FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Monday, January 31, 2011

Psywar Riveting debut film on controlling the public mind

Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice


Psywar

Riveting debut film on controlling the public mind

Psywar is a sterling debut documentary from writer-director Scott Noble. It is chock full of interviews with thinkers, historical background, and excellent narration by Mikela Jay.

Psywar explores the evolution of propaganda and public relations in the United States, with an emphasis on the “elitist theory of democracy” and the relationship between war, propaganda, and class.

This film is designed both as an introduction to the concept of psychological warfare by governments against their citizens and as an exploration of certain dominant themes in American propaganda. Significant time is also devoted to different conceptions of “democracy” as theorized by figures like Walter Lippmann, Edward Bernays, and the “founding fathers” of the United States itself.

Psywar illuminates how the state of the world reached the point it is at today: where an imperialist United States wages several wars abroad and maintains the support of its people, despite a growing and yawning chasm between the haves (who profit from warring) and the have-nots (cannon fodder deluded by unquestioning patriotic idealism). The US has managed to drag its fellow capitalist nations along in more-or-less support of its imperialist aggressions.

People who analyze the state of the world and consider the manifest moral and humanitarian violations might be forgiven for shaking their heads that such a whopping segment of humanity could go along with such inequality, such carnage, such insouciance.

Psywar begins by looking at how people’s distorted perceptions are crafted and maintained

In the opening segment of Psywar, there is video footage of American soldiers defacing a statue of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein with the Old Glory. It was a staged event by psyop group. The film then segues into another infamous pysop about the fallen American soldier Jessica Lynch. Both events were disinformation campaigns that deliberately misreported events.

John Rendon, an “information warrior and perception manager,” is a major player in the $200 billion a year perception-management industry. Rendon is the figure who orchestrated the effort to sell the American public on a war against Iraq. The American public was buying it early on. At best, it can be stated the government thought highly enough about the public acumen that it resorted to disinformation; at least public perception matters.

The corporate media is heavily complicit in the warmongering and warring, even to the extent that psywarriors at CNN “helped in the production of news.”

Psywar points to a synergy: “The invasion of Iraq represents a pinnacle of domestic psywar in the United States, an unparalleled integration between [sic] public relations firms, corporate media, and military psyops.”

The perception management was so powerful that even soldiers were so deceived that they engaged in the greatest crime as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal at the end of World War II: aggression.

Perception management is “steeped in class warfare.” Psywar tells the story of the exploitation of workers by the wealthy Rockefeller family. Striking coal miners seeking better working conditions and pay were attacked by the National Guard who were in the pay of the Rockefeller family. It is known as the Ludlow Massacre.

In one of his last videotaped interviews, historian Howard Zinn explains the dilemma of the working poor against plutocrats such as the Rockefeller family.

The Ludlow Massacre was a PR nightmare for the Rockefellers. An early psywarrior, Ivy Lee was instrumental in attempting to rehabilitate the image of the Rockefellers. His public relations involved smears and disinformation against the coal miners and their supporters. As Psywar mentions later in the film, Lee would later propagandize for Nazis against Americans.

Early on, it became clear that public perception needed to operate behind the scenes. Staged PR was arranged, such as charity.

Richard Coniff, author of A Natural History of the Rich, challenges the philanthropy of rich – stating that the rich hold a “functional view of wealth rather than a strictly charitable view.”

Zinn agreed, noting that charity can be exploitative and that the American system is exploitative. Zinn said that the “system is maintained [...] by giving people a little bit, and giving enough people just enough to prevent them from breaking out in open rebellion”

In the second part of the documentary, Noble looked at propagating the faith. It begins with Graeme MacQueen, co-founder of the Center for Peace Studies. He also holds that the support of the people is necessary for war. However, he said “war is disgusting to most people”; therefore great psychological pressure is brought to bear upon soldiers.
National Security is there to swindle people

Christopher Simpson, author of The Science of Coercion, says propaganda is about mindset and ideology.

Recognizing this, Psywar relates how president Woodrow Wilson helped cast the propagandistic George Creel Commission which would pave the way for the US to enter World War I by planting false atrocity stories, stoking fear in Americans and calling on them to fight the good fight for democracy.

The propagandist firm of Hill and Knowlton arranged an infamous staged op as a prelude to an assault against Iraq. A teenage girl, Nasriyah, cried crocodile tears and lied about babies being ripped from incubators by Iraqi soldiers. The false story moved American sentiment to back military action against Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait.

Patriotism is the sentiment widely relied upon by governments to attain their ends against foreign foes. Historian Michael Parenti appears to challenge typical notions of patriotism. He identifies patriotism as being about greater values than attacking foreign lands; he sees it as about social justice, peace and stability, an end to racism, etc.

Another problem identified as preventing a public solidarity was that unions were based on gender and ethnicity.

Historian Sharon Smith said a breakthrough came with the anarcho-syndicalist union the Industrial Workers of the World (better known as the Wobblies) which set out to organize and include women, immigrants, and African Americans in one big union.

Anarcho-syndicalist scholar Noam Chomsky holds that it is natural for humans to free associate.

The unity among humans is thwarted by a state which uses war to accumulate power and by corporations to gain enormous fortunes. The Left worldwide labor movement is in disarray

In part 3, We the People, Psywar elucidates on how people are pawns in a system set up in favor of the wealthy.

The existence of democracy is refuted. Chomsky calls elections “a marketing exercise.”

Says William I. Robinson, editor of Critical Globalization Studies, we live in polyarchy: “a system of elite rule.” That is the way the system was designed to be.

Historian John Manley states that the so-called founding fathers were slave owners who sought to protect propertied interests. To this end, the Constitution was crafted behind closed doors. Chomsky notes that James Madison, the major framer of the Constitution, designed it to protect the opulent from the majority.

Littler known is that the US Constitution is based on the Kaianerekowa (Great Law of Peace) of the Haudenosaunee (called Iroquois in Psywar). Stephen M. Sachs, author of Remembering the Circle, lists how the Kaianerekowa allowed the Haudenosaunee to easily remove corrupt leaders, that women had a major role in decision-making, that everyone was involved in policy formation, thus creating a participatory society.

One weak link stood out in Psywar. Why did the film turn to a white man to tell the history of “native Americans”? Why not talk to one of the Haudenosaunee?

The final part of Psywar is Consumers. People are indoctrinated to see themselves as consumers. Advertising reminds people of this. The system would have people work to consume. To this end, the emphasis is on work, not leisure. It is feared that less hours of work might foment radicalism.

Sut Jhally of the Media Education Foundation attacked consumptive society: “The problem of capitalism is the problem of consumption. And the problem is that after your needs have been met, there is no real need for consumption.”

The system is reeling now. Neoliberalism calls for cutbacks and results in increasing inequality. Parenti said we are back to about 1900 in terms of inequality. “People are poor because they are paid less than the value that they produce. You need poverty. Poverty is needed if you are gonna have wealth.”

Psywar argues that it is the monopoly media’s relentless propaganda that holds up capitalism. Democracy and capitalism are argued to be mutually exclusive. If capitalism is sacrosanct, then you can not have democracy.

