
<br />
On Wednesday, Reprieve and Islamabad-based
lawyer Shahzad Akbar of the Foundation for Fundamental Rights, which
focuses on civilian victims of CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, launched a
<a href="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/04/24/british-legal-case-shines-fesh-light-on-civilian-drone-deaths/">challenge at the High Court in London</a> to British involvement in a CIA-drone strike that killed 53 people, most of them civilians in a Pakistan village in 2011.<br />
<br />
Woods
said: "The CIA have been saying there have been no civilian deaths in
Pakistan since May 2010.The evidence is overwhelming that that is simply
not the case."<br />
<br />
Medea Benjamin, author of Drone Warfare: Killing
by Remote Control, and the summit organiser, said: "We never see drone
victims on our TV screens and we never hear about them. At the
conference, we will see first hand footage of drone victims and pictures
of them in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia."<br />
A recent poll by ABC
News/Washington Post found that 83% of Americans approve of Obama's use
of drones to kill terrorist suspects abroad. Public opinion is one of
the key areas Benjamin wants to see change.<br />
<br />
"We want to expose the
secretive nature of drones here and overseas and to force transparency
and for Congress to take responsibility for that oversight" she said. "I
would like to see drones out of the the hands of the CIA."<br />
Benjamin is concerned about the covert nature of drone use, even in the US.<br />
"When
the Federal Aviation Agency opens up airspace completely in 2015 we
will see greater use by police and border patrol and other agencies.
They will try to use them in secretive ways unless we force them to open
up."<br />
"Here at home we have to sue the FAA just to find out who has permits to use them."<br />
<br />
Pardiss
Kebriaei, an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, has just
filed a Freedom of Information request to eight separate US government
agencies to find out the legal basis for a drone attack in Al Majalah in
Yemen in 2009, which killed 41 civilians, including women and 21
children.<br />
Kebriaei said: "This was a community. There were two
families living in the area. It is not clear why it was carried out,
whey they were targeted, but whatever the target was, there were a large
number of women and children, some as young as two."<br />
<br />
CCR and the
American Civil Liberties Union also requested information on the US
state department's diplomatic cover-up of the Al Majalah killings, which
WikiLeaks exposed in its release of embassy cables.<br />
Kebriaei, who
was lead counsel in the CCR's case against Obama over the controversial
killing of American-born al-Qaida suspect Anwar al-Awlaki in a drone
strike in Yemen, said: "Drone strikes are escalating in Yemen and
Pakistan. Given we know that the practice is escalating it's critical
that there's more of a discussion about it."<br />
</div>
</div>
<h3 class="stand-first-alone" id="stand-first" itemprop="description">
</h3>
</div>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-78282872663037379462011-11-08T22:17:00.001-05:002011-11-08T22:21:46.996-05:00The drone mentality<a title="Salon Home" href="http://www.salon.com/" class="salonID"> <img alt="Salon Home" src="http://www.salon.com/content/themes/salon/images/ui/ID_salon.gif" border="0" /> </a><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/"><img src="http://media.salon.com/2011/10/overhead_glennGreenwald_e.jpg" class="attachment-full wp-post-image" alt="Glenn Greenwald" title="Glenn Greenwald" width="341" height="96" /></a> <span class="postHeader"><span title="This date and/or time has been adjusted to match your timezone" class="localtime"><br />Saturday, Nov 5, 2011 12:05 PM Eastern Standard Time</span> </span> <h1 id="entry-title-single" class="entry-title headline lg"> <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/05/the_drone_mentality/singleton/">The drone mentality </a></h1> <div class="art"> </div> <div class="topics"> </div> <div class="entryContent clearfix"> <p><strong>(updated below [Sun.])</strong></p> <p>In a<em> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/in-pakistan-drones-kill-our-innocent-allies.html?_r=2&src=tp">New York Times </a></em><a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/in-pakistan-drones-kill-our-innocent-allies.html?_r=2&src=tp">Op-Ed</a> yesterday, international human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith describes a meeting he had in Pakistan with residents from the Afghan-Pakistani border region that has been relentlessly bombed by American drones; if I had one political wish this week, it would be that everyone who supports (or acquiesces to) President Obama’s wildly accelerated drone attacks would read this:</p> <blockquote><p>The meeting had been organized so that Pashtun tribal elders who lived along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier could meet with Westerners for the first time to offer their perspectives on the shadowy drone war being waged by the Central Intelligence Agency in their region. Twenty men came to air their views; some brought their young sons along to experience this rare interaction with Americans. In all, 60 villagers made the journey. . . .</p> <p>On the night before the meeting, we had a dinner, to break the ice. During the meal, I met a boy named Tariq Aziz. He was 16. As we ate, the stern, bearded faces all around me slowly melted into smiles. Tariq smiled much sooner; he was too young to boast much facial hair, and too young to have learned to hate.</p> <p>The next day, the jirga lasted several hours. I had a translator, but the gist of each man’s speech was clear. American drones would circle their homes all day before unleashing Hellfire missiles, often in the dark hours between midnight and dawn. Death lurked everywhere around them. . . .</p> <p>On Monday, [Tariq] was killed by a C.I.A. drone strike, along with his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed Khan. The two of them had been dispatched, with Tariq driving, to pick up their aunt and bring her home to the village of Norak, when their short lives were ended by a Hellfire missile.</p> <p>My mistake had been to see the drone war in Waziristan in terms of abstract legal theory — as a blatantly illegal invasion of Pakistan’s sovereignty, akin to President Richard M. Nixon’s bombing of Cambodia in 1970.</p> <p>But now, the issue has suddenly become very real and personal. <strong>Tariq was a good kid, and courageous. My warm hand recently touched his in friendship; yet, within three days, his would be cold in death, the rigor mortis inflicted by my government.</strong></p> <p>And Tariq’s extended family, so recently hoping to be our allies for peace, has now been ripped apart by an American missile — most likely making any effort we make at reconciliation futile.</p></blockquote> <p>This tragedy repeats itself over and over. After I <a target="_blank" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/ggreenwald/status/132574020620132352">linked to</a> this Op-Ed yesterday on Twitter — by writing that “every American who cheers for drone strikes should confront the victims of their aggression” — I was predictably deluged with responses justifying Obama’s drone attacks on the ground that they are necessary to kill The Terrorists. Reading the responses, I could clearly discern the mentality driving them: <em>I have never heard of 99% of the people my government kills with drones, nor have I ever seen any evidence about them, but I am sure they are Terrorists. </em><strong>That</strong> is the drone mentality in both senses of the word; it’s that combination of pure ignorance and blind faith in government authorities that you will inevitably hear from anyone defending President Obama’s militarism. As Jonathan Schwarz observed after the U.S. unveiled the dastardly Iranian plot to hire a failed used car salesman to kill America’s close friend, the Saudi Ambassador: “I’d bet the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. has closer ‘ties’ to Al Qaeda than 90% of the people we’ve killed with drones<em>.”</em></p> <p>As it turns out, it isn’t only the President’s drone-cheering supporters who have no idea who is being killed by the program they support; neither does the CIA itself. A <a target="_blank" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204621904577013982672973836.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet"><em>Wall Street Journal</em> article</a> yesterday described internal dissension in the administration to Obama’s broad standards for when drone strikes are permitted, and noted that the “bulk” of the drone attacks — the <strong>bulk of them</strong> – “target groups of men believed to be militants associated with terrorist groups, but <strong>whose identities aren’t always known</strong>.” As Spencer Ackerman <a target="_blank" href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/cia-drones-marked-for-death/dronesun/">put it</a>: “The <strong>CIA is now killing people without knowing who they are</strong>, on suspicion of association with terrorist groups”; moreover, the administration refuses to describe what it even means by being “associated” with a Terrorist group (indeed, it steadfastly <a target="_blank" href="http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/civilian-deaths-cia-drone-strikes-zero-or-dozens">refuses to tell citizens</a> anything about the legal principles governing its covert drone wars).</p> <p>Of course, nobody inside the U.S. Government is objecting on the ground that it is wrong to blow people up without having any knowledge of who they are and without any evidence they have done anything wrong. Rather, the internal dissent is grounded in the concern that these drone attacks undermine U.S. objectives by increasing anti-American sentiment in the region (there’s that primitive, inscrutable Muslim culture rearing its head again: they strangely seem to get very angry when foreign governments send sky robots over their countries and blow up their neighbors, teenagers and children). But whatever else is true, huge numbers of Americans — Democrats and Republicans alike — defend Obama’s massive escalation of drone attacks on the ground that he’s killing Terrorists even though they — and, according to the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, Obama himself — usually don’t even know whose lives they’re snuffing out. Remember, though: we have to kill The Muslim Terrorists because <strong>they</strong> have no regard for human life.</p> <p>This is why it’s so imperative to do everything possible to shine a light on the victims of President Obama’s aggression in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere: ignoring the victims, rendering them invisible, is a crucial prerequisite to sustaining propaganda and maintaining support for this militarism (that’s the same reason <a target="_blank" href="http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/15/investigation_finds_us_drones_strike_pakistan">John Brennan lied</a> — <a target="_blank" href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54162.html">yet again</a> — by assuring Americans that there are no innocent victims of drone attacks). Many people want to hear nothing about these victims — like Tariq — because they don’t want to accept that the leader for whom they cheer and the drone attacks they support are regularly ending the lives of large numbers of innocent people, including children. They believe the fairy tale that the U.S. is only killing Terrorists and “militants” because they want to believe it (at this point, the word “militant” has no real definition other than: <em>he or she who dies when a missile shot by a U.S. drone detonates</em>). It’s a self-serving, self-protective form of self-delusion, and the more we hear about the dead teeangers left in the wake of this violence, the more difficult it is to maintain that delusion. That’s precisely why we hear so little about it.</p> <p>Over the last week, I had the genuine privilege of spending substantial amounts of time with participants in the truly inspiring Occupy movement around the country, including visiting Occupy Oakland on Thursday. This same dynamic is at play there. Many sneer at the protest encampments because they include the homeless, the unstable, the “dirty,” the jobless, and those who are otherwise downtrodden, dispossessed and unable to live decent lives. Much of that sneering is due to the desire that these people remain hidden from sight, invisible, so that we can avoid facing the reality of what our society has produced on a large scale (having Dirty, Disobedient People be part of a movement vaguely associated with liberalism also harms the ability of progressive media stars to maintain their access to the Halls of Seriousness). But they are and should be part of that movement precisely because the disappearance of the middle class and booming wealth and income inequality produces exactly this type of human suffering. There are those who love to parade around as supporters of the marginalized and poor who prefer that they remain silent and invisible — distant abstractions — because being viscerally confronted with their human realness is unpleasant and uncomfortable. That’s exactly why victims of President Obama’s relentless drone attacks remain invisible and many prefer to keep it that way — it’s best not to confront the reality of the misery that one’s policies wreak — and it’s exactly why everything should be done to prevent that disappearing from happening.</p> <p>* * * * *</p> <p>Pratap Chatterjee of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism attended the meeting in Islamabad which Smith describes in that Op-Ed and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/11/04/bureau-reporter-meets-16-year-old-just-three-days-before-he-is-killed-by-a-us-drone/">wrote in detail about it</a>. Chatterjee posted video of Tariq at that meeting — who is seen on the video, posted below, in the dark shirt and yellow hat just days before his death-by-American-drone — and wrote the following:</p> <blockquote><p>Among the group was Tariq Aziz, a quiet 16-year-old, who had come after he received a phone call from a lawyer in Islamabad offering him an opportunity to learn basic photography to help document these strikes. . . .</p> <p>Tariq was proud to be part of this meeting. About 18 months earlier, in April 2010, his cousin Aswar Ullah was killed by a missile fired from a drone as he rode a motorcycle near Norak. . . .</p> <p>What none of us could have imagined was that 72 hours later, this football-loving teenager would himself be killed by a CIA drone, along with his 12-year-old cousin Waheed Khan. . . .</p> <p>Tariq and Waheed’s death brought the total number of children killed in drone strikes to 175, according to the Bureau’s own findings. As part of <a target="_blank" href="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/">an ongoing investigation</a>, the Bureau has documented 306 strikes from remotely piloted drones that have killed between 2,359 and 2,959 people.<strong> Over 85% of them have been launched by the administration of President Barack Obama.</strong></p> <div>Tariq came from a poor community on the border with Afghanistan. He was the youngest of seven children. His father, Mumtaz Khan, was away working in the United Arab Emirates as a driver to support his family. Waheed’s family was equally poor – the 12-year-old worked in a local shop for a salary of just Rs 2000 a month (roughly £15 or $23)</div> </blockquote> <p>As I’ve <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/07/19/drones/">noted before</a>, the statistical methodology used by the Bureau to count innocent victims is the most conservative possible, meaning the numbers are <a target="_blank" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/17/us-drone-strikes-pakistan-waziristan">almost certainly much higher</a>. The only thing unusual about Tariq is that his death is receiving substantial attention because of the coincidence that he met with Westerners 72 hours before his life was ended. Most Tariqs simply die without anyone in the country responsible being bothered with hearing about it.</p><p><br /><iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/31604730?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" webkitallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen="" width="400" frameborder="0" height="327"></iframe></p><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/31604730">Tariq Short</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/thebureauinvestigates">TBIJ</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.</p><br /><p></p> <p><a target="_blank" href="http://vimeo.com/31604730">Tariq Short</a> from <a target="_blank" href="http://vimeo.com/thebureauinvestigates">TBIJ</a> on <a target="_blank" href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>UPDATE [Sun.]</strong>: VastLeft comments on these matters <a target="_blank" href="http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2011/11/american-extremists-yes-we-can-care.html">by cartoon</a>.</p> </div> <dl class="author"><dt><a href="http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/"><img class="writerImage" id="writer-10003731" src="http://media.salon.com/2011/10/thumb_glennGreenwald_e.png" title="Glenn Greenwald" alt="Glenn Greenwald" width="70" height="65" /></a></dt><dd><p> Follow Glenn Greenwald on Twitter: <a target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/ggreenwald">@ggreenwald</a>.<a href="http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/">More Glenn Greenwald</a></p></dd></dl>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-18583833638291670952011-09-26T14:43:00.002-04:002011-09-26T14:47:05.412-04:00The Terrible Post-9/11 Truth: Our Government's Been Hijacked. Democracy has been commandeered by a self-interested gang.<a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/"><img src="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/themes/chimpy/images/900.jpg" alt="Smirking Chimp" height="100" width="526" /></a><div class="header"> </div> <div class="underheader"> <a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/tracker">All Recent Posting Activity</a> | <a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/topics">Topics & Issues</a> | <a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/event">Events</a> | <a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/poll">Polls</a> | <a href="http://www.smirkingchimpsucks.com/">Chimp 1.0</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/about">About</a> | <a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/contact">Contact</a> | <a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/advertise">Advertise</a> | <a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/shop">Shop</a> | <a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/donate">Donate</a> </div> <div class="breadcrumb"><a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/">Home</a> » <a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/blog">blogs</a> » <a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/author/michael_winship">Michael Winship's blog</a></div> <span style="font-size:180%;"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span></span><div style="font-weight: bold;" class="nodetitle"><a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/michael-winship/38600/the-terrible-post-9-11-truth-our-governments-been-hijacked-democracy-has-been-commandeered-by-a-sel"><span style="font-size:180%;">The Terrible Post-9/11 Truth: Our Government's Been Hijacked. Democracy has been commandeered by a self-interested gang.</span></a></div><br /><span class="nodeby">by <a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/author/11849">Michael Winship</a> | September 26, 2011 - 8:55am <br /><br /></span><p>About a year after the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, I visited Oklahoma City and went to the bombsite with a friend who had covered the attack as a television news cameraman. No memorial or museum had yet been built; fencing covered with teddy bears, flags and scrawled messages surrounded an empty, grass-covered lot.</p> <p>There was a simplicity to that empty lot that appealed, an understated eloquence that, to me at least, said all that needed to be said. Now, despite all the hubbub and handwringing surrounding its design and construction, in many ways, the new 9/11 Memorial at Ground Zero in Manhattan captures some of that same, straightforward plainness -- the names of the dead punched into bronze, the waterfalls gracing two great voids where the towers used to be, muting the noise of visitors’ voices and quieting the surrounding city. No filigree or statues.</p> <p>We went to the new memorial for the first time last week. It was a perfect, end-of-summer day. Sunlight sparkled in the two pools, and you could see in one of them the wavy reflection of an American flag hanging from across the street. When the breeze was just right, a light mist from the waterfalls caressed your face.</p> <p>I was pleased, too, by the vast plaza, so reminiscent of the one that used to separate the original towers, the wind corkscrewing around their height and sending hats into orbit. In the next few years, when all the construction around the site has ceased and the landscaped trees and other greenery have more fully grown, this will be the place for contemplation that was intended. And perhaps those who come here will reflect not only on the events of 9/11 but their unexpected consequences and whether we as a nation are ever prepared for what comes next.</p> <p>On the afternoon we visited the memorial, I was already downtown, attending a daylong conference on post 9/11 worker protection and community health, sponsored by the New York Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH), a coalition of labor, civil rights, medical, faith-based and environmental organizations.</p> <p>"Are we ready for another 9/11?" Dr. Linda Rae Murray, president of the American Public Health Association, asked us. "Hell, no! Were we ready for Katrina? Or the tornadoes? Or the H1N1 flu? We don’t have the resources; we’ve let our infrastructure disappear. No, we’re not ready."</p> <p>The World Trade Center collapse created the largest number of workplace fatalities in the history of the United States. Government bumbling and dissembling about air quality downtown and conditions at the site, the rush back to business as usual, may have irreparably killed and injured countless others. In the words of Bruce Lippy, formerly with the International Union of Engineers, who spent weeks working on the pile, "They didn’t want to turn Manhattan into a Superfund site." Chip Hughes of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (part of the NIH) added, "There should be an apology."</p> <p>Many of the health consequences for those who survived and continued as rescue and recovery workers have been summed up in a recent study of 27,449 participants in the World Trade Center Screening, Monitoring, and Treatment Program. The stark statistics were published in the September 3 issue of the British medical journal The Lancet:</p> <p>"Findings: 9-year cumulative incidence of asthma was 27.6% (number at risk: 7027), sinusitis 42.3% (5870), and gastro-esophageal reflux disease 39.3% (5650). In police officers, cumulative incidence of depression was 7.0% (number at risk: 3648), PTSD 9.3% (3761), and panic disorder 8.4% (3780). In other rescue and recovery workers, cumulative incidence of depression was 27.5% (number at risk: 4200), PTSD 31.9% (4342), and panic disorder 21.2% (4953). 9-year cumulative incidence for spirometric [lung capacity] abnormalities was 41.8% (number at risk: 5769); three-quarters of these abnormalities were low forced vital capacity."</p> <p>This doesn’t include all the others who lived, worked or studied at or near Ground Zero, inhaling smoke, ash and dust -- air some have described as more caustic than Drano. Nor does it include the cases of neurological disorders, mesothelioma, and other cancers appearing more and more among 9/11 survivors -- illnesses that legislators and activists are now battling to add to the list of conditions covered by the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.</p> <p>It was hard enough passing the Zadroga Act in the first place, beating back years of resistance and wrangling in Congress, a GOP filibuster and so-called "compassion fatigue" around the rest of the country (at the NYCOSH conference, Jon Stewart was applauded as a local hero for his role shaming opponents of Zadroga into approval). Seeking new coverage for 9/11 cancer patients is another uphill fight against indifference and overt hostility.</p> <p>So for those who will come to Manhattan from everywhere else to pause and reflect at the new 9/11 Memorial, better perhaps to consider some other implications and side effects of the terrorist attacks that impact not just the greater New York area but the entire country and beyond. In fact, many of the issues being battled over in Washington and across the Dr. Seuss-like landscape of the 2012 election campaign have a direct bearing on future 9/11’s in America, no matter where and when they may happen. (And why do all the Republican presidential debates remind me of those cheesy paintings of dogs playing poker?)</p> <p>Infrastructure? Think of all those decaying roads, bridges and tunnels, and the chaos if they fail during an evacuation. Deregulation? If anything, 9/11 demonstrates that certain OSHA and EPA rules on safety, clean air and water need expansion and better enforcement. Conservative attacks on public employees and organized labor? The first at the scene on 9/11 were the firemen, police, emergency medical technicians and union construction workers who stayed on the pile until the last scrap of steel was gone, not to mention the Communication Workers of America members who risked their lives restoring phones, microwave links and IT; the electricians, plumbers, and engineers.</p> <p>Budget cuts adversely affect training and response times. Politics interfere with scientific research. State labs are underfunded or closing. Universal health care, if it existed, already would have taken care of many of the doctor’s appointments, tests, treatments and medications being funded, but still only in part, by Zadroga and other programs.</p> <p>Another article in that September 3 issue of The Lancet chronicles "Adverse health consequences of US Government responses to the 2001 terrorist attacks." According to its authors, Dr. Barry S. Levy and Dr. Victor W. Sidel, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq "caused many deaths of non-combatant civilians, further damaged the health-supporting infrastructure and the environment (already adversely affected by previous wars), forced many people to migrate, led to violations of human rights, and diverted resources away from important health needs."</p> <p>In Iraq, "Oil spillages, contaminated ash, unexploded ordinance, and depleted uranium at and around US military bases have all caused environmental damage." The health status of Afghans is "lower than almost any other country," life expectancy at birth is 48 years, only 27 percent of the population has access to clean water.</p> <p>According to the report, "The initial $204 billion spent on the Iraq War could have reduced hunger throughout the world by 50% and provided enough funds to cover the needs for HIV/AIDS medicine, clean water and sanitation, and immunization for all children in developing countries for almost 3 years. Within the USA, the federal budget for the 2011 fiscal year for the war in Afghanistan -- $107 billion -- could have provided medical care for 14 million US military veterans for 1 year."</p> <p>Domestically, "After 9/11 and the anthrax outbreak shortly afterwards, the USA and other countries have improved emergency preparedness and response capabilities, but these actions have often diverted attention and resources from more urgent health issues."</p> <p>The coalitions and alliances that have formed in the decade since 9/11 -- the professionals and ordinary citizens who from day one have stepped up when official bureaucracy has not -- are the one bright light shining through tragedy. But it’s not enough. "Do we understand that we’ve been hijacked by a small group of people using government for their own benefit? This is our government," the Public Health Association’s Linda Rae Murray declared. "It doesn’t work well but it’s ours and we have to seize control of it and put in place what we need to keep ourselves and our neighbors healthy."</p> <p>When you visit the 9/11 Memorial, think about that simple, fundamental truth as you remember the fallen, the heroes -- and everyone else struggling to survive.