Showing posts with label US policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US policy. Show all posts

Monday 30 May 2011

No wonder the Americans are annoyed with Pakistan


When a U.S. combat team entered Pakistan and assassinated Osama bin Laden, the long-held suspicion that the Al Qaeda leader had been hiding in that country was confirmed.

After having given literally billions to the Pakistan Government to fight terrorism (and with millions unaccounted for) it must have been galling for the Obama Administration to suspect that members of either this government or its military knew where he was all along.

All that money goes some way to explaining America’s sense of entitlement when it unlawfully breached Pakistan sovereignty and lessens the impact of Pakistan’s outrage.

From Wikileaks Cablegate a U.S. diplomatic cable dated 14 December 2007 and originally sent from a building approximately 49kms from Abbottabad:

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ISLAMABAD 005266 SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/14/2017 TAGS: PINR PK PREL PTERSUBJECT: PAKISTAN: FIXING COALITION SUPPORT FUNDING REF: A. ISLAMABAD 4817 ¶B. ISLAMABAD 4369 Classified By: Anne W. Patterson, Reasons 1.4 (b), (d) ¶1. (U) This is an action request, see Para 12. ¶2. (C)

SUMMARY. Since 2002, the USG has reimbursed Pakistan over 5.3 billion USD for support to U.S. operations using Coalition Support Funds (CSF). When pending claims are processed, that figure will likely exceed 5.6 billion USD. The CSF authorizing legislation was written soon after 9/11; six years down the road, we need Pakistan to more vigorously engage in the war on terror, but CSF is not working the way it should. CSF is not reaching those parts of the GoP that are shouldering the load in GWOT operations. Two clear examples of the problem are helicopter readiness and medical support to the Frontier Corps. The readiness of Pakistan's helicopter fleet is poor. Despite giving the GoP 55 USD million for helicopter operations over seven months, only 2 to 6 Pakistani Cobras are fully mission capable at a time they desperately need air power to fight spreading militancy. Additionally, we have processed or will process reimbursement requests for 100 million USD over the year to support medical operations, but the Frontier Corps still does not receive basic medevac support. Another consequence of the current system is political. It fuels the internal argument that the USG is "paying" Pakistan to fight a U.S. war - this at a time when the Pakistanis need to accept the direct threat to their own security and sovereignty posed by al-Qaida, Taliban and extremist forces.

¶3. (C) Post has worked extensively with the GoP to increase GoP transparency and accountability. What we have discovered is that we are receiving reimbursement requests for barbed wire and air defense radar systems that have no or marginal impact on the GWOT. We recognize the legal and political sensitivities involved in developing a new approach, but the program, as it is currently being implemented, simply is not meeting U.S. or Pakistan counter-terrorism objectives. This message outlines several ways forward. In the meantime, DOD or CENTCOM should undertake an audit or program review of CSF. END SUMMARY. TARGETING CSF FUNDING TOWARD PAKISTAN AND U.S. STRATEGIC GOALS

¶4. (C) U.S. Public Law 109-289 (2206) authorizes CSF to reimburse Pakistan for logistical, military and other support provided to U.S. military operations. Under this authorization, the U.S. has reimbursed Pakistan 5.3 billion USD since 2002. When pending claims are processed, the total CSF reimbursement to Pakistan will exceed 5.6 billion USD. Pakistan receives nearly 90 percent of total CSF worldwide. While the December 8, 2003 guidance provided by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) on parameters for reimbursements is broad, there have been multiple instances in which Post is confident funds have been diverted and that reimbursed claims figures have been seriously inflated. A few examples: -- HELICOPTER READINESS. Pakistan received 55 million USD for helicopter operations from July 2006 to February 2007; however, Post estimates that as few as 3 Cobra Helicopters were fully mission capable as recently as 10 weeks ago. Post is confident Army Aviation Command never received the 55 million. -- MEDEVAC ASSISTANCE TO FRONTIER CORPS. The Pakistan Army claimed 99 million USD over past 12 months for medical operations and the U.S. has paid or is in process of paying all/all submitted medical claims. Yet, despite providing this plus fully funding 235 million USD CSF lease assistance for 26 new Bell 412 helicopters, the Inspector General of the Frontier Corps has repeatedly requested U.S. assistance in providing assets for medevac, obviously unaware of the resources the U.S. has provided. --RADAR MAINTENANCE: Between August 2006 and July 2007, Pakistan submitted claims for almost 70 million USD in ADA Radar Maintenance, although there is no enemy air threat related to the war on terror. --BARBED WIRE: Between August 2006 and July 2007, we received a claim for 26 million USD in barbed wire and pickets. While these items are no doubt helpful in protecting outposts, the claim figures are highly suspect.