“Behind political democracy was economic equality.”

Psywar tells the story of how and why the world is the way it is now. It tells of the system, why it was concocted and why it is kept in place.

Knowledge is requisite to combat propaganda and disinformation. It is necessary to overcome the system and to erect a people-centered system that respects the needs and aspirations of the society as a whole. Psywar makes clear that public opinion is important. If it were not important, then there would be no need for perception management. It is the incessant propaganda and disinformation that creates a perception of reality. Noble reveals the framework that exploits class, race, gender, and resources to benefit the already wealthy at the expense of the masses.

Psywar is a documentary that augurs well for future filmmaking by Noble who made the film for $1500 while working a blue collar job. It is a good example of the democratization of filmmaking occurring via the internet.

Kim Petersen is co-editor of Dissident Voice. He can be reached at: kim@dissidentvoice.org. Read other articles by Kim.

This article was posted on Monday, January 31st, 2011 at 8:02am and is filed under Capitalism, Democracy, Film Review, Labor, Neoliberalism, Unions.

EFF Uncovers Widespread FBI Intelligence Violations



January 30th, 2011

EFF Uncovers Widespread FBI Intelligence Violations

News Update by Mark Rumold

EFF has uncovered widespread violations stemming from FBI intelligence investigations from 2001 - 2008. In a report released today, EFF documents alarming trends in the Bureau’s intelligence investigation practices, suggesting that FBI intelligence investigations have compromised the civil liberties of American citizens far more frequently, and to a greater extent, than was previously assumed.

Using documents obtained through EFF's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation, the report finds:

Evidence of delays of 2.5 years, on average, between the occurrence of a violation and its eventual reporting to the Intelligence Oversight Board

Reports of serious misconduct by FBI agents including lying in declarations to courts, using improper evidence to obtain grand jury subpoenas, and accessing password-protected files without a warrant

Indications that the FBI may have committed upwards of 40,000 possible intelligence violations in the 9 years since 9/11

EFF's report stems from analysis of nearly 2,500 pages of FBI documents, consisting of reports of FBI intelligence violations made to the Intelligence Oversight Board — an independent, civilian intelligence-monitoring board that reports to the President on the legality of foreign and domestic intelligence operations. The documents constitute the most complete picture of post-9/11 FBI intelligence abuses available to the public. Our earlier analysis of the documents showed the FBI's arbitrary disclosure practices.

EFF's report underscores the need for greater transparency and oversight in the intelligence community. As part of our ongoing effort to inform the public and elected officials about abusive intelligence investigations, we are distributing copies of the report to members of Congress.

A pdf copy of the report can be downloaded here.

AttachmentSize
EFF IOB Report.pdf1.82 MB

Related Issues: FOIA Litigation for Accountable Government, National Security Letters, PATRIOT Act, Transparency

Related Cases: FOIA: Intelligence Agencies' Misconduct Reports

[Permalink]


Political Prisoners in the United States




January 30, 2011 at 14:52:15

Political Prisoners in the United States

By Eric Spears (about the author)

opednews.com



"We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial 'outside agitator' idea."

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

I believe that it is appropriate for the United States to lecture China about their deplorable human rights record. However, the reverse is also true; China, or any other nation, has every right and moral obligation to press the U.S. on its own human rights violations. While we are all somewhat familiar with glaring recent abuses such as Abu Ghraib, the world-wide network of "black box" CIA prisons where illegally held detainees are tortured and sometimes murdered, and the gulag at Guantanamo Bay, not much attention is paid to political prisoners in the United States.

Here are a few examples of the more famous political prisoners in the United States and suggestions on whom to contact to urge their release. Today would be a good day to follow the lead of Martin Luther King, Jr. and agitate for justice.

Bradley Manning
Bradley Manning is the Army private accused of providing Wikileaks with U.S. government documents. He has been held in solitary confinement since July, 2010. The conditions of Manning's detention are appalling: He is in held in a 6 foot by 12 foot cell for 23 hours a day where is not allowed to exercise. His glasses are taken from him except for brief periods when he is allowed to read, and at night he is stripped to his boxer shorts. His mental health is said to have deteriorated. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture has submitted a formal inquiry to the U.S. State Department about Manning's treatment.

Former Reagan Administration Paul Roberts has said Manning is, "wrongfully imprisoned for meeting his military responsibility." Australian journalist John Pilger calls Manning, "the world's pre-eminent prisoner of conscience." For more information, visit The Bradley Manning Support Network.

Leonard Peltier
American Indian Movement activist Leonard Peltier has been known world-wide as a U.S. political prisoner since his confinement in 1977 for allegedly killing two FBI agents during a shootout at the Pine Ridge Reservation. Despite strong evidence of his innocence and a trial widely viewed as bogus, no president has ever dared to cross the FBI to pardon Peltier and release him from his two consecutive life sentences.

Here are some routes you can take to learn more and to support Leonard Peltier. There are two Peltier defense committees:


Details on the case:


Mumia Abu-Jamal
Mumia Abu-Jamal is an internationally respected political activist and broadcast journalist who was sentenced to death for killing a U.S. police officer in 1981. Abu-Jamal remains on death row despite evidence of his innocence that has convinced observers around the world and despite the confession of another man who claims to have killed the officer. About 25 city governments, including Paris, Copenhagen, Palermo and Montreal have made Abu-Jamal an honorary citizen, and he has been honored with numerous awards, honorary degrees, and even has a street in Paris named after him. Abu-Jamal is also the subjects of several movies. Through legal battle over the decades, Abu-Jamal's execution has been delayed but the sentence still stands.

There are countless organizations working for the release of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Here are a few to check out:




The Cuban Five
The Cuban Five are five Cuban intelligence officers - Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando González and René González - who came to Miami, Florida to monitor anti-Cuban terrorist groups. There is a long history of terrorist attacks from persons and organizations based in Miami, including the bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner. Instead of arresting the alleged terrorists, the Cuban agents were arrested, held in solitary confinement for nearly a year and a half, and are now serving sentences of up to two consecutive life terms.

Eight Nobel Peace laureates have written to demand the release of the Five. Amnesty International has criticized their treatment as a violation of human rights, and 110 members of the British Parliament signed a letter to the U.S. in support of the Cuban Five.

To find out more, please visit:



These are a few of the higher profile political imprisonment cases in the United States. Here is a report from a Harvard Law Instructor on U.S. political prisoners:

School of the Americas

In addition to political activists who face trumped-up charges, U.S. prisons contain political activists who intentionally face arrest. The media doesn't report these events widely, but each year, many Americans are arrested while demonstrating against government policies. For example, thousands of activists, many of whom are faith-based, have been swept up in mass arrests for protesting at the School of the Americas. The School of the Americas (SOA) is a notorious U.S. military combat training facility for Latin American soldiers at Fort Benning, Georgia. Graduates include Central American death squad leaders and paramilitary colluders who have committed numerous atrocities included massacres, rape, and torture. In the wake of such controversy, the United States responded by changing the name of the school to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. Each year protesters go to the School of the Americas to bear witness and shed light on the SOA. Nonviolent SOA protesters have cumulatively spent over 95 years in prison. To learn more, visit SOA Watch.


http://www.daisybrain.wordpress.com

I'm an elementary school teacher, an occasional nonviolence trainer, and a person who still listens to the RAMONES. Please come visit my blog & see what crazy output my brain is currently producing.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.


