Obama Administration Seeks “Emergency Control” of the Internet

by Tom Burghardt / August 29th, 2009 / Dissident Voice

You have to hand it to congressional Democrats. Mendacious grifters whose national security agenda is virtually indistinguishable from Bushist Republicans, when it comes to rearranging proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic, the party of “change” is second to none in the “all terrorism all the time” department.

While promising to restore the “rule of law,” “protect civil liberties” while “keeping America safe,” in practice, congressional Democrats like well-coiffed Republican clones across the aisle, are crafting legislation that would do Dick Cheney proud!

As the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S.773) wends its way through Congress, civil liberties’ advocates are decrying provisions that would hand the President unlimited power to disconnect private-sector computers from the internet.

CNET reported August 28, that the latest iteration of the bill “would allow the president to ‘declare a cybersecurity emergency’ relating to ‘non-governmental’ computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat.”

Drafted by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), “best friends forever” of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the telecommunications industry, they were key enablers of Bush-era warrantless wiretapping and privacy-killing data mining programs that continue apace under Obama.

As The New York Times revealed in June, a former NSA analyst described a secret database “code-named Pinwale, that archived foreign and domestic e-mail messages.” The former analyst “described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans’ e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.”

Antifascist Calling has noted on more than one occasion, that with “cyberterrorism” morphing into al-Qaeda 2.0, administration policies designed to increase the scope of national security state surveillance of private communications will soon eclipse the intrusiveness of Bushist programs.

As Cindy Cohn, the Legal Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) wrote earlier this month, commenting on this summer’s public relations blitz by former NSA boss Michael Hayden and Office of Legal Counsel torture-enabler John Yoo’s defense of the so-called Presidential Surveillance Program,

While the details are unknown, credible evidence indicates that billions of everyday communications of ordinary Americans are swept up by government computers and run through a process that includes both data-mining and review of content, to try to figure out whether any of us were involved in illegal or terrorist-related activity. That means that even the most personal and private of our electronic communications–between doctors and patients, between husbands and wives, or between children and parents–are subject to review by computer algorithms programmed by government bureaucrats or by the bureaucrats themselves. (Cindy Cohn, “Lawless Surveillance, Warrantless Rationales,” American Constitution Society, August 17, 2009)

Both Rockefeller and Snowe are representative of the state’s “bipartisan consensus” when it comes to increasing the power of the intelligence and security apparatus and were instrumental in ramming through retroactive immunity for telecoms who illegally spy on the American people. If last year’s “debate” over the grotesque FISA Amendments Act (FAA) is an indication of how things will go after Congress’ summer recess, despite hand-wringing by congressional “liberals,” S.773 seems destined for passage. CNET revealed:

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said. (Declan McCullagh, “Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet,” CNET News, August 28, 2009)

But as we witness practically on a daily basis, hysterical demands for “protection” from various “dark actors” inevitably invokes an aggressive response from militarized state security apparatchiks and their private partners.

As Antifascist Calling reported in July (see: “Behind the Cyberattacks on America and South Korea. ‘Rogue’ Hacker, Black Op or Both?”), when North Korea was accused of launching a widespread computer attack on U.S. government, South Korean and financial web sites, right-wing terrorism and security specialists perched at Stratfor and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)–without a shred of evidence–linked the cyber blitz to a flurry of missile tests and the underground detonation of a nuclear device by North Korea.

Adding to the noise, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee went so far as to urge President Obama to respond–by launching a cyberattack against the bankrupt Stalinist regime.

Despite provocative rhetoric and false charges that might have led to war with disastrous consequences for the people of East Asia, as it turned out an unknown sociopath used an updated version of the MyDoom e-mail worm to deploy a botnet in the attack. As Computerworld reported, the botnet “does not use typical antivirus evasion techniques and does not appear to have been written by a professional malware writer.” Hardly a clarion call for bombing Dear Leader and countless thousands of Koreans to smithereens!

In this context, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 goes much further than protecting “critical infrastructure” from over-hyped cyberattacks.

Among other measures, Section 18, “Cybersecurity Responsibilities and Authority,” hands the Executive Branch, specifically The President, the power to “declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network.” This does not simply apply to federal networks, but may very well extend to the private communications (”critical infrastructure information system or network”) of citizens who might organize against some egregious act by the state, say a nuclear strike against a nation deemed responsible for launching a cyberattack against the United States, as suggested in May by the head of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) General Kevin Chilton.