¶5. (C) Ambassador, the Office of Defense Representative and DOD officials have repeatedly raised CSF disbursement and other problems with the Prime Minister, Ministry of Finance and key military officials but have not received satisfactory responses. In fact, recent correspondence from Pakistan leadership argues for additional funding to support increased operations.

¶6. (C) CSF reimbursement funds go directly into Pakistan,s general treasury -- from there we have no visibility on their final destination or application. And we are not alone - based on our conversations with GoP officials, from President Musharraf down to the average Pakistani private, no one in Pakistan seems to have a clear grasp of the amount of US military reimbursement assistance actually provided.

¶7. (C) The CSF authorization legislation was drafted soon after 9/11. Six years down the road, we still need Pakistan to engage more vigorously in the fight against extremism, but it is clear we also need to do a better job of making sure our monies are targeted to meet our counter-terrorism objectives. POTENTIAL APPROACHES TO CSF REFORM

¶8. (C) Potential options to address CSF issues include the following: (1) Stop approving Pakistan's CSF reimbursement requests until we receive adequate assurances on disbursement; (2) Earmark CSF monies for specific areas: maintenance, support, etc.; (3) Create a CSF "trust fund" that would allow the USG to control reimbursement and to obligate some funds for specific needs; or (4) Convert CSF into a direct cash transfer program.


¶9. (C) Option 1 would lead to a major political clash and damage our military to military relationship, just as we have the potential for greater cooperation under Chief of Army Staff General Kayani's leadership. This would undermine the very purpose of CSF--to encourage the GoP to continue fighting militant extremism. The Taliban, al Qaida and Islamic extremists represent a clear and growing danger to U.S. and Pakistani security and to regional stability. As allies with forces in the region, we have a responsibility to strengthen and focus our assistance to improve their security forces' capabilities.

¶10. (C) We understand DOD has determined Options 2, 3 and 4 would require asking Congress to amend the authorizing legislation. Post could attempt to persuade Pakistan to concur with establishment of some form of "trust" mechanism - pointing out the alternative may be a severe reduction or loss of funding if Congress continues to see insufficient transparency and accountability. In any event, a new approach is urgently required. We believe some variation of Options 3 and 4, which allow the USG to earmark at least some CSF monies for those Pakistani military elements of vital interest to us (helicopters, special forces and Frontier Corps), is the most logical and efficient approach. CSF AUDIT/PROGRAM REVIEW

¶11. (C) Post repeats that we do not have visibility over the destination of CSF funds. Accordingly, Post would welcome an audit or program review of the CSF process by CENTCOM or by DOD. ACTION REQUEST

¶12. (C) Action Request: Post would appreciate a front-channel response to the options proposed in para 8 and the proposal for an audit/review. PATTERSON

Wednesday 26 January 2011

Ooops! Obamba's beans get spilled

Monday 24 January 2011

A U.S. job offer for Wikileaks?


This is the latest U.S. attack on Wikileaks reported in The Age on 22 January 2011:

WASHINGTON: WikiLeaks, condemned by the US government for posting secret data leaked by insiders, may have used music- and photo-sharing networks to obtain and publish classified documents, according to a computer security firm.

Tiversa Inc, based in Pennsylvania, has evidence that WikiLeaks, which has said it does not know who provides it with information, may seek out secret data itself, using ''peer-to-peer'' networks, its chief executive, Robert Boback, said.

The company, which has done investigative searches on behalf of US agencies including the FBI, said it discovered computers in Sweden were trolling through hard drives accessed from popular peer-to-peer networks such as LimeWire and Kazaa. The information obtained in those searches had later appeared on WikiLeaks, Mr Boback said. WikiLeaks bases its most important servers in Sweden.

''It would be highly unlikely that someone else from Sweden is issuing those same types of searches resulting in that same type of information,'' he said.

Tiversa's claim was ''completely false in every regard'', said Mark Stephens, WikiLeaks's London lawyer.

So this should put a smile on a few faces this morning courtesy of a mention on @BernardKeane:

Joint Request for Statements of Interest: Internet Freedom Programs

January 3, 2011
Department of State
Public Notice

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Joint Request for Statements of Interest: Internet Freedom Programs

SUMMARY

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) and the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) announce a Joint Request for Statements of Interest (SOI) from organizations interested in submitting proposals for projects that support Internet freedom under the “Governing Justly and Democratically” Foreign Assistance program objective. This solicitation does not constitute a formal Request for Proposals: DRL and/or NEA will invite select organizations that submit SOIs to expand on their ideas via full proposal at a later date.

PLEASE NOTE: DRL and NEA strongly urge applicants to access immediately http://www.grants.gov/ in order to obtain a username and password. It may take up to a week to register with grants.gov. Please see the section entitled, “DEADLINE AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS” below for specific instructions.