Friday, January 28, 2011

The dissolving Constitution: The Enumerated Rights Are Hanging By A Thread




January 28, 2011 at 00:00:17

The dissolving Constitution: The Enumerated Rights Are Hanging By A Thread

By paul craig roberts (about the author)

opednews.com




While people in Tunisia and Egypt have taken to the streets in attempts to gain their liberty, Americans are losing their liberty with minimal protest. Even the American Civil Liberties Union seems unfocused. At a time when we are being surrounded by a police state and the federal judiciary is being taken over by the Federalist Society and unitary executive theory that places the president above the law, we need a heightened appreciation of civil liberty and the Constitution on the part of the American people. The American people need to come together and to take a united stand against the police state and unaccountable executive branch power.

During my many years of writing in defense of law as a shield of the people instead of a weapon in the hands of the state, I have identified two important reasons that Americans are losing the protection of the legal principles that made them free. One reason is that a significant portion of the population, especially among those who think of themselves as conservative, there is indifference and even hostility to civil liberties. The other reason is that Benthamite thinking has made inroads into the Blackstonian conception of law that is the basis of the Constitution. Jeremy Bentham argued for pre-emptive arrest before a crime is committed, for torture in order to obtain confession, and for subverting the attorney-client privilege. Bentham's views, fiercely hostile to those of our Founding Fathers, are now represented on the federal bench (federal appeals court judge Jay S. Bybee, for example) and in prestigious law schools (John Yoo, UC Berkeley, for example).

In chapter 3 of The Tyranny of Good Intentions, Larry Stratton and I contrast Bentham's views with those of William Blackstone and our Founding Fathers. This article is about the division of the American public on the matter of civil liberty.

Court decisions by "activist judges" in behalf of criminals, abortion, homosexual rights, and against school prayer, all in the name of constitutional rights and civil liberty, have resulted in many Americans identifying civil liberty with procedures that provide protections and immunities for criminals and with judicially created rights that are destroying morality. All the fights over Supreme Court appointments have to do with "social issues" such as abortion. The enumerated rights in the Constitution, such as habeas corpus, due process, free speech and association, long ago receded into the background and play scant role in Senate confirmations of Supreme Court appointees.

As a member of the ACLU, I look to that organization for the legal defense of our enumerated rights. The ACLU does stand up for the enumerated civil liberties spelled out in the Constitution. However, reading the current issue of the ACLU newsletter, I found myself wondering if the ACLU is unconsciously contributing to the public's indifference and hostility to civil liberty. The newsletter's list of legal highlights for 2010 presents the ACLU's activities as being concentrated in efforts to legalize homosexual marriage, to protect abortion from curbs, and to end the promotion of religious beliefs in public schools.

These are all issues that infuriate conservatives, and these are the issues that conservatives identify with civil liberties. Therefore, much of the public is not the least bit perturbed to hear that civil liberties are under attack when many understand civil liberties to consist of criminal rights, prayer bans, abortion, and homosexual marriage. This is dangerous, because in the public's mind, civil liberty can easily morph from procedures that coddle criminals into procedures that coddle terrorists. Should this occur, all would be lost. Defense of the enumerated rights would become "giving aid and comfort to terrorists."

It is not my purpose to argue the validity of the ACLU's position on abortion and homosexual marriage. I am sure that the ACLU is convinced that homosexual and abortion rights are somewhere in the Constitution, but they are not enumerated rights, and the conservatives know it. When the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, I don't know if abortion and homosexual acts were the statutory offenses that they were during much of my lifetime, but they were not socially approved behavior that the Founding Fathers thought worthy of Constitutional protection. The separation of church and state means no state church or taxpayer support. It does not mean no prayer in public schools. Ironic, isn't it, that today with faith-based initiatives we have taxpayers' money going to religious institutions, but no prayer in school.

When the issue is raised that perhaps the Constitution, like common law, can change as people's mores change, conservatives reply that if the Constitution can change, anything can be put into it or be taken out, such as the civil liberties that I am complaining about Bush taking out. As for abortion and gay marriage, these are things that conservatives think activist judges and the ACLU put into the Constitution. Strictures against abortion and homosexuals should have been overturned legislatively, not by inventive interpretations of the Constitution.

The unintended consequence of the judicial branch exercising the legislative function in the name of Constitutional rights has been the alienation of a large percentage of the population from civil liberty concerns. Today much of the population views the ACLU as a threat to society comparable to terrorism.

With the police state destroying protections against searches, the First Amendment, habeas corpus, due process, and the right to an attorney, with grand jury subpoenas issued to war protesters, with lists of American citizens to be assassinated, with ongoing war crimes committed in wars based in lies and deceptions, with the executive branch's seizure of the power to violate statutory laws against torture and spying without warrants, should the ACLU refocus, stop alienating conservatives, and bring the people together against the police state?

Should the ACLU be devoting its scarce resources to convincing courts to legalize homosexual marriage when the executive branch can declare people to be suspects and throw them into a dungeon? Reproductive rights and homosexual marriage will not stop people from being thrown into dungeons. If the enumerated rights are lost, no other rights are meaningful.

Dr. Roberts is coauthor with Lawrence Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions, a book that documents the erosion of the legal principles that protect liberty.

Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Support Bradley Manning - Take Action Now!

WikiLeaks Is Democracy


Support Bradley Manning - Take Action Now!

Julian Assange has called Bradley Manning “the world's pre-eminent prisoner of conscience.”

Manning is the Army private accused of leaking the documents that WikiLeaks has been publishing with other media outlets. He is now being held in the Marine Brig in Quantico in very abusive conditions. I am writing you to urge you to take action in his defense.

Manning has not been convicted of anything. He has not even gone to trial, yet he is being held in solitary confinement. He has not even been allowed a real pillow or blanket. He is allowed to exercise for one hour a day, but he is in shackles and goes to another small room where he does figure 8’s. He is not allowed to exercise in his 6 by 12 foot cell. He is awakened at 5 every morning and not allowed to sleep during the day.

Last week, the Brig Commander abused his discretion further and put Manning on suicide watch even though the brigs psychiatrist said he did not need it. This meant for two days Manning only had his boxer shorts – not even permitted his glasses – and remained in his cell for 24 hours. It has been reported that a superior in the Marines said the Brig Commander did not have the authority to require suicide watch, that could only be done by a psychiatrist.

A former commander of Quantico has written a letter to the current commander criticizing Manning’s conditions. Indeed, he asks why a member of the Army is even being held in a Marine brig?

Manning is not being treated like a normal prisoner. He is being treated to cruel and unusual punishment. Rather than pre-trial detention, this is pre-trial punishment.

Last week Robert Gibbs was asked about Manning at a White House briefing. He said he had not heard any talk of him but would check. Now, we want you to help us bring this issue to the attention of President Obama and Attorney General Holder. Please send a letter today. Click here to send a letter now.