<br />_______<br /></p> <div class="nodeauthor-info"><span>About author</span> Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at <a href="http://www.pbs.org/moyers" target="_blank">www.pbs.org/moyers</a>. </div>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-12097963330689334002011-09-11T12:10:00.003-04:002011-09-11T12:19:25.085-04:00How Little We Know About the Origins of 9/11<a href="http://www.truthdig.com/"><img src="http://www.truthdig.com/images/truthdig_masthead.gif" alt="LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman." height="65" vspace="6" width="230" border="0" /></a><br /><div class="report_header28" style="padding: 0pt; margin: 0pt; border-width: 0pt; font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.truthdig.com/report/"><img src="http://www.truthdig.com/images/hdr_report_28_text.gif" alt="Reports" height="28" border="0" /></a></div> <div style="font-size: small;" class="category"> <a href="http://www.truthdig.com/report/category/scheer/">Robert Scheer's Columns</a></div><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_little_we_know_about_the_origins_of_9_11_20110908/"><br /></a></span><h2><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_little_we_know_about_the_origins_of_9_11_20110908/">How Little We Know About the Origins of 9/11</a></span></h2><br /> <table width="270" align="right" border="0"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td style="font-size: small;" width="70px"><br /></td> <td size="small"><br /></td> <td style="font-size: small;"> <a title="Post on Google Buzz" class="google-buzz-button" href="http://www.google.com/buzz/post" style="text-decoration: none;"><span id="buzz-1052266021" dir="ltr" class="buzz-counter-long"><br /></span></a> </td> <td style="font-size: small;"><br /></td> </tr> </tbody></table> <h6 class="date">Posted on Sep 8, 2011</h6> <table style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; border: 0px solid rgb(85, 85, 85);" width="300"><tbody><tr><td align="right" style="font-size:small;"><span class="imgborder"><img src="http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/AP061204077665-300.jpg" alt="" height="213" width="300" border="0" /></span></td></tr> <tr><td align="right" style="font-size:small;"><span class="photocredit">AP / Brennan Linsley</span></td></tr> <tr><td style="font-size: small;"><span class="photocaption"><p style="font-size: small;">An unidentified detainee peers out from his cell inside the Camp Delta detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in 2006. </p></span></td></tr> </tbody></table> <p style="font-size: small;">By <a href="http://www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer">Robert Scheer</a></p> <p style="font-size: small;">For a decade, the main questions about 9/11 have gone unanswered while the alleged perpetrators who survived the attacks have never been publicly cross-examined as to their methods and motives. It is not conspiratorial but rather obviously plausible to suggest that they have been kept out of sight because legal due process, constitutionally guaranteed to even the most heinous of criminals, might provide information that our government would find embarrassing. </p> <p style="font-size: small;">We remain in ignorance as to what drove religious zealots formerly allied with the United States to turn against us, and what was the role of our ally, Saudi Arabia, the country of origin for most of the hijackers and their financing. Why in the aftermath of the attack did the United States embrace Pakistan, which was one of only three governments (Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were the others) to diplomatically recognize the Taliban and which turned out to be harboring the fugitive Osama bin Laden? And why did we instead invade Iraq, a nation known to be engaged in a deadly war with bin Laden and his al-Qaida?</p> <p style="font-size: small;">How little we know about the origins of the Sept. 11 attacks is laid out in the disclaimer on Page 146 of the official 9/11 presidential commission report. A box on that page states clearly that the conventional narrative of how those portentous events unfolded is based largely on the interrogation under torture of key witnesses who have never been permitted a single moment in a publicly observed court of law. </p> <p style="font-size: small;">As the bipartisan commissioners ruefully conceded, their examination of the motives, financing and actions of the alleged 9/11 perpetrators had to “rely heavily on information from captured al Qaeda members” that the commissioners, despite having been granted the highest security clearance, were never allowed to seriously vet:</p> <p style="font-size: small;">“We submitted questions for use in the interrogations but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process.”</p> <div style="font-size: small;" class="ad_300x250_box_right"> <p style="font-size: small;"><strong>Advertisement</strong></p> <a href='http://ads.truthdig.com/banners/www/delivery/ck.php?n=abee66dc&amp;cb=1286095509' target='_blank'><img src='http://ads.truthdig.com/banners/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=8&amp;cb=1286095509&amp;n=abee66dc' border='0' alt='' /></a> </div> That sensitive interrogation process included the waterboarding of the key witnesses, led by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was scheduled to go on public, civilian trial in Manhattan last spring, until the Obama administration caved in to hysterical Republican-led pressure and called off the trial. <p style="font-size: small;">The fear of a public trial is apparently that it will be an occasion to humanize the presumed perpetrators of barbaric acts, but by that standard no alleged murderer should ever be tried in civilian court. The counterargument is that we as a society have, from the drafting of our Constitution, been committed to due process of law. But an even more compelling objection to the present secrecy flows not from the inalienable rights of the accused to justice but rather from the need to fully inform the public as to the dangers faced by our society.</p> <p style="font-size: small;">Major policy developments, including two undeclared wars, were conducted in the name of defeating the perpetrators of 9/11 without the public being made aware of the relevant facts. Surely a public trial would have revealed, to the deep embarrassment of the Bush administration, that there was no connection between the 9/11 hijackers and the government of Iraq that the United States overthrew.</p> <p style="font-size: small;">At the very least, such testimony would have shed light on the cozy relationship between the U.S. government and the key leaders of al-Qaida, particularly the American-educated Mohammed, recruited by the CIA to join the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It certainly could also have proved embarrassing to former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who, during the Bush administration, opposed public trials and managed last March to get President Barack Obama to reverse his pledge of civilian trials. Gates boasted in his 1996 memoir of his long history of working with Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, dating to his days in the Carter administration. As his book publisher bragged at the time, Gates exposed “Carter’s never-before revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen—six months before the Soviets invaded.”</p> <p style="font-size: small;">Of course 9/11 changed everything; nations were invaded, trillions of dollars were wasted, hundreds of thousands of civilian and military lives were lost, torture became acceptable and the public has come to tolerate a daily governmental assault on privacy as normal. But for all of the high drama and cost of the U.S. response, when it comes to understanding the forces behind the attack, we still do not know what we are talking about.</p> <p style="font-size: small;"><i>Robert Scheer’s column has moved to Thursday. <a href="http://www.truthdig.com/email_newsletter/" title="Sign up for our newsletter">Sign up for our newsletter</a> and get Scheer in your inbox.</i></p>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-23198168696076151752011-09-10T17:48:00.002-04:002011-09-10T17:53:56.727-04:00Secrecy Killed on 9/11<h1><a href="http://www.secrecykills.com/">Secrecy Kills</a></h1><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">WHO IS RICH BLEE?</span></span><br /><h3>What do they have to say?</h3> <p>Read the <a href="http://www.secrecykills.com/#joint_statement">joint statement</a> in response to the video by CIA Director <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet">George Tenet</a>, CTC Director <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cofer_Black">J. Cofer Black</a>, and Richard Blee of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_Issue_Station">Alec Station</a>.</p> <p>Also see our <a href="http://www.secrecykills.com/#email">email</a> back and forth with Tenet, Black and Blee, and <a href="http://www.secrecykills.com/#our_reply">our reply</a> to their joint statement.</p> <h3>Follow us on Twitter and Facebook</h3> <p>Get the latest news from <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/SecrecyKills">@SecrecyKills</a> and our <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Secrecy-Kills/247422668621433">Facebook page</a>.</p><br /><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bl6w1YaZdf8" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="345" width="560"></iframe><br /><br /><br /><section id="documents"> <div id="email"> <div class="email document sent"> <div class="header"> <p>From: FF4 Films<br /> Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:52 AM<br /> Subject: Request for response from George Tenet (At the Center of the Storm)<br /> To: ZZZZZ</p> </div> <p>ZZZZZ,<br /> It was a pleasure to speak with you briefly over the phone late last Thursday. Thank you for forwarding the following request to Mr. Tenet, as per our conversation.</p> <p>Best,<br /> Ryan</p> <hr /> <p>Dear Mr. Tenet,</p> <p>I write as part of a documentary production team working in association with the Emmy-winning media firm Globalvision, also the winner of a George Polk Award for Journalism. We've been investigating the Mihdahr/Hazmi matter for several years, and we would like to speak with you by phone soon, either for a recorded interview or, less preferably, off-the-record.</p> <p>CIA insiders, as well as others at NSC, FBI, and DOD, have already spoken to us, and if you will speak with us I think you will be interested to learn that the picture they've painted often differs greatly from that recounted in your book <em>At the Center of the Storm</em>.</p> <p>In ten days, we will be releasing via public television one such interview -- with Richard Clarke -- ahead of our full release on the 9/11 anniversary. We are providing it to you now in a private YouTube link here:</p> <p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl6w1YaZdf8">YouTube Video</a> <em>(link has been changed to allow public access)</em></p> <p>We sincerely hope that you will speak with us in order to set the record straight and respond to specific allegations made by Clarke and others.</p> <p>Thank you,<br /> Ryan XXXXX<br /> Associate Producer</p> <p>FF4 Films<br /> Globalvision</p> </div> <div class="email document received"> <div class="header"> <p>From: Bill Harlow<br /> Date: Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:25 AM<br /> Subject: Your Request To Interview George Tenet<br /> To: FF4 Films</p> </div> <p>Mr. XXXXX,</p> <p>ZZZZZ relayed to us your request to interview George Tenet.</p> <p>Mr. Tenet does not wish to be interviewed either on camera or on background for your project.</p> <p>However, in light of some of the absurd and patently false statements made by Richard Clarke in the YouTube clip you shared, Mr. Tenet reached out to Cofer Black and Richard Blee. Together they are providing the attached joint statement to you. We request that you make their statement available, in its entirety, to any media organization to which you distribute your interview with Richard Clarke.</p> <p>Bill Harlow</p> </div> </div> <div class="document" id="joint_statement"> <h3 class="center">Joint Statement<br />from George J. Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee</h3> <h4 class="center">August 3, 2011</h4> <p>Richard Clarke was an able public servant who served his country well for many years. But his recently released comments about the run up to 9/11 are reckless and profoundly wrong.</p> <p>Clarke starts with the presumption that important information on the travel of future hijackers to the United States was intentionally withheld from him in early 2000. It was not.</p> <p>He wildly speculates that it must have been the CIA Director who could have ordered the information withheld. There was no such order. In fact, the record shows that the Director and other senior CIA officials were unaware of the information until after 9/11.</p> <p>The handling of the information in question was exhaustively looked at by the 9/11 Commission, the Congressional Joint Inquiry, the CIA Inspector General and other groups.</p> <p>The 9/11 Commission quite correctly concluded that “...no one informed higher levels of management in either the FBI or CIA about the case.”</p> <p>In early 2000, a number of more junior personnel (including FBI agents on detail to CIA) did see travel information on individuals who later became hijackers but the significance of the data was not adequately recognized at the time.</p> <p>Since 9/11 many systemic changes have been made to improve the watchlisting process and enhance information sharing within and across agencies.</p> <p>Building on his false notion that information was intentionally withheld, Mr. Clarke went on to speculate--which he admits is based on nothing other than his imagination--that the CIA might have been trying to recruit these two future hijackers as agents. This, like much of what Mr. Clarke said in his interview, is utterly without foundation.</p> <p>Many years after testifying himself at length before the 9/11 Commission and writing several books but making no mention of his wild theory, Mr. Clarke has suddenly invented baseless allegations which are belied by the record and unworthy of serious consideration.</p> <p>We testified under oath about what we did, what we knew and what we didn't know. We stand by that testimony.</p> <p class="center">###</p> </div> <div id="our_reply"> <div class="email document sent"> <div class="header"> <p>On 8/4/2011 3:37 PM, FF4 Films wrote:</p> </div> <p>Mr. Harlow, Thank you very much for providing that joint statement. We will make it available in its entirety to any media organization to which we distribute the Clarke interview, as requested.</p> <p>We are passionate about telling an accurate story, but the refusal of Mr. Tenet, Mr. Black, and Mr. Blee to discuss it even on background makes that impossible, as we are forced to rely on the info we've been provided by those who will talk to us. I have summarized the highlights of that information in an attached doc, including many, many issues still unaccounted for with regard to CIA's handling of Mihdhar/Hazmi, none of which have anything to do with Mr. Clarke's judgement or accuracy.</p> <p>If there are simple -- even benign or admirable -- explanations for those issues, I sincerely wish Mr. Tenet, et al, would break their media silence and simply provide those answers. I want them to realize that their failure to do so only appears to give credence to speculation like that in the Clarke interview.</p> <p>Furthermore, Mr. Clarke is not the only gov't insider who has stated to us that he/she believes these unexplained events can be explained by high-level deliberate choices within the CIA. If these folks are wrong, Mr. Tenet, et al, could easily choose to make them look foolish and set the record straight for all concerned by going through this story with us and providing explanations in detail, case by case. Their motivations in continuing to refuse to do so a full decade after the terrible tragedy and in the face of accusations from other gov't officials is, frankly, baffling to me.</p> <p>Also, a quick correction on a couple items in the joint statement: Mr. Clarke did previously make this same accusation in his 2009 book Your Government Failed You, p. 165-171. Also, the Commission line quoted, "no one informed higher levels of management in either the FBI or CIA about the case" actually began "It appears that..." and concerned only the search for Mihdhar/Hazmi from Aug 2001 onward, although we have spoken to an insider from Alec who claims even that simple fact was not the case. In fact, they should be made aware that in our interview with Chairman Tom Kean, he told us explicitly that he believed the withholding of Mihdhar info was deliberate and purposeful (though he believed this was due to an absurd culture of secrecy within the Agency) and also stated that he and his staff believed Mr. Tenet provided false testimony on a number of points ("No, I don't think he misspoke. I think he misled.")</p> <p>If you will, please pass on the attached list of issues with the CIA story, if anyone wants to provide a more detailed response. Thank you again.</p> <p>Best,<br /> Ray Nova<br /> Producer / Co-Director</p> <p>FF4 Films<br /> Globalvision</p> </div> <div class="email document received"> <div class="header"> <p>On Aug 9, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Bill Harlow wrote:</p> </div> <p>Got your voice mail message over the weekend...sorry it has taken a little while to get back to you.</p> <p>Yes....the material you originally sent via XXX was made available to Tenet, Black and Blee and the statement I provided to you was their response in light of that material.</p> <p>None of them have any plans to go beyond that statement or to respond to the additional material you sent via email on 8/4/11.</p> <p>Bill Harlow</p> </div> <div class="email document sent"> <div class="header"> <p>From: FF4 Films<br /> Date: Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 3:55 PM<br /> Subject: Re: Your Request To Interview George Tenet<br /> To: Bill Harlow</p> </div> <p>Understood, Mr. Harlow. Thank you for the response. Also, we truly hope Mr. Blee feels better soon.</p> <p>Cordially,<br /> Ray</p> </div> </div> </section>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-41657195414161133942011-09-10T17:29:00.001-04:002011-09-10T17:31:20.760-04:00AP Review Finds No WikiLeaks Sources Threatened<h1 id="logo"><a title="CommonDreams.org" href="http://www.commondreams.org/"><img src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.commondreams.org/images/common-dreams.png" alt="CommonDreams.org" /></a></h1>Published on Saturday, September 10, 2011 by <a href="http://www.ap.org/">the Associated Press</a> <div class="node-header"><span class="submitted"></span> <div class="node-title"> <h2 class="title"><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/09/10">AP Review Finds No WikiLeaks Sources Threatened</a></h2> </div> <div class="author"> by Bradley Klapper and Cassandra Vinograd </div> </div> <div class="node-content clear-block prose"> <div id="node-body"> <p>WASHINGTON — Federica Ferrari Bravo's story of meeting American diplomats in Rome seven years ago hardly reads like a James Bond spy novel or a Cold War tale of a brave informant sharing secrets to help the United States.</p><p><span class="image-right" style="width: 275px;"> <img src="https://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imagecache/headline_image/article_images/7b1f646c5c545314f80e6a7067006841.jpg" alt="" title="" class="imagecache imagecache-headline_image imagecache-default imagecache-headline_image_default" height="184" width="275" /> <span class="caption"></span></span></p><p><span class="image-right" style="width: 275px;"><span class="caption">In this July 14, 2011 photo, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange talks to members of the media during a news conference in central London. The U.S. has condemned the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks for putting lives in danger. But how many is unclear. An Associated Press review of some of the hundreds of U.S. diplomatic contacts deemed especially sensitive turns up several people who are either comfortable with their names out in the open or even surprised that their information was so highly valued, Friday, Sept. 9, 2011. </span></span>So it came as a something of a surprise to her to hear that in one of the 250,000-odd State Department cables released by the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, she was deemed a source so sensitive U.S. officials were advised not to repeat her name.</p> <p>"I don't think I said anything that would put me at risk," the Italian diplomat said.</p> <p>There are similar stories involving other foreign lawmakers, diplomats and activists cited in the U.S. cables as sources to "strictly protect."</p> <p>An Associated Press review of those sources raises doubts about the scope of the danger posed by WikiLeaks' disclosures and the Obama administration's angry claims, going back more than a year, that the revelations are life-threatening. U.S. examples have been strictly theoretical.</p> <p>The question of whether the dire warnings are warranted or overblown became more acute with the recent release all of the 251,287 diplomatic memos WikiLeaks held.</p> <p>Tens of thousands of confidential exchanges were dumped, emptying a trove of documents. They were released piecemeal since last year, initially with the cooperation of a select group of newspapers and magazines that blacked out some names and information before publishing the documents.</p> <p>The latest cables were published in full, without names blacked out. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland branded the action "irresponsible, reckless and frankly dangerous," and the U.S. said the release exposed the names of hundreds of sensitive sources.</p> <p>WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has blamed Britain's Guardian newspaper for publishing a secret encryption code, allowing intelligence agencies to access the cables and forcing WikiLeaks to provide the people affected the same information.</p> <p>But the AP's review of the sources found several of them comfortable with their names in the open and no one fearing death. Others are dead, their names cited as sensitive in the context of long-resolved conflicts or situations. Some have written or testified at hearings about the supposedly confidential information they provided the U.S. government.</p> <p>The AP survey is selective and incomplete; it focused on those sources the State Department seemed to categorize as most risky.</p> <p>The AP did not attempt to contact every named source in the new trove. It's generally up to the embassies themselves to decide which identities require heightened vigilance, officials say.</p> <p>Hadzira Hamzic, a 73-year-old Bosnian refugee, wasn't bothered about being identified as one of thousands of victims from the Balkan wars of the 1990s.</p> <p>"I never hid that," she told the AP. "It is always hard when I have to tell about how I had been raped, but that is part of what happened and I have to talk about it."</p> <p>In Asia, former Malaysian diplomat Shazryl Eskay Abdullah was shocked that an "unofficial lunch meeting" he had several years ago with a U.S. official meant his name ended up on a formal report. But he said his role in southern Thailand peace talks was well known. "I don't see why anyone would come after me," Shazryl said.</p> <p>Ferrari Bravo's subject matter was also by no means mundane. A veteran of her nation's embassy in Tehran, Ferrari Bravo worked at the time on the Italian Foreign Ministry's Iran desk and discussed with the U.S. her government's view of the Iranian nuclear standoff. She urged continued dialogue.</p> <p>"There is nothing that we said that was not known to our bosses, to our ministers, to our heads of state," she said. On having her identity protected, she said: "We didn't ask. There is nothing to protect."</p> <p>U.S. officials say they have two criteria for sensitive sources. The first deals with people in totalitarian societies or failed states who could be imprisoned or killed, or perhaps denied housing, schooling, food or other services if exposed as having helped the United States.</p> <p>The State Department also has sought to censor names of people who might lose their jobs or suffer major embarrassment even in friendly countries, if they were seen offering the U.S. candid insights or restricted information.</p> <p>One such case involved the dismissal in December of a top aide to German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle after he provided details on coalition talks and debates over issues such as U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe.</p> <p>Still, the total damage appears limited and the State Department has steadfastly refused to describe any situation in which they've felt a source's life was in danger. They say a handful of people had to be relocated away from danger but won't provide any details on those few cases.</p> <p>Units throughout the department have been scouring the documents since last year to find examples where sources are exposed and inform them that they may be "outed." Some, such as Hamzic, Sharzyl and Ferrari Bravo, say they were never contacted. Presumably, endangered individuals would have been prioritized.</p> <p>Clearly, sensitivities depend on context. Revelations that may cause personal or political discomfort for a U.S. embassy contact in Western Europe may be life-threatening for an informant in an undemocratic nation. In the cables, they may both be "strictly protected" sources, highlighting relative danger levels in different places.</p> <p>In Vietnam, the U.S. seemed to be dealing with sources whose names demanded vigilance: the wife of a dissident sentenced to five years in prison; a Buddhist leader condemning the arrest of a fellow priest; a dissident who says people "held his family hostage" until he renounced his activism; a Christian preacher complaining of police pressure on him to renounce his faith; another who speaks of a colleague forcibly sent to a mental institute.</p> <p>A Syrian human rights activist warned the U.S. of a looming crackdown on anti-government activists as far back as 2009. If the activist wasn't threatened by the disclosure last year, he may be now that the country is in the throes of a brutal five-month security operation.</p> <p>In Mexico, the term "strictly protect" appeared to be attached to interlocutors indiscriminately, even when officials offered only flattering assessments of their government or said little that wasn't common knowledge. It perhaps makes more sense in the context of a country where organized crime networks have essentially fought an insurgency against the government, where allowing a valued source's name to get out could affect that person's safety.</p> <p>Assange, an Australian, has defended his actions by saying no one has died as a result of WikiLeaks.</p> <p>Current and former American officials say that argument misses the point.</p> <p>Making people think twice before providing the U.S. with information — or simply refuse ever again to help — hurts the good causes of human rights and democracy that American officials are promoting, they argue.</p> <p>Take Arnold Sundquist, a Swede whose life isn't in danger. He provided the U.S. Embassy with sensitive details on an Iranian attempt to buy helicopters and said he was unhappy that his actions were now public. Last year, Swedish media with access to the WikiLeaks trove reported on the incident but didn't mention him by name.</p> <p>"It is what it is," he said. "I can't do anything about it."</p> <p>But will he or others in a similar situation, be as ready to help American authorities again?</p> <p>Venezuelan journalist Nelson Bocaranda thinks not. His identity was exposed in a document describing how he told the U.S. ambassador in 2009 that according to one of his sources, Colombian rebel leaders had visited Caracas for secret meetings with senior Venezuelan government officials. Bocaranda published the account in one of his newspaper columns.</p> <p>"I feel betrayed by WikiLeaks," Bocaranda told the AP on Friday. But he said that as a journalist it's natural for him to talk with diplomats from various countries. "I think the ones who have been betrayed basically are the American diplomats," he said.</p> <p>"It's going to be more difficult for them because I think no one is going to want to talk for fear of coming out in print with their name," he said, adding that would apply those who might otherwise supply sensitive information.</p> <p>He said he doesn't feel his work or personal security face additional threats as a result of his name being exposed but said he suspects President Hugo Chavez's government could try to "cast doubts on me, to say that I am a member of the CIA."</p> <p>Bocaranda said that he has nothing to hide and that the information he publishes in his newspaper columns and on the Internet is public. "I don't think my sources are going to shut me out," he said.</p> <p>Other governments have echoed the U.S. criticism of WikiLeaks, saying it jeopardizes invaluable diplomacy — the exchanges that aim to promote understanding, avoid war and improve global security.</p> <p>The anger from Assange's home nation, Australia, was prompted not by the release of sources, but of 23 Australians who had been in contact with a Yemen-based al-Qaida offshoot and were being monitored. Still, a government statement couldn't point to a direct threat from the disclosure, only a potential danger.</p> <p>"The large-scale distribution of hundreds of thousands of classified United States government documents is reckless, irresponsible and potentially dangerous," Australian Attorney-General Robert McClelland said.</p> <p><em>Vinograd reported from London. Associated Press writers Nicole Winfield in Rome; Sean Yoong in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Sabina Niksic in Sarajevo, Bosnia; Ian James in Venezuela; and Karl Ritter in Stockholm contributed to this report.</em></p> <div class="copyright-info">© 2011 Associated Press</div> </div> </div>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-43301492348084681592011-09-01T19:55:00.004-04:002011-09-01T20:34:42.741-04:00How the Internet is destroying the middle class<a title="Salon" href="http://www.salon.com/" id="logo"><img src="http://images.salon.com/img/new/ID_salon.gif" alt="Salon" border="0" /></a>and<a href="http://edge.org/" title="Home" rel="home" name="top"><img src="http://edge.org/images/edge_logo.jpg" alt="Edge" title="Edge" border="0" /></a>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /><a title="Salon" href="http://www.salon.com/" id="logo"><img src="http://images.salon.com/img/new/ID_salon.gif" alt="Salon" border="0" /></a>