REQUESTED STATEMENT OF INTEREST PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

DRL and NEA invite organizations to submit statements of interest outlining program concepts and capacity to manage projects that will foster freedom of expression and the free flow of information on the Internet and other connection technologies in East Asia, including China and Burma; the Near East, including Iran; Southeast Asia; the South Caucasus; Eurasia, including Russia; Central Asia; Latin America, including Cuba and Venezuela; and Africa. Programming may support activities in Farsi, Chinese, Russian, Burmese, Spanish, Vietnamese, Arabic, French, and other languages spoken in acutely hostile Internet environments. Concepts may be global in nature, regional or country-specific.

Statements should clearly address a) support for digital activists and civil society organizations in exercising their right to freedom of expression and the free flow of information in acutely hostile Internet environments, or b) support for ongoing evaluation and research to enhance global Internet freedom policy and diplomacy. (my emphasis)

Supporting digital activists:

1. Statements of interest should address one or more of the following potential program activities:

Counter-censorship Technology: Development and support of web-based circumvention technology to enable users in closed societies to get around firewalls and filters in acutely hostile Internet environments. DRL and NEA will consider projects that support the deployment of individual technologies in specific environments, as well as projects that identify a lead organization to provide sub-grant and contractual support to non-profit organizations and for-profit companies that develop and maintain circumvention technologies. Statements of interest proposing a consortium of technologies under a lead organization should clearly identify potential technology partners and include an indication of those organizations’ interest in participating in the proposed project. In all cases, preference will be given to peer-reviewed technologies……..

Tuesday 8 September 2009

U.S. citizen and Islam convert Abdullah al-Kidd gets his day in court


U.S. President Barack Obama may wish it otherwise, but where government is slow or unwilling to address the former Bush administration's constitutional abuses then the courts are obviously prepared take on this challenge if people are willing to apply.
The quotes below are from a U.S. Court of Appeals opinion in Abdullah al-Kidd v John Ashcroft (former US Attorney General), filed 4th September 2009.

MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judge:

According to the allegations of his first amended complaint, Plaintiff-Appellee Abdullah al-Kidd (al-Kidd), a United States citizen and a married man with two children, was arrested at a Dulles International Airport ticket counter. He was handcuffed, taken to the airport's police substation, and interrogated. Over the next sixteen days, he was confined in high security cells lit twenty-four hours a day in Virginia, Oklahoma, and then Idaho, during which he was strip searched on multiple occasions. Each time he was transferred to a different facility, al-Kidd was handcuffed and shackled about his wrists, legs, and waist. He was eventually released from custody by court order, on the conditions that he live with his wife and in-laws in Nevada, limit his travel to Nevada and three other states, surrender his travel documents, regularly report to a probation officer, and consent to home visits throughout the period of supervision. By the time al-Kidd's confinement and supervision ended, fifteen months after his arrest, al-Kidd had been fired from his job as an employee of a government contractor because he was denied a security clearance due to his arrest, and had separated from his wife. He has been unable to obtain steady employment since his arrest. Al-Kidd was not arrested and detained because he had allegedly committed a crime. He alleges that he was arrested and confined because former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft (Ashcroft), subordinates operating under policies promulgated by Ashcroft, and others within the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), unlawfully used the federal material witness statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3144, to investigate or preemptively detain him. Ashcroft asserts that he is entitled to absolute and qualified immunity against al-Kidd's claims. We hold that on the facts pled Ashcroft is not protected by either form of immunity, and we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the district court. (my emphasis)

In its conclusion the court quoted Blackstone:

"To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom. But confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to gaol, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten; is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government."

WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND 131-32 (1765)

Saturday 29 August 2009

The League of American Voters gets down and dirty over Obama health care reform


If Republicans in America are to be believed - a reformed US health care system (that would not be even a pale imitation of the type of Medicare public hospital cover that Australians enjoy) would mean complete societal breakdown.

The League of American Voters is telling the world:

We are told they are working behind the scenes to change long-standing Senate rules so that they can pass their health plan with just 50 votes! This is again a desperate measure and an attempt to subvert our democratic and constitutional system.
I can assure you the League of American Voters is working day and night to stop Obama's plan.

This week the US far-right online organ NewsMax is sending out emails which states in part:

League of American Voters
Dear Friend:
I have some very shocking news.
ABC television has banned our TV ad from airing on its network.
Frankly, I was stunned when I heard the news from our media buyer yesterday.
Right now, our TV ad exposing Obamacare is running in 12 states.
You can see this powerful ad by Going Here Now.
With our success — thanks to your incredible support — we were planning to go national, so we sent the ad to the major networks.
This TV ad simply tells the truth about Obamacare.
It was crafted by Dick Morris, the Fox News contributor and famous campaign strategist.
This powerful ad features a respected medical doctor — a neurosurgeon, in fact — who warns that Obamacare will decimate healthcare for seniors and others in need of life-saving medical procedures.
As Dr. Cuffe explains in the ad, if Obama gets his way and adds 50 million new patients to the government system, it inevitably will lead to rationing of healthcare procedures and vital medicines for the elderly.
Dr. Cuffe says universal healthcare has led to this same situation in Canada and England......
We know why ABC is so afraid of the League's TV ad. It knows the message resonates with the American people.
This is the same network that aired an infomercial for the Obama plan directly from the White House.
Clearly, ABC knows seniors will not be hoodwinked by Obama when they learn the truth.
Despite ABC's brazen act of censorship, we need to continue to run this ad on other stations across the nation and on major networks.