Some have perceived Manning as a traitor. Even if that were true it does not justify pre-trial torture. Others see Manning as a patriot. He is not accused of giving documents to Iran, China or Russia. He is accused of giving them to the media so Americans can see what U.S. foreign policy is doing. He is not accused of trying to become rich by selling the documents. He gave them for free, allegedly, because he wanted to see a debate on U.S. foreign policy so the United States could live up to its highest expectations. He wanted to make the United States better. That is not treason, it is patriotism.

Thank you for taking action. Manning allegedly leaked these documents for us. We need to stand with Bradley.

Sincerely,

Linda Schade
WikileaksIsDemocracy.org


P.S. Please donate to support our efforts to stand up for Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, and others working to uphold democracy.

______________________________________________________________________________________

WikiLeaksisDemocracy.org • 2842 N Calvert St, Baltimore, MD 21218443-708-8360 • Fax 877-637-3335

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Justice Department seeks to have all web surfing tracked

raw story

Justice Department seeks to have all web surfing tracked

By Agence France-Presse
Tuesday, January 25th, 2011 -- 5:53 pm

Mandatory data retention 'raises serious privacy and free speech concerns'

WASHINGTON — The US Justice Department wants Internet service providers and cell phone companies to be required to hold on to records for longer to help with criminal prosecutions.

"Data retention is fundamental to the department's work in investigating and prosecuting almost every type of crime," US deputy assistant attorney general Jason Weinstein told a congressional subcommittee on Tuesday.

"Some records are kept for weeks or months; others are stored very briefly before being purged," Weinstein said in remarks prepared for delivery to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

He said Internet records are often "the only available evidence that allows us to investigate who committed crimes on the Internet."

Internet and phone records can be "crucial evidence" in a wide array of cases, including child exploitation, violent crime, fraud, terrorism, public corruption, drug trafficking, online piracy and computer hacking, Weinstein said, but only if the data still exists when law enforcement needs it.

"In some ways, the problem of investigations being stymied by a lack of data retention is growing worse," he told lawmakers.

Weinstein noted inconsistencies in data retention, with one mid-sized cell phone company not keeping records, a cable Internet provider not tracking the Internet protocol addresses it assigns to customers and another only keeping them for seven days.

Law enforcement is hampered by a "legal regime that does not require providers to retain non-content data for any period of time" while investigators must request records on a case-by-case basis through the courts, he said.

"The investigator must realize he needs the records before the provider deletes them, but providers are free to delete records after a short period of time, or to destroy them immediately," Weinstein added.

The justice official said greater data retention requirements raise legitimate privacy concerns but "any privacy concerns about data retention should be balanced against the needs of law enforcement to keep the public safe."

John Morris, general counsel at the non-profit Center for Democracy & Technology, said mandatory data retention "raises serious privacy and free speech concerns."

"A key to protecting privacy is to minimize the amount of data collected and held by ISPs and online companies in the first place," he said.

"Mandatory data retention laws would require companies to maintain large databases of subscribers' personal information, which would be vulnerable to hackers, accidental disclosure, and government or other third party access."

Kate Dean, executive director of the Internet Service Provider Association, said broad mandatory data retention requirements would be "fraught with legal, technical and practical challenges."

Dean said they would require "an entire industry to retain billions of discrete electronic records due to the possibility that a tiny percentage of them might contain evidence related to a crime."

"We think that it is important to weigh that potential value against the impact on the millions of innocent Internet users' privacy," she said.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Olbermann Out? Hell No! He's Trending...

Pop Watch
Jan 24 2011 09:26 PM ET

Keith Olbermann tweets: 'Citizens Of The Free World: Greetings!'

Keith-OlbermannImage Credit: Mark J. Terrill/AP ImagesIt’s not exactly the equivalent of Douglas MacArthur wading ashore in the Philippines, but former MSNBC political pugilist Keith Olbermann delivered on his promise to… tweet. This afternoon, he vowed to address the cyberworld at 8 p.m., and one minute after that hour, he delivered, “Citizens Of The Free World: Greetings! …….(more to come).” And, indeed, there was. Just three minutes later, he added, “My humble thanks to all Friends of Keith for the many kind words. The reports of the death of my career are greatly exaggerated.” Those who were awaiting some profound statement or revelation or justification had to suffer through 44 more minutes of breathless silence. And then, all became clear, as Olbermann tweeted: “Trending in 45 minutes! You guys are so good, you get a “Hellooooooo!” (it was cold here today) #FOK http://moby.to/nbf3nj.”

Huzzah! Keith Olbermann is trending! Who knows what he’ll tweet next? Keep refreshing his Twitter page.

Read more:
Will Keith Olbermann tweet about Glenn Beck’s taunt?
Keith Olbermann leaving MSNBC



FAIR


Media Advisory

Olbermann Is Out
MSNBC host's departure shows the limits of corporate media liberalism

1/24/11

Whether the abrupt termination of MSNBC host Keith Olbermann's contract on January 21 was connected to Olbermann's left-of-center politics or the recent purchase of NBC by Comcast from General Electric, the host's departure provides an opportunity to reflect on the bigger picture.

MSNBC's current liberal identity is generally attributed to Olbermann, whose success offered compelling evidence that a left-of-center TV host could find a sizable audience. Olbermann's willingness to criticize prominent Republican leaders and right-wing commentators like Fox's Bill O'Reilly was virtually unknown in corporate television. And the show did more than that for progressive causes; for instance, as the Nation's Jeremy Scahill noted on Twitter (1/21/11), Olbermann's program regularly reported on the scandals associated with the Blackwater mercenary company.

Olbermann was not, however, the first avowedly liberal cable host. He was preceded at MSNBC by Phil Donahue, whose program was canceled in the run-up to the Iraq War for explicitly political reasons: His firing followed an internal NBC report that called him "a tired, left-wing liberal" who would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war" (FAIR Action Alert, 3/7/03).

It's reasonable to wonder whether politics were involved in Olbermann's departure as well. Olbermann had several clashes with NBC management, most recently over donations he made to Democratic political candidates (FAIR Action Alert, 11/5/10).

Olbermann revealed in 2005 that MSNBC management had two years earlier pushed back against the leftward direction of his show, calling him onto the carpet when he had Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo on as guests in close succession (FAIR Media Advisory, 10/27/05):

I got called into a vice president‘s office here and told, "Hey, we don't mind you interviewing these guys, but should you really have put liberals on on consecutive nights?"


Last week's formal approval of the Comcast/NBC merger raised questions about whether the new company had any role in the termination of Olbermann's contract. Howard Kurtz of the Daily Beast, citing a "knowledgeable official," reported that it didn't (1/21/11), while the Washington Post's Paul Farhi (1/23/11) reported that one source "intimate with MSNBC's management" believed that the removal of Olbermann was related to the Comcast takeover.

Comcast's record in this regard suggests concern is warranted. In 2008, Comcast fired one of its own reporters, CN8 TV host Barry Nolan, for speaking out against a local Emmy being awarded to Fox's O'Reilly. Nolan had distributed materials critical of O'Reilly to other reporters--or, as Nolan explained it (Think Progress, 5/27/08), “I got fired from my job on a news and information network for reporting demonstrably true things in a room full of newspeople.”