<br /><div style="font-weight: bold;" class="topic_type"><span style="font-size:130%;">Topic:</span></div> <h1> <a href="http://www.salon.com/mwt/internet_culture/index.html">Internet Culture</a> </h1> <span class="dateline"> Wednesday, Aug 31, 2011 09:32 ET </span> <h1 class="headline"><a href="http://www.salon.com/entertainment/feature/2011/08/31/lanier_internet_modern_life/">How the Internet is destroying the middle class</a></h1> <h2 class="deck">Artist and theorist Jaron Lanier argues that high-tech "innovations" are making us poorer and less ambitious </h2> <div class="byline clearfix"> <span>By <a href="http://www.salon.com/author/matt_zoller_seitz/index.html">Matt Zoller Seitz</a></span>
<br />
<br /></div> <div class="sbody permalink"> <div class="story_preview" id="story_preview_mps2048692"> <div class="art l"> <img class="md_horiz" id="img_mps2048692" src="http://www.salon.com/entertainment/feature/2011/08/31/lanier_internet_modern_life/md_horiz.jpg" alt="How the Internet is destroying the middle class" /> <div style="font-style: italic;" class="credit">Jaron Lanier
<br />
<br /></div> <div class="caption">In a wide-ranging interview for the online magazine Edge, theorist Jaron Lanier diagnosis many of the ills that ail the Internet-age economy.</div> </div> <p>Apropos of nothing except the subject's brilliance, I strongly urge you to read this truly epic interview with Jaron Lanier at <a target="_blank" href="http://edge.org/">Edge</a>. It's about, well, pretty much everything that affects you day-to-day -- the decline and death of the middle class, the awesome utility of the Internet as a means to spread hate, superstition and lies, the dicey relationship between humans and machines, the reduced expectations of the younger generations.</p> <p>Lanier also gets into the market dominance of Wal-Mart, Google, Apple and other huge corporate entities, and their role in what he calls "The Local-Global Flip," wherein companies become arrogant and authoritarian global players very quickly, concentrating massive amounts of data in very few hands and creating "a system in which the Internet user becomes the product that is being sold to others."</p> <p>It's an extraordinary interview, packed with insight and often grimly funny. <a target="_blank" href="http://edge.org/memberbio/jaron_lanier">Lanier</a> is a composer, computer scientist and visual artist, and the author of some wide-ranging and important bits of writing, including <a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Not-Gadget-Manifesto/dp/0307269647?tag=saloncom08-20">You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto</a>" and the 2006 Edge essay, "<a target="_blank" href="http://edge.org/conversation/digital-maoism-the-hazards-of-the-new-online-collectivism">"Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism</a>." I've quoted a few choice bits of the the interview, which runs almost 9,000 words. It's worth taking time to read it all.</p> <p>On the notion that the Internet would make people freer and help create wealth:</p> <p> </p><blockquote> <p>Everyone's into Internet things, and yet we have this huge global economic trouble. If you had talked to anyone involved in it 20 years ago, everyone would have said that the ability for people to inexpensively have access to a tremendous global computation and networking facility ought to create wealth. This ought to create wellbeing; this ought to create this incredible expansion in just people living decently, and in personal liberty. And indeed, some of that's happened. Yet if you look at the big picture, it obviously isn't happening enough, if it's happening at all.</p> </blockquote> <p>On young people's diminished expectations in the Internet era:</p> <p> </p><blockquote> <p>I'm astonished at how readily a great many people I know, young people, have accepted a reduced economic prospect and limited freedoms in any substantial sense, and basically traded them for being able to screw around online. There are just a lot of people who feel that being able to get their video or their tweet seen by somebody once in a while gets them enough ego gratification that it's okay with them to still be living with their parents in their 30s.</p> </blockquote> <p>On the possibility of a "third way" of modeling the online economy that "could grow the middle [class] back."</p> <p> </p><blockquote> <p>The thing that I'm thinking about is the <a target="_blank" href="http://ted.hyperland.com/">[Theodor Holm "Ted"] Nelson approach</a>, the third way where people buy and sell each other information, and can live off of what they do with their hearts and minds as the machines get good enough to do what they would have done with their hands. That thing is the thing that could grow the middle back. Then the crucial element of that is what we can call a "social contract," where people would pay for stuff online from each other if they were also making money from it. When people get nothing from a society, they eventually just riot ...</p> </blockquote> <p>The most complex and important part of the interview concerns what Lanier calls the "local-global flip." This term refers to what happens when a company -- Wal-Mart, Google and Apple are his three main examples -- conquer certain sectors of the economy quickly and completely, and their dominance over that sector is so complete that it creates a stranglehold over that part of the market, effectively destroys the so-called "Mom-and-Pop" vendors that used to coexist with it, and turns those companies into gateways that control how other people get their goods, services or ideas into the marketplace.</p> <p>The upsides of this phenomenon are (1) consumers get a massive array of cheap, convienient-to-purchase goods and services and (2) the owners of these companies, some of their executives, and certain associates get very, very rich.</p> <p>The downsides, however, can be immense, and it can take a long time for the big companies to see them because they're accumulating so much loot in the short-term. Such a company's success, Lanier suggests, can impoverish parts of the population that were doing fine before. And the way that the successful company's system is set up -- with a "My way or the highway" mentality -- can turn vendors and business partners into indentured servants who are terrified to innovate, or even quit their association with the big company, for fear of being financially obliterated. </p> <p>The result is low-level economic paralysis and depression that persists over years or decades, and that has has far-ranging, often hard-to-see ripple effects, including a localized devastation caused by the mauneverings of these global giants. As Lanier puts it:</p> <p> </p><blockquote> <p>The network effects can be so powerful that you cease being a local player. An example of this is Wal-Mart removing so many jobs from their own customers that they start to lose profitability, and suddenly upscale players, like Target, are doing better. Wal-Mart impoverished its own customer base. Google is facing exactly the same issue long-term, although not yet.</p> </blockquote> <p>We can see this same process at work in other industries, Lanier says. "The finance industry kept on thinking they could eject waste out into the general system, but they became the system ... Insurance companies in America, by trying to only insure people who didn't need insurance, ejected risk into the general system away from themselves, but they became so big that they were no longer local players, and there wasn't some giant vastness to absorb this risk that they'd ejected, and so therefore the system breaks. You see this again and again and again. It's not sustainable."</p> </div> <div class="story_collapse clearfix" id="story_collapse_mps2048692"> <div class="author_snippet"> <ul class="author_more relateds"><li class="shortBio">Matt Zoller Seitz is Salon's staff television critic. More: <a href="http://www.salon.com/author/matt_zoller_seitz/index.html">Matt Zoller Seitz</a></li></ul> </div> </div> </div>
<br /><div class="Logo"> <div class="Logoimg"> <a href="http://edge.org/" title="Home" rel="home" name="top"><img src="http://edge.org/images/edge_logo.jpg" alt="Edge" title="Edge" border="0" /></a> </div> <div style="font-style: italic;" class="Logotxt">To arrive at the edge of the world's knowledge, seek out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask each other the questions they are asking themselves.
<br />
<br /><div class="Subheading"><a href="http://edge.org/?q=conversations">CONVERSATION</a> </div> <h1 id="header" class="MB5Reduce"><a href="http://edge.org/conversation/the-local-global-flip"><span style="color: rgb(139, 69, 19); ">The Local-Global Flip, or, "The Lanier Effect"</span></a></h1> <span>A Conversation with <a href="http://edge.org/memberbio/jaron_lanier" class="txtnormal" style="padding:0px;">Jaron Lanier</a> [8.29.11]
<br />
<br /></span>
<br /><div> <img src="http://edge.org/custom/leadimages/bk_137_lanier640.jpg" border="0" /> </div> "If you aspire to use computer network power to become a global force through shaping the world instead of acting as a local player in an unfathomably large environment, when you make that global flip, you can no longer play the game of advantaging the design of the world to yourself and expect it to be sustainable. The great difficulty of becoming powerful and getting close to a computer network is: Can people learn to forego the temptations, the heroin-like rewards of being able to reform the world to your own advantage in order to instead make something sustainable?"
<br />
<br /><span style="color: rgb(139, 69, 19);"><strong>Introduction
<br />
<br /></strong></span><strong>by John Brockman</strong> <p> We used to think that information is power and that the personal computer enabled lives. But, according to Jaron Lanier, things changed about ten years ago. He cites Apple, Google, and Walmart as some of the reasons.</p> <p> In a freewheeling hour-long conversation, Lanier touches on, and goes beyond the themes he launched in his influential 2006 Edge essay <a href="http://edge.org/conversation/digital-maoism-the-hazards-of-the-new-online-collectivism" target="_blank">"Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism.</a>" What he terms "The Local-Global Flip" might be better expressed as "The Lanier Effect". Here's a sampling:</p> <p style="margin-left: 40px; "> ... "The Apple idea is that instead of the personal computer model where people own their own information, and everybody can be a creator as well as a consumer, we're moving towards this iPad, iPhone model where it's not as adequate for media creation as the real media creation tools, and even though you can become a seller over the network, you have to pass through Apple's gate to accept what you do, and your chances of doing well are very small, and it's not a person to person thing, it's a business through a hub, through Apple to others, and it doesn't create a middle class, it creates a new kind of upper class. ... Google has done something that might even be more destructive of the middle class, which is they've said, "Well, since Moore's law makes computation really cheap, let's just give away the computation, but keep the data." And that's a disaster.</p> <p style="margin-left: 40px; "> ... If we enter into the kind of world that Google likes, the world that Google wants, it's a world where information is copied so much on the Internet that nobody knows where it came from anymore, so there can't be any rights of authorship. However, you need a big search engine to even figure out what it is or find it. They want a lot of chaos that they can have an ability to undo. ... when you have copying on a network, you throw out information because you lose the provenance, and then you need a search engine to figure it out again. That's part of why Google can exist. Ah, the perversity of it all just gets to me.</p> <p style="margin-left: 40px; "> ... What Wal-Mart recognized is that information is power, and by using network information, you could consolidate extraordinary power, and so have information about what could be made where, when, what could be moved where, when, who would buy what, when for how much? By coalescing all of that, and reducing the unknowns, they were able to globalize their point of view so they were no longer a local player, but they essentially became their own market, and that's what information can do. The use of networks can turn you from a local player in a larger system into your own global system.</p> <p style="margin-left: 40px; "> ... The reason this breaks is that there's a local-global flip that happens. When you start to use an information network to concentrate information and therefore power, you benefit from a first arrival effect, and from some other common network effects that make it very hard for other people to come and grab your position. And this gets a little detailed, but it was very hard for somebody else to copy Wal-Mart once Wal-Mart had gathered all the information, because once they have the whole world aligned by the information in their server, they created essentially an expense or a risk for anybody to jump out of that system. That was very hard. ... In a similar way, once you are a customer of Google's ad network, the moment that you stop bidding for your keyword, you're guaranteeing that your closest competitor will get it. It's no longer just, "Well, I don't know if I want this slot in the abstract, and who knows if a competitor or some entirely unrelated party will get it." Instead, you have to hold on to your ground because suddenly every decision becomes strategic for you, and immediately. It creates a new kind of glue, or a new kind of stickiness.</p> <p style="margin-left: 40px; "> ... It can become such a bizarre system. What you have now is a system in which the Internet user becomes the product that is being sold to others, and what the product is, is the ability to be manipulated. It's an anti-liberty system, and I know that the rhetoric around it is very contrary to that.</p> <p style="margin-left: 40px; "> ... Essentially what happened with finance is a larger scale, albeit more abstract version of what happened with Wal-Mart, where a global system was optimized by being able to build data that could be concentrated locally using a computer network. It tremendously enriched the people who ran the network. It seemed to create savings for people initially who were the end users, the leafs of the network, very much as Google, or Groupon, seem to save them money initially. But then in the long-term it took away more from the income prospects of people than it could offer them in savings, very much as Wal-Mart did. ... This is the pattern that we'll see repeated again and again as new applications of computer networks come up, unless we decide to monetize what people do with their hearts and brains. What we have to do to create liberty in the future is to monetize more and more instead of monetize less and less, and in particular we have to monetize more and more of what ordinary people do, unless we want to make them into wards of the state. That's the stark choice we have in the long-term.</p> <p style="margin-left: 40px; "> ...if you're adding to the network, do you expect anything back from it? And since we've been hypnotized in the last eleven or twelve years into thinking that we shouldn't expect anything for what we do with our hearts or our minds online, we think that our own contributions aren't worth money, very much like we think we shouldn't be paid for parenting, or we shouldn't be paid for raking our own yard. In those cases you are paid in a sense because there's still something that becomes part of you in your life, for all that you did. ... But in this case we have this idea that we put all this stuff out there and what we get back are intangible or abstract benefits of reputation, or ego-boosting. Since we're used to that bargain, we're impoverished compared to the world that could have been and should have been when the Internet was initially conceived. The world that would create a strengthened middle class through what people do, by monetizing more and more instead of less and less. It's possible that that world could have never come about, but that was never tested. If we are absolutely convinced that this third way is impossible, and that we have to choose between "The Matrix" or Marx, if those are our only two choices, it makes the future dismal, and so I hope that a third way is possible, and I'm certainly going to do everything possible to try to push it.</p> <p> Read on. Or better yet, treat yourself to an interesting hour of watching the video and engaging with Lanier and his ideas. </p> <p class="p1"> JARON LANIER is a computer scientist, composer, and visual artist. He is the author of<em> You Are Not A Gadget: A Manifesto.</em></p> <p class="p1"> <span style="color:#8b4513;"><a href="http://edge.org/memberbio/jaron_lanier"><strong>Jaron Lanier's Edge Bio Page</strong></a></span></p> <p class="p1"> <strong>The Reality Club: </strong>Dougas Rushkoff</p> <hr /> <p style="text-align: center; "> </p> <hr />
<br /><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(139, 69, 19); "><b><span style="color: rgb(139, 69, 19); ">The Local-Global Flip, or, "The Lanier Effect"</span></b></span></p> <p> JARON LANIER: One of the things I've been thinking about is how computation is a human-centric concept. In the abstract, aliens don't recognize our bits. There has to be a cultural setup for us to recognize stored information. And that cultural setup can bring into it all kinds of fundamental ideas which could have a huge effect on how society runs, how the economy works, and how our lives are put together.</p> <p> I've focused quite a lot on how this stealthy component of computation can affect our sense of ourselves, what it is to be a person. But lately I've been thinking a lot about what it means to economics.</p> <p> In particular, I'm interested in a pretty simple problem, but one that is devastating. In recent years, many of us have worked very hard to make the Internet grow, to become available to people, and that's happened. It's one of the great topics of mankind of this era. </p> <div id="longdesc" class="Brownalink"> <div style="float:left;"> </div> <div> Everyone's into Internet things, and yet we have this huge global economic trouble. If you had talked to anyone involved in it twenty years ago, everyone would have said that the ability for people to inexpensively have access to a tremendous global computation and networking facility ought to create wealth. This ought to create wellbeing; this ought to create this incredible expansion in just people living decently, and in personal liberty. And indeed, some of that's happened. Yet if you look at the big picture, it obviously isn't happening enough, if it's happening at all. <p> The situation reminds me a little bit of something that is deeply connected, which is the way that computer networks transformed finance. You have more and more complex financial instruments, derivatives and so forth, and high frequency trading, all these extraordinary constructions that would be inconceivable without computation and networking technology.</p> <p> At the start, the idea was, "Well, this is all in the service of the greater good because we'll manage risk so much better, and we'll increase the intelligence with which we collectively make decisions." Yet if you look at what happened, risk was increased instead of decreased.</p> <p> In parallel it seems as though the middle classes have been having trouble all around the world, not just in the U.S., but in all developed societies at the same time that the Internet has been rising. I'm concerned that it's not a matter of the Internet doing some good, but not enough good to undo unrelated coincidental troubles. I'm afraid the Internet, as we've conceived of it thus far, has been part of the problem. I'm also interested in the idea that if we conceive of it differently, it could be a solution.</p> <p> This brings us back, literally thousands of years to an ancient discussion that continues to this day about exactly how people can make a living, or make their way when technology gets better. There is an Aristotle quote about how when the looms can operates themselves, all men will be free. That seems like a reasonable thing to say, a precocious thing for somebody to have said in ancient times. If we zoom forward to the 19th century, we had a tremendous amount of concern about this question of how people would make their way when the machines got good. In fact, much of our modern intellectual world started off as people's rhetorical postures on this very question.</p> <p> Marxism, the whole idea of the left, which still dominates the Bay Area where this interview is taking place, was exactly, precisely about this question. This is what Marx was thinking about, and in fact, you can read Marx and it sometimes weirdly reads likes a Silicon Valley rhetoric. It's the strangest thing; all about "boundaries falling internationally," and "labor and markets opening up," and all these things. It's the weirdest thing.</p> <p> In fact, I had the strange experience years ago, listening to some rhetoric on the radio ... it was KPFA, in fact, the lefty station ... and I thought, "Oh, God, it's one of these Silicon startups with their rhetoric about how they're going to bring down market barriers", and it turned out to be an anniversary reading of "Das Kapital". The language was similar enough that one could make the mistake.</p> <p> The origin of science fiction was exactly in this same area of concern. H.G. Wells' The Time Machine foresees a future in which there are the privileged few who benefit from the machines, and then there are the rest who don't, and both of them become undignified, lesser creatures. Separate species. The first literary description of the Internet, which preceded the invention of the computer by many years, was E. M. Forster's The Machine Stops, which continues the theme. And another nice example is Kurt Vonnegut's novel, Player Piano, which is yet another statement of it.</p> <p> But at any rate, let's get to what the question is. Let's suppose that machines get good enough that one can say a lot of people are extraneous, that the machines are doing what needs to be done. It has to immediately be said that this wouldn't in fact happen, because software will probably be buggy and machines will be unreliable, so there would still have to be human oversight. The machines will screw up. The way I phrased it was careful—"one can say"—because the crucial thing about very high-functioning machines, artificial intelligences and what not, is how we conceive of the things that the machines can't do, whether those are considered real jobs for people or not.</p> <p> Let me give you just a couple of examples that are right on the threshold of becoming mainstream. One of them is a self-driving vehicle. Not only Google, but also some other researchers in Europe and in Asia have been demonstrating cars that are quite effective at driving themselves around. The reasons for wanting cars that can be self-driving are so extraordinarily powerful ... you couldn't have better reasons.</p> <p> Human are terrible drivers. We kill each other in car accidents so frequently that car accidents are a much more serious problem than wars, terrorism, a great many diseases. It's one of our biggest sources of death and pain, and it's awful. It's very unlikely that robots could drive as badly as people. That's compelling.</p> <p> But there's much more. If the cars could coordinate with each other, instead of people fighting each other in little tiny ego-wars to merge between lanes on the freeway causing this huge backup going miles back, the cars could coordinate and cleanly merge together, taking full advantage of the hypothetical bandwidth of the freeway. They could be cognizant of their wakes, and they could manage the airflow together to improve their efficiency. A lot of streetlights could go away. They would simply know that there's no other car coming, and there's no pedestrian, and they could just proceed through without stopping, which would be a huge, huge gain for energy efficiency, since you wouldn't have to accelerate from a stop as often. And it goes on and on. There are just many, many, many benefits.</p> <p> Then there are some problems. One of the problems is that when there is a screw-up, it could be a huge one. If a whole freeway of cars hit each other because of a snag, it would be something like a plane crash instead of a little tiny thing. That's conceivable when there are a lot of cars connected together, and moving rapidly under the same software system. Then, of course, there's the existential issue of losing freedom, how do people feel about that? All of these things have been talked about a great deal.</p> <p> But finally, there's this very interesting issue, that you can't make it 100 percent. If people are going to be people at all, somebody has to tell the car where to go and something about how to do it, and there has to be some failsafe, and there has to be some human responsibility if not on the part of the people who are passengers in the car, at least somewhere. And here's where we get into very, very interesting territory.</p> <p> I just listed a bunch of ways that automating driving would create efficiencies. It would save huge amounts of money because there would be fewer people going to the hospital, there's less fuel, and people get places faster. There is this huge increase in efficiency, but the interesting thing is that increasing efficiency by itself doesn't employ people. There is a difference between saving and making money when you're unemployed. Once you're already rich, saving money and making money is the same thing, but for people who are on the bottom or even in the middle classes, saving money doesn't help you if you don't have the money to save in the first place.</p> <p> If you look at the labor prospects of the middle classes, a whole lot of middle class people are behind a wheel. There's a whole bunch of cabbies, and truck drivers, et cetera, and we're talking about throwing all of those people out of work—forever—pretty soon, basically. It's very, very likely that at some point, not next year, but this century at the very least, and probably the early part of the century, that it would just be inconceivable to put a person behind the wheel of some big truck. People will just think it's insane. Similarly cabs will be safer in an automated mode. What do all those people do?</p> <p> This becomes interesting. There aren't that many options, and let me list what those options are.</p> <p> One option is the one that Marx advocated. That option is: The society is saving a lot of money, it's getting more efficient, so we'll apply that to taking care of the unneeded people. In that case, well it's a tricky one… Because in every example in which there have been very large numbers of people who were just taken care of by a society, it eventually breaks.</p> <p> The way that can work is maybe if people are broken into societies that are very ideologically, ethnically, and in other ways homogenous so they somehow can accept each other. That way, they can accept similar tradeoffs, and coordinate with each other. It'd be very hard to do it in our heterogeneous crazy society filled with a lot of surprises. People would have to rely purely on democracy; you couldn’t rely on capitalism anymore for a sense of liberty. You’d have to argue with people and agree on things. Sometimes that's just impossible. Government can only work so well.</p> <p> The beauty of money is it creates a system of people leaving each other alone by mutual agreement. It's the only invention that does that that I'm aware of. In a world of finite limits where you don't have an infinite West you can expand into, money is the thing that gives you a little bit of peace and quiet, where you can say, "It's my money, I'm spending it".</p> <p> I know that there are a great many leftists around here who think that when the machines get good the government will support everybody, and somehow we'll agitate for our rights, and everybody will have this kind of liberty and ability to do as they please. But I find that very hard to believe. I just don't think that that would work. Even in the places that are called anarchistic, in fact, what happens is a new kind of order, which is often very oppressive if you don't happen to fit in. In San Francisco you can be attacked by mobs of bicycling advocates who've occasionally been quite ruthless because they believe in bicycles, and they think that they're the most enlightened, free people in the world, and yet if somebody doesn't agree with them, then they have trouble.