As I reported in June (see: “Cyber Command Launched. U.S. Strategic Command to Oversee Offensive Military Operations”), the military’s newly-launched U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) is a “subordinate unified command” overseen by STRATCOM. Would “message force multipliers” embedded in the media or Pentagon public diplomacy specialists carrying out psychological operations (PSYOPS) here in the heimat, become the sole conduit for critical news and information during said “national emergency”?

Additionally, under Section 18’s authority The President “shall designate an agency to be responsible for coordinating the response and restoration of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network affected by a cybersecurity emergency declaration under paragraph (2).” What agency might Senator Rockefeller have in mind for “coordinating the response”? As Antifascist Calling revealed in April (see: “Pentagon’s Cyber Command to Be Based at NSA’s Fort Meade”), CYBERCOM will be based at NSA headquarters and led by Lt. General Keith Alexander, the current NSA director who will oversee Pentagon efforts to coordinate both defensive and offensive cyber operations.

How might an out-of-control Executive Branch seize the initiative during an alleged “national emergency”? Paragraph 6 spells this out in no uncertain terms: “The President may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security.”

The draconian bill has drawn a sharp rebuke from both civil libertarians and the telecommunications industry. Larry Clinton, the president of the Internet Security Alliance (ISA) told CNET: “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

And Wayne Crews, the director of technology studies at the rightist Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) told Federal Computer Week: “From American telecommunications to the power grid, virtually anything networked to some other computer is potentially fair game to [President Barack] Obama to exercise ‘emergency powers’.”

True enough as far as it goes, these “free market” cheerleaders are extremely solicitous however, when it comes to government defense and security contracts that benefit their clients; so long as the public is spared the burden of exercising effective control as cold cash greases the sweaty palm of the market’s “invisible hand”!

As Antifascist Calling revealed in June (see: “Obama’s Cybersecurity Plan: Bring on the Contractors!”), the ISA is no ordinary lobby shop. According to a self-promotional blurb on their web site, ISA “was created to provide a forum for information sharing” and “represents corporate security interests before legislators and regulators.”

Amongst ISA sponsors one finds AIG (yes, that AIG!) Verizon, Raytheon, VeriSign, the National Association of Manufacturers, Nortel, Northrop Grumman, Tata, and Mellon. State partners include the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Congress, and the Department of Commerce.

Indeed ISA and CEI, are firm believers in the mantra that “the diversity of the internet places its security inescapably in the hands of the private sector,” and that “regulation for consumer protection” that rely on “government mandates” to “address cyber infrastructure issues” will be “ineffective and counter-productive both from a national security and economic perspective.” CEI and ISA’s solution? Let’s have another gulp of that tasty “market incentives” kool-aid!

In other words, hand over the cash in the form of taxpayer largess and we’ll happily (and profitably!) continue to violate the rights of the American people by monitoring their Internet communications and surveilling their every move through nifty apps hardwired into wireless devices as the Electronic Frontier Foundation revealed in a new report on locational privacy.

Unfortunately, Clinton, Crews and their well-heeled partners seem to have forgotten an elementary lesson of history: a national security state such as ours will invariably unwind its tentacles into every corner of life unless challenged by a countervailing force–a pissed-off, mobilized citizenry.

Now that national security “change” chickens are coming home to roost, both CEI and ISA seem incredulous: you mean us? How’s that for irony!

Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with EFF told CNET that changes to the original version of the bill do not address pressing privacy concerns.

Tien told the publication: “The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits. It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”

McCullagh avers: “Translation: If your company is deemed ‘critical,’ a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.”

And there you have it, a “cybersecurity” blacklist to accompany a potential state takeover of the Internet during a “national emergency.” What will they think of next!

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, his articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily and Pacific Free Press. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press. Read other articles by Tom, or visit Tom's website.

This article was posted on Saturday, August 29th, 2009 at 9:00am and is filed under Civil Liberties, Democrats, Legal/Constitutional, Military/Militarism, Obama, Privacy.

Escalation: Obama Wants 20,000 More Troops to Afghanistan

Published on Saturday, August 29, 2009 by The Independent/UK

US Wants 20,000 More Troops to Fight Taliban

British and American soldiers to shoulder brunt of surge's next phase

by Kim Sangupta

The commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan will ask for 20,000 more international troops as part of his new strategic plan for the alliance's war against a resurgent Taliban, The Independent has learned.

British troops in Helmand province recently. Last month was the deadliest for UK forces since the Falklands war. (Photo: The Independent).

The demand from General Stanley McChrystal will almost certainly lead to more British soldiers being sent to the increasingly treacherous battlegrounds of Helmand, the Taliban heartland, despite growing opposition to the war.