There's some truth to the notion that Comcast is a conservative company; Stephen Burke, Comcast COO and the man picked to head up NBC after the merger, raised at least $200,000 for George W. Bush’s 2004 campaign. But GE, a major military contractor, has also long had a Republican orientation--going back to its launching of Ronald Reagan's political career (Extra!, 11-12/94). And no media conglomerate is likely to be comfortable owning an outlet with an explicitly progressive slant, given the critique of corporate power that's at the heart of the progressive philosophy.

In discussions of cable news channels, there is often a tendency to treat Fox and MSNBC as mirror images--Fox providing one thing on the right, MSNBC doing the same on the left. This is wildly misleading, though (FAIR Blog, 10/4/10). Fox, from its inception, has sought to deliver a right-wing product. MSNBC, by contrast, tried and failed to succeed as a competitor to Fox on the right (FAIR Action Alert, 2/5/99, 3/7/03; Extra! Update, 2/05): "We have to be more conservative then they are," NBC CEO Robert Wright reportedly told NBC News chief Neal Shapiro after September 11 (New York, 10/3/10).

NBC only reluctantly accepted a progressive tilt for its cable channel after Olbermann, moving to the left after being hired, proved that counter-programming against Fox with left-leaning programs was the only way MSNBC could win an audience. Even then, NBC executives (and even on-air reporters) were clearly uncomfortable with the political leanings of its most prominent host (Daily Beast, 1/21/11).

There is little reason to believe that Comcast's takeover of MSNBC will make things any better. As fired Comcast reporter Nolan put it (CJR.org, 8/16/10), Comcast "aspires to run a major network news operation. What happens when Keith Olbermann goes after O’Reilly? I think that’s scary." With Olbermann gone, the future of MSNBC under Comcast is very much up in the air.


See FAIR's Archives for more on:
GE/MSNBC
Comcast
Corporate Ownership


Mobypicture


Trending in 45 minutes! You guys are so good, you get a "Hellooooooo!" (it was cold here today) #FOK


posted about 2 hours ago

Trending in 45 minutes! You guys are so good, you get a "Hellooooooo!" (it was cold here today) #FOK

Attorney: Manning Abuse Worsens; Two Visitors Detained at Base

Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

The attorney for alleged army whistleblower Bradley Manning is accusing the military of intensifying their harsh treatment of Manning as he remains behind bars. The lawyer, David Coombs, says Manning was placed on a stricter suicide watch last week despite psychiatric reviews showing he is not a suicide risk and should even be taken off a less restrictive "prevention of injury watch." According to Coombs, the military revoked Manning's lone hour of exercise and stripped him of all his clothing except for his underwear. Manning was ultimately returned to "prevention of injury" status after Coombs complained. The military is also cracking down on Manning's visitors. On Sunday, Manning's friend David House and progressive blogger Jane Hamsher were detained and prevented from visiting him at the Quantico military base in Virginia. They had brought with them a 42,000-signature petition protesting Manning's prison conditions. House has publicly alleged that Manning's mental and physical health has declined under 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement. The pair were detained for two hours and released only after Manning's allotted visitation period had expired.

MSNBC: Tyranny vs. Truth

FED UP FLYERS


Julian Assange on MSNBC: Truth vs. Tyranny


Here’s a man who has made a career out of telling the truth. So, naturally, people are questioning whether he is really a journalist:






About Michael S. Roberts

Suspected terrorist/domestic extremist. Proficient sinner. Father of 6. INTP. Autodidact. Fed up pilot. Conscientious beneficiary of the public trust. Poker of bears. Chatty by nature...

MSNBC Supresses Truth and Violates U.S. Constiutution

raw story

gaia online

Olbermann off TV for 6-9 months, Can’t Discuss Departure from MSNBC: Report

By Sahil Kapur
Monday, January 24th, 2011 -- 9:19 am



olbermann 1112 Olbermann off tv for 6 9 months, cant discuss departure from MSNBC: reportDon't expect Keith Olbermann to be on television anytime soon, or spill any dirt about his abrupt departure from MSNBC.

As part of an exit deal he struck with MSNBC, the former star of the channel's evening lineup is prohibited from appearing on television for six to nine months and can't discuss his departure, according to the New York Times.

Olbermann announced his immediate departure from MSNBC at the end of his Friday evening show, shortly after which the organization released a statement confirming that the two have "ended their contract."

An NBC executive told the Times that he was allowed to work on the Internet and radio.

The news of Olbermann's exit came with little warning and sent shock waves on the Internet. Though he had a rocky relationship with MSNBC executives in recent months, his "Countdown" show had for years been the channel's top rated.

And Olbermann's success set the tone for MSNBC's hiring of provocative left-leaning commentators towards the end of the Bush administration, a period where the channel's ratings surged past rival CNN -- although it remained distantly behind Fox News.

Olbermann has not spoken to the press or posted on his frequently-used Twitter account since his announcement Friday. His promised silence would be unwelcome news for media reporters thirsty for the inside story behind the development.

Olbermann's exit was propelled in part by the departure of former NBC president and CEO Jeff Zucker, who had regularly defended the controversial anchor, according to the Times and other media reports.

"Keith is an innovator and an extremely talented broadcaster who showed there was a market for progressive views on cable news," said Media Matters founder and CEO David Brock. "I'm sure we'll be seeing more of him soon and I eagerly await to hear of his next move."

Saturday, January 22, 2011

The Disappearance of Keith Olbermann

Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

The Disappearance of Keith Olbermann

by Robert Parry
Keith Olbermann’s abrupt departure from MSNBC should be another wake-up call to American progressives about the fragile foothold that liberal-oriented fare now has for only a few hours on one corporate cable network.

Though Olbermann hosted MSNBC’s top-rated news show, “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” he disappeared from the network with only the briefest of good-byes. Certainly, the callous treatment of Olbermann by the MSNBC brass would never be replicated by Rupert Murdoch’s right-wing Fox News toward its media stars.