The appearance of a very photogenic Dr. Cuffe in this ad seems to have increased the wave of paranoia sweeping across the USA if that were possible.

In a Free Republic forum thread which has since been pulled, Obama is accused of almost any vile deed that can be brought to mind:

Obamacare to use FAKE "Doctors" in DNC Plan to Exterminate the Elderly
and Deny Them All Independent Access to Real Doctors and Real Treatment.
and
DNC Death Panel: "You voted wrong. Your healthcare, and you, are terminated!!"
and
Obama agreed to pitch us older people over the cliff with his agreeing to hurt Medicare in return for getting his way
and
Obamacare, The Final Solution"

Update:

Yesterday FactCheck posted Twenty-six lies about H.R. 3200 in an effort to stem the flood of misinformation be spread by a viral e-mail based on one Twitter user's off the cuff assessment of the Obama health care reform proposals.

But wait, there's more.....

The National Republican Committee has been caught out trying to suggest that healthcare may be denied on the basis of political affiliation, with this survey question: "It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person's political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibility concern you?"

Monday 17 August 2009

Thoughts of the Global Financial Crisis & Climate Change not bringing you down? Then try NASA's Asteroid Watch


Thoughts of the Global Financial Crisis & Climate Change not bringing you down?
Feeling rather guilty because there are still some days when you wake up smiling?
The answer is a mouse click away!
The US Government space agency NASA has gone all Flash Gordon over at
Asteroid Watch:
"Nuclear explosions and spacecraft impacts are two of the more relatively mature options for deflecting Earth-threatening objects and they have been studied in some detail (for example, see Ref. 1). Another option has been suggested for the small subset of asteroids that might also pass close to the Earth a few years prior to the predicted Earth impact. For these unique cases, the pre-impact close encounter affects the asteroid's motion so strongly that a relatively tiny change in its velocity prior to the close approach will be multiplied several fold during the flyby, thus allowing the asteroid to miss the Earth on the next pass. In these relatively infrequent cases, even the very modest gravitational attraction between the asteroid and a nearby "micro-thrusting" spacecraft (nicknamed a "gravity tractor") could provide enough of a change in the asteroid's velocity that an Earth collision could be avoided (see Ref. 2). Successful mitigation requires that a threatening asteroid must be discovered and physically characterized soon enough to allow the appropriate response; the current NASA Near-Earth Object Observations program is operated with this in mind. But, since the number of near-Earth asteroids increases as their sizes decrease, we are most likely to be hit by the relatively small objects that are most difficult to find ahead of time. As a result, consideration must also be given to the notification and evacuation of those regions on Earth that would be affected by the imminent collision of a small, recently-discovered impactor. However, if the object could be found far enough ahead of time and our space technology used to deflect it from the Earth threatening trajectory, it would be a tremendous demonstration of our space-faring capabilities!"

Yup! Always knew that a hot rock banging on the noggin was a
B-I-G threat to my peace of mind 'n' life and limb.

Sunday 26 July 2009

Blistering blizzards, Batman! Turnbull wants weak national emissions trading scheme just like Rudd - who would've guessed?

Breakdown showing percentages of get-out-of-gaol-free cards availble to greenhouse gas emitters until 2026 in the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill aka U.S. Clean Energy and Security Act 2009.

If you thought that the Rudd Government's plan to compensate industry super polluters was a fizzer (to such a degree that a national emissions trading scheme would see virtually no significant change for the better in relation to Australia's greenhouse gas pollution) then hang on to your hats as Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberal Party pretend to engage with the thorny issue of climate change by putting forward these nine demands:

Specific Issues

1. An Australian Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) should offer no less protection for jobs, small business and industry than an American ETS which is being developed and is presently in the form of the Waxman Markey Bill which has been approved by the House of Representatives but is yet to pass the US Senate. The final form of any legislation may be materially different from Waxman Markey and will not be known until later in the year.

2. To that end there must be an effective mechanism, such as a regular review by the Productivity Commission or a similar expert independent body, to ensure that the Australian ETS does not materially disadvantage Australian industries and workers relative to American industries and workers. The legislation must bind the Government to correct any disadvantage identified by the review process.