General McChrystal, tasked with turning the tide in the battle against the insurgency on the ground, has given a presentation of his draft report to senior Afghan government figures in which he also proposes raising the size of the Afghan army and police force.

But the request for troop reinforcements will come at a time of intensifying public debate about the role of the Nato mission. Last month saw a record number of troop deaths and injuries in a conflict that has claimed more than 200 British soldiers since the start of the US-led invasion in 2001. British losses rose sharply last month with 22 deaths, making it the bloodiest month for UK forces since the Falklands war. August has been the deadliest month for American troops in the eight-year war. Most of the deaths have come from lethal roadside bombs that Western troops appear unable to combat effectively. For the first time, the American public now views the fight against the Taliban as unwinnable, according to the most recent opinion polls.

The conduct of the Afghan government has not helped the mood on either side of the Atlantic. While US, British and other foreign troops are dying in what is supposedly a mission to rid Afghanistan of al-Qa'ida militants and make the country safe for democracy, the incumbent President stands accused of forging alliances with brutal warlords and overseeing outright fraud in an attempt to "steal" the national elections, the results of which are still being counted.

Last week, General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, intervened against a backdrop of heightened debate about the UK's military role. He stressed that the objective of the war was "to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a sanctuary for al-Qa'ida and other extremists".

According to General McChrystal's draft plan, the number of Afghan troops would rise from 88,000 to 250,000, and the police force from 82,000 to 160,000 by 2012. These increases are higher than expected, with previous suggestions that the totals would be raised to 134,000 and 120,000 for the army and police respectively.

The US commander will, however, ask other Nato countries to send further reinforcements and will travel shortly to European capitals to discuss the issue. It is widely expected that the UK will send up to 1,500 more troops. At the same time, a force of 700 sent to help provide security for the Afghan elections last week on a temporary basis will become a permanent presence.

Following the withdrawal from Iraq, British military commanders, backed by the then Defence Secretary, John Hutton, had recommended in the spring that up to 2,500 extra troops could be sent to Afghanistan. However, following lobbying from the Treasury, Gordon Brown agreed to only the temporary deployment of 700. Criticism of the decision by senior officers has led, it is claimed, to Downing Street changing its stance.

General McChrystal, who replaced Gen David McKiernan as Nato chief in Afghanistan earlier this year, was originally due to produce his strategic report this month, but decided to wait until after the Afghan presidential election. According to Western and Afghan sources he is continuing to take soundings from various quarters and the finalised document is due out after it becomes clear whether or not a second round of voting is needed to decide the outcome of the poll.

As part of an initial troop surge overseen by General McChrystal, the US has already committed to boosting its forces from 31,000 to 68,000 this year. However Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan was told by commanders in Afghanistan last week that those numbers would not be enough for what is being viewed as defining months of fighting to come.

In his meeting with Afghan officials, General McChrystal is reported to have stated that the extra troops would be needed to enforce a new policy of maintaining a presence in the areas captured from insurgents. This will provide security for residents and allow reconstruction and development.

Other Nato nations have the option of focusing on the training of Afghan security forces. However, say American officials, failure by Nato countries to "step up to the plate" would mean the shortfall would be covered by the US.

Diplomatic sources have also revealed that plans are being drawn up to sign a "compact" between Afghanistan and the US which will reiterate Washington's commitment to the security of Afghanistan while the Afghan government pledges to combat corruption and reinforce governance. Unlike previous international agreements over Afghanistan, the compact will be bilateral, without any other governments being involved. The timing of the agreement is due to coincide with a visit by Mr Karzai to New York, if, as expected, he emerges the election winner.

2009 Independent News and Media

Obama's Deification of Gentle Ben Bernanke

The Deification of Gentle Ben

Comment

By William Greider

August 25, 2009

Reuters Photos Bernanke sits in front of protesters as he prepares to testify before the House Financial Services Committee on Capitol Hill.

The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer can be thought of as the Potemkin village of American democracy. Every evening, it presents a prettified version of political debate--ever so civil and high-minded--that thoroughly blots out the substance of dissenting critics or the untamed opinions of mere citizens. PBS's sanitized version of news was deployed this summer to assist the charm offensive launched by the Federal Reserve and its embattled chairman, Ben Bernanke. The NewsHour staged a "town meeting" in Kansas City at which Bernanke fielded prescreened questions from preselected citizens. As town meetings go, this was strictly polite. As TV goes, it was deadly dull. The citizens were so deferential they seemed sedated. Jim Lehrer was so laconic, several times I thought he had nodded off.