At Fox News, the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have far greater leeway to pitch right-wing ideas and even to organize pro-Republican political events. Last November, Olbermann was suspended for two days for making donations to three Democratic candidates, including Arizona’s Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was wounded in the Jan. 8 shooting in Tucson.
Now, with Olbermann’s permanent departure on Friday, the remainder of MSNBC’s liberal evening line-up, which also includes Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Lawrence O’Donnell (who will fill Olbermann’s 8 p.m. slot), must face the reality that any sustained friction with management could mean the bum’s rush for them, too.
The liberal hosts also must remember that MSNBC experimented with liberal-oriented programming only after all other programming strategies, including trying to out-Fox Fox, had failed – and only after it became clear that President George W. Bush’s popularity was slipping.
In nearly eight years at “Countdown,” Olbermann was the brave soul who charted the course for other mainstream media types to be even mildly critical of Bush. Olbermann modeled his style after legendary newsman Edward R. Murrow, who stood up to excesses by communist-hunting Sen. Joe McCarthy in the 1950s, even borrowing Murrow’s close: “Good night, good luck.”
But MSNBC’s parent company, General Electric, never seemed comfortable with Olbermann’s role as critic of the Bush administration, nor with the sniping between Olbermann and his Fox News rival, O’Reilly, who retaliated by attacking corporate GE on his widely watched show.
In 2009, the New York Times reported that GE responded to this pressure by having GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt strike a deal with Murdoch that sought to muzzle Olbermann’s criticism of O’Reilly, in exchange for O’Reilly muting his attacks on GE.
Olbermann later disputed that there ever was a truce and the back-and-forth soon resumed. But it was a reminder that GE, a charter member of the military-industrial complex and a major international conglomerate, had bigger corporate interests at play than the ratings for MSNBC’s evening programming.
So, too, will Comcast, the cable giant that is assuming a majority stake in NBC Universal, which controls MSNBC. The Washington Post reported on Saturday that sources at MSNBC quashed speculation that Olbermann’s departure was connected to the Comcast takeover, which was approved by federal regulators this week.
Media Orphans
The troubling message to progressives is that they remain essentially orphans when it comes to having their political interests addressed by any corporate news outlet. While the Right has built its own vast media infrastructure – reaching from newspapers, magazines and books to radio, TV and the Internet – the Left generally has treated media as a low priority.
Though some on the Left saw hope in the MSNBC evening line-up, the larger reality was that even inside the world of NBC News, the other content ranged from the pro-Establishment centrism of anchor Brian Williams to the center-right views of MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough to CNBC’s mix of free-market extremism and corporate boosterism.
While gratified to be given a few hours each night on MSNBC, the Left surely had nothing to compare with Murdoch’s News Corporation and its longstanding commitment to a right-wing perspective on Fox News and News Corp.'s many other print and electronic outlets.
As I wrote in an article last November, “Olbermann and the other liberal hosts are essentially on borrowed time, much the way Phil Donahue was before getting axed in the run-up to George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, when MSNBC wanted to position itself as a ‘patriotic’ war booster.
“Unlike News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch, who stands solidly behind the right-wing propaganda on Fox News, the corporate owners of MSNBC have no similar commitment to the work of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz.
"For the suits at headquarters, it’s just a balancing act between the ratings that those shows get and the trouble they cause as Republicans reclaim control of Washington.”
Those corporate priorities also were underscored in the pre-Iraq invasion days when MSNBC dumped Donahue, then the network’s biggest draw. But Donahue had allowed on some guests critical of Bush’s planned war.
After the invasion in March 2003, MSNBC’s coverage was barely discernable from that of Fox News, with both networks superimposing American flags on scenes from Iraq and producing pro-war promotional segments showing heroic images of U.S. soldiers being welcomed by happy Iraqis (with no scenes of the war’s carnage). [See Consortiumnews.com's "America's Matrix."]
The ongoing significance of America’s media imbalance is that it gives the Right enormous capabilities to control the national debate, not only during election campaigns but year-round. Republicans can deploy what intelligence operatives call “agit-propaganda,” stirring controversies that rile up the public and redound to the GOP’s advantage.
These techniques have proved so effective that not even gifted political speakers, whether the savvy Bill Clinton or the eloquent Barack Obama, have had any consistent success in countering the angry cacophony that the Right can orchestrate.
One week, the Right's theme is “Obamacare’s death panels”; another week, it’s “the “Ground Zero Mosque.” The Democrats are left scrambling to respond – and their responses, in turn, become fodder for critical commentary, as too wimpy or too defensive or too something.
The mainstream media and progressives often join in this criticism, wondering why Obama let himself get blind-sided or why he wasn’t tougher or why he can’t control the message. For the Right and the Republicans, it’s a win-win-win, as the right-wing base is energized, more public doubts are raised about the President, and the Left is further demoralized.
Like Clinton before him, Obama has reacted to this political/media landscape by shifting rightward toward the “center,” further alienating his liberal base. Many on the Left respond by denouncing Obama as a sell-out and deciding to either sit out elections or vote for a third party.
This dynamic has been instrumental to the Right’s political victories over the past three decades even as those policies – from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush – have worsened the lives of middle- and working-class Americans.
The sudden disappearance of Keith Olbermann from television is another ominous omen that this dynamic will continue.

Is Olbermann the victim of his own success?




War Room


Is Olbermann the victim of his own success?


There was a time when MSNBC and Keith Olbermann both needed each other badly.

For the first decade or so of its existence, the cable news channel had only the vaguest of identities. Every few months, a new host or two would be tossed into the lineup, only to be shuffled around a few months later, and put out to pasture a few months after that. One day, Phil Donahue was the network’s prime-time face; the next it was Alan Keyes. Sometimes it seemed like the only programming MSNBC actually believed in was Don Imus’ tired minstrel show in the mornings and weird prison documentaries on the weekends.

Meanwhile, the other cable news channel launched in 1996 was tearing it up in the ratings. From the very beginning, the Fox News Channel knew what it wanted to be. Rush Limbaugh had shown that there were millions of conservative Americans who were addicted to political news and commentary -- and who despised the traditional broadcast outlets (and also CNN). They weren’t looking for thoroughly reported investigative pieces or in-depth coverage of foreign affairs; they just wanted to hear about the latest Clinton scandal or the latest outrageous statement from some Democratic congressman. The programming they wanted was cheap to produce, and if you gave it to them, they’d be fanatically loyal. "Fair and balanced" was thusly born, and by the turn of the century, Fox was overtaking CNN – and leaving MSNBC in the dust.

That’s where Olbermann came in. He had actually been part of MSNBC’s revolving door cast before, in 1997 and 1998. Back then, though, his prime-time broadcast, “The Big Show” (a nod to "SportsCenter," which he’d spent the previous five years co-anchoring with Dan Patrick), was as directionless as the network itself. Politics wasn’t always the focus and news was covered more from a general interest perspective. When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in early ’98, executives demanded that Olbermann build his show around it; they hoped it might legitimize MSNBC the way the Iran hostage crisis legitimized “Nightline” in 1979 and 1980. But Olbermann resisted and walked away, making his disgust well known. (This kind of exit is his trademark. After he left ESPN, an executive commented that, “He didn't burn bridges here. He napalmed them.")

He returned more than four years later, after a doomed stint hosting a sports show on Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Sports Net (and a brief period as a columnist, in 2002 and 2003, for Salon) and just as Donahue, MSNBC’s latest savior-turned-flameout, was being pushed out of his prime-time perch. "Countdown" was created, but its evolution to the broadcast we’re now so familiar with took time. The "Worst Person in the World" feature was an early hit, and even became a book. But by all accounts, the real turning point came in the summer of 2006. For three years, Olbermann had been chronicling the steady unraveling of America’s mission in Iraq -- and the staunch refusal of the Bush administration and its supporters to admit that much of anything was wrong.

At the end of his Aug. 30, 2006 show, Olbermann looked directly into the camera and spoke: "The man who sees absolutes where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning is either a prophet or a quack. Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet." His blistering takedown of the defense secretary was a viral sensation. Millions of liberals were equally exasperated with the Bush administration; but few could express themselves as exquisitely and powerfully as Olbermann. They asked for more, and Olbermann gladly gave it to them; over the next few years, there would be dozens of “special comments,” each delivered in the same dramatic style.