3. In order to ensure that an Australian ETS does not simply result in futile carbon and production leakage – exporting the emissions and the jobs – Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed industries (EITEs) should at least be on a level playing field with the United States and other advanced economies and should therefore receive full compensation for higher energy costs until the bulk of their competitors (measured as in Waxman Markey by global market share) face a similar carbon cost.

4. Fugitive methane emissions from coal mining should be treated in the same way as they are in the United States and Europe.

5. As in the Waxman Markey legislation agricultural emissions should be excluded from the scheme and agricultural offsets (eg. biosequestration or green carbon) should be included. Australia's greatest near term potential of reducing its CO2 emissions are to be found in the better management of our own landscape.

6. The scheme design must ensure that general increases in electricity prices are no greater than comparable countries to minimise the impact on all trade exposed industries, to reduce the need to compensate for households and to avoid a needlessly high increase in taxation.

7. In order to ensure continuity of electricity supply, electricity generators should be fairly and adequately compensated for loss of asset value to ensure capacity to invest in new abatement technology and to fund maintenance of existing facilities for energy security purposes.

8. Effective incentives and/or credits must be established to capture the substantial abatement opportunities offered by energy efficiency, especially in buildings.

9. There must be adequate incentives for voluntary action which can be added to Australia's 2020 target.

Besides simply restating some of the broad aims already expressed by government, it appears that Turnbull would like Australia to adopt certain aspects of the proposed U.S. Clean Energy and Security Act 2009.
Yet another watered down climate change bill.
Just as importantly, he does not want to enact our own emissions trading scheme until after the Americans have theirs in place.

Now attempting to tie Australia's legislative response to an American timetable is a nice time waster, as this yet unborn act only passed the U.S. lower house by 7 votes and is facing a hostile upper house before it can be become legislation, with no guarantee that the eventual act will even remotely resemble the current bill or that its final provisions will be seen in a favourable light by the rest of the world.

Indeed (like the Rudd Government's proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Act here in Australia) in America there are citizens who believe that the proposed Clean Energy and Security Act is so weak that it should never become law, others who simply see it as better than nothing, Republicans in the U.S. Senate who won't rule out blocking it and, many Americans who see it as a free give-away to major polluters.

While Turnbull obviously hopes that he can put off the evil day when he actually has to genuinely address emissions trading, his principle aim appears to be to further increase protection and compensation for Australia's super polluters under any national scheme.
Which may please his mates at Goldman Sachs whilst ever that group is involved with energy and mining industries, but may not appeal to the international community generally because Turnbull's solution seems to favour tariffs.

Turnbull's favourite climate change bill.

Graphic form The Wall Street Journal online.

Tuesday 16 June 2009

And you thought he would be different?


As the days mount in Barack Obama's presidency, the word 'change' has been firmly shelved when it comes down to actual government practice.

Reverting to what looks suspiciously like right-wing Christian fundamentalism, the Obama Administration through the US Justice Department has now argued against same-sex marriage in a 54-page motion to dismiss in the matter of Smelt & Hammer v The United States of America.

Incredibly at Page 28 of the motion the legal argument appears to draw an analogy between same-sex marriage, underage marriage and incestuous marriage (but was careful not to mention polygamous marriage).

Not content with this about-face, Obama's troops are also out there arguing in support of the restrictive use of 'state secrets' legislation when it feels US political interests are threatened, as well as continuing to support warrantless phone tapping.

Jewel v NSA has now been joined by Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v Obama and the earlier Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., has just developed an extra twist.
With the Obama Administration arguing against a recent ruling on limitations when invoking state secret provisions (the court had ruled that government could not prematurely invoke privilege) and petitioning the court of appeals full panel of judges to rehear an earlier Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that victims of extraordinary rendition and torture could have their day in court.

The rehearing application hypocritically states in part:

This is one of those few cases warranting review by the Court en banc.
The panel has significantly altered the contours of the military and state secrets privilege – a constitutionally-based means by which the Executive protects critical national security information from disclosure.
The panel's approach is flatly inconsistent with decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court, and this Court's sister circuits on questions of exceptional importance applying the privilege.
We emphasize that the Government's request for en banc review is based upon the most careful and deliberative consideration, at the highest levels, of all possible alternatives to relying upon the state secrets privilege.
As the President made clear two weeks ago, while the state secrets privilege is necessary to protect national security, the United States will not invoke the privilege to prevent disclosure of "the violation of a law or embarrassment to the government."1

Full copy of Petition for Rehearing here.

It seems that from American presidential election to presidential election POTUS remains POTUS in the worst sense of this public office.

Update:

In Padilla & Lebron v John Yoo currently before the courts it appears that John C. Yoo, former US Justice Department counsel, former advisor in the President's War Council and author of the infamous Bush-era torture memos, has also unsuccessfully attempted to invoke 'state secrets' to avoid legal scrutiny and litigation. US District Court June 2009 ruling here.