The message, however, was reassuring. With folksy talk, Bernanke came across as a mild-mannered professor earnestly coping with financial complexities and sleepless nights. Gentle Ben struggles to save us from another Great Depression. People are angry at the Fed (and the elected government) for devoting so many trillions to bail out failing bankers while the populace copes with the disastrous results of the bankers' folly. Bernanke said he too hated the bailouts but had no choice. "I am as disgusted as you are," Gentle Ben allowed. To show further he is a good guy, Bernanke appointed a labor leader, Denis Hughes, as chairman of the board at the New York Federal Reserve Bank (the operating president, however, is a Goldman Sachs guy).

Bernanke's down-home touch had instant appeal among the elite media. The theme was swiftly amplified by the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal. As it happens, David Wessel, the Journal's economics editor, has just published a new book--In Fed We Trust--that describes the Fed chairman's struggle against the darkness in blow-by-blow detail. New York Times columnist David Brooks summarized the tale as "effective muddling through." Yes, mistakes were made, Brooks conceded, "but they did avert disaster and committed only a few big blunders. In the real world, that counts as a job well done."

In the real world beyond Brooks's grasp, this "job well done" counts as cruel joke on the hapless victims. The Federal Reserve did not "avert disaster" for many millions of Americans. It helped to cause their disaster. The central bank, as I have written, was co-author of the destruction, along with the reckless financiers of Wall Street. Now we are told to feel good about its heroic efforts to clean up their mess.

The personalized narrative is the standard approach the establishment uses to disarm substantive critics and divert public opinion. Create a fictionalized drama about the wise leaders who manage "to do the right thing" in the face of horrendous adversity and wrongheaded political opposition. Remember Alan Greenspan celebrated as the Maestro. Or Time's "Committee to Save the World" cover after the 1998 Asian financial crisis--picturing Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan and Larry Summers as our saviors. Now it is Gentle Ben to the rescue.

The tradition of dramatizing financial titans as public heroes probably started 100 years ago when J.P. Morgan was acclaimed for saving the national economy after the Panic of 1907. That comforting story is still told by adoring pundits who lionize the famous banker as a symbol of market ideology. Only they have the story backwards. The true history is that the federal government--Washington, not Wall Street--came to the rescue of banking in 1907. It was the first bailout for Wall Street. The rescue convinced bankers they needed the Federal Reserve to do more of the same and it has.

The media mobilization in behalf of Bernanke created the presumption that President Obama would be foolish not to reappoint him as chairman for four more years. A supposed "poll" of financial experts, reported by the Wall Street Journal, made it clear that Wall Street wants him. The implicit threat to Obama was that if he chose someone else, the financial markets would tank and the president would be blamed. To avoid the risk, Obama folded early--four months early--and interrupted his vacation to announce Bernanke's reappointment.

The deification is at best premature. Bernanke was right to act aggressively, flooding the streets with money to avoid the full catastrophe of deflation (the grave error the Fed committed after the stock market crash of 1929). He is wrongly criticized for his excess, but Bernanke also hasn't yet won this struggle. The big boys of Wall Street are revived or on government life support, but regional and smaller banks are still failing at an alarming rate. Prices, wages and production are still falling in various markets around the world. If financial markets break again in coming months, Bernanke may be nominated as goat, not hero.

The damaging error that Bernanke--and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner--have committed is to hand out all that money without demanding anything in return from the bankers and financiers. This is downright un-American, if you think about it. If the government provides subsidies to private enterprise, it has the right to expect different behavior from the recipients. Bankers were bailed out and given numerous guarantees, yet they still aren't lending.

Bernanke, after all, is a very conservative financial economist--vetted for chairman by the Bush White House and ex-hero Greenspan. Bernanke has long espoused a narrow, even right-wing doctrine that the Fed's role should be to focus primarily on fighting inflation, not improving conditions in the real economy.

When and if recovery does develop, he will be under intense pressure from financial interests to put on the brakes and head off any threat of inflation. The chorus of "hard money" advocates is already singing that siren song: raise interest rates before the economy gets too healthy. If Bernanke follows through on their demands, the president may come to regret his choice.

While the big media led cheers for Bernanke's reappointment, I was out in Decatur, Illinois, with a group of ordinary citizens who confronted the Fed for its failure to address the real pain and loss people are suffering. The Central Illinois Organizing Project brought together 500 people on a Saturday morning to deliver their own demands to the three Fed officials in attendance (Bernanke was invited but did not show). Among the propositions was a brilliant challenge to the central bank: the Fed should use its awesome influence (and maybe some of its money) to organize an investment consortium of banks to finance some real-life development projects in Peoria and Pekin. This could be a pilot project that demonstrates how this venerable institution can reform itself by serving the broader public interest.