</p> <p> Similarly, Burning Man, which people who fit in at Burning Man must perceive is the most open, accepting place in the world is, in fact, extraordinarily unaccepting of people who don't conform. Just a mild example of that is if you show up in an RV you're pooh-poohed by a lot of people.</p> <p> This hope that socialism can preserve liberty is pretty unlikely to work out. I hesitate to say that because most of the people who say that are these rigid Tea Party nut cases these days in the United States. I hate to be saying something that sounds similar, but that doesn't make it untrue. It still is a problem.</p> <p> All right, so let's leave aside Marx's answer. Another possibility is that the extraneous people just suffer, and are maybe given inexpensive amusements. This is also foreseen in science fiction quite a lot. Most recently as a pop phenomenon, "The Matrix" movies might have expressed that the most, where there's this conceit that somehow people's human bodies are useful as batteries, although anyone who sees the movie is thinking, "Oh, there's got to be a better battery. Why would they keep the people around?" So even as batteries, people are unlikely to be needed.</p> <p> And there is a disturbing sense in which I feel like that's the world we're entering. I'm astonished at how readily a great many people I know, young people, have accepted a reduced economic prospect and limited freedoms in any substantial sense, and basically traded them for being able to screw around online. There are just a lot of people who feel that being able to get their video or their tweet seen by somebody once in a while gets them enough ego gratification that it's okay with them to still be living with their parents in their 30s, and that's such a strange tradeoff. And if you project that forward, obviously it does become a problem.</p> <p> What that leads to is the world that Wells and Kurt Vonnegut and many others wrote about, where there just is enough virtual bread and circuses, just barely enough to keep the poor in check, and perhaps somehow not breeding, and they just kind of either wither away through attrition or something. Or medicine gets good enough and expensive enough that those on the wealthy side of it live and those on the other, once again through attrition, fade away.</p> <p> Another example that is quite astonishing, one that will be recognized by future historians as an extraordinary phenomenon in the 21st century, is that the aging populations are buying into their own impoverishment. There's this strange way in which people who are older tend to be conservative, and what conservative means now is no government: "Don't you dare support my dialysis, don't you dare support my nursing home expenses! That reduces my liberty! I need my freedom and my options."</p> <p> But if you look at how this transformation has come about, where the elderly are, for the most part, advocating their own impoverishment and misery, you find the same thing, this prevalence of social media, new media. You tend to find "conservative," nutty politics using social media better than mainstream sensible stuff. And that's true both on the left and the right, but it's the right that's taken off with it, and that's striking to me. Of course, that story is still unfolding, so we don't know how it will turn out, but it's absolutely remarkable.</p> <p> To me, a lot of the culture of youth seems to be using the Internet as a form of denialism about their reduced prospects. They're like, "Well, sure we can't get a job and we need to live with our parents, but we can tweet", or something. "Let us tweet!"</p> <p> This "rights" kind of stance, as opposed to a "wealth" kind of stance, it's exactly the mirror image of what you see in Tea Party older America, of "we don't want our healthcare paid for. What we want is the right to not have our healthcare paid for, and that's more important to me."</p> <p> It's very strange, this notion of impoverishment and lack of prospects, but this absoluteness of expression and speech. And in a way maybe that's admirable, maybe there is something about that that's very American, and very pure. I don't know. But at any rate, it's not sustainable, whatever it is. I don't think it leads to a workable scenario, and I also think it just includes too much suffering and cruelty.</p> <p> Just to recap where the argument is so far, I've described two ways to cope with machines getting good.</p> <p> One is a Marxist way, where you have some form of socialism, some institutional attempt for everybody to get along and use politics to arrange for their own liberty instead of some more abstract mechanism like money, and I'm concerned that that's not realistic given human nature.</p> <p> A second way is for people to just suffer, and for the poor to wither away through attrition, as they can't afford medicine or some scenario like that over time. I should say that this notion of the poor withering away does seem to be normative right now, and it concerns me a great deal.</p> <p> I believe there is a third way, which is a better way, and it happens to have also been the initial idea for the Internet, interestingly enough. My poster boy for expressing this is Ted Nelson, the eccentric character who initially proposed the Web, or something like it ... it wasn't called the Web then ... as early as 1960, which is over a half century ago, amazingly, when I was born.</p> <p> Ted's idea was that there would be a universal market place where people could buy and sell bits from each other, where information would be paid for, and then you'd have a future where people could make a living and earn money from what they did with their hearts and heads in an information system, the Internet, thereby solving this problem of how to have a middle class, and how to have liberty. To expect liberty from democracy without a middle class is hopeless because without a middle class you can't have democracy. The whole thing falls a part.</p> <p> I remember when I first met Ted as a teenager, we talked about how you need to have some system like this where people are making a living with their hearts and heads, and trading online, and this was before the word "online" even existed in the way we know it today. It's the only way to have a future of liberty.</p> <p> Silicon Valley totally screwed up on this. We were doing a great job through the turn of the century. In the '80s and '90s, one of the things I liked about being in the Silicon Valley community was that we were growing the middle class. The personal computer revolution could have easily been mostly about enterprises. It could have been about just fighting IBM and getting computers on desks in big corporations or something, instead of this notion of the consumer, ordinary person having access to a computer, of a little mom and pop shop having a computer, and owning their own information. When you own information, you have power. Information is power. The personal computer gave people their own information, and it enabled a lot of lives.</p> <p> At the turn of the century we turned it all around, and there's two ways it got turned around. One exemplified perhaps by Google, and another way by Apple, although I should point out at this point I'm working with Microsoft, which to some people's minds might make me partisan in this. I have a special arrangement with them where they even encourage me to criticize them in public, and I do, and many of the things I critique here can be applied, as well, to various Microsoft businesses (Bing does exactly what Google does) and so it's not about company versus company stuff. Also the people at Apple and Google are my friends, and I've made money from Google. It's not personal. I like Google. And it's not about company rivalries, and I hope I can persuade people of that.</p> <p> But at any rate, the Apple idea is that instead of the personal computer model where people own their own information, and everybody can be a creator as well as a consumer, we're moving towards this iPad, iPhone model where it's not as adequate for media creation as the real media creation tools, and even though you can become a seller over the network, you have to pass through Apple's gate to accept what you do, and your chances of doing well are very small, and it's not a person to person thing, it's a business through a hub, through Apple to others, and it doesn't create a middle class, it creates a new kind of upper class.</p> <p> Google has done something that might even be more destructive of the middle class, which is they've said, "Well, since Moore's law makes computation really cheap, let's just give away the computation, but keep the data." And that's a disaster.</p> <p> What's happened now is that we've created this new regimen where the bigger your computer servers are, the more smart mathematicians you have working for you, and the more connected you are, the more powerful and rich you are. (Unless you own an oil field, which is the old way.) II benefit from it because I'm close to the big servers, but basically wealth is measured by how close you are to one of the big servers, and the servers have started to act like private spying agencies, essentially.</p> <p> With Google, or with Facebook, if they can ever figure out how to steal some of Google's business, there's this notion that you get all of this stuff for free, except somebody else owns the data, and they use the data to sell access to you, and the ability to manipulate you, to third parties that you don't necessarily get to know about. The third parties tend to be kind of tawdry.</p> <p> We tend to now be courting the seedier side of capitalism more than the dignified side of capitalism. There tend to be a lot of ambulance chasers, and snake oil salespeople who become our customers. Not all. There are some stories that are very positive. There's the occasional person who builds a career by blogging, or getting on YouTube, or who can build a small business by selling ads on some of these services. Those people exist, but there's a Horatio Alger quality where there just aren't enough of them to create a middle class. They create a false hope rather than a real trend. And it's plain as day that that's the truth, that there aren't hoards and hoards of these people, but just tokens.</p> <p> It's funny to say that because I'll often get a lot of pushback and they'll say, "No, no, no. There are all these people who are being empowered by all this stuff on the Internet that's free", and I'll say, "Well, show me. Where's all the wealth? Where's the new middle class of people who are doing this?" They don't exist. They just aren't there. We're losing the middle class, and we should be saving it. We should be strengthening it.</p> <p> If we used to be a bell curve society, we're ending up as a U-shaped society, turning into what Brazil used to be, or something like that, that's where America is going. You can see the Apple model, and it's not just Apple, but this notion of the elite-controlled thing serving the upper horn of the U, and you can see the Google model, which is like the seedy pawn shop and cash store kind of approach to the Internet where, "Oh, we'll give you coupons, and we'll sell advertising to you, and it's free, free, free, free, free." That attaches itself to the lower horn of the U.</p> <p> The thing that I'm thinking about is the Ted Nelson approach, the third way where people buy and sell each other information, and can live off of what they do with their hearts and minds as the machines get good enough to do what they would have done with their hands. That thing is the thing that could grow the middle back.</p> <p> Then the crucial element of that is what we can call a "social contract" where people would pay for stuff online from each other if they were also making money from it. When people get nothing from a society, they eventually just riot. And to my mind, that's kind of what's going on on the Internet. Basically, people can expect free stuff from the Internet but they don't expect wealth from the Internet, which to me makes it a failed technology at this point, although I hope it's revivable. I'm sure it is. I'm positive it is.</p> <p> And so when all you can expect is free stuff, you don't respect it, it doesn't offer you enough to give you a social contract. What you can seek on the Internet is you can seek some fine things, you can seek friendship and connection, you can seek reputation and all these things that are always talked about, you just can't seek cash. And it tends to create a lot of vandalism and mob-like behavior. That's what happens in the real world when people feel hopeless, and don't feel that they're getting enough from society. It happens online.</p> <p> I feel certain that if people had an opportunity to make a living from it, some number of them would be drawn to become scammier, of course, because that's also part of human nature, but on the whole, it would reinforce a social contract which people would buy into. They would treat it as something valuable in a way that—even with all the talk about the Internet and these incessant clichéd ways in which every story has to be Internet-centric if there is any plausible way it can be, even with all that—it still could be so much more, because it could be the way that we can make a living from our hearts and heads. That's what it must be. It must become that somehow.</p> <p> I promised I'd mention two ways that the machines are getting good, and I just mentioned driverless cars. I should say a little bit more about that, perhaps. The interesting contest that will happen—in about ten years is when this will come to head—is the contest between a purely driverless car, where you just get in a robot taxi and you say, "Take me to the airport", and it says, "Okay, airport", and then we go (Makes Zooming Sound), and then it shows you ads along the way, or forces you to drive by billboards, or forces you to a particular convenience store if you need to pick up something, or whatever the scam is that would come about from a Google-driven car. That's one way.</p> <p> There's another way to do it, which is you still drive the car, but with a fancy user interface, where you have autonomy much of the time, however when there is either an intersection with other cars approaching, or there's congestion on a freeway, or an imminent collision, if there is some other reason that automation is better, it can take over. But in the meantime it gives you fantastic user interface. It helps you be a much better driver, and get where you want faster if that's your desire, or whatever it is. That's like an augmented reality car blended with a fully automated car, and that might be the thing that works better. If it does, there's more of a human role, and there's more potential for employment. There might even be a cabby driving that thing, that's conceivable. There might even be a trucker in that truck, and it might work better. But anyway, that's something that we'll sort out.</p> <p> Another thing like driverless cars that's going to come along and have this huge impact is 3-D printing, and automated manufacturing at a small-distributed scale in other ways. This is a hobbyist phenomenon right now where you have a machine that takes some gloop, that connects to your computer, and then the gloop is printed out into something you might like, like a new Frisbee, or coat hanger, or clarinet mouthpiece, whatever it is. As this gets more and more sophisticated, it becomes possible that more and more things can be manufactured onsite instead of made in China or wherever, and then moved over through a huge transportation network. The system will remember what it made, so it knows what each thing is made of, and how to take it a part, so recycling can become vastly more automated, more efficient rapidly, and so there is a whole systemic potential improvement in efficiency.</p> <p> Once again, whenever you improve efficiency, when you save money, it's only the same thing as making money if you're already rich. If there are people who aren't rich enough to benefit from that, it just makes them poorer because they have less to do, and less ways to earn money. This is another potential huge increase in efficiency with enormous benefits. And the interesting question is where does it leave various kinds of people?</p> <p> If we enter into the kind of world that Google likes, the world that Google wants, it's a world where information is copied so much on the Internet that nobody knows where it came from anymore, so there can't be any rights of authorship. However, you need a big search engine to even figure out what it is or find it. They want a lot of chaos that they can have an ability to undo.</p> <p> It should be pointed out that the original design of the Internet didn't have even a copy function, because it originally just seemed stupid. If you have a network, why would you copy something? That's just inefficiency. I'm convinced the reason copying happened on the Internet was because Xerox PARC was so important as an early supporter of computers, that for Alan Kay to go to the Xerox people and say, "Oh, by the way, copying itself, even in the abstract will become obsolete because of computer networks", would have just blown their minds. We ended up with copying on a network.</p> <p> But anyway, when you have copying on a network, you throw out information because you lose the provenance, and then you need a search engine to figure it out again. That's part of why Google can exist. Ah, the perversity of it all just gets to me.</p> <p> If 3-D printers become good and ubiquitous, the number one question is going to be, can somebody make up an object and get paid for it? Just hypothetically, let's say 3-D printers are good enough to print out a new phone, which is conceivable, not immediately but it will happen, or to print out a new computer, a new tablet you'd want to use, or some other device. Is the company that operates the advertising auction system at the back end that's paying for the network connection the only party that makes money at that point? I don't think that's a sustainable future, and society would break before we hit that point, but right now what's funny is that is the path we're headed towards. When you're headed towards a path that's impossible, it means that something's going to break, and so you should get on a different path that's more plausible, and it's urgent that we find that other path.</p> <p> The rise of 3-D printers could be particularly destabilizing in that it could hit economies that are reliant on particularly low-end manufacturing. It could be a disaster for China, and it could happen rather quickly. And at the same time, if you think about this: You have machines that can make machines… If people could get paid for creatively coming up with things for them to do, if you can make a living from that, from what you do with your heart and your head as regards to the creation of physical things…</p> <p> Recycling is efficient suddenly because of the way this all happens. You can take old things and turn them into new things very efficiently, which you could do because just as you can have assembling robots and 3-D printers, you can also have disassembling, and de-printing robots.</p> <p> In that world, you could have an incredible amount of employment, and generation of liberty and autonomy for people who are just helping things get creative, instead of the manufacturing paradigm where there’s a limited number of things that can be made.</p> <p> Instead, they'll constantly be recycled, so there could be this entire churn, and all these new things. When this technology works, is this going to be a technology that just benefits whoever's auctioning off the advertising?</p> <p> It can become such a bizarre system. What you have now is a system in which the Internet user becomes the product that is being sold to others, and what the product is, is the ability to be manipulated. It's an anti-liberty system, and I know that the rhetoric around it is very contrary to that. "Oh, no, there are useful ads, and it's increasing your choice space", and all that, but if you look at the kinds of ads that make the most money, they are tawdry, and if you look at what's happening to wealth distribution, the middle is going away, and just empirically, these ideals haven't delivered in actuality. I think the darker interpretation is the one that has more empirical evidence behind it at this point.</p> <p> There's this question of why is there so much economic pain at once all over the world, what happened? There are a number of different explanations that can be helpful. Hitting some hard limits to growth in the world is part of it, the rise of new powers of India, and China, and Brazil, so that suddenly there are more people with means. That's part of the story. But there's something else going on here, too, which is that the mechanisms of finance just completely failed and screwed everybody. If we look at exactly what happened with the mortgage meltdowns and the utter failure of complex financial instruments in which securities were bundled in ways that were beyond human understanding, essentially, if you look at the extraordinary ways in which the whole world seemed to go into debt at once, what happened there?</p> <p> There's a short answer to that question, which is finance got networked. The big kinds of computers that had made certain other industries efficient were applied to finance, and it broke finance. It made finance stupid. Let's back up a little bit.</p> <p> The first example of computer networks really transforming an industry on a global scale did not come from a social networking site, or from search, or any of those Silicon Valley things, it was Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart pioneered the use of networking resources to make a global efficiency. Their supply chain was driven by real-time data, and extraordinary amounts of computation, and I had a window into their world because I had a consulting gig with them when they were doing it, and it was absolutely extraordinary.</p> <p> Essentially what Wal-Mart recognized is that information is power, and by using network information, you could consolidate extraordinary power, and so have information about what could be made where, when, what could be moved where, when, who would buy what, when for how much? By coalescing all of that, and reducing the unknowns, they were able to globalize their point of view so they were no longer a local player, but they essentially became their own market, and that's what information can do. The use of networks can turn you from a local player in a larger system into your own global system. And all the people who succeed the best at using networks do precisely that. It's been done again and again. But Wal-Mart was in a way the pioneer.</p> <p> If you want to, you can talk about the intelligence agencies as being the earlier pioneers, perhaps, but in a way Wal-Mart is the most impressive one, totally transformed the world. I'm not going to condemn them, because overall they brought so much good in their wake that it would be hard to condemn them. Consider that before Wal-Mart one of the greatest anxieties many of us had was the rise of China. What would that be like? Wal-Mart said, "Oh, the rise of China is going to be as a peaceful manufacturing partner." And China started to get rich, got happy, got nicer, and it just turned the rise of China into something that was so much better than anyone had foreseen, and Wal-Mart played a huge role in that. Without information systems there's no way that whole thing could have been coordinated to happen so quickly. That's an extraordinary good for everybody in the loop. You can't find a villain here and say, "This is the horrible thing", because a lot of these are complex and nuanced large-scale phenomena.</p> <p> What Wal-Mart did with manufacturing, retail, the whole supply chain, and transportation preceded the consumer Internet, the general Internet. When the general Internet got good, Google had this idea of providing information services for free because the real money was in paid influence, or what they call advertising. I'm uncomfortable calling what Google does "advertising." In the history of capitalism, advertising has been a crucial component, whether we like it or not, because it romanticized human production. Without advertising, we wouldn't have had the rise of capitalism, as we know it. Many people can feel uncomfortable with that, they can find it manipulative, and they can find that it leads to waste and excess, that it's materialistic. There are all kinds of criticisms. But at any rate, whatever everyone's judgment is, advertising was indispensable to the rise of capitalism, and since I haven't seen any alternative that creates liberty for people better, I have to therefore respect it.</p> <p> But Google's thing is not advertising because it's not a romanticizing operation. It doesn't involve expression. It's a link. It's just a little tiny minimalist link, and basically what they're selling is not advertising, they're not selling romance, they're not selling communication, what they're doing is selling access. What they're doing is they're saying, "You give us money, we give you access to these people, and then what you do with them is up to you." It's a gate keeping function. It's an arbiter of access. It's turning connections instead of being open into being paid. That's essentially what Google does. "We'll own the data, you'll pay for access to other people, but we'll give a whole ton of other stuff for free." And then it leads to this very strange schizophrenia, I'd say, where you think you're the user, but you're the used, or you're the product, and then you end up doing all this stuff to control your online presence, and your online reputation, and people become obsessed with that. But the real representation of you is the one you can't access, which is the one that's used to sell access to you to third parties. The whole thing is just, to my mind, increasingly perverse. And the real information about you isn't even separable. There's no dossier on you that you could get; it’s this correlative effect from all the other data that they have, this giant, proprietary correlative model of the world.</p> <p> Anyway, back to Wal-Mart. With Wal-Mart, the consumer, or the ordinary person who was a shopper at Wal-Mart was confronted with these two pieces of news. One is, stuff they wanted to buy got cheaper, which of course is good, but the other thing is their own employment prospects were reduced, which is bad, and Wal-Mart's rhetoric sometimes try to balance these things and say, "We cost a lot people their jobs, and we also save people a lot of money", but the thing is you can't equate the two.</p> <p> Once a particular party in a market has achieved a threshold where they have enough that they could lose, then saving becomes the equivalent of making, but if they haven't reached that threshold, saving is not the equivalent of making.</p> <p> Wal-Mart created efficiencies, lowered costs, and yet overall made people poor, so it's a great example of efficiency often not being good for people, but it's all based on how you think about it. It's an interesting thing. Let's move forward to Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley has done the same thing. It's created efficiencies, but in a way that makes people poorer lately, and whether one likes this or not is a different question than whether it's even a sustainable path, and I would argue it simply isn't. We can't go on like this.</p> <p> In the recent recession, what happened is that Wal-Mart's victories, its triumphs of using networking technology to make these global efficiencies were copied by the financial sector. Interestingly enough, this retailer was first. There were a few people in finance who were thinking about this and dabbling in it, but the big time came later, after Wal-Mart had demonstrated the principle.</p> <p> I remember this well, because I also had a direct window on it, because they were recruiting. They were looking for quants to work on these things, so I knew a lot of the people who were starting to use major computation resources for finance in the early days of it, and coming up with schemes.</p> <p> If you can collect all the information, you can find little things, you can find little differentials. I knew people who were moving money around banks around the world in weird cycles because they could take advantage of various slight differences in the times when they would close accounts, or weird little fluctuations. There were other people who were doing totally automated, statistical micro-fluctuation analysis to pull money out of a system, and all kinds of other schemes.</p> <p> The interesting thing about this is that it completely defeats every argument for why a market should work, because there's no risk management. You can argue that there is, but empirically there isn't.</p> <p> Essentially what happened with finance is a larger scale, albeit more abstract version of what happened with Wal-Mart, where a global system was optimized by being able to build data that could be concentrated locally using a computer network. It tremendously enriched the people who ran the network. It seemed to create savings for people initially who were the end users, the leafs of the network, very much as Google, or Groupon, seem to save them money initially. But then in the long-term it took away more from the income prospects of people than it could offer them in savings, very much as Wal-Mart did.