Nor did Olbermann limit himself to criticism of the war and its planners. He became an all-purpose critic of the administration and its cheerleaders, and then of the Republican Party and the modern brand of conservatism it has embraced. For years, liberals had watched the growth of Fox News with dismay and alarm. With "Countdown," they finally had their own prime-time cable news show to flock to. Olbermann embraced the rivalry, skewing Fox and its personalities -- particularly Bill O’Reilly -- with biting humor and sarcasm, daring them to respond and acknowledge him. His ratings climbed -- not to Fox levels, to be sure, but to levels that had been unheard of at MSNBC.

MSNBC, for its part, embraced the identity Olbermann was offering them. By 2008, his frequent guest, Rachel Maddow, was given her own show at 9 p.m. And liberal radio host Ed Schultz was given his own shortly after that. Lawrence O’Donnell, another left-of-center voice, was added just a few months ago. Eventually, the network adopted a new motto -- "Lean forward" -- that’s about as subtle as Fox’s "fair and balanced" pledge. MSNBC’s prime-time lineup is now awash in progressive politics. The most conservative voice after 5 p.m. belongs to Chris Matthews, a former aide to Tip O’Neill who nearly ran for Senate in Pennsylvania as a Democrat last year. After casting about for years, MSNBC at last knows exactly who it is -- and isn’t -- trying to reach.

Of course, now that he’s surrounded by similar voices, Olbermann isn’t nearly as essential to MSNBC’s brand, which surely has something to do with his abrupt departure on Friday night. Exactly what led to his exit remains unclear, but it’s hardly a secret that he’s had several intense clashes with his bosses recently, one of which led to a brief suspension in November. Now that they’ve built a loyal prime-time audience of left-leaning viewers, NBC’s executives may simply feel that they can afford to be rid of Olbermann and all of the headaches he brings with him. It used to be that he was the only reason liberals turned on their channel at night. Now he’s one of many reasons -- a victim of his own success, in other words.

  • Steve Kornacki is Salon's news editor. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki More: Steve Kornacki

Friday, January 21, 2011

Keith Olbermann -- Fired By MSNBC


TMZ

Keith Olbermann -- Fired By MSNBC


Keith Olbermann was fired by MSNBC sources tell TMZ, and we're told it had everything to do with Comcast's acquisition of NBC.

0121_keith_olbermann_ex_getty_2
Sources connected with the network tell us ... Comcast honchos did not like Keith's defiance and the way he played in the sandbox.

Our sources say Keith has around two years left on his contract, and he'll be paid his salary -- around $7 million a year.

We don't know if Comcast will let Keith make a deal with another network as part of an exit agreement, but it's a good bet he'll be benched for a minimum of 6 months, and probably longer.


Mediate.com

Why Keith Olbermann Is Out At MSNBC

exclusive

Sources tell Mediaite Keith Olbermann and MSNBC were headed for a breakup long before Comcast’s rise to power, but clearly something set the divorce into motion quickly today, with network promos set to run touting Olbermann’s role in MSNBC’s coverage of next week’s State of the Union address–and, notably, a Keith Olbermann promo running on MSNBC in the hour after the host signed off and left the network.

MSNBC executives have long planned for the day the network’s star might be sent packing, and the rise of Rachel Maddow at MSNBC–along with the grooming of Lawrence O’Donnell as a potential replacement for Olbermann–appears to have hastened the host’s departure.

While Olbermann and his iconic Countdown have been immensely important in the resurgence of MSNBC, Olbermann’s friction with management has been a sticking point. At many points–including the recent suspension over political contributions–tensions rose so high as to lead to serious discussions inside MSNBC about firing their star.

With Maddow enjoying both immense popularity inside MSNBC and very strong ratings for her Rachel Maddow Show, Olbermann’s invincibility as the heart and soul of MSNBC’s brand became softer. In recent weeks, sources tell Mediaite there have been meetings on the topic of Keith Olbermann and his future at the network. Did Comcast–as many Countdown viewers seem to suspect–order Olbermann out? It appears that the end of the Olbermann era at MSNBC was not “ordered” by Comcast, nor was it a move to tone down the network’s politics. Instead, sources inside the network say it came down to the more mundane world of office politics–Olbermann was a difficult employee, who clashed with bosses, colleagues and underlings alike, and with the Comcast-related departure of Jeff Zucker, and the rise of Maddow and O’Donnell, the landscape shifted, making an Olbermann exit suddenly seem well-timed.

The blunt, brief statement of Olbermann’s final day, compared to the long, lush programming memo that makes no mention of Olbermann suggests that while the timing may not have been set, the foundation had been laid for today’s move.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Coleen Rowley: We're conflating proper dissent and terrorism

StarTribune.com

Coleen Rowley: We're conflating proper dissent and terrorism

It's both misguided and distracting to direct our homeland security efforts against protesters.

Last update: January 15, 2011 - 6:22 PM

Commentary

A secretive, unaccountable, post-9/11 homeland security apparatus has increasingly turned inward on American citizens.

The evidence includes everything from controversial airport body scanners to the FBI's raids last September on antiwar activists' homes in Minneapolis and Chicago. A federal grand jury investigation in Chicago was recently expanded.

Unless the erosion of proper legal safeguards is halted, we risk a return to Vietnam-era abuses on the part of the FBI and other security agencies.

Agents are now given a green light, for instance, to check off "statistical achievements" by sending well-paid, manipulative informants into mosques and peace groups.

Forgotten are worries about targeting and entrapping people not predisposed to violence.

Forgotten also are the scandals that came to light just months before 9/11 of decades-long FBI operations involving "top echelon informants" (high-level violent criminals) such as Boston crime boss Whitey Bulger.

Even if government officials are well-intentioned, the current tactics and incentives have opened the floodgates of error and opportunism.

Most important, what's been forgotten is that the protection of civil liberties does not weaken our overall security but actually helps to strengthen it.

When security agencies expend their energy against war protesters and environmental advocates, they lose effectiveness in preventing real terrorist violence.

No agency connected the dots before Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly killed 13 and wounded over 40 at Fort Hood, or before airline passenger Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate his "underwear bomb" on Christmas Day 2009, or before Faisal Shahzad planted his car bomb in Times Square.

Tragedy was averted in the latter two incidents only because alert people happened to be on the scene. Yet the perpetrators of these three major events on U.S. soil were in direct communication with the same Yemeni cleric who was allegedly connected to three of the 9/11 hijackers.

A good place to begin reform is by challenging the handful of words in the "Patriot Act" that enlarged the definition of "material support of terrorism" to encompass "expert advice and assistance" given to designated "foreign terrorist organizations."

This phrase essentially makes mere advocacy of peace and humanitarian issues illegal with respect to groups listed by the State Department.

The Patriot Act thus condemns a large range of nongovernmental efforts, which have tended to be more effective than government-backed ones at furthering education, providing humanitarian assistance, and ensuring free and fair elections throughout the world.

Such a chilling effect only makes nonviolent conflict resolution and mediation more difficult and terrorism more likely.