The grassroots plans, properly grounded in analysis, were impressive-- common-sense ideas for improving lives and communities. If the Federal Reserve urged bankers to do the lending, the bankers would surely listen. Will Bernanke consider this or other such ideas? Don't hold your breath. That is what's fundamentally wrong with Bernanke and the Fed. They don't serve this public. They don't even see it.

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 68 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.
• Reprint this article. Click here for rights and information.

About William Greider

National affairs correspondent William Greider has been a political journalist for more than thirty-five years. A former Rolling Stone and Washington Post editor, he is the author of the national bestsellers One World, Ready or Not, Secrets of the Temple, Who Will Tell The People, The Soul of Capitalism (Simon & Schuster) and, most recently, Come Home, America. more...

Published on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 by The Nation

Holder -- and Obama -- Must Focus on Torture Accountability

by John Nichols

Attorney General Eric Holder chose not to take the counsel of the Republican partisans who have been campaigning in recent weeks to avert an accountability moment with regard to the Bush-Cheney administration's torture regime.

But that does not necessarily mean that an accountability moment will come.

For that to happen, Holder -- and, by extension, President Obama -- must stop being so cautious about laying the groundwork for the prosecution of wrongdoings.

They must, as well, be far more explicit in spelling out the purpose and point of the investigation into the use and abuse of so-called "harsh-interrogation" techniques by the Central Intelligence.

For now, Holder has opened what he refers to as a "preliminary review" into whether some CIA operatives broke the law in their coercive interrogations of suspected terrorists in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

"As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations," Holder said in a statement issued by his office. "The department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow."

Let's be clear: it is good that Holder has decided to take a more serious look at the use of torture during the Bush-Cheney years.

But he has done so in a disturbingly cautious manner that is described by the American Civil Liberties Union as "anemic." That runs the risk of encouraging the campaign by Missouri Senator Kit Bond and a handful of senators -- working in conjunction with conservative broadcast and print outlets -- to narrow the scope of any inquiry to such an extent that it will yield little in the way of accountability.

As with the battle to defend insurance-industry control over the healthcare system, Republican partisans in Congress are going to fight hard to block any inquiry that might expose and hold to account members of the Bush-Cheney administration.

Bond, in particular, has made it his mission to thwart anything akin to a real investigation.

Taking the lead in the campaign to block an investigation of officials who initiated, authorized and encouraged the use of torture, Bond has shown no qualms about using his position as the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee to protect partisan allies and prevent checking and balancing of executive excess. He has little to lose; after an undistinguished Senate tenure, the man who was once boomed as a Republican presidential or vice presidential prospect is a lame-duck senator who will leave the Capitol after the next election.

But Bond is determined to finish his career with a partisan flourish.

And he is in a position to do so.

As a senior Republican senator with close ties to key players within the intelligence establishment -- both at the CIA and among independent contractors associated with the agency, Bond was the key signer of a last-minute missive urging Attorney General Eric Holder to drop plans to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the use of torture during the Bush-Cheney years.

The other signers of the letter, all Republican senators, are Alabama's Jeff Sessions, Arizona's Jon Kyl, Georgia's Saxby Chambliss, Texan John Cornyn, Oklahoma's Tom Coburn, Utah's Orrin Hatch, Iowa's Chuck Grassley and North Carolina's Richard Burr. With the possible exceptions of Hatch and Grassley, all are among the more rabidly partisan members of the senate's Republican caucus. Bond has traditionally been a more responsible member of that caucus. But with this letter, he positions himself as the key point person in the struggle to prevent the inquiry Holder has initiated from getting anywhere.

Bond and his compatriots argued that the appointment of a special prosecutor would "have serious consequences not just for the honorable members of the intelligence community, but also for the security of all Americans."

In fact, the appointment of a special prosecutor should have serious consequences primarily for dishonorable members of the Bush-Cheney administration -- including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former Vice President Dick Cheney and, perhaps, former President Bush. Creating a false conflict between the rule of law and national security, Bond and his co-signers argued in their letter to Holder that, "It is ironic that the Obama administration, which has delayed justice for the victims of September 11 by suspending the trial of (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), may soon be charging ahead to prosecute the very CIA officials who obtained critical information from him." The absurdity of this argument is that it suggests the primary focus of an investigation will be on low-level or even mid-level Central Intelligence Agency operatives.