</p> <p> This is the pattern that we'll see repeated again and again as new applications of computer networks come up, unless we decide to monetize what people do with their hearts and brains. What we have to do to create liberty in the future is to monetize more and more instead of monetize less and less, and in particular we have to monetize more and more of what ordinary people do, unless we want to make them into wards of the state. That's the stark choice we have in the long-term.</p> <p> In the case of the recent financial meltdowns, there are a couple of interesting features. One is the use of automation to avoid responsibility, and this is a phenomenon that you see again and again.</p> <p> This has also happened in the American healthcare system. What you want to do is increase your rewards and reduce your risks. So you associate risk-taking behavior with an algorithm, or with some network effect, so it's very hard to personalize it when this happens. In a sense this is an inevitable correlate to saying that it's those who own the network who should benefit. If owning the network is the reason you benefit rather than decisions made on the network, then obviously it benefits the owners, but it also removes monetized roles from other people who are using the network. It's no longer choice that gets rewarded, or gets monetized. But then the flip side of that is that the risks which are taken are just dissipated to the world. We see this in healthcare.</p> <p> I also had a wonderful window into the transformation of healthcare by computer networks because I had a consulting gig with some of the largest insurers as they were starting to make use of computer networks to improve their actuarial results. Once you can gather information in real time with a network, you can see so much more that the traditional idea of the insurer managing risk becomes absurd, because now you can say, "Well, I have enough information that it's not so much of a mystery what will happen, and what I want to do is just insure the people who won't need the insurance". Then you start breaking the whole system. Of course, this is exactly what happened in finance, as well, where the idea was to push all the risk onto others so that you, who run the network, are left with none of it.</p> <p> The reason this breaks is that there's a local-global flip that happens. When you start to use an information network to concentrate information and therefore power, you benefit from a first arrival effect, and from some other common network effects that make it very hard for other people to come and grab your position. And this gets a little detailed, but it was very hard for somebody else to copy Wal-Mart once Wal-Mart had gathered all the information, because once they have the whole world aligned by the information in their server, they created essentially an expense or a risk for anybody to jump out of that system. That was very hard.</p> <p> In a similar way, once you are a customer of Google's ad network, the moment that you stop bidding for your keyword, you're guaranteeing that your closest competitor will get it. It's no longer just, "Well, I don't know if I want this slot in the abstract, and who knows if a competitor or some entirely unrelated party will get it." Instead, you have to hold on to your ground because suddenly every decision becomes strategic for you, and immediately. It creates a new kind of glue, or a new kind of stickiness.</p> <p> Exactly the same thing happens whenever somebody concentrates power using a big global network. And the thing about that is that you can rise to power so quickly in the way that something like Facebook rises quickly. The network effects can be so powerful that you cease being a local player.</p> <p> An example of this is Wal-Mart removing so many jobs from their own customers that they start to lose profitability, and suddenly upscale players, like Target, are doing better. Wal-Mart impoverished its own customer base. Google is facing exactly the same issue long-term, although not yet. The finance industry kept on thinking they could eject waste out into the general system, but they became the system. You become global instead of local so that the system breaks. Insurance companies in America, by trying to only insure people who didn't need insurance, ejected risk into the general system away from themselves, but they became so big that they were no longer local players, and there wasn't some giant vastness to absorb this risk that they'd ejected, and so therefore the system breaks. You see this again and again and again. It's not sustainable.</p> <p> If you aspire to use computer network power to become a global force through shaping the world instead of acting as a local player in an unfathomably large environment, when you make that global flip, you can no longer play the game of advantaging the design of the world to yourself and expect it to be sustainable. The great difficulty of becoming powerful and getting close to a computer network is: Can people learn to forego the temptations, the heroin-like rewards of being able to reform the world to your own advantage in order to instead make something sustainable?</p> <p> It's not about Google, it's a general business idea which Google played a role in pioneering, but it's shared by Facebook, and also companies with which I am now affiliated through my work. It's not at all specific to Google at this point, but… People have to understand that there's no such thing as "free," that when they buy into a system in which they upload their videos to YouTube without expecting to make anything (unless they're very lucky to become a token Horatio Alger story) at the end of the day, or when they contribute to services like Google+, or Facebook, or other social networks, what's happening is they're working for the benefit of someone else's fortune by creating data that can be used to grant or deny access based on pay to these third parties, the tawdry third parties I mention so often.</p> <p> There's a sense of, if you're adding to the network, do you expect anything back from it? And since we've been hypnotized in the last eleven or twelve years into thinking that we shouldn't expect anything for what we do with our hearts or our minds online, we think that our own contributions aren't worth money, very much like we think we shouldn't be paid for parenting, or we shouldn't be paid for raking our own yard. In those cases you are paid in a sense because there's still something that becomes part of you in your life, for all that you did.</p> <p> But in this case we have this idea that we put all this stuff out there and what we get back are intangible or abstract benefits of reputation, or ego-boosting. Since we're used to that bargain, we're impoverished compared to the world that could have been and should have been when the Internet was initially conceived. The world that would create a strengthened middle class through what people do, by monetizing more and more instead of less and less. It's possible that that world could have never come about, but that was never tested. If we are absolutely convinced that this third way is impossible, and that we have to choose between "The Matrix" or Marx, if those are our only two choices, it makes the future dismal, and so I hope that a third way is possible, and I'm certainly going to do everything possible to try to push it.</p> <p> We're not going to be able to test tomorrow because we've gone down this path so far that it will be a decade's long project to begin to explore it, but we must find our way back. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a century after Ted Nelson first proposed this thought in 1960 that this is how the Internet should be. It might be a century before we even start to seriously try to do it, but that's how things go sometimes in history. Sometimes it just takes a while to sort things out.</p> <hr /> </div> </div> <img src="http://edge.org/custom/modules/imageresize/showimage.php?imgid=138" style="padding:4px 8px 0px 0px; float:left;" align="left" /><span style="float:left;"> <a href="http://edge.org/memberbio/douglas_rushkoff" name="douglas" id="brownB1"><strong>Douglas Rushkoff</strong> : </a> </span> <div id="descshort_2652" style="padding:0px 0px 0px 0px; margin:0px;"> <p> I am heartened to see Jaron applying himself to these problems, as they are the ones that have consumed me for the past decade or so. As I have come to understand the terrain, there are a few interrelated dynamics at work. All of them, however, in one way or another boil down to operating systems – and our reluctance to dig down and determine the biases of those systems. </p> <p> Our refusal makes us much less likely to be the users of our technologies – or any social system – than the used. (Or, my parlance, the programmed rather than the programmers.) It's not just an Internet story at all, but one exacerbated by the speed and depth of the Internet. This is the way different media environments combine and influence each other. The trick is to avoid thinking of the net as the only arbitrary player or movable piece in... <a id="brown">[+]</a> </p></div>
<br /></div> </div>
<br />NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-74357278765599123892011-04-04T23:11:00.002-04:002011-04-04T23:16:10.454-04:00U.S. storage sites overfilled with spent nuclear fuel<span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">AFACEAFACE<br /><br /></span></span><h1 class="post-title"><a href="http://www.afaceaface.org/blog/2011/03/24/u-s-storage-sites-overfilled-with-spent-nuclear-fuel/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to U.S. storage sites overfilled with spent nuclear fuel">U.S. storage sites overfilled with spent nuclear fuel</a></h1> <div class="postdate"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">By </span><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.afaceaface.org/blog/author/admin/" title="Posts by admin">admin</a><span style="font-weight: bold;"> on Mar 24, 2011 in </span><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.afaceaface.org/blog/category/state-of-the-world/" title="View all posts in State Of The World" rel="category tag">State Of The World</a> </div> <p id="deck" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>71,862 tons, with more created every year, and no permanent disposal solution</strong></span></p> <p style="text-align: center;"><a rel="attachment wp-att-2658" href="http://www.afaceaface.org/blog/2011/03/24/u-s-storage-sites-overfilled-with-spent-nuclear-fuel/ts/"><img class="aligncenter size-thumbnail wp-image-2658 akabcydbgeeuskqubxsz akabcydbgeeuskqubxsz akabcydbgeeuskqubxsz akabcydbgeeuskqubxsz akabcydbgeeuskqubxsz akabcydbgeeuskqubxsz akabcydbgeeuskqubxsz akabcydbgeeuskqubxsz" title="ts" src="http://www.afaceaface.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ts-300x250.jpg" alt="" height="250" width="300" /></a></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The nuclear crisis in Japan has laid bare an ever-growing problem for the United States — the enormous amounts of still-hot radioactive waste accumulating at commercial nuclear reactors in more than 30 states.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The U.S. has 71,862 tons of the waste, according to state-by-state numbers obtained by The Associated Press. But the nation has no place to permanently store the material, which stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Plans to store nuclear waste at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain have been abandoned, but even if a facility had been built there, America already has more waste than it could have handled.</p> <div style="text-align: justify;"> <p>Three-quarters of the waste sits in water-filled cooling pools like those at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex in Japan, outside the thick concrete-and-steel barriers meant to guard against a radioactive release from a nuclear reactor.</p> <p>Spent fuel at Dai-ichi overheated, possibly melting fuel-rod casings and spewing radiation into the air, after Japan’s tsunami knocked out power to cooling systems at the plant.</p> <p>The rest of the spent fuel from commercial U.S. reactors has been put into dry cask storage, but regulators only envision those as a solution for about a century and the waste would eventually have to be deposited into a Yucca-like facility.</p> <p>The U.S. nuclear industry says the waste is being stored safely at power-plant sites, though it has long pushed for a long-term storage facility. Meanwhile, the industry’s collective pile of waste is growing by about 2,200 tons a year; experts say some of the pools in the United States contain four times the amount of spent fuel that they were designed to handle.</p> <p>The AP analyzed a state-by-state summary of spent fuel data based on information that nuclear power plants voluntarily report every year to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry and lobbying group. The NEI would not make available the amount of spent fuel at individual power plants.</p> <p>While the U.S. Department of Energy previously reported figures on overall spent fuel storage, it no longer has updated information available. A spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees nuclear power plant safety, said the agency was still searching for a compilation of spent fuel data.</p> <p>The U.S. has 104 operating nuclear reactors, situated on 65 sites in 31 states. There are another 15 permanently shut reactors that also house spent fuel.</p> <p>Four states have spent fuel even though they don’t have operating commercial plants. Reactors in Colorado, Oregon and Maine are permanently shut; spent fuel from all three is stored in dry casks. Idaho never had a commercial reactor, but waste from the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania is being stored at a federal facility there.</p> <p>Illinois has 9,301 tons of spent nuclear fuel at its power plants, the most of any state in the country, according to industry figures. It is followed by Pennsylvania with 6,446 tons; 4,290 in South Carolina and roughly 3,780 tons each for New York and North Carolina.</p> <p>Spent nuclear fuel is about 95 percent uranium. About 1 percent are other heavy elements such as curium, americium and plutonium-239, best known as fuel for nuclear weapons. Each has an extremely long half-life — some take hundreds of thousands of years to lose all of their radioactive potency. The rest, about 4 percent, is a cocktail of byproducts of fission that break down over much shorter time periods, such as cesium-137 and strontium-90, which break down completely in about 300 years.</p> <p>How dangerous these elements are depends on how easily can find their way into the body. Plutonium and uranium are heavy, and don’t spread through the air well, but there is a concern that plutonium could leach into water supplies over thousands of years.</p> <p>Cesium-137 is easily transported by air. It is cesium-137 that can still be detected in a New Jersey-sized patch of land around the Chernobyl reactor that exploded in the Ukraine in 1986.</p> <p>Typically, waste must sit in pools at least five years before being moved to a cask or permanent storage, but much of the material in the pools of U.S. plants has been stored there far longer than that.</p> <p>Safety advocates have long urged the NRC to force utility operators to reduce the amount of spent fuel in their pools. The more tightly packed they are, the more quickly they can overheat and spew radiation into the environment in case of an accident, a natural disaster or a terrorist attack.</p> <p>Industry leaders say new technology has made fuel pools safer, and regulators have taken some steps since the 9/11 terror attacks to reduce fuel pool risks. Kevin Crowley, who directs the nuclear and radiation studies board at the National Academy of Sciences, says lessons will be learned from the crisis in Japan. And NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko says his agency will review how spent fuel is stored in the U.S.</p> <p>A 2004 report by the academy suggested that fresh spent fuel, which is radioactively hotter, be spread among older, cooler assemblies in the spent fuel pool. “You’re buying yourself time, basically,” says Crowley. “The cooler ones can act as a thermal buffer.”</p> <p>First Energy, which runs two nuclear power stations in Ohio and one in Pennsylvania, was able to reconfigure the spent fuel rods in its pools to make more room. Still, the company is now running out of space, says spokesman Todd Schneider. Ohio has 1,136 tons of spent fuel in pools and 37 tons in dry casks.</p> <p>The casks in the U.S. are kept outdoors, generally on concrete pads, but industry officials insist they are safe. Unlike the pools, the casks don’t need electricity; they are cooled by air circulation.</p> <p>One cask model, selling for $1.5 million, places spent fuel inside a stainless steel canister, which is placed inside an “overpack” — an outside shell composed of a layer of carbon steel, 27 inches of concrete and another layer of carbon steel. When in place, the system stands 20 feet tall and weighs 190,000 pounds, said Joy Russell, said spokeswoman for manufacturer Holtec International of Florida.</p> <p>Russell said engineers have designed the system to withstand a crash from an F-16 fighter jet and survive the resulting jet fuel fire.</p> <p>Plant operators in some states have moved aggressively to dry cask storage. Virginia has 1,533 tons of nuclear waste in dry storage and 1,105 tons in spent fuel pools. Maryland has 844 tons in dry storage and 588 tons in spent fuel pools.</p> <p>Utilities in Texas, though, have not. There are 2,178 tons kept in spent fuel pools at reactor sites there, and zero in dry casks. In New York, 3,345 tons are in spent fuel pools while only 454 tons are in dry storage.</p> </div> <p>No cask is totally invulnerable, but the academy report found that radioactive releases from casks would be relatively low.</p> <p>“If you attacked a fuel cask and managed to put a hole in it, anything that came out, the consequences would be very local,” Crowley said.</p> <p>Casks can be licensed for 20 years, with renewals, said Carrie Phillips, spokeswoman for the Atlanta-based Southern Co., which has a dozen such casks at its two-reactor Joseph M. Farley plant near Columbia, Ala. She said officials have “every expectation” the casks could last “in excess of 100 years by design.”</p> <p>But not the needed tens of thousands of years. For long-term storage, the government had looked to Yucca Mountain. It was designed to hold 77,160 tons — 69,444 tons designated for commercial waste and 7,716 for military waste. That means the current inventory already exceeds Yucca’s original planned capacity.</p> <p>A 1982 law gave the federal government responsibility for the long-term storage of nuclear waste and promised to start accepting waste in 1998. After 20 years of study, Congress passed a law in 2002 to build a nuclear waste repository deep in Yucca Mountain.</p> <p>The federal government spent $9 billion developing the project, but the Obama administration has cut funding and recalled the license application to build it. Nevadans have fiercely opposed Yucca Mountain, though a collection of state governments and others are taking legal action to reverse the decision.</p> <p>Despite his Yucca Mountain decision, President Barack Obama wants to expand nuclear power. He created a commission last year to come up with a long-term nuclear waste plan. Initial findings are expected this summer, with a final plan expected in January.</p> <p>“They are 13 years late,” says Terry Pickens, Director of Nuclear Policy at Xcel Energy, the Minneapolis-based utility that operates three reactors in Minnesota. Xcel is building steel-and-concrete cask containers to hold old waste on site, and suing the government periodically to pay for them. “We would like them to get done with what they said they would get done.”</p> <p>Some countries — such as France, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom — reprocess their spent fuel into new nuclear fuel to help reduce the amount of waste.</p> <p>The remaining waste is solidified into a glass. It needs to be stored in a long-term waste repository, but reprocessing reduces the volume of waste by three-quarters.</p> <p>Because reprocessing isolates plutonium, which can be used to make a nuclear weapon, Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter put a stop to it in the U.S. The ban was later overturned, but the country still does not reprocess.</p> <p>France produces 1,300 tons of nuclear waste per year, and reprocesses 940 tons. Still, fuel is only reprocessed once and then it, too, needs to be stored. France is expecting that engineers will eventually succeed in building a new type of nuclear reactor called a fast reactor that will use the waste it can’t reprocess as fuel.</p> <p>“They’ve kicked the can down the road,” says Frank von Hippel, a director of the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University.</p> <p>Other countries, such as Germany, store spent fuel in casks. Finland is building a repository it says will store waste safely for 100,000 years.</p> <p>Even though there is no long-term storage in the U.S., utility customers and taxpayers have been paying for it — twice.</p> <p>Customers have paid $24 billion into a fund Congress established in 1982 to pay for such storage. The charge — a penny for every 10 kilowatt-hours — would typically add up to about $11 a year for a household that received all its electricity from nuclear plants.</p> <p>Users pay as taxpayers, too — for dry storage. Utilities that have run out of storage space in pools successfully sued the federal government for breach of contract, because it failed to keep to the 1998 deadline to establish long-term storage. By law, the money for dry casks cannot come from the nuclear waste fund, and must come from the federal budget.</p>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-67778899751368842532011-03-28T23:34:00.002-04:002011-03-28T23:37:37.575-04:00ALERT: US Stores Spent Nuclear Fuel Rods at 4 Times Pool Capacity<a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/"><img style="width: 680px; height: 204px;" src="http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/themes/dissident/images/header.jpg" alt="Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice" /></a><div id="header"></div><br /><h1 class="title"><a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/us-stores-spent-nuclear-fuel-rods-at-4-times-pool-capacity/">US Stores Spent Nuclear Fuel Rods at 4 Times Pool Capacity</a></h1> <p class="byline">by Rady Ananda / March 28th, 2011</p> <p>In a recent interview with <a href="http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6473"><em>The Real News Network</em></a>, Robert Alvarez, a nuclear policy specialist since 1975, reports that spent nuclear fuel in the United States comprises the largest concentration of radioactivity on the planet: 71,000 metric tons. Worse, since the Yucca Mountain waste repository has been scrapped due to its proximity to active faults (see <a href="http://www.dpc.ucar.edu/earthscopeVoyager/JVV_Jr/didyouknow/lvcTect.html">last image</a>), the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has allowed reactor operators to store four times more waste in the spent fuel pools than they’re designed to handle.</p> <p><a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/3-spent-fuel-rods-in-pool1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-31282" title="3-spent-fuel-rods-in-pool1" src="http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/3-spent-fuel-rods-in-pool1.jpg" alt="" height="304" width="470" /></a></p> <p>Each Fukushima spent fuel pool holds about 100 metric tons, he says, while each US pool holds from 500-700 metric tons. A single pool fire would release catastrophic amounts of radioactivity, rendering 17-22,000 square miles of area uninhabitable. That’s about the size of New Hampshire and Vermont – from one pool fire.</p> <p>In a <a href="http://www.ecoshock.info/2011/03/nuclear-nightmare-continues.html">March 25th interview</a>, physician and nuclear activist, Dr Helen Caldicott, explains that:</p> <blockquote><p>There’s far more radiation in each of the cooling pools than there is in each reactor itself…. Now the very short-lived isotopes have decayed away to nothing. But the long-lived ones, the very dangerous ones, Cesium, Strontium, Uranium, Plutonium, Americium, Curium, Neptunium, I mean really dangerous ones, the long-lived ones – that’s what the fuel pools hold.</p></blockquote> <p>As a Senior Scholar at the <a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/staff/bob">Institute for Policy Studies</a>, Alvarez was part of a multi-disciplinary international team that looked at possible terror attacks on nuclear facilities, focusing on the spent fuel storage pools. In 2003, they released a report, <a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/files/2987/reducing-the-hazards-from-stored-spent-nuclear-fuel.pdf">Reducing the Hazards from Stored Spent Power-Reactor Fuel in the United States</a>, which calls for transferring the spent fuel from the pools into dry-cask storage. (Summary <a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/reducing_the_hazards_from_stored_spent_power-reactor_fuel_in_the_united_states">here</a>.)</p> <p>The report recommends that 75% of the spent rods be removed from each of the pools and stored in ultra-thick concrete bunkers capable of withstanding aerial impact. The project would take about ten years and would “reduce the average inventory of 137Cs (radioactive cesium) in U.S. spent-fuel pools by about a factor of four.”</p> <p>The NRC attempted to suppress the IPC report, Alvarez says. “The response by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and nuclear industry was hostile.” But the <a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11263#toc">National Academy of Sciences agreed</a> that a fire in an overloaded fuel pool would be catastrophic. The NRC <a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/unsafe_at_any_reactor">attempted to block</a> the Academy’s report, as well.</p> <p>The NRC serves industry, not the public, and by controlling the purse strings, Congress has forced the NRC to “greatly curtail its regulatory programs,” says Alvarez.</p> <p>Engineer Keith Harmon Snow couldn’t agree more. He <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23764">recently lambasted</a> the NRC and mainstream media for downplaying the ongoing catastrophe in Japan. He notes that, “The atomic bomb that exploded at Hiroshima created about 2000 curies of radioactivity. The spent fuel pools at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant (U.S.) are said to hold about <i>75 million curies</i>.” [emphasis added]</p> <p>And that’s just one US nuclear plant, out of 104, not to ignore the undisclosed number of research sites. Then consider that several <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/03/nuclear-reactors-in-earthquake-zones-in-the-us-map.php?campaign=daily_nl">nuclear plants sit on geologic faults</a>, as this image by <a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/3039/">Public Integrity</a> reveals:</p> <p><a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/nukes-near-earthquake-zones1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-31279" title="nukes-near-earthquake-zones1" src="http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/nukes-near-earthquake-zones1.jpg" alt="" height="323" width="500" /></a></p> <p>Also see this <a href="http://maptd.com/map/earthquake_activity_vs_nuclear_power_plants/">global map</a> of earthquake activity and nuclear power plant locations.</p> <p>Nuclear waste is a serious, deadly and growing problem that the industry refuses to address, preferring to externalize disposal costs onto the public (even <a href="http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE72O4E820110325">suing the US government</a> to clean up its mess for them, under a 1998 law it no doubt favored).</p> <p>Unless the radioactive waste is <a href="http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1">laser-launched</a> toward the sun, we’re stuck with waste that will contaminate the biosphere for thousands of years, for the measly prize of 25-30 years of electricity, as nuclear activist and mathematician, Gordon Edwards, so eloquently <a href="http://ifyoulovethisplanet.org/?p=4197">explained</a>. The risk far outweighs the benefit; this energy choice exemplifies the insanity of the nuclear industry and its government protectors.</p> <p><strong>Further Sources:</strong></p> <p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573317578/dissivoice-20"><em>Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment</em></a>, by Alexey V. Yablokov and Vassily B. Nesterenko and Alexey V. Nesterenko (English publication: 2009), recently reviewed by <a href="http://blip.tv/file/4922080">toxicologist Janette Sherman</a> on BlipTV, and also <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23745">reviewed</a> last year by Professor Karl Grossman.