Tuesday 9 June 2009

Anyone who tuned in, turned on and drop'd out in the Sixties would smile at this one



June 1, 2009
Summary

States that are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are required to confidentially provide the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with a description of the location and purpose of each of their nuclear sites.

The document presents a sensitive 5 May, 2009 draft of all US nuclear sites for Congressional review together with a covering note from President Barack Obama giving more detail on the restrictions.

It seems that by mistake, the entire document, including the sensitive portions--labeled as such on every page--was printed by the US Government Printing Office.

A day after its publication here, and on Secrecy News[1], the GPO removed the document from its website, according a story published in the New York Times[2] two days later.

The document is likely to be of substantial interest to environmental activists.

Sunday 31 May 2009

Obama and Korea: is Kim winning the latest battle of wills?

PBS Online news in-depth cover Tracking Nuclear Proliferation 27th May 2009

According to an opinion piece in the U.K. Telegraph last Friday President Obama is losing the PR battle on this one:

"Kim Jong-il, the charismatic and popular (if you are a Pyongyang resident and covet a life expectancy of more than 24 hours) Dear Leader of North Korea, is on his sixth or seventh missile this week. See the pretty vapour trails streak across Asian skies, in an impressive firework display to celebrate the arrival of President Pantywaist in the Oval Office.
School's out! Suddenly it is playtime for all the naughtier elements in the more "reclusive" parts of the world who enjoy kicking Uncle Sam's butt but didn't much relish tangling with Dick Cheney and (what was that other guy's name?). This time Comrade Kim is really throwing his toys out of the playpen. He has even unilaterally revoked the 1953 armistice between the Korean War belligerents, which means, in case anybody is interested, that North and South Korea are once more at war.
So, what is the response of the Messiah in the Oval Office? Really severe rhetoric, is the answer. The soundbite manufacturers have been burning the midnight oil and the auto-cue is going into meltdown. So is the confidence of Asian leaders. The word is out: the most powerful nation on earth has got itself a pussycat for a president and all the bad guys are queuing up to give him the finger."

Friday 29 May 2009

One American perspective on Obama's response to Korean nuclear gamesmanship

U.S. comedian Andy Borowitz takes a look at Obama's response to recent events in Korea:

One day after North Korea launched a successful test of a nuclear weapon, President Obama said that the United States was prepared to respond to the threat with "the strongest possible adjectives."

In remarks to reporters at the White House, Mr. Obama said that North Korea should fear the "full force and might of the United States' arsenal of adjectives" and called the missile test "reckless, reprehensible, objectionable, senseless, egregious and condemnable."

Standing at the President's side, Vice President Joseph Biden weighed in with some tough adjectives of his own, branding North Korean President Kim Jong-Il "totally wack and illin'."

Later in the day, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the North Korean nuclear test "supercilious and jejune," leading some in diplomatic circles to worry that the U.S. might be running out of appropriate adjectives with which to craft its response.

But President Obama attempted to calm those fears, saying that the United States was prepared to "scour the thesaurus" to come up with additional adjectives and was "prepared to use adverbs" if necessary.

"Let's be clear: we are not taking adverbs off the table," Mr. Obama said. "If the need arises, we will use them forcefully, aggressively, swiftly, overwhelmingly and commandingly."

More from Andy Borowitz here.

Monday 4 May 2009

Obama changes his tune once again


It seems that Barack Obama has discovered the delights of former Australian prime minister John Howard's approach to core and non-core promises.

The latest to surface is in relation to the Freedom of Choice Act. It appears that once you're president then any pretence that you really believe in a woman's right to chose, in relation to pregnancy termination, flies out the window.

Here is FactCheck on the subject:

Is Obama shying away from the Freedom of Choice Act?
When CNN correspondent Ed Henry asked the president about his current thinking on FOCA at last night's White House press conference, Obama used very different language than he did during the campaign.
In 2008, as we noted in our Ask FactCheck item on FOCA, Obama told a Planned Parenthood audience: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Now that's the first thing I'd do."
Last night, Obama specifically altered that statement. "Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority," he said. "I believe that women should have the right to choose, but I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on," such as reducing unwanted pregnancies.

Wednesday 15 April 2009

Strange but true from the legendary past.....


Thinking about the Rudd-Conroy foray into Internet censorship brought to mind this American court case, John Doe et al v Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States of America et al from 2005.

Litigation from a time when the US Government, as part of the War On Terror, even wanted to find out what library books its citizens were reading.
Using the mechanism of National Security Letters (NSLs) which request information from a third party and are issued by the FBI or by other government agencies with authority to conduct national security investigations.

Eventually the US Government dropped its pursuit of the Executive Director of the Library Connection, an online service.
He does not appear to have ever given the FBI the information it requested.