For it to be meaningful, the investigation can and should focus on the people who authorized the use of torture and who outlined how it should be applied. Those are high-level players in the Bush-Cheney administration, not "honorable members of the intelligence community." The only place at which low-level CIA operatives might become targets of an investigation -- or perhaps face prosecution -- would be if followed their own personal agendas.

The Center for Constitutional Rights offers a proper perspective:

Responsibility for the torture program cannot be laid at the feet of a few low-level operatives. Some agents in the field may have gone further than the limits so ghoulishly laid out by the lawyers who twisted the law to create legal cover for the program, but it is the lawyers and the officials who oversaw and approved the program who must be investigated.

The attorney general must appoint an independent special prosecutor with a full mandate to investigate those responsible for torture and war crimes, especially the high-ranking officials who designed, justified and orchestrated the torture program," the center said in a statement. "We call on the Obama administration not to tie a prosecutor's hands but to let the investigation go as far up the chain of command as the facts lead. We must send a clear message to the rest of the world, to future officials, and to the victims of torture that justice will be served and that the rule of law has been restored.

The point of any inquiry has to be to identify those who set the torture policy -- deliberately violating the U.S. and international laws, refusing to share information with Congress and lying to the American people -- and hold them to account.

Holder needs to spell this out.

So, too, does President Obama.

It is essential to confront the spin from Kit Bond and compatriots immediately and aggressively.

If Holder and Obama pull their punches, they will give opponents of accountability the opening they need to thwart it.

Copyright © 2009 The Nation

John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. A co-founder of the media reform organization Free Press, Nichols is is co-author with Robert W. McChesney of Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy - from The New Press. Nichols' latest book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism.

Obama DOJ Investigating Bush CIA

Obama DOJ Investigating Bush CIA

The Obama Justice Department has appointed a criminal prosecutor to look into alleged abuses of the CIA under the Bush administration.

James Joyner | Tuesday, August 25, 2009

[Attorney General Eric] Holder has named longtime prosecutor John H. Durham, who has parachuted into crisis situations for both political parties over three decades, to open an early review of nearly a dozen cases of alleged detainee mistreatment at the hands of CIA interrogators and contractors.

The announcement raised fresh tensions in an intelligence community fearful that it will bear the brunt of the punishment for Bush-era national security policy, and it immediately provoked criticism from congressional Republicans.

Legal analysts said the review, while preliminary, could expand beyond its relatively narrow mandate and ensnare a wider cast of characters. They cited U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald’s investigation of the leak of a CIA operative’s identity, which culminated with the criminal conviction of then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney’s chief of staff.

In a statement Monday afternoon, Holder cautioned that the inquiry is far from a full-blown criminal investigation. Rather, he said, it is unknown whether indictments or prosecutions of CIA contractors and employees will follow. Lawyers involved in similar reviews said that any possible cases could take years to build because of challenges with witnesses and evidence.

There are reasonable grounds to believe that serious crimes were committed as the Bush administration muddled through the early years of the War on Terror. A society that believes in the rule of law, then, should investigate such charges.

Doing so, especially in the person of a special prosecutor, however, opens up multiple cans of worms. First, it puts our intelligence agencies in CYA mode, making them even more skittish than normal. Second, it provides additional fodder for our enemies. Third, it opens up a rift between our law enforcement and intelligence communities.

I take Holder at his word that he intends only to find the truth and that he has no zeal for putting intelligence professionals or Bush officials in jail. The problem, however, is that these investigations take on a life of their own. Even prosecutors whose independence and judgment were previously thought beyond reproach seem to succumb to the enormous pressure to charge people with something. Otherwise, the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars they spend on their investigation looks like a waste and those who expected the investigation to yield criminal charges will never believe there wasn’t a cover-up.

Will Durham be any different?

Though a registered Republican, Durham generally is regarded as apolitical, and attorneys general from both parties — including Janet Reno, Michael B. Mukasey and Holder — have tapped him for their most difficult assignments. Hugh Keefe, a longtime Connecticut defense lawyer who has often squared off against Durham in court, called the prosecutor “the go-to guy for Justice whenever they get a hot case.”

[...]

Mark Califano, a former prosecutor in Connecticut, described Durham’s approach as “clinical.” He said Durham “very rarely” has walked away from a case without bringing criminal charges. “He likes to make cases when there is evidence there,” said Califano, the son of former Heath, Education and Welfare Secretary Joseph A. Califano Jr. “You’ve got to balance whether that kind of information exists. . . . You can’t move forward if you don’t have the evidence.”

[...]

“The thing about the U.S. attorney’s office in Connecticut is that they take the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt seriously in deciding whether to indict,” Keefe said. “If Durham can’t make a case beyond a reasonable doubt, he won’t indict.”