Next, it's necessary to reverse the erosion of attorney general guidelines governing initiation of domestic investigations, which were adopted after the Church Committee uncovered abuses in the 1970s.

In one of its last official acts, the Bush administration lowered the level of necessary suspicion to the point where the FBI needs only deny that it is targeting a group based solely on its exercise of First Amendment rights.

Like the Patriot Act provision, this opens the door wide to FBI harassment of nonviolent activists.

In 2003, a spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center said, apparently without thinking too hard, that evidence wasn't needed to issue warnings about war protesters: "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that [protest]. ... You can almost argue that a protest against [the war] is a terrorist act."

In a similar vein, the Department of Defense asked on its annual mandatory antiterrorism test, "What is an example of low-level terrorism activity?" The correct answer was "protest."

But protest and civil disobedience are not terrorism. Until that distinction is made at every level of the security system, and proper institutional safeguards are implemented, the "war on terror" will continue to shred civil liberties while failing to prevent terrorist outrages.

The massive and largely irrelevant data collection now occurring only adds hay to the haystack, making it even harder to see patterns and anticipate events.

"Top Secret America" needs to ask itself who is more guilty of furnishing "material aid to terrorism" -- its own operatives, or the activists and protesters it so wrongheadedly targets.

Coleen Rowley, a former FBI special agent and legal counsel in the Minneapolis field office, wrote a "whistleblower" memo in May 2002 and testified to the Senate Judiciary on some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures. She retired in 2004 and is now a writer and speaker.

Monday, January 17, 2011

The Feds Go Fishing–Informer Discovered in AntiWar Committee’s Midst

Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice

The Feds Go Fishing–Informer Discovered in AntiWar Committee’s Midst

Back in September 2010, a series of FBI raids were conducted in Minneapolis/St. Paul, Chicago and North Carolina. These raids were conducted under laws pertaining to US citizens providing “material aid to terrorists” and targeted members of antiwar, leftist, and solidarity organizations. Since the raids, various activists that were targeted have been subpoenaed to appear at a grand jury and have refused to do so. By refusing, those subpoenaed are risking arrest for contempt. However, as of this writing, none have been taken to jail yet. As I wrote in an article first published in Counterpunch on September 27, 2010: “These raids are a clear and vicious attempt to intimidate the antiwar movement.” and the grand jury “is a fishing expedition, as evidenced (for example) by the warrant asking for papers from no determined time.”

The reaction of those whose homes were raided and their supporters was quick and determined. The targeted activists, their attorneys, and local supporters held a couple of press conferences within days of the raids and original subpoenas and a national network organized protests at Federal Buildings in a number of US cities and towns. Resolutions attacking the raids and subpoenas and pledging support for the activists and the right to organize were introduced and passed by a number of city councils and antiwar and labor organizations. The office of the US Attorney for the Northern Illinois District under the direction of US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald temporarily withdrew the subpoenas. However, they were reinstated in December, leading to the aforementioned refusal of those subpoenaed to appear in front of the grand jury. Several more subpoenas were served on other activists. In fact, nine more activists have been ordered to testify before the grand jury on January 25, 2011 in Chicago.

A sidebar regarding Patrick Fitzgerald might be beneficial here. If that name seems familiar, it is because he is associated with many high profile cases. He helped prosecute Scooter Libby in the case known as the Valerie Plame affair. For those who don’t remember this case, it involved members of the George Bush White House releasing the name of a CIA agent to the media–a federal offense. Although Libby was convicted of the crime, it has always been believed that others in the White House, including Vice President Cheney, were involved in its commission. This demands the question as to why no one else was prosecuted and how much the prosecutor (Fitzpatrick) was involved in limiting the prosecution to one individual, thereby sparing the White House from a criminal investigation. Patrick has also been involved in many other high profile cases, including the prosecution off Illinois governors Ryan and Blagojevich in separate corruption cases and a case involving torture by the Chicago police that resulted in the conviction of Chicago detective Jon Burge.

In another investigation targeting leftist, anarchist and antiwar political activists in the Twin Cities, several homes and offices were raided before, and during, the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis. If one recalls, that convention also saw the arrest of media members including Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, brutal attacks on protestors by police and private “contractors” working with police, and a lockdown against free speech activities in certain areas of the city. Several hundred people were arrested and many were beaten. Nine organizers were eventually charged with acts of terrorism. During their trial it became clear that the organizations these individuals were affiliated with had been infiltrated by government informers.

Similarly, last week the AntiWar Committee (one of the organizations targeted in the September raids) of the Twin Cities discovered that they too had had an informer in their midst since 2008. Going by the name Karen Sullivan, this woman claimed to be a single parent and a lesbian who did not get along with her child’s father. According to statements from members of the AntiWar Committee that appeared in the press, the group’s members were sympathetic to her cover story and, despite an initial concern by some members, accepted and befriended the woman. Also, since the AntiWar Committee (AWC) believed their meetings and activities to be covered by the first amendment and were always open to the public, there was little concern for secrecy.

“Ms. Sullivan” involved herself in AWC activities and meetings, even chairing some of them. She was also one of three AWC members that traveled to Palestine. As soon as they reached Israel, the members were told they would be detained unless they turned back. Two chose to stay and were detained while “Sullivan” went back to the US. It turns out that the Israeli authorities had prior knowledge of the visit and the intention of the group to meet with Palestinian women. While no one in the group could figure out how this was so, it seems apparent now that the “Ms. Sullivan” had provided this information to her handler who had in turn provided it to US officials, who then passed it on to the Israeli government.

In the wake of the January 8, 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona there have been calls by a number of politicians, media commentators and others suggesting the need for new laws limiting political speech in the United States. Meanwhile, efforts are underway in Congress to renew sections of the PATRIOT Act that are due to expire soon. History tells us that when laws designed to curb political speech are enacted in the US, they are used primarily against groups and individuals on the left side of the political spectrum. There is no need for more laws. Instead, there is a need for more free speech. Laws like the PATRIOT Act and The Effective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996 and the subsequent interpretation of those laws by the courts have criminalized political activities that were previously legal. The investigation that the raids and grand juries discussed here are an example of this.

The intention of the government in this and other similar investigations is to intimidate people into keeping silent so they can carry on their business with a minimum amount of attention from the public. As the discovery of an informer in the AWC shows, they will stop at nothing in their attempt to silence protest against their imperial designs. It doesn’t matter if they get any convictions or even an indictment out of their fishing expedition. If they have intimidated those who oppose imperial war and support people around the world in their struggle against military occupation, they will have accomplished their goal. This is reason enough to support those currently targeted by the FBI in the investigations discussed here. It is more than enough reason to attend the protests against the grand jury on January 25, 2011 around the US.

Ron Jacobs is the author of The Way The Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. Jacobs’ essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch’s collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. His first novel, Short Order Frame Up, is published by Mainstay Press. His most recent book, titled Tripping Through the American Night is published as an ebook. He can be reached at: rjacobs3625@charter.net. Read other articles by Ron.

This article was posted on Monday, January 17th, 2011 at 7:01am and is filed under Activism, Anarchism, Anti-war, Civil Liberties, FBI, Freedom of Speech, General, Legal/Constitutional.