However NSLs which attempt to force silence on recipients still exist according to the American Civil Liberties Union:

Through NSLs the FBI can compile vast dossiers about innocent people and obtain sensitive information such as the web sites a person visits, a list of e-mail addresses with which a person has corresponded, or even unmask the identity of a person who has posted anonymous speech on a political website. The provision also allows the FBI to forbid or "gag" anyone who receives an NSL from telling anyone about the record demand.

Although the burden of proof as to why a citizen should be gagged is now on government agencies.

This little piece of government spying history is again relevant, as at the end of March 2009 two House of Representatives Democrats have re-introduced the Nadler/Flake bill now known as the National Security Letters Reform Act 2009 to curb excessive snooping using these NSFs.

Barack Obama is said to have supported the bill when it was first introduced in 2007.
Will he now as president support this reform or fight it?

Saturday 11 April 2009

Democratic freedoms? A case of Obama saying one thing and doing another?

U.S. President Barack Obama has been in office long enough now for disconnects to emerge between his grand speeches and what he does in fact.
Never more so than in the case of the former Bush Administration warrantless wiretapping of its own citizens.

CNet reported in January 2008 that Barack Obama was against warrantless wiretapping:

For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)

It's hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.

In 2008 an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was put to the U.S. Senate.

This is what Obama as a presidential candidate is reported as saying of this amendment on 14 July 2008:

"I am proud to stand with Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty," Obama said in a prepared statement. "There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people — we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law.

"We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties.

"This administration continues to use a politics of fear to advance a political agenda. It is time for this politics of fear to end. We are trying to protect the American people, not special interests like the telecommunications industry. We are trying to ensure that we don't sacrifice our liberty in pursuit of security, and it is past time for the administration to join us in that effort."

Obama then went on to vote for the legislative amendment which allowed immunity from prosecution.

However this immunity was not believed at the time to extend to government according to its Senate sponsor:

Second, lawsuits against the government can go forward. There is little doubt that the government was operating in, at best, a legal gray area. If administration officials abused their power or improperly violated the privacy of innocent people, they must be held accountable. That is exactly why we rejected the White House's year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials.

Since then a number of court cases have come to light including Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc v Barack H. Obama, President of the United States of America.

Now in response to this and other current litigation President Obama (through the Department of Justice) appears to be asserting a surveillance power which is even wider than that previously asserted concerning warrantless searches.

President Obama may be smoother and better packaged than George W. Bush, but deep down he is nothing more than an expedient politician like those presidents before him and, just as unwilling to relinquish any power (no matter how dubious) over the citizenry.

Here is what the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFA) says about its current court proceedings:

In Jewel v. NSA, EFF is suing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records.

Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA.

That same evidence is central to Hepting v. AT&T, a class-action lawsuit filed by EFF in 2006 to stop the telecom giant's participation in the illegal surveillance program. Earlier this year, Congress passed a law attempting to derail that case by unconstitutionally granting immunity to AT&T and other companies that took part in the dragnet. Hepting v. AT&T is now stalled in federal court while EFF argues with the government over whether the immunity is constitutional and applies in that case — litigation that is likely to continue well into 2009.

In addition to suing the government agencies involved in the domestic dragnet, the lawsuit also targets the individuals responsible for creating, authorizing, and implementing the illegal program, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance.

For the full complaint in Jewel v. NSA

In March 2009 the Obama Administration replied to the EFA litigation with the GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT virtually asserting that everything (including publicly known facts about this wiretapping and data mining) is a 'state secret' or other form of privileged information.

Graphic found at BoingBoing

Wednesday 25 March 2009

21st century history wars U.S. style?


Former U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney may be disappointed that George W. Bush didn't hand out blanket pardons for his partners in political crime when he left the highest office in America, but he is still determined to defend the 'honour' of the administration of which he was a part.

Cheney started out on 2 April 2009 warning of fresh terrorist attacks against a weakened America.

By 15 March on CNN's State of the Nation he further fleshed out his assertion that President Obama's changes to former Bush Administration policy placed America at risk:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday defended the Bush administration's economic record, the invasion of Iraq and the treatment of suspected terrorists, warning that reversing its anti-terrorism policies endangers Americans.

"We've accomplished nearly everything we set out to do," ex-Vice President Dick Cheney says Sunday about Iraq.

In a wide-ranging interview with CNN's "State of the Union," Cheney said the harsh interrogations of suspects and the use of warrantless electronic surveillance were "absolutely essential" to get information to prevent more attacks like the 2001 suicide hijackings that targeted New York and Washington.

"President Obama campaigned against it all across the country, and now he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack," he said.

Critics said the Bush administration's "alternative" interrogation techniques amounted to the torture of prisoners in American custody, while the administration's warrantless surveillance program violated federal laws enacted after the Watergate scandal.