Also of interest:

Durham risked unpopularity a decade ago when he untangled questionable relationships among FBI agents, Massachusetts police and Boston mob kingpins. Ultimately, he turned over evidence that prompted a federal judge to dismiss several murder cases and he won a conviction against a longtime federal agent who had grown too close to organized crime figures. The investigation later attracted a mass audience in the Academy Award-winning film “The Departed.”

One wonders whether this will spawn a movie as well.

About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.

Despite Obama's Words Social Security and Medicare Benefits Decline

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Social Security and Medicare Benefits Are Inadequate at Best and Continue to Decline

NationalAcademySocialInsurance

The Rockefeller Foundation's Campaign for American Workers Initiative supports the development of new rules and new tools for the 21st century economy though innovative products and policies to increase economic security within the U.S. workforce, particularly among poor and vulnerable workers.

The National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization made up of the nation's leading experts on social insurance. Its mission is to promote understanding of how social insurance contributes to economic security and a vibrant economy.

Social Security and Medicare Benefits Are Inadequate at Best and Continue to Decline

The economic security of Americans has been deteriorating over the past decade – and particularly during the current recession. Many predict that the economy will get worse before it gets better. Americans and our institutions have not been challenged to such an extent in several generations, and some question our resiliency.

On the eve of the 74th anniversary of Social Security, nearly nine in ten (88%) Americans say Social Security is more important than ever as a result of today's economic crisis, and three-quarters of Americans say it is critical to preserve Social Security even if it means that working Americans have to pay higher taxes to do so, according to a poll released today by the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) and the Rockefeller Foundation.

The poll of 1,488 Americans, conducted between July 7-14 by the Benenson Strategy Group, sends a strong message to policymakers about the value that Americans place on Social Security benefits for themselves and the country as a whole – with over 75 percent of Americans saying that Social Security is or will be an important part of their retirement and nearly half of recipients stating that they would be unable to afford food, clothing or housing without it.

With the vast importance that Social Security has in the lives of so many Americans, an overwhelming number – 90 percent – want Congress to act within the next two years to preserve Social Security. Americans are willing to pay for Social Security because they value it for themselves (72%), for their families (75%), and for the security and stability it provides to millions of retired Americans, disabled individuals, and children and widowed spouses of deceased workers (87%).

“The recession underscores the critical role Social Security fills for working families and retirees across the nation,” said Kenneth S. Apfel, Chair of the NASI Board of Directors and Commissioner of Social Security from 1997 to 2001. “On the eve of the 74th anniversary of the signing of the Social Security Act, it is striking to see how deeply Americans value the program, they want to preserve and improve it, and they are willing to pay for it.”

"In these challenging economic times, Americans are calling on their leaders to ensure that Social Security remains a strong, sustainable safety net," said Judith Rodin, the Rockefeller Foundation's president. "Seventy-four years ago, the Rockefeller Foundation helped inform Social Security's inception and implementation. Today, we're proud to build on that legacy by supporting a new generation of products and policies that bolster resilience to economic risk and protect Americans' retirements."

“The recession has changed the way Americans think about their future,” said Joel Benenson, President of the Benenson Strategy Group. “Americans have re-learned that we can't always count on the stock market, so we need to be able to count on Social Security. Americans are willing to invest in the peace of mind Social Security provides.”

With about 31 million Americans expected to retire in the next decade, the impact of today's economic situation on worker insecurity is clear from the poll, as 65 percent of Americans want to see an increase in Social Security as a result of lost savings and 78 percent of Americans are concerned about having enough money for retirement.

Large majorities of Americans support strengthening benefits for those who need them most.

• 78% support extending benefits to children under age 22 of deceased or disabled parents while attending college or vocational school;
• 76% support increasing benefits for widowed spouses of low-earning couples;
• 75% support increasing benefit for people over the age of 85;
• 69% support improving benefits for steady, low-paid workers at retirement; and
• 64% support improving benefits for working parents who take time off to care for children.

For more on the poll findings, see Americans' Views on Social Security.

Social Security is the main source of income for most retirees

While benefits are modest, Social Security is the the main source of income for most elders.

For 2 in 3 beneficiary units, Social Security is half or more of total income.

For 1 in 3 beneficiaries, Social Security is almost all (90% or more) of total income.

Options to improve adequacy

Options can target vulnerable groups

1.Guarantee that retirees with at least 30 years of work get a benefit that meets a meaningful standard of adequacy.

2.Improve benefits for widowed spouses of low-earning dual-earner couples.