</p> <p><a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/03/nuclear-reactors-in-earthquake-zones-in-the-us-map.php?campaign=daily_nl">Nuclear Reactors in Earthquake Zones around the Globe</a> (TreeHugger, compiling various sources)</p> <p><a href="http://www.radiationnetwork.com/">US Radiation Monitoring Map in Real Time</a> (Radiation Network)</p> <p><a href="http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-17GMT09:15">Video Maps Spread of Radioactivity in Real Time</a> (Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics, Austria)</p> <p class="author">Rady Ananda began blogging in 2004. Her work has appeared in several online and print publications, including three books on election fraud. Most of her career was spent working for lawyers in research, investigations and as a paralegal. She graduated from The Ohio State University’s School of Agriculture with a B.S. in Natural Resources. <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/author/RadyAnanda/">Read other articles by Rady</a>.</p> This article was posted on Monday, March 28th, 2011 at 8:00am and is filed under <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/disasters/" title="View all posts in Disasters" rel="category tag">Disasters</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/energy/" title="View all posts in Energy" rel="category tag">Energy</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/japan/" title="View all posts in Japan" rel="category tag">Japan</a>.NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-61987575626577351332011-03-28T22:54:00.001-04:002011-03-28T22:55:55.157-04:00There Ought to Be a Law: Criminal Nuclear Recklessness<a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/"><img style="width: 679px; height: 204px;" src="http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/themes/dissident/images/header.jpg" alt="Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice" /></a><br /><br /><br /><h1 class="title"><a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/there-ought-to-be-a-law-criminal-nuclear-recklessness/">There Ought to Be a Law: Criminal Nuclear Recklessness</a></h1> <p class="byline">by Ralph J. Dolan / March 28th, 2011</p> <p>Every nuclear power plant on earth ought to be designated as a crime scene of nuclear recklessness based upon the very threat of catastrophic consequences and upon the nuclear industry’s woeful lack of readiness to handle the most predictable mishaps.</p> <p>There is a solution so simple and elegant of design. Bring the politicians and the businessmen who profit from the nuclear power industry before an International Criminal Court. Strip them of their recklessly acquired wealth. Allow them to subsist on entitlement programs alone – subsidized housing, food stamps and a modest stipend. Require them to ‘volunteer’ for Disaster Response Teams where they would be trained in all the state-of-the-art protocols of first responders for any nuclear crisis anywhere in the world. Be sent into the plant spewing radioactive poison and do what must be done and be involved in the wide-ranging clean-up. With such a consequence hanging over the heads of those who are profiting from this madness we would see swift reform.</p> <p>This would never happen, of course, because the very people charged with overseeing the nuclear industry for safety are the ones who like it the way it is and profit from it handsomely.</p> <p>It has been said of Tokyo that it is a city waiting to die because of Japan’s location atop volatile tectonic plate activity. So it has been common knowledge. We knew. Books have been written about the insanity of building nuclear power plants in this active earthquake zone. And now the nightmare unfolds before our eyes.</p> <p>Where is the international body of wise, far-sighted men and women empowered to say “No! There will be no nuclear power plants here! Too dangerous!” Why do we proceed in such dangerous terrain from recklessness and not from the highest standards of human enlightenment?</p> <p>We have given over the leadership of this world, Starship Earth, to slick con-artists, addicted to gambling for high stakes. They work together, make the rules, build the structures, make off with the profits and let the people pay the terrible price when the containment walls burst.</p> <p>Is there an echo? It sounds so familiar.</p> <p>The crux of the matter is this: Our leaders look out for themselves. They’ll shovel the pretty rhetoric at us about freedom, equality and the sacredness of human life. But their words lie. Only their actions tell the truth. And the truth is that all of our leaders are in it only for the money and the people be damned. One cannot make it to the highest levels of government/corporate structures without a willingness to play this money-game.</p> <p>Our leaders ought to be made to wear patches on their clothing, like race-car drivers, revealing the names of the organizations that are bank-rolling all of their initiatives. The masses of human beings upon this earth are the fodder of the rich to be manipulated and exploited in the work place and in the market place and to pay with their flesh and blood, their homes and their families, their loves and their dreams when the debts come due.</p> <p>What folly!</p> <p class="author">Ralph J. Dolan is a retired family therapist living in western Massachusetts. He can be reached at bodhibananaman@aol.com <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/author/RalphJDolan/">Read other articles by Ralph J.</a>.</p> This article was posted on Monday, March 28th, 2011 at 8:00am and is filed under <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/disasters/" title="View all posts in Disasters" rel="category tag">Disasters</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/japan/" title="View all posts in Japan" rel="category tag">Japan</a>.NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-13074268935440101512011-03-28T09:53:00.003-04:002011-03-28T10:14:24.672-04:00Radioactive rain in Massachusetts<span style="font-size:180%;"><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.bostonherald.com/">BostonHerald.com </a></span><br /><br /><h1><a href="http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_0328radioactive_rain_in_mass_health_bigs_water_supply_unaffected_by_japan_fallout/srvc=home&position=also">Radioactive rain in Mass.</a></h1><a href="http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_0328radioactive_rain_in_mass_health_bigs_water_supply_unaffected_by_japan_fallout/srvc=home&position=also"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Health bigs: Water supply ‘unaffected’ by Japan fallout </span></span></a> <span class="bold"><br /><br />By O’Ryan Johnson</span><br /> Monday, March 28, 2011<br /><br /><div id="articleFull" class="articleFull"><p><span class="articleBegin">S</span>tate health officials said the fallout from crippled Japanese nuclear reactors has unleashed a radioactive rain over the Bay State, but they insisted levels are too low to pose a threat to health.</p> <p>“The drinking water supply in Massachusetts is unaffected by this short-term, slight elevation in radiation,” said Public Health Commissioner John Auerbach. “However, we will carefully monitor the drinking water as we exercise an abundance of caution.”</p> <p>Auerbach said routine sampling of rainwater last week in Massachusetts as well as California, Pennsylvania and Washington all showed similar elevated levels of radioiodine-131. Air samples in the same Massachusetts location showed no elevated levels. Health officials declined to reveal the town where the sample was taken.</p> <div id="AdMiddle"> </div> <p>Ronald Ballinger, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, agreed that fallout from the crippled Japanese reactors is not dangerous to the continental United States. He said even if the plant were to melt down, the radiation making its way to the Bay State would be unlikely to reach a level dangerous to humans. These levels, he said, are nothing to worry about.</p> <p>“The concentrations are so low as to be absurd,” Ballinger said, when contacted by the Herald. “The event is pretty much contained, right now. They have power back to the site.”</p> <p>State officials said they believe the rainwater readings are the result of radiation emitted shortly after the earthquake and tsunami when the highest levels were recorded. Radiation from natural sources including rocks, bricks and the sun is about 100,000 times higher than the radioactive trace material determined to have come from Japan, health officials said.</p> <p>Auerbach said in addition to being harmless levels of radiation, the half-life of the material is about eight days, meaning it will shortly dissolve to an undetectable level. Meanwhile, state health officials said they are sampling water supplies across the state for elevated readings. Thus far, the testing has shown no detectable levels.</p> </div> <div id="articleSidebar" style="display: block;"> <div id="sidebarHeader"> <span>Radiation fears - March 28, 2011:</span></div> <div id="sidebarList"> <ul><li><a on="" href="http://www.blogger.com/httpSenior%20Air%20Quality%20Instrument%20Specialist%20Albert%20Dietrich%20inspects%20South%20Coast%20Air%20Quality%20Management%20District%27s%20Radnet%20sampler,%20which%20is%20monitoring%20the%20level%20of%20radioactive%20particles,%20in%20Anaheim,%20California%20March%2017,%202011.%20%20Credit:%20Reuters/Lucy%20Nicholson%20%20BOSTON%20%7C%20Mon%20Mar%2028,%202011%204:43am%20EDT%20%20BOSTON%20%28Reuters%29%20-%20Trace%20amounts%20of%20radioactive%20iodine%20linked%20to%20Japan%27s%20crippled%20nuclear%20power%20station%20have%20turned%20up%20in%20rainwater%20samples%20as%20far%20away%20as%20Massachusetts%20during%20the%20past%20week,%20state%20officials%20said%20on%20Sunday.%20%20The%20low%20level%20of%20radioiodine-131%20detected%20in%20precipitation%20at%20a%20sample%20location%20in%20Massachusetts%20is%20comparable%20to%20findings%20in%20California,%20Washington%20state%20and%20Pennsylvania%20and%20poses%20no%20threat%20to%20drinking%20supplies,%20public%20health%20officials%20said.%20%20Air%20samples%20from%20the%20same%20location%20in%20Massachusetts%20have%20shown%20no%20detectable%20radiation.%20%20The%20samples%20are%20being%20collected%20from%20more%20than%20100%20sites%20around%20the%20country%20that%20are%20part%20of%20the%20U.S.%20Environmental%20Protection%20Agency%27s%20Radiation%20Network%20monitoring%20system.%20%20" supply="" is="" unaffected="" this="" slight="" elevation="" said="" massachusetts="" public="" health="" commissioner="" john="" will="" carefully="" monitor="" drinking="" water="" as="" we="" exercise="" an="" abundance="" he="" concentrations="" 131="" would="" likely="" become="" undetectable="" relative="" short="" according="" a="" statement="" issued="" trace="" amounts="" radiation="" believed="" originated="" from="" damaged="" fukushima="" daiichi="" reactors="" the="" aftermath="" of="" japan="" s="" devastating="" 0="" earthquake="" march="" 11="" have="" also="" been="" detected="" air="" samples="" in="" several="" western="" but="" at="" levels="" so="" small="" they="" posed="" no="" risk="" to="" human="" reporting="" ros="" editing="" by="" steve="" gorman="" and="" todd="" com="" news="" international="" asia_pacific="" view="" 20110328radiation_in_seawater_may_be_spreading_in_japan="">+ Radiation in seawater may be spreading in Japan</a></li><li><a href="http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/asia_pacific/view.bg?articleid=1326575">+ Japanese nuke utility apologizes again and again</a></li><li><a href="http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view.bg?articleid=1326585">+ Carolinas utilities report radiation from Japan</a></li><li><a href="http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1326523">+ Fund has Heart in right place</a></li></ul> </div> </div> <div id="articleTagline" style="display: block;">ojohnson@bostonherald.com<br /></div><br /><p><object id="flashObj" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0" height="412" width="486"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=862001757001&playerID=84359688001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAE6Rs9lk~,SN2uQ1cpwugime4djplD8tTayQcrFkg9&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true"><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com"><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="videoId=862001757001&playerID=84359688001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAE6Rs9lk~,SN2uQ1cpwugime4djplD8tTayQcrFkg9&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" swliveconnect="true" allowscriptaccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" height="412" width="486"></embed></object></p><p><br /></p><p><a id="logoLink" href="http://www.reuters.com/"><img src="http://www.reuters.com/resources_v2/images/logo.gif" alt="Reuters" border="0" /></a></p><h1><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/28/uk-nuclear-japan-massachusetts-idUSLNE72R01I20110328">Low-level radiation found in Massachusetts rainwater</a></h1><p><img src="http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20110328&t=2&i=373168262&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2011-03-28T084312Z_01_ALNE72R0O8T00_RTROPTP_0_NUCLEAR-USA-WESTCOAST" alt="Senior Air Quality Instrument Specialist Albert Dietrich inspects South Coast Air Quality Management District's Radnet sampler, which is monitoring the level of radioactive particles, in Anaheim, California March 17, 2011. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson" border="0" /></p><p> </p><div style="display: none;" class="rolloverCaption" id="captionContent"> <div class="rolloverBg"> <div class="captionText"> <p>Senior Air Quality Instrument Specialist Albert Dietrich inspects South Coast Air Quality Management District's Radnet sampler, which is monitoring the level of radioactive particles, in Anaheim, California March 17, 2011. </p> <p class="credit">Credit: Reuters/Lucy Nicholson</p> </div> </div> </div> <span id="articleText"> <span id="midArticle_start"></span> <div id="articleInfo"> <p> <span class="location">BOSTON</span> | <span class="timestamp">Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:43am EDT</span> </p> </div> <span class="focusParagraph"><p><span class="articleLocation">BOSTON</span> (Reuters) - Trace amounts of radioactive iodine linked to <a href="http://www.reuters.com/places/japan" title="Full coverage of Japan">Japan</a>'s crippled nuclear power station have turned up in rainwater samples as far away as Massachusetts during the past week, state officials said on Sunday.</p> </span><span id="midArticle_0"></span><p>The low level of radioiodine-131 detected in precipitation at a sample location in Massachusetts is comparable to findings in California, Washington state and Pennsylvania and poses no threat to drinking supplies, public health officials said.</p><span id="midArticle_1"></span><p>Air samples from the same location in Massachusetts have shown no detectable radiation.</p><span id="midArticle_2"></span><p>The samples are being collected from more than 100 sites around the country that are part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Radiation Network monitoring system.</p><span id="midArticle_3"></span><p>"The drinking water supply in Massachusetts is unaffected by this short-term, slight elevation in radiation," said Massachusetts Public Health Commissioner John Auerbach.</p><span id="midArticle_4"></span><p>"We will carefully monitor the drinking water as we exercise an abundance of caution," he said.</p><span id="midArticle_5"></span><p>At concentrations found, the radioiodine-131 would likely become undetectable in a "relative short time," according to a statement issued by agency.</p><span id="midArticle_6"></span><p>Trace amounts of radiation believed to have originated from damaged Fukushima Daiichi reactors in the aftermath of Japan's devastating 9.0 earthquake on March 11 have also been detected in air samples in several western U.S. states, but at levels so small they posed no risk to human health. (Reporting by <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=ros.krasny&">Ros Krasny</a>; Editing by <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=stevegorman&">Steve Gorman</a> and <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=todd.eastham&">Todd Eastham</a>)</p></span>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-32909441390448373872011-03-19T17:52:00.002-04:002011-03-19T17:56:49.264-04:00The Other Tsunami -- worldwide economic pain<a href="http://www.opednews.com/"><img src="http://www.opednews.com/images/oenearthlogo.gif" height="189" width="192" border="0" /></a><div class="descriptionwrapper"> <p class="description"><span> </span></p> </div> <div class="tabs-outer"> <div class="tabs-cap-top cap-top"> </div> <div class="fauxborder-left tabs-fauxborder-left"> <div class="region-inner tabs-inner"> </div> </div> <div class="tabs-cap-bottom cap-bottom"> </div> </div> <div class="main-cap-top cap-top"> </div> <div class="fauxcolumn-outer fauxcolumn-center-outer"> <div class="cap-top"> </div> <div class="fauxborder-left"> <div class="fauxcolumn-inner"> </div> </div> <div class="cap-bottom"> </div> </div> <div class="fauxcolumn-outer fauxcolumn-left-outer"> <div class="cap-top"> </div> <div class="fauxborder-left"> <div class="fauxcolumn-inner"> </div> </div> <div class="cap-bottom"> </div> </div> <div class="fauxcolumn-outer fauxcolumn-right-outer"> <div class="cap-top"> </div> <div class="fauxborder-left"> <div class="fauxcolumn-inner"> </div> </div> <div class="cap-bottom"> </div> </div> <h2 class="date-header"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span>Saturday, March 19, 2011</span></span></h2> <a name="2743194072569609466"></a> <h3 class="post-title entry-title"> <span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://thewaragainstthepoor.blogspot.com/2011/03/other-tsunami-worldwide-economic-pain.html">The Other Tsunami -- Worldwide Economic Pain</a></span> </h3> <div class="post-header"> </div> <div class="post-body entry-content"> <a style="font-weight: bold;"><i><span class="wwscontent">By John Little </span></i></a><i style="font-weight: bold;"><a class="wwscontent" href="http://www.opednews.com/author/author20532.html">(about the author)</a></i><br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/fukushimapowerplant3_explosion_0-20532-20110319-53.jpg" height="330" width="432" border="0" /><span class="wwscontentsmaller"><br />japanese nuclear reactor by <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/Images/FukushimaPowerPlant3_Explosion_031411_AfterSatellite.jpg" target="_blank">bradblog</a></span><br /></div> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The world changed dramatically on March 11, 2011. One of the biggest tremors to rock the Earth over the past 200 years has brought the third largest economy on the planet to its knees. Mother Nature's one-two punch has demonstrated once again that humans may be at the top of the food chain, but they are only the bridesmaid to the planet. Ol' Mom Nature has decided to put us runts in our place.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Japan not only suffered one of the worst earthquakes in recorded history, but they also suffered one of the worst tsunami disasters as well. And now we are learning that the hallowed sanctity of nuclear reactors has become not only mortal, but deadly. Where the calamity of the Chernobyl held sway anon as the epitome of nuclear disasters, Japan undoubtedly will muster a challenge and quite likely, take over that unfortunate title.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">But we are just at the beginning of the next level of tsunamic pain in this tragedy. According to reuters as of 9:00 am GMT on Friday, March 18, 2011, "Toyota Motor Co has halted operations at its 12 main assembly plants in Japan. Honda Motor Co is extending the production halt in Japan to Wednesday (March 23) from March 20. Nissan Motor Co said output has been stopped at three of its four car assembly factories in Japan. Mazda Motor Corp said it plans to suspend production at two plants in southwestern Japan until Sunday (March 20), but has not yet decided how to proceed after that." Fuji Heavy Industries Co. have shut down all their Northern Subaru-related parts plants,. Sony can barely open one plant. Toshiba, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic and Renesas have closed manufacturing <a title="plants" href="http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL3E7EG1CK20110318" target="_blank">plants</a>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">These are not two-bit players on the global stage. These are powerhouses.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">And already, Hawaii is suffering from the first tsunami. According to acanadianbusiness.com headline recently, "Financially hobbled Hawaii bracing for downturn of Japanese travellers after deadly earthquake." Japan has integrated itself into the fabric of the world economy quite nicely. In fact, it was only outdone by the US until recently when <a title="china" href="http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/headline_news/article.jsp?content=b6283326" target="_blank">China</a> muscled through. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Japan's industry has been devastated by these events, there's no denying it. Look at the stock market indices around the world since the quake for the ripple effect of that one. But the effect is much more than the simple loss of personal monetary value, though property and personal wealth is indeed tragic. We're talking about major sections of world industries.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">According to Wikipedia:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Sony</b> is the world's fifth largest media conglomerate with US$77.20 billion (FY2010)</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Toshiba</b>-made Semiconductors are among the Worldwide Top 20 Semiconductor Sales Leaders. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Toyota</b> is the world's largest automobile manufacturer by sales and production. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Honda has been the world's largest motorcycle manufacturer since 1959, as well as the world's largest manufacturer of internal combustion engines measured by volume, producing more than 14 million internal combustion engines each year. Honda surpassed <b>Nissan</b> in 2001 to become the second-largest Japanese automobile manufacturer.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Nikon</b>'s products include cameras, binoculars, microscopes, measurement instruments, and the steppers used in the photolithography steps of semiconductor fabrication, of which it is the world's second largest manufacturer.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Panasonic</b>, since its founding in 1918, has grown to become the largest Japanese electronics producer.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The companies of Japan have to regroup and rethink their global strategy in light of this devastating blow that Mother Nature has delivered unto their doorstep. Their ability to mass produce on a global level has been destroyed. It will be decades before the Japanese economy will fully recover, if it ever gets a second chance.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The secondary effects of this economic tsunami will be the limited worldwide supply of automobiles, electronics parts, motorcycles, and a vast array of high-tech advanced machinery that will now never see the light of day. The world paradigm of which Japan was such an integral part, will now have to be redefined in unknown ways by those who have yet to step forward.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">If the banksters of the modern industrial countries wanted to scare the world into submission, Mother Nature has just upped the ante. "I'll see your phony fiat currency and raise you several nuclear power plants and the third largest economy on the planet. Uh, your move, human."</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">We will now see what happens when some of the largest companies in the world are suddenly and dramatically shut down and what happens to the rest of us. The banksters still have another trick up their sleeves to humble those who haven't yet been turned homeless by their previous antics. And Mother Nature is standing by to make sure that HER rules are respected, regardless of what the puny animated form known as humans might do in the interim.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Somehow I think 4.5 billion years of evolution trumps 500 years of anticipation.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><div class="adsplat"> </div> <p style="clear: both;"> </p> <div class="wwscontent"> 54 year old Californian male - I've lived in four different countries, USA, Switzerland, Mexico, Venezuela - speak three languages fluently, English, French, Spanish - part-time journalist for Empower-Sport Magazine. I also write four newsletters. </div> <p class="wwscontentsmaller"><i>The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author<br />and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.</i></p>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685169521586026827.post-17853679498645441542011-03-19T15:55:00.002-04:002011-03-19T15:58:33.370-04:00Lifting the Veil of Nuclear Catastrophe and Cover-up<a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/"><img style="width: 680px; height: 204px;" src="http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/themes/dissident/images/header.jpg" alt="Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice" /></a><br /><br /><br /><h1 class="title"><a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/nuclear-apocalypse-in-japan/#more-30828">Nuclear Apocalypse in Japan</a></h1> <p style="font-weight: bold;" class="subhead"><a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/nuclear-apocalypse-in-japan/#more-30828"><span style="font-size:130%;">Lifting the Veil of Nuclear Catastrophe and Cover-up: A Doomsday Scenario Unfolds With Characteristic Foolishness</span></a></p> <p class="byline">by Keith Harmon Snow / March 19th, 2011</p> <blockquote><p>Only after the last tree has been cut down… the last river has been poisoned… the last fish caught, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.</p> <p>– Chief Seattle</p></blockquote> <blockquote><p>For there shall arise false mesiahs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it <i>were</i> possible, they shall deceive the very elect.</p> <p>– Mathew 24</p></blockquote> <p>As the sun set over quake-stricken Japan on Thursday 17 March 2011, we learned that four of six Fukushima nuclear reactor sites are irradiating the earth, that the <a href="http://newstabulous.com/nuclear-reactor-no-4-fukushima-daiichi-fire-reignited/5727/">fire is burning out of control</a> at Reactor No. 4′s pool of spent nuclear fuel, that there are six spent fuel pools at risk all told, and that the sites are too hot to deal with. On March 16 <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/66f865a6-4f68-11e0-8632-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GkIm1cEf">Plumes of White Vapor began pouring</a><br /> from crippled Reactor No. 3 where the spent fuel pool may already be lost. Over the previous days we were told: nothing to worry about. Earthquakes and after shocks, tidal wave, explosions, chemical pollution, the pox of plutonium, contradicting information too obvious to ignore, racism, greed — add these to the original <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Apocalypse">Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse</a>: Conquest, War, Famine and Death. The situation is apocalyptic and getting worse. This is one of the most serious challenges humanity has ever faced.</p> <p>The U.S. nuke industry is blaming Japanese experts, distancing itself from the monster it created. Instead of sending nuclear or health experts to assistance the Japanese people in their time of desperate need, US President Barack Obama first sent teams of intelligence agents and FEMA trained military grunts with special security clearances. The Pentagon floated a naval strike force led by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/ronald_wilson_reagan/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Ronald Wilson Reagan." class="meta-per">Ronald Reagan</a> off the coast of Japan: advertised as a ‘humanitarian’ operation, the strike force was repositioned after it was partially irradiated. Can we trust officials and the corporate news media to tell us what is happening in an honest, timely, transparent manner? Are there precedents to the nuclear crisis in Japan? What is the U.S. defense establishment really concerned with here?</p> <p>Intentional efforts to downplay or dismiss this catastrophe reveal the immaturity of western civilization and some of our most acute human pathologies, including our worship of technology and our psychopathology of denial. The widespread distortion and cover-ups to protect private profits, national and corporate interests, and to fool the people, are unacceptable. Here are some of the deeper whats and whys and hows — some technical issues and the kinds of questions people need to ask — about the nuclear apocalypse unfolding on planet earth. Prayers are not enough. It’s time to call for the resignation of President Barack Obama, to put politics aside, to take personal action to halt nuclear expansion and defend ourselves from our industrial juggernaut.