Since taking office in January, Obama has announced plans to close the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to halt the military trials of suspected terrorists there, and to make CIA officers follow the Army field manual's rules on interrogations. Cheney said the administration appears to be returning to the pre-2001 model of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue, rather than a military problem.

"When you go back to the law enforcement mode, which I sense is what they're doing, closing Guantanamo and so forth ... they are very much giving up that center of attention and focus that's required, that concept of military threat that is essential if you're going to successfully defend the nation against further attacks," he said.

One gets the general impression that Cheney can't wait to complete his own memoirs and wants to start massaging the historical record right away.

Still, the poor man is being sorely tested by the blogosphere which saw Slate earlier this year posting 'exclusive excerpts' from these same memoirs after Cheney announced that he was writing his version of events.

Some of which were oddly prescient of his current attitude:

Mark my words: There will be another terrorist attack. Thousands will die. Millions will suffer. When it happens, America will see at last that we were right. History will vindicate us, and we'll receive the respect we rightfully deserve. Not that I would ever want that, of course.

Friday 27 February 2009

Nitpicking Obama's speech

President Obama's speech to the U.S. Congress last Wednesday earned him a few positive reviews in the mainstream media.

The U.K. The Guardian thought that; He received widespread plaudits for a speech in which he discarded the soaring rhetoric of the campaign trail and adopted a more even pace, setting out details of how he would help the country out of recession, possibly as early as next year.

Certainly Obama appears to have had a small bounce in his job approval ratings recently (61 per cent on 24 February) after a steady drop since his inauguration and, I expect that lines like; "Tonight, I want every American to know this: we will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before," will go down well across America and keep his rating steady.

However, there is always someone to prick that political bubble and, as always FactCheck gives this speech the once over with sometimes amusing results:

President Obama's first speech to a joint session of Congress was stuffed with signals about the new direction his budget will take and meant-to-be reassuring words about the economy. But it was also peppered with exaggerations and factual misstatements.

  • He said "we import more oil today than ever before." That's untrue. Imports peaked in 2005 and are substantially lower today.
  • He claimed his mortgage aid plan would help "responsible" buyers but not those who borrowed beyond their means. But even prominent defenders of the program including Fed Chairman Bernanke and FDIC chief Bair concede foolish borrowers will be aided, too.
  • He said the high cost of health care "causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds." That's at least double the true figure.
  • He flubbed two facts about American history. The U.S. did not invent the automobile, and the transcontinental railroad was not completed until years after the Civil War, not during it.
  • He claimed that his stimulus plan "prevented the layoffs" of 57 police officers in Minneapolis. In fact, it's far more complicated than that, and other factors are also helping to save police jobs.

The president also repeated some strained claims we've critiqued before.

Full FactCheck analysis here.

Monday 16 February 2009

Greed no longer rules in the corridors of power?


I've watched with growing amazement as governments all around the world have thrown money at financial institutions and industry with almost reckless abandon as everyone tries to stop the economic haemorrhaging.
I thanked my lucky stars that (with the exception of the ABC childcare debacle) money wasn't going directly to corporation bailouts here in Australia.

When the Yanks began to put together their latest stimulus package I thought that some sanity might be returning, for President Obama was making a lot of noise about stopping these big corporations spending some of that enormous pile of taxpayer funding on their own salary packages and bonuses.

At first it seemed that my optimism was premature and greed was still stalking the corridors of power and board rooms across America because it appeared that the move to cap these often multi-million dollar payouts is in trouble.
"Congressional efforts to impose stringent restrictions on executive compensation appeared to be evaporating yesterday as House and Senate negotiators worked to fine-tune the compromise stimulus bill."
Another day brought other news however and the U.S. Congress has gone even further than the conditions suggested by Obama as it applies the cap retrospectively.
"The bill, which President Obama is expected to sign into law next week, limits bonuses for executives at all financial institutions receiving government funds to no more than a third of their annual compensation. The bonuses must be paid in company stock that can be redeemed only when the government investment has been repaid. With the measure, lawmakers seek to address public outrage over extravagant Wall Street paydays even as taxpayers bail out the industry."

Perhaps Sol Trujillo may decide to stay with Telstra after all - he now milks a more productive cow Downunder.

Sunday 15 February 2009

Saturday 17 January 2009

US judge orders Bush Administration to cough up those e-mails

Well, this has been a week and a half.
First a former Pentagon official in charge of those infamous military commissions finally admitted that torture occurred at GITMO.
Now we find out that a US Court has ordered the Office of the President to find those emails covering the period which included the invasion of Iraq and Hurricane Katrina.
Digital documents on memory sticks etc., are apparently just walking out the door or heading for the trash can of their own volition.
Yep, those pesky little blighters are even said to be jumping to their own deaths from fourth storey offices rather than reveal all they know about George, Dick, Donald, Colin, Alan, Roberto and whatshername.

The Order















Copy of order here.