3.Increase benefits at advanced age –say 85.

4.For children of deceased or disabled workers, continue benefits to age 22 while in college or vocational school.

How can we pay for more adequate benefits?

Social Security does not need more money now. But we can schedule now what we expect it to need later.

Options for future revenue

1.Keep the 2009 estate tax and devote it to Social Security (1/4 of the shortfall)

2.Graduallyrestore the tax cap to cover 90% of all wages (1/3 of the shortfall)

3.Pay a legacy tax on earnings above the tax cap (1/4 of the shortfall)

4. Schedule FICA increases in the future –e.g., for employers and employees increase FICA from 6.2 to 7.0 in 2021 and to 7.8 in 2051 (all of the shortfall).

As real wages rise, future workers would share part of their higher standards of living so that elders fall less far behind (Thompson 2004)

Medicare Project Overview

Pressures to curb health care spending, the projected insolvency of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, and concerns about gaps in coverage that leave beneficiaries exposed to significant health care costs will shape the evolution of the Medicare program. The National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) Medicare project provides neutral, timely analysis of the most important policy questions facing Medicare over the next several years. It draws on the Academy's expertise in health care financing, innovative public policy approaches to paying for and delivering health services efficiently, and the institutional context in which the Federal government implements health policies.

Medicare Insurance increases costs yearly while Social Security Benefits decline

Benefits coverage decline yearly by limiting services provided and lowering payment amounts to providers. Many practitioners refuse to provide to Medicare beneficiaries

Conclusion

*Benefit adequacy is important in Social Security solvency debates.

*Benefits are modest; yet are the main source of income for most beneficiaries.

*Benefits hold their value despite market meltdowns. Other sources are less secure and less efficient.

*Many options exist to strengthen and pay for Social Security for families and elders in the 21stcentury.

Are Social Security Benefits Adequate?

Contact:

Virginia Reno

VP for Income Security

National Academy of Social Insurance

www.nasi.org

Vreno@nasi.org

202-452-8097

Published on Monday, August 24, 2009

Rendition of Terror Suspects Will Continue Under Obama

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration's practice of sending terror suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but will monitor their treatment to ensure they are not tortured, administration officials said on Monday.

The administration officials, who announced the changes on condition that they not be identified, said that unlike the Bush administration, they would give the State Department a larger role in assuring that transferred detainees would not be abused.

"The emphasis will be on insuring that individuals will not face torture if they are sent over overseas," said one administration official, adding that no detainees will be sent to countries that are known to conduct abusive interrogations.

But human rights advocates condemned the decision, saying it would permit the transfer of prisoners to countries with a history of torture and that promises of humane treatment, called "diplomatic assurances," were no protection against abuse.

"It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture," said Amrit Singh of the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush.

She cited the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian sent in 2002 by the United States to Syria, which offered assurances against torture but beat Mr. Arar with electrical cable anyway.

The Obama task force proposed improved monitoring of treatment of prisoners sent to other countries, but Ms. Singh said the usual method of such monitoring - visits from American or allied consular officials - had also been ineffective. A Canadian consular official visited Mr. Arar several times, but the prisoner was too frightened to tell him about the torture, according to a Canadian investigation of the case.

The new transfer policy was one of a series of recommendations proposed by a working group set up in January to study changes in rendition and interrogation policies under an executive order signed by President Obama.

In addition, the Obama administration is setting up a new administrative interrogation unit, to be housed within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which will oversee the interrogations of top terror suspects using largely non-coercive techniques approved by the administration earlier this year.

The creation of the new unit will formally end the Central Intelligence Agency's primary role in questioning high level detainees after years in which some lawmakers and human rights groups complained of abusive treatment.

Bill Burton, the deputy White House spokesman who is with the vacationing president in Oak Bluffs, Mass., said that creation of the unit does not mean the C.I.A. is out of the interrogation business. The new unit will include "all these different elements under one group," he said at the briefing, and would work out of F.B.I. headquarters in Washington.

The announcement of the new unit came as the administration released a long withheld C.I.A. Inspector General's report written in 2004 that is said to be a scathing critique of how the C.I.A. carried out interrogations of terror suspects.

The new unit, to be called the High Value Interrogation Group, will be comprised of analysts, linguists and other personnel from the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies who will contribute expertise to interrogations. The group will operate under policies set by the National Security Council.

The officials said all interrogations will comply with guidelines contained in the Army Field Manual, which outlaws the use of physical force. The new interrogation group will study interrogation methods, however, and may add additional non-coercive methods in the future, the officials said.