</p> <p>I know something about technology, and science: I have Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Electrical Engineering — with honors — from one of America’s top Engineering schools. Before 1990 I worked in classified programs for General Electric — the maker of the nuclear reactors now irradiating Japan. I worked at GE Aerospace Electronics Laboratories: low-level classified government programs in communications, radars and missile guidance systems for Ronald Reagan’s infamous Star Wars (Strategic Defence Initiative) programs. </p> <p>From 1990 to 1993 I taught English at Japan’s big <i>Soga Shosa</i> (trading houses) like Mitsubishi and Sumitomo Corporations, and meanwhile I biked the rivers, swam the beaches, hiked the mountains and studied the culture of Japan. Japanese corporations were paving the shorelines and rivers with concrete, sinking giant tetrapods off shore. One corporation even developed these giant rubber bladders — the size of football-fields — sunk offshore, which could be pumped full of seawater to provide a giant barrier against tsunami’s. Of course, the profit margins for these corporations supplying these bags were huge, but I wonder what happened to the technology, if these were ever deployed, and where. For the first 34 years of my life I was in favor of nuclear power. This changed when I saw young people in the United States put their bodies on the line to protest the Watts Bar Nuclear Power Station operations in Tennessee (1994). The commitment and integrity of these young people made me rethink my nuclear bias.</p> <p>I began my career as a journalist by looking deeply into the rabbit-hole of nuclear power from 1993 to 2000. I visited the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Public Document Rooms — which have since been closed in many places — where I read thousands of microfilms and scanned microfiche records and excavated document after document in search of truth. I visited nuke plants in New England and industry conferences. I interviewed officials and I attended the most boring and sometimes secretive public meetings with the most stifling and unimaginative bureaucrats and with engineers (like me) so dry they squeaked. And then I reported on regulatory corruption, technical failures, undemocratic initiatives to betray the public trust, and the accumulating radiation and nuclear poisons. </p> <p>Humanity now faces a deadly serious challenge coming out of Japan — the epicenter of radiation. Intentional efforts to downplay or dismiss this catastrophe reveal the immaturity of western civilization and some of our most acute human pathologies, including our worship of technology and our psychopathology of denial. The widespread distortion and cover-ups to protect private profits, national and corporate interests, and to fool the people, are unacceptable. Here are some of the deeper whats and whys and hows — some technical issues and the kinds of questions people need to ask — about the nuclear apocalypse unfolding on planet earth.</p> <p><strong>The Arrogance of Humanism</strong></p> <p>“I repeat, there was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity from the damaged Japanese reactors,” wrote Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Dr. Joseph Oehmen on March 13. “By ‘significant’ I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on — say — a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.” </p><div style="overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;"> </div> <p>So begins a recent U.S. business sector article titled “<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-reactors-pose-no-risk-2011-3#ixzz1Ge3W4JsZ">You Can Stop Worrying About A Radiation Disaster in Japan — Here’s Why</a>,” published four days after the earthquake struck in Japan. It has already proved false. Properly understood for what it is — a childish, myopic, arrogant attempt to belittle the truth and influence public opinion — the article provides an apt example of the rampant industry disinformation that is sweeping aside rational and compassionate and precautionary assessments with irrational jingoism, simplistic emotional appeals, and wrong-headed thinking. The post went viral and was republished widely.</p> <p>How do we define apocalypse? EARTHQUAKE + TSUNAMI + AGED NUKE PLANT + LOSS-OF-COOLANT ACCIDENT + PLUTONIUM + FIRES + DISINFORMATION + GREED + DENIAL + FEAR + POLITICS = APOCALYPSE. </p> <p>How many nuke plants are involved? We don’t really know. Not that we have not been told, we have. There are six reactors at the Fukushima site, one reactor at the Tokai nuclear facility and three reactors at the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtYq70-71RI&feature=player_embedded">stricken Onagawa nuclear complex</a>. There are toxic chemical spills, petroleum refinery fires, gas fires, dangerous debris and human pathogens from the thousands of dead people and animals. The place is an apocalyptic nightmare, to be sure, but from the beginning the most important facts regarding the status of the nuclear pants and their components, their functioning or failing systems, the operability of the control rooms or integrity of the reactor containment structures, were being denied to the public. Now we are seeing some damage control by the U.S., the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the media. </p> <p>It is simultaneously as though we are believed to be incapable of even the most rudimentary understanding of what is going on, while also being denied the truth in keeping with more than sixty years of secrecy and denial by the cult of the atom and its incestuous cult of intelligence.</p> <div align="center"> </div> <div align="center"><img alt="" src="http://spectrum.ieee.org/image/1808470" height="345" width="464" /> </div> <p>The question is: what can we believe to be true? Look at the photos of the explosion. Are we stupid enough to believe that no radiation has been released from this reactor’s primary or secondary containment systems? On Wednesday March 16 we were finally told that Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) had ordered its remaining staff to evacuate areas of the Fukushima plant after radiation levels spiked and plumes of white vapour “<i><b>were seen pouring from </b><b>what authorities identified as</b></i> [emphasis added] the station’s No. 3 reactor.”</p> <p>The language about white vapors “seen pouring from what authorities identified as the stations No. 3 reactor” does not inspire confidence that ‘authorities’ had any clue about the status of things. Indeed, they are not in the control room, obviously, or anywhere near it, or anywhere near ‘the station’s No. 3 reactor’ because they are standing back trying to identify what they are seeing, to see what is going on, and where it is going on. The reactor’s are too hot: this is radiation: this is the nightmare scenario we were told could not happen. Radiation is contaminating air, soil, ocean, people.</p> <p>The “You Can Stop Worrying” “article” first appeared as a reader’s comment posted following the <i>Business Insider</i> journal story <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-death-toll-2011-3#comment-4d7d1eb4cadcbb9e4c0c0000">Japan Death Toll Climbs Astronomically As Nuclear Crises Intensifies</a>, which was itself a republished and retitled <i>New York Times</i> feature of Monday March 13. At first glance, the two <i>Business Insider</i> stories couldn’t be further apart in their general themes: “You Can Stop Worrying,” which translates to, calm down, don’t get hysterical, pay no attention to those anti-nuclear fanatics who think that even microwave ovens will kill you, versus the “Death Toll Climbs Astronomically” feature, which for all practical purposes we can translate to “Holy shit, brother! Run for your life! Duck and Cover!”</p> <p>However, both stories serve as part of the unraveling global media disinformation campaign about the ongoing nuclear catastrophe in Japan. The primary imperatives of this campaign are economic. In other words, most of the reportage out there about what is happening in Japan — so far — has been anchored in western epistemological frameworks based in money, greed, private profits and loss. The <i>loss</i> should not be interpreted to mean that people (mostly we are talking about people NOT affected by the apocalypse in Japan) care about who lives or dies, but rather that their primary concerns are their financial balance sheets, their corporate images, their personal retirement portfolios, and the fall of the Nikkei Index and Dow Jones trading they drool over. </p> <p>Sadly, the attitudes of many “news” writers (and their readers), government officials, energy consultants, corporate executives, nuclear experts and technicians, western humanitarian relief professionals (such as World Vision careerists), or of environmentalists for nuclear power – like scientist James Lovelock — and many other people who, for one reason or another, have had something to say about the nukes crisis in Japan, or about how Japan’s nuclear misfortune can never become a Chernobyl, or how Three Mile Island didn’t kill anyone, or why the events in Japan, no matter how alarming, should not be allowed to interrupt the “nuclear renaissance” touted by U.S. President Barrack Obama, or something about the beauty of some nuke somewhere else, are all based in self-interest, not the altruistic and compassionate concerns of all humanity, of environmental stewardship or the preservation of all life on earth, but in a self-righteous, arrogant and ignorant <i>selfishness</i> of the kind that author David Ehrenfeld elaborated in his monumental work, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=AVYlwtPz2REC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+arrogance+of+humanism&source=bl&ots=_SMxwThOs2&sig=v0gOkqFszzh6krkbN-2B9_fkzdQ&hl=en&ei=YwyATdqtGsjUgAeRz5ChCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false"><em>The Arrogance of Humanism</em></a>.</p> <p>Japanese are technical geniuses. The rail system and subways were precise: you could set your watch by them. In 2003, their advanced magnetic levitation <i>Shinkansen</i> bullet trains performed at 581 kilometers per hour (361 mph). If the Japanese can’t do, no one can. Yet today Japan is on fire — the epicenter of deadly radiation now emanating out of that sizable island. This is not about Japan, folks, or national borders: its about all of us, everywhere.</p> <p><b>Spent Fuel Pool Fools</b></p> <p>While the absence of cooling water facilitated the nuclear crises in Japan, most likely some major reactor components (proven unsafe) also failed under the seismic stresses of the 9.0 quake. Key components likely cracked or shattered. The tsunami and huge aftershocks advanced the chaos. These factors were complicated by the loss of offsite electrical power (an electrical BLACKOUT), the failure of emergency diesel generators, and the subsequent loss-of-coolant (water).</p> <p>Embrittlement of nickel-based superalloys that comprise reactor internals was flagged as a major safety issue as early as the 1960s, yet such problems were bureaucratically dismissed, covered over, buried in paperwork and regulatory studies produced by the NRC (“NUREG” documents), and ignored. Intergranular stress corrosion cracking of BWR core shrouds (the core shroud is next to fuel rods deep inside) is another major safety issue in GE designed BWRs built by Hitachi at Fukushima, and these plague every BWR reactor in the U.S.</p> <p>We don’t know, however, and for many days we were offered the standard industry refrain: no need to worry, no threat to public health and safety. BWR core shroud cracking (NUREG-1544), reactor pressure vessel cracking (NUREG-1511), embrittled components and aging (NUREG/CR-5939), cooling system failures (NUREG/CR-6087), reactor containment isolation systems failures (NUREG/CR-6339) — all thoroughly documented. </p> <p>The redundancy and ever-touted ‘defense-in-depth’ systems failed at Fukushima. All over the U.S. such systems have been routinely disabled to minimize electricity-generating outages, increase output power and maximize corporate profits. There are as many possibilities of failures outside what we have been spoon-fed — the official sequence of events — as there are dead people.</p> <p><a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/tumblr_li4uafXUTu1qbnrqd.jpg"><img src="http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/tumblr_li4uafXUTu1qbnrqd.jpg" alt="" title="tumblr_li4uafXUTu1qbnrqd" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-30858" height="543" width="500" /></a></p> <p>Amongst the most troubling and most deeply underplayed questions of the entire crisis concern the Fukushima <a href="http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/3892719255/spent-fuel-pools-at-fukushima">Spent Fuel Pools</a>. These basin are packed with tons of irradiated fuel rods that need to be cooled. One of the major postulated accident scenarios involves a Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) to the reactor core, but a LOCA event can also occur with a spent fuel pool. It has. Fires and explosions in Japan. The Spent Fuel Pools at the six Fukushima reactors are NOT inside primary containment. They are exposed. Burning. About to burn.</p> <p>Reactors No. 4, 5, and 6 at Fukushima were shutdown when the earthquake struck. After the water drained and the spent fuel became exposed, the pool at reactor No. 4 caught fire, and continues to burn, as of Thursday March 17, releasing massive amounts of radiation into the environment. The status of the other six spent fuel pools at Fukushima is unknown. A courageous U.S. journalist Rachel Maddow explored the spent fuel pool issue with a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjdgHqY2K-4">former government official</a>. The most important, critical point made by Princeton professor Frank Von Hippel occurs at minute 14:19 — where Rachel Maddow talks over him: these are LONG-LIFE RADIONUCLIDES being emitted from the spent fuel pool(s). Isotopes of cesium: Cs-137 has a half-life of 30 years and will be around and hot for decades. </p> <p>How much disaster are we talking about? The atomic bomb that exploded at Hiroshima created about 2000 curies of radioactivity. The spent fuel pools at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant (U.S.) are said to hold about 75 million curies. There are six spent fuel pools at Fukushima, but the numbers of tons of fuel rods in each have not been made public. </p> <p>The Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) did the math: If Fukushima’s Reactor No. 4 operated for 35 years and produced 30 tons of irradiated fuel per year and each ton is equivalent to 24 times the amount of cesium-137 produced by the Hiroshima bomb, then each fuel pool could contain on the order of 24,000 times the amount of cesium-137 produced by the Hiroshima bomb, if all the produced irradiated fuel remains in the fuel pool.</p> <p>Nuclear stupidity No. 1: the Fukushima reactor buildings are square (not circular) and had to absorb the force of the tsunami wave straight on. Stupidity No. 2: six reactors clustered too close together. Stupidity No. 3: no shoreline protection against a tsunami. Stupidity No. 4: reactors sited on earthquake faults. Stupidity No. 5: assumptions and calculations proving that the reactor, prior to its construction, could withstand anything that nature threw at it. Stupidity No. 6: it didn’t begin in Japan: the industry, with all its corruptions, false assumptions and technological hubris, was born in secrecy in the United States of America. </p> <p>Stupidity No. 125: spent fuel pools are packed too tightly, as is well-established by industry documents, for economic reasons, discarding safety concerns. Stupidity No. 458: the <a href="http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/3892719255/spent-fuel-pools-at-fukushima">Spent Fuel Pools</a> at Fukushima are suspended up high inside the reactor buildings secondary containment — the same buildings whose roofs are blowing off! Are we to believe that the massive explosions that were captured on film, and others that were not, did not damage these elevated time bombs? </p> <p>How many stupidities do we need to admit before we admit that it can happen in the United States as certainly as it can happen anywhere else? Imagine those courageous Japanese nuclear workers at Fukushima — sacrificing their lives! — trying to save their families, Japan and the rest of us from our unprecedented stupidity! </p> <p>During World War II we called them <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze"><em>kamikaze</em></a>: soldiers and pilots throwing away their own lives for the sake of their nation. Well, these heroic men and women get my respect now.</p> <p>There is an <i>ocean</i> adjacent to the Fukushima complex, and yet the reactors and fuel pools cannot be kept cool. Impossible. The huge heat sink necessary to cool the melting fuel is not available. This is not about earthquakes and tsunamis — it is about loss of off-site power, backup generators and emergency systems that occur in a blackout. Do electrical outages and blackouts occur anywhere else? Blizzards? Tornadoes? Hurricanes? The world is seeing more and more extreme and unpredictable climate. Claims that a serious nuclear ‘accident’ cannot happen in the U.S., Europe or Canada are false, and nuclear industry knows it. </p> <p><b>A Long History of Deception</b></p> <p>Like the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Japanese officials have a long history of covering up ugly nuclear realities. In a recent <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/175295">WikiLeaks diplomatic cable</a>, politician Taro Kono, a high-profile member of Japan’s lower house, told U.S. diplomats that the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (MITI) — the Japanese government department responsible for nuclear energy — has been “covering up nuclear accidents and obscuring the true costs and problems associated with the nuclear industry.” In 2002 “the chairman and four executives of TEPCO, the company that owns the stricken Fukushima plant, resigned after reports that safety records were falsified.” </p> <p>Such singular but remarkable events follow a pattern of wholesale U.S. cover-ups that define the industry as secretive and criminal, and they involve shoddy equipment, human incompetence, unsafe designs, inadequate safety measures, and economic decisions that have occurred since the very beginning of Japan’s nuclear power era — which itself was born out of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with U.S.-made weapons of mass destruction.</p> <p>In the 1960′s, TEPCO planned to build a reactor outside Kashiwazaki city: nuclear officials told the local community, for example, that radioactivity from the plant would increase rice cultivation and the coloring of the carp (a delicacy): seven reactors were eventually built there. In June 1973, radioactive waste water leaked from a storage tank at Fukushima’s reactor No. 1. In July 1974, Kansai Electric asked Westinghouse Corporation to replace the steam generator of one of Kansai’s two Mihama reactors after Mihama I experienced four major shutdowns in less than four years. </p> <p>In September 1974, following the emergency shutdown of 21 of the then 55 U.S. reactors due to radioactive leaks at the Illinois Dresden Reactor No. 1, Japanese officials inspected their six Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs), similar to the Dresden BWR, and they found similar defects at Fukushima I and Hamaoka. Ditto, 1975: emergency shutdown’s in the U.S. prompted inspections that discovered Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) problems at the Fukushima I and Tsuruga BWR reactors. Japan’s Mihama reactors were plagued with radioactive ‘leaks’ and faulty equipment that prompted Kansai officials to demand a refund from U.S. contractor Westinghouse Corporation. The Mihama Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) have been scrammed and shutdown and leaked. The accident at the Mihama Reactor No. 3 on 9 August 2004 was previously considered Japan’s worst nuclear accident: there was no tsunami, and no earthquake.</p> <p>Japan’s fleet of white elephant nukes only grew more problematic. From April to September 1977, six of Japan’s fourteen reactors were shutdown. Japanese corporations joined with Westinghouse and General Electric in the 1980′s to export their destructive technology to other countries, mostly targeting the so-called Third World. Before 1979 there were some 25 reactors under construction or completed in Japan, and until last week there were 55 operating reactors. In 2006, GE and Hitachi Corporation teamed up to create three joint venture nuclear companies to expand nukes in North America.</p> <p>One fact is certain: we have already been massively lied to about a massive and still unfolding nuclear disaster. The radiation releases from some four to six nuclear reactors in collapse are already known to be excessive, described by reputable experts as “worse than Three Mile Island but not as bad as Chernobyl.” It may be worse than Chernobyl yet.</p> <p>Additional radiation has been reported at the Onagawa complex, but this was explained away as wind-blown radioactivity from the Fukushima complex. Meanwhile, in the same reports, officials said that radiation was not leaking from Fukushima, or it was minimal, and there was no cause for alarm. </p> <p>After several days of lies and distortions and official government censorship, reports appeared under the headlines <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/150249/japan_radiation_leaks_feared_as_nuclear_experts_point_to_possible_coverup?akid=6663.33718.k6DzQI&rd=1&t=6">Japan radiation leaks feared as nuclear experts point to possible cover-up</a>. Reports also began citing partial meltdowns of nuclear fuel rods. The threat of meltdown is real, it has been happening to some degree, and it has already occurred far more than we have been told. The physical and thermonuclear states of materials and systems and the spread of radioactivity at Japan’s reactors remains shrouded in disinformation and silence.</p> <p><b>Clean and Green Propaganda</b></p> <p>Of course, technology gurus and corporate executives and financial consultants are hysterical, claiming there were no deaths from Three Mile Island and that deaths at Chernobyl are exaggerated by the mass media. These claims are false. The new book, <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23745">Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment</a> provides irrefutable evidence of massive loss of life. </p> <p>“The book is solidly based — on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports — some 5,000 in al,” says journalist Karl Grossman. “It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.” </p> <p>James Lovelock, author of the renowned <a href="http://www.greenuniversity.net/Ideas_to_Change_the_World/Lovelock.htm">GAIA Hypothesis</a>, is a celebrated <a href="http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseus.htm">environmentalist for nuclear energy</a> peddling nuclear power as a clean, green, renewable energy source of the future. However, Lovelock has a long history working for NASA — the outer-space division of the Pentagon — and is deeply enmeshed in the western epistemological framework. </p> <p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/15/japan-nuclear-explosion-energy-renewables">Commenting on Japan’s nuclear crisis</a>, Lovelock said that people were ‘prejudiced’ against nuclear power unreasonably. “It is very safe,” he said. Chernobyl, for instance, was “an idiotic mess-up that could only have occurred in the Soviet Union”, and according to UN estimates had killed only about 56 people. More people are routinely killed in oil refineries and coal mines, he pointed out.”</p> <p>James Lovelock’s Chernobyl statement should immediately discredit him as a quack: Even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is unwilling to go on record claiming anything less than many, many deaths. Further, Lovelock’s comment about the ‘idiotic mess-up’ by Russians is inherently racist: the Russians were the first to put a satellite (Sputnik) into orbit, for example, and NASA collaborated with the Russian MIR Space Station, which broke all kinds of records. </p> <p>Lovelock suggests that nuclear reactors are our only hope to curtail global climate change, and that this may involve, for example, the ‘suspension of democracy’. However, democracy has been long since suspended for many of the earths people and species — forced to live and die with our burgeoning wastes, consumption and exploitation. Lovelock’s analysis is patently false — contaminated by his own inability to see beyond his privilege and self-interests. </p> <p>Not convinced? Lovelock has also reportedly stated, wrongheadedly: “One of the striking things about places heavily contaminated by radioactive nuclides is the richness of their wildlife. This is true of the land around <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster" title="Chernobyl disaster">Chernobyl</a>, the bomb test sites of the Pacific, and areas near the United States’ <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_River">Savannah River</a> nuclear weapons plant of the Second World War.”</p> <p>Tell this to the mutant babies, weak-spined and deformed children from the Chernobyl killing zones, chronicled in Russian filmmaker Vladimir Kuznetsov’s, “<i>While We Are Still Alive</i>, and to the <a href="http://www.nuclearclaimstribunal.com/biksum.htm">people of Bikini Atoll</a> whose stolen island is officially acknowledged to be highly contaminated. Savannah River is another SUPERFUND site.</p> <p>The nuclear power cycle involves disease, despair and death from the uranium mining to daily operations to the nuclear waste “‘dumping’. Uranium mines in Niger that have built France’s entire nuclear complex are toxic wastelands spreading radiotoxins across north and sub-Saharan Africa. The Tuareg and Toubou nomads have been <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686774,00.html">completely shattered</a></p> <p> by the confiscation, exploitation and irradiation of their lands by the nuclear complex. Native Americans continue to suffer massive epidemics of disease, contamination and confiscation of lands in the <a href="http://americangroundzero.blogspot.com/">Secret Nuclear War at the American Ground Zero</a>: the nuclear complex has compounded the native American genocide begun in 1492. Daily contamination releases into water, soil and air occur at every operating nuclear reactor in the world. There is no ‘disposal’ of deadly nuclear toxins that now exist to perpetuity, and yet wastes are typically dumped on poor communities like Barnwell, South Carolina, or native American lands. </p> <p>Out of sight, out of mind: nuclear poisons are colorless, odorless, and deadly. </p> <p><b>Start Worrying, Here’s Why</b></p> <p>The writing <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-reactors-pose-no-risk-2011-3#ixzz1Ge3W4JsZ">You Can Stop Worrying About A Radiation Disaster in Japan — Here’s Why</a> is packed full of disinformation and technical jargon, masked as scientific expertise, meant to confound, confuse and scientifically <i>impress</i> the un-technical (concerned) reader. The author at first did not identify himself, which is a tactic many people use so that they do not have to take responsibility, or worry about being held accountable. Appended as a sort of disclaimer to the article that morphed out of the comment we find the statement: “<em>Since posting this, we have learned that it was written by Dr. Josef Oehmen, a research scientist at MIT.</em>”</p> <p>In the nuclear arena, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is known for the infamous Nuclear Reactor Safety Study (<a href="http://www.ccnr.org/rasmussen.html">WASH 1400</a>), chaired by MIT nuclear scientist Norman P. Rasmussen (commonly known as<i> The Rasmussen Report</i>), that whitewashed the massive flaws and safety failures of a burgeoning, secretive, incestuous nuclear power industry, even while it exposed them to some degree.</p> <p>According to a <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/nuclear-apocalypse-in-japan/www.nirs.org">Nuclear Information and Resource Service</a> fact sheet on Fukushima, in 1986, Harold Denton, then the NRC’s top safety official, told an industry trade group that the GE “Mark I [BWR] containment, especially being smaller with lower design pressure, in spite of the suppression pool, if you look at the WASH 1400 safety study, you’ll find something like a 90% probability of that containment failing.”</p> <p>Produced at the height of the United States’ anti-nuclear movement in 1974, the Rasmussen Report downplayed the risk of nuclear accidents and polished the image of a technologically diseased industry. The stridently pro-nuclear MIT has spent billions of taxpayers dollars on secretive and highly biased research programs of all things nuclear. MIT is also a known hotbed of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), with a revolving door from MIT to government to the CIA.</p> <p>“I have been reading every news release on the incident since the earthquake,” wrote MIT’s Dr. Josef Oehmen in his initial post of March 12. “There has not been one single report that was accurate and free of errors… By ‘not free of errors’ I do not refer to tendentious anti-nuclear journalism – that is quite normal these days. By ‘not free of errors’ I mean blatant errors regarding physics and natural law, as well as gross misinterpretation of facts, due to an obvious lack of fundamental and basic understanding of the way nuclear reactors are build and operated. I have read a 3 page report on CNN where every single paragraph contained an error.”</p> <p>Turns out Dr. Oehmen’s report had so many errors, and yet was so widely regurgitated, that it was taken over by MIT’s nuclear experts. Dr. Oehmen employs the standard ruse of claiming that the press, which can very easily be shown to as stridently pro-nuclear as MIT itself, is instead plagued by “tendentious anti-nuclear journalism — that is quite normal these days.” He then explains nuclear power (wrongly) arriving at last at his definitive statement that, “I repeat, there was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity from the damaged Japanese reactors.”</p> <p>“The first ‘type’ of radioactive material is the uranium in the fuel rods,” wrote Dr. Oehmen, “plus the intermediate radioactive elements that the uranium splits into, also inside the fuel rod (Cesium and Iodine). There is a second type of radioactive material created, outside the fuel rods. The big main difference up front: Those radioactive materials have a very short half-life, that means that they decay very fast and split into non-radioactive materials. By fast I mean seconds. So if these radioactive materials are released into the environment, yes, radioactivity was released, but no, it is not dangerous, at all. Why? By the time you spelled “R-A-D-I-O-N-U-C-L-I-D-E”, they will be harmless, because they will have split up into non radioactive elements…” </p> <p>It takes about five seconds to spell R-A-D-I-O-N-U-C-L-I-D-E and it takes about the same amount of time to read a chart (below) which shows the actual lifetimes and half-lives of radioisotopes that people need to be concerned about today.</p> <p>Not only does Dr. Oehmen intentionally misinform people about the inherent design flaws and potential failures of nuclear reactors and subsystems, but he knowingly disinforms about the potential for serious health consequences and the radioactive contaminants that are typically released during a nuclear power accident. While millions of people in Japan are suffering the personal psychological terror of a possible nuclear holocaust, the fears and horrors of life and death from a natural disaster, starvation and thirst, and radioactive poisoning. Dr. Joseph Oehmen — safe in Boston Massachusetts — has been been boasting about his blog post — <a href="http://mitnse.com/">equally popular with people who hate it and love it</a> — which spread like a virus on the Internet.</p> <p>During nuclear fission, the uranium from the fuel rods splits into many radioactive fission products that can then escape during a nuclear power ‘event’. These include dangerous <b>Noble Gases</b> (xenon and krypton); <b>Hallogens (</b>including iodines and bromines); <b>Alkali Metals</b> (including cesium 137); <b>Alkaline earths</b> (including barium 133 and strontium 90) and the elements <b>Tellurium </b>and <b>Ruthenium</b>. Some fissionable elements decay rapidly and are inconsequential during releases, but some decay into other, more deadly nuclides. The most dangerous nuclides have half-lives in days (I-131 = 8 days), years (Cs-137 = 30 years) or centuries (Pu-239 = 24,000 years). Half-life is the time it takes for one-half of the material to decay — lest we forget that the other half is still present.</p> <p><b>All of these fissionable products are potentially released and they have varying degrees of half-lives, mobility, migration and toxicity depending on factors like atmospheric conditions, temperature of the reactor core and operating capacity (megawatts) at shutdown, and the presence of coolants. The most dangerous of these are iodine 131 (I-131), cesium 137 (Cs-137), strontium 90 (Sr-90), cobalt 60 (Co-60) and plutonium 239 (Pu-239). All of these negatively affect the human body and all of these have been released in nuclear power ‘accidents’, during venting of radioactive steam or flushing of radioactive water, and other ‘events’. Another deadly isotope which seems to consistently ‘escape’ from nuclear power sites is cobalt 60 (Co-60), half-life 5.2 years. Co-60 accumulates and migrates through steam generator tubes and other secondary coolant processes, in core shrouds and reactor pressure vessels, and many of the other components of nuclear reactors whose histories of failures are thoroughly documented. </b></p> <p><b>Is radiation leaking in Japan? Yes and no. The term ‘leak’ suggests air squeaking out of a balloon. In Japan we have leaks, here and there, but we also have explosions, fires and other phenomena that create massive radioactive emissions. To say ‘leak’ is to downplay what is happening. The balloons in Japan have burst: primary containment has been breached at Reactor No. 3 and at least one spent fuel pool is burning up. With the walls blown out and roof blown off, it seems at least one other spent fuel pool is gone or going. </b></p> <dl><dt><b>Nuclear advocates deride and dismiss public ignorance about radionuclides like, for example, the noble gases. Nuclear advocates frequently state that both xenon and krypton decay and disappear in a matter of seconds or minutes. What they don’t tell us is that these isotopes decay into daughter isotopes that are extremely deadly emitters. Many credible physicians, scientists and other nuclear experts — free of the self-interests of nuclear profits, academic sponsorship or career advancement — have outlined the absence of epidemiological studies of certain radionuclides emitted or flushed at nuclear reactors. Dr. Helen Caldicott has elaborated the detrimental health effects of the noble gases xenon (Xe) and krypton (Kr), and she notes that these have appearance hundreds of miles from reactors believed to have emitted them. </b><p><b> </b></p></dt><dd> <p><b>• <b>Xenon 137</b>, with a half-life of 3.9 minutes, converts almost immediately to the notoriously dangerous cesium 137 with a half-life of thirty years.<br />• <b>Krypton 90</b>, half-life of 33 seconds, decays to rubidium 90, half-life of 2.9 minutes, then to the medically toxic strontium 90, half-life of twenty-eight years.<br />• <b>Xenon 135</b> decays to cesium 135 with an incredibly long half-life of 3 million years.<br />• Large amounts of <b>xenon 133</b> are released at operating reactors, and although it has a relatively short half-life of 5.3 days, it remains radioactive for 106 days.<br />• <b>Krypton 85</b>, which has a half-life of 10.4 years, is a powerful gamma radiation emitter.<br />• <b>Argon 39</b> has a 265-year half-life. </b></p> </dd></dl> <p><b>“Other dangerous noble gases include xenon 141,143 and 144, which decay to cerium 141,143 and 144,” Dr. Helen Caldicott reports in <a href="http://calitreview.com/19"><em>Nuclear Power is Not the Answer</em></a>. “According to the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP Report No. 60) these three cerium isotopes,which are beta emitters,are abundant products of nuclear fission reactions and have moderately long half-lives. They bio-concentrate in the food chain, and they irradiate the lung, liver, skeleton, and gastrointestinal tract, where they act as potent carcinogens.” </b></p> <p><b>On March 14, <a href="http://www.psr.org/news-events/news-archive/japans-nuclear-reactor-crisis-worsens.html">Physicians for Social Responsibility</a> (PSR) outlined the risks from Japan. Iodine 131 migrates in air and is known for causing thyroid cancers, especially in children. Strontium 90 causes different cancers. Cesium 137 concentrates in bone and causes leukemia. Microscopic particles of plutonium 239 cause lung cancer if inhaled and Pu-239 kills instantly in any sizable dose. Areas contaminated by plutonium will have to be abandoned — as happened at Chernobyl. </b></p> <p><b>“Since 2010, Fukushima Daiichi Unit-3 reactor had been using mixed-oxide fuel (also called plutonium fuel or MOX),” PSR reported, in <a href="http://www.psr.org/news-events/news-archive/japans-nuclear-reactor-crisis-worsens.html">Japan’s Nuclear Crises Worsens</a>, “which is even more dangerous to the public than a severe accident with uranium fuel. Plutonium fuel contains plutonium and other very toxic actinides that would increase the number of resulting cancers. Current reports say that this fuel has been exposed to air.”</b></p> <p><b>“Pressure in at least two of the reactors have reported to be well above normal levels,” continued PSR, “and the reactor operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company, released some of the pressure by venting radioactive vapor from the containment structure. In addition, the radionuclide cesium has been reportedly found outside the reactor, which indicates that there has been fuel damage.”</b></p> <p><b>The proponents of nuclear power have used all kinds of disinformation and tactics to protect the industry — compelling the nuclear complex to arm guards to ‘protect’ these secrets and to ‘protect’ civilian reactors. It is not only ‘terrorists’ that the nuclear establishment seeks to protect us from: the armed guards and classified documents are to prevent the public from learning the truth about the destruction of documents, the disappearing of evidence, the falsification of reports and records, the calculated fudging of risk and safety assessments. There have been countless exposes, such as Daniel Ford’s 1982 book <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cult_of_the_Atom"><em>The Cult of the Atom: The Secret Papers of the Atomic Energy Commission</em></a>.</b></p> <p><b><b>False Statements and Premature Assurances</b></b></p> <p><b>The original <i>New York Times</i> story, “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14japan.html?_r=2&hp">Death Toll Estimate in Japan Soars as Relief Efforts Intensify</a>” (retitled by <i>Business Insider</i>, commented on by Dr. Joseph Oehmen), follows the patterns of the media and government begun on DAY ONE, wherein authorities offered false assurances, premature evaluations, and outright lies. These officials — and the media that quoted them — repeatedly reiterated that there was no cause to worry. At first, no radiation was released, we were told, over and over, even though, admittedly, there were some slight reactor problems here and there. Then there were explosions, but still the radiation levels were normal, or, well, maybe there was a puff of steam, which we were told was a hydrogen blast, but radiation monitors showed nothing, and there was no threat to the public health or safety. </b></p> <p><b>The Japanese Government soon dispatched health and rescue teams dressed in white moon suits and breathing through respirators and hauling around geiger counters to measure radiation levels in frightened children, but still, no radiation was released, they chanted, no cause for alarm, the media reported. A handful of citizens reported to the hospital showing signs of radiation poising, but still there were ‘no serious radiation concerns’, officials were everywhere quoted, or else what little radiation was released was compared to what you might get riding on a school bus in the sunshine. While evacuating thousands of people in the 20 kilometer zone (12 miles) around Fukushima, on the one hand, the government continued to tell people that the public was not at risk, on the other, and the media continued to report the lie, as they have always done, and still do, with radiation emergencies in the United States.</b></p> <p><b>For example, on November 23, 2009, a radioactive contamination at Three Mile Island led to a Reuters news report titled <a href="http://thebsreport.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/federal-officials-radiation-leak-at-three-mile-island-no-threat-to-public-safety/">Federal Officials: Radiation Leak At Three Mile Island No Threat to Public Safety</a>. Like the ‘news reportage’ coming out of Japan, the Three Mile Island leak story was bereft of any discussion, analysis, counterpoint or critique from anyone. Journalists who collaborate with the western English-language news-consuming media have no comprehension of the technological issues, the industry cover-ups, the deceptions, the bureaucratic inertia or the radiological poisons produced and the concomitant epidemics of disease clustered around nukes. They have swallowed the industry slogans and green-washing for so long that their capacity to provide comprehensive, informed, investigative reportage is less than zero. Hence we find innocent [sic] people like CNN’s Anderson Cooper (360) <a href="http://celebrity-gossip.net/anderson-cooper/anderson-cooper-evacuated-fukushima-plant-487679">reporting from 100 kilometers north of Fukushima</a> and then freaking out and running for their lives from the invisible killer: radiation. Meanwhile, CNN cuts back-and-forth from Cooper to <a href="http://web.mit.edu/ssp/people/walsh/faculty_walsh.html">Jim Walsh</a> — ‘our nuclear expert and CNN contributor’ — who arrogantly reassures the increasingly anxious Anderson Cooper that everything is under control and the blasts and white smoke are of no concern.</b></p> <p><b>“We had an explosion,” MIT’s Dr. Jim Walsh reports, the Boston, Massachusetts skyline and the Prudential Center skyscrapers glimmering brightly behind him. “It turned out that explosion did not compromise the [nuclear] core facility,” he guesses (minute 29). Walsh immediately betrays his speculation a few minutes later (minute 59).</b></p> <p><b>“<i>Hopefully</i> [emphasis added], it’s just the outer structure, and has left unaffected the reactor, and unaffected the containment vessel. Because if it were to affect those things…uh… that would be bad news…” </b></p> <p><b>“The subtext here is <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/video/video_4096.html?1300114488">Should I Get Out of Here?</a>” interrupts the alarmed Anderson Cooper, in the live on-the-air broadcast. Of course, from this point on the western press increasingly focuses the public’s attention on the trials and tribulations and death-defying escape of the courageous [white] investigative reporter, Anderson Cooper.</b></p> <p><b>“I hear you Anderson,” responds expert Jim Walsh, chuckling. “I want to err on the side of caution for you here, Anderson.” Walsh is barely able to contain his laughter as he sells Cooper out. “Uh, ah, my guess is that you are O.K. But I don’t want you to sue me if I am wrong. But, uh, I’m inclined that you’re O.K.”</b></p> <p><b>“There have been release of..uh..uh…I guess a gas,” Cooper continues, “and correct me, I flunked science… There have been releases out over the ocean…why were they doing these controlled releases?”</b></p> <p><b>Dr. Jim Walsh then pontificates that radiation releases that ostensibly drift out over the ocean — releases questioned by the ill-prepared and uneducated Cooper — are ‘mildly radioactive’, unwanted but not dangerous, in any case, that they are being screened for dangerous radonuclides by the Japanese reactor experts, and “it’s not going to be a major health threat.”</b></p> <div align="left"><b>Nonsense! Here is a simultaneous catastrophe beyond human comprehension: At least six nuclear reactors in various states of collapse, out-of-control, and in partial meltdown, and at least one even more deadly spent fuel pool overheating and burning, amidst the apocalypse from the original Richter 9.0 earthquake, the Richter 5.0 and 6.0 aftershocks, the Tsunami, the massive death toll, the lack of emergency vehicles and spreading radioactivity, the fires, the melting Spent Fuel Pools — they are not “screening” radioactive releases which, in any case, are now uncontrolled. </b></div> <p><b>Of course, according to his own biography, CNN’s nuclear consultant, Dr. Jim Walsh, an expert in international security and a Research Associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Security Studies Program (SSP) — which also shares U.S. special forces as ‘research fellows’. He is published and selected as the chosen expert by the major U.S. and European media. Dr. Jim Walsh is the former Executive Director of the Managing the Atom project at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and a visiting scholar at the Center for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory — one of our <a href="http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0902740">Department of Energy SUPERFUND</a> sites, deep down the dark [nuclear] rabbit hole. Dr. Jim Walsh is another government spook.</b></p> <p><b>For another example, “[T]he most urgent worries concerned the failures at two reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant,” the <i>New York Times</i> wrote, in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14japan.html?_r=2&hp">Death Toll Estimate in Japan Soars as Relief Efforts Intensify</a>, “where engineers were still struggling to avert meltdowns and where some radiation had already leaked. An explosion at one of the reactors on Monday did not appear to have harmed it, Japanese officials said.”</b></p> <p><b>In one sentence we are told that a nuclear meltdown may be imminent, and in the next sentence, same paragraph, Japanese officials assured the public (the <i>New York Times</i> backed them up) that an explosion occurred but the reactor was not harmed. Is this believable? When the Japanese nuke experts took the drastic measure of pumping seawater into the reactors they knew that the reactors would be ruined forever. Given the economics of such a choice — billions upon billions of Japanese yen destroyed forever — we can infer that the situation is beyond grave: the Fukushima area is now a permanent sacrifice zone: people, wildlife, land has been sacrificed to the Gods of nuclear technology.</b></p> <p><b>“<a href="http://www.fox23news.com/mostpopular/story/Japanese-agency-Explosion-heard-at-nuclear-plant/Z6bi_9j3cEizQ_GgfBIqvQ.cspx">We have no evidence of harmful radiation</a>,” deputy Cabinet secretary Noriyuki Shikata told reporters after one of the recent reactor building explosions.</b></p> <p><b>Environmental activists in the area of the Fukushima reactors began to cry foul after finding that radiation monitoring stations were not operating. At the top of the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) <a href="http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/pamp/index-j.html">Monitoring Website</a> it said “monitoring goes on around the clock year round” and at the bottom it said “THIS SYSTEM IS CURRENTLY SHUTDOWN.” Activists believed that TEPCO was downplaying radioactive releases. At the same time, TEPCO was announcing that it planned to vent the containment [vessel] to relieve the pressure, which caused releases of radioactivity into the air.</b></p> <p><b>On Wednesday March 16, <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134600420">National Public Radio reported</a> that “the chief of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that all the water is gone from one of the spent fuel pools at Japan’s most troubled nuclear plant, but Japanese officials denied it.” Of course, National Public Radio has been heavily subsidized by the nuclear power industry and has consistently <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3164">advanced the nuclear industry agenda</a>.</b></p> <p><b>More nonsense: Radiation from Japan’s troubled nuclear reactors has virtually <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/news/-292270--.html">no chance of reaching the U.S.</a> — the West Coast, Alaska or other locations — the <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_JAPAN_EARTHQUAKE?SITE=CAANR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a> said Tuesday March 15. (Note that they don’t want to disturb the tourist industry, so they say nothing about Hawaii.) The statement from the NRC said that “the ‘small’ radiation releases so far [sic] from the Japanese reactors has been blown out to sea, away from populated areas.”</b></p> <p><b>On Wednesday March 16, the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/science/17plume.html?_r=2">United Nations Comprehensive Test Ban treaty Organization</a> reported that a radiation plume from Japan nukes would hit Southern California late Friday. Of course, health and NRC officials say it poses very little risk.</b></p> <p><b><b>Distancing U.S. Nuke Industry from Japan</b></b></p> <p><b><i>NBC News</i> on Wednesday evening (March 16) ran several short ‘news’ clips about Japan’s nuclear crises. One of these was clearly intended to distance General Electric and the nuclear Regulatory Commission from Japan, a sort of betrayal of the culture of secrecy and their historically incestuous relationship. Why? To perform damage control, improve investor confidence, assuage public fears of a similar catastrophe at one of the 110 reactors in the U.S.</b></p> <p><b>The NBC broadcast began by pointing out that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has advised U.S. citizens who are within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the Fukushima reactors to evacuate or stay indoors. The U.S. set a higher standard, and the news went on to promote the idea that Japanese officialdom cannot be trusted, but U.S. officialdom can.</b></p> <p><b>Then the NBC News reporter, Lester Holt, was shown being scanned for radiation after returning from the Sendai area: no contamination on his body, but his “shoe bottoms [soles] contained slightly elevated amounts of radiation, but of no danger to us,” he said. Again, the standard tactic of reporting that contamination has occurred — this time it is on his shoes — but that it is of no danger. Furthering the myths about radioactivity and its deadly means of spreading disease, the shoe bottom problem was nothing a little soap and elbow grease couldn’t fix. And so, later in the hour, they showed the shoes being scrubbed and everything being returned to [business as] normal. </b></p> <p><b>NBC followed the news tidbits about radioactive shoes with pictures of Fukushima reactors — buildings with their roofs blown apart — accompanied with assertions that there is a POSSIBLE breach of containment at the Fukushima Reactor No. 2, and that a breach of Reactor No. 3 containment vessel is CONFIRMED. </b></p> <p><b><a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/article-1366341-0B2D7BFA00000578-51_964x678.jpg"><img src="http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/article-1366341-0B2D7BFA00000578-51_964x678-300x210.jpg" alt="" title="article-1366341-0B2D7BFA00000578-51_964x678" class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-30859" height="210" width="300" /></a></b></p> <p><b>Cut to the U.S. Congress, where NBC brings us a very, very short clip from a special Senate hearing held on Wednesday March 16. Suddenly the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is awake, and they care, and they are telling an equally awake and suddenly concerned U.S. Congress that they believe that Japan has covered up the extent of the nuclear disaster. </b></p> <p><b>“Radiation levels are extremely high,” proclaims NRC chief Dr. Gregory B. Jaczko. The spent fuel pools are dry. Secondary containment at the reactor [No. 3] has been breached, but Tokyo is denying this.” </b></p> <p><b>Finally, NBC informs its viewers, in passing, that General Electric — the designer and salesmen of the GE Mark I Boiling Water reactors that General Electric dumped on Fukushima back in the 1970s — is a part owner of MSNBC. Full disclosure, of course. </b></p> <p><b>Suddenly the ‘news’ shifted to big bold banners flashed across the TV screen in big blue fonts. These banners remind good, tax-paying and law-abiding citizens — good people watching the evening news after a hard day’s work — that GE has reviewed the safety concerns that were previously raised about GE BWR reactors, and so reactors in the U.S. are safe. It was no longer news: it was a public relations ploy, a photo op for GE to improve its image, right out of George Orwell’s <i>1984</i>. </b></p> <p><b>The latest psychological operation underway is to convince and reassure the U.S. public and English-language speaking world that General Electric is not responsible for what is happening in Japan; that U.S.-based G.E.-designed reactors elsewhere, being of the same age and design, are not going to have the same problems as reactors in Japan. The message is also that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission runs a tight ship, that oversight is comprehensive and thorough, people are doing their jobs, and that the nuclear industry in the U.S. is nothing like the secretive and bungling industry in Japan. </b></p> <p><b>While the message is racist at its [nuclear] core, nothing could be further from the truth. It can happen here. San Onofre. Diablo Canyon. Vermont Yankee. There have been all kinds of warning signs. It won’t be a tsunami, on the back of an earthquake, or maybe it will. It will be a BLACKOUT scenario of some kind, as it is in Japan. </b></p> <p><b>In the Congressional Hearing, Senator Barbara Boxer was suddenly awake, and suddenly concerned, and suddenly the U.S. Congress is going to straighten this all out and protect us. The <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Choose&Hearing_id=bb6c78e6-802a-23ad-4c7b-9aa7a3bb0c31">U.S. Senate Hearings</a> began with some grandstanding by U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), whose jabs were directed at Republicans, but in the end she asked a few questions. </b></p> <p><b>The next speaker, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla) reads a garbage speech about how wonderful the NRC is and how safe are U.S. reactors. Our first and foremost concern is safety, he says, and we must continue to develop and site and license and operate new reactors world wide. “We’ve delayed for 30 years now. So I think that we certainly don’t want to slow down, let’s keep going.”</b></p> <p><b>The hearing was completely corporate, one Senate official citing recent <i>New York Times</i> stories that have suddenly awoken them (the Senators) to the many warnings that had previously occurred. <i>My God, we didn’t know.</i> Meanwhile, the NRC Chairman testified that the NRC can not attribute a single death to the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island. </b></p> <p><b>A few months ago, President Barrack Obama signed some 8.5 billion dollar loan guarantees for a nuclear reactor construction project for U.S. nuclear corporation Southern Company, in partnership with the Tokyo Electric<br />Power Company (TEPCO). </b></p> <p><b>Of course, the Price Andersen Act, passed in 1957, indemnifies nuclear utilities and reactor operators from all lawsuits, financial liability or related responsibility. </b></p> <p><b>Everything suggests that it will be business as usual. Destabilization, destruction, war and catastrophe have always been turned into a big business for the United States of America. Across the ocean tens of thousands of people are protesting in Germany and France and Briton. Here, even the discussion is off course. The wrong questions are being asked and the wrong people are answering them. Instead of talking about limits to growth, the focus is on expansion, profits, trade and so-called progress. Why would this situation be any different? As Senator Barbara Boxer eventually said: we should be humbled. </b></p> <p><b>Perhaps the worst horror of all is that people trapped in the contaminated zones are now being shunned by outsiders, including aid organizations. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-japan-quake-fukushima-20110317,0,5992544.story">Radiation fears, mingled with a sick sense of abandonment</a>, reported the <i>Los Angeles Times</i>, as people are afraid to help them. People in the evacuation zones – elders and those without fuel or transport — are getting no help, and no information. We should be humbled. </b></p> <p><b>Photography Credits:</b> keith harmon snow</p> <p class="author">Keith Harmon Snow is a war correspondent, photographer and independent investigator, and a four time (2003, 2006, 2007, 2010) Project Censored award winner. He is also the 2009 Regent's Lecturer in Law & Society at the University of California Santa Barbara, recognized for over a decade of work, outside of academia, contesting official narratives on war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide while also working as a genocide investigator for the United Nations and other bodies. The first UCSB Regent's Lecturer, in 1960, was Aldous Huxley; other recipients include Margaret Mead, Peter Matthiessen and Meredith Monk. <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/author/KeithHarmonSnow/">Read other articles by Keith</a>, or <a href="http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/">visit Keith's website</a>.</p> This article was posted on Saturday, March 19th, 2011 at 8:01am and is filed under <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/energy/" title="View all posts in Energy" rel="category tag">Energy</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/environment/" title="View all posts in Environment" rel="category tag">Environment</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/japan/" title="View all posts in Japan" rel="category tag">Japan</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/obama/" title="View all posts in Obama" rel="category tag">Obama</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/propaganda/" title="View all posts in Propaganda" rel="category tag">Propaganda</a>.NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0