FARIAD"Documenting the poetry in life"
FARIAD"Documenting the poetry in life": "'Documenting the poetry in life'"
None are so brave as the anonymous.
FARIAD"Documenting the poetry in life": "'Documenting the poetry in life'"
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
WASHINGTON: We are living through a time of global economic challenges that cannot be met by half measures or the isolated efforts of any nation. Now, the leaders of the Group of 20 have a responsibility to take bold, comprehensive and coordinated action that not only jump-starts recovery, but also launches a new era of economic engagement to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.
No one can deny the urgency of action. A crisis in credit and confidence has swept across borders, with consequences for every corner of the world. For the first time in a generation, the global economy is contracting and trade is shrinking.
Trillions of dollars have been lost, banks have stopped lending, and tens of millions will lose their jobs across the globe. The prosperity of every nation has been endangered, along with the stability of governments and the survival of people in the most vulnerable parts of the world.
Once and for all, we have learned that the success of the American economy is inextricably linked to the global economy. There is no line between action that restores growth within our borders and action that supports it beyond.
If people in other countries cannot spend, markets dry up -- already we've seen the biggest drop in American exports in nearly four decades, which has led directly to American job losses. And if we continue to let financial institutions around the world act recklessly and irresponsibly, we will remain trapped in a cycle of bubble and bust. That is why the upcoming London Summit is directly relevant to our recovery at home.
My message is clear: The United States is ready to lead, and we call upon our partners to join us with a sense of urgency and common purpose. Much good work has been done, but much more remains.
Our leadership is grounded in a simple premise: We will act boldly to lift the American economy out of crisis and reform our regulatory structure, and these actions will be strengthened by complementary action abroad. Through our example, the United States can promote a global recovery and build confidence around the world; and if the London Summit helps galvanize collective action, we can forge a secure recovery, and future crises can be averted.
Our efforts must begin with swift action to stimulate growth. Already, the United States has passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- the most dramatic effort to jump-start job creation and lay a foundation for growth in a generation.
Other members of the G-20 have pursued fiscal stimulus as well, and these efforts should be robust and sustained until demand is restored. As we go forward, we should embrace a collective commitment to encourage open trade and investment, while resisting the protectionism that would deepen this crisis.
Second, we must restore the credit that businesses and consumers depend upon. At home, we are working aggressively to stabilize our financial system. This includes an honest assessment of the balance sheets of our major banks, and will lead directly to lending that can help Americans purchase goods, stay in their homes and grow their businesses.
This must continue to be amplified by the actions of our G-20 partners. Together, we can embrace a common framework that insists upon transparency, accountability and a focus on restoring the flow of credit that is the lifeblood of a growing global economy. And the G-20, together with multilateral institutions, can provide trade finance to help lift up exports and create jobs.
Third, we have an economic, security and moral obligation to extend a hand to countries and people who face the greatest risk. If we turn our backs on them, the suffering caused by this crisis will be enlarged, and our own recovery will be delayed because markets for our goods will shrink further and more American jobs will be lost.
The G-20 should quickly deploy resources to stabilize emerging markets, substantially boost the emergency capacity of the International Monetary Fund and help regional development banks accelerate lending. Meanwhile, America will support new and meaningful investments in food security that can help the poorest weather the difficult days that will come.
While these actions can help get us out of crisis, we cannot settle for a return to the status quo. We must put an end to the reckless speculation and spending beyond our means; to the bad credit, over-leveraged banks and absence of oversight that condemns us to bubbles that inevitably bust.
Only coordinated international action can prevent the irresponsible risk-taking that caused this crisis. That is why I am committed to seizing this opportunity to advance comprehensive reforms of our regulatory and supervisory framework.
All of our financial institutions -- on Wall Street and around the globe -- need strong oversight and common sense rules of the road. All markets should have standards for stability and a mechanism for disclosure. A strong framework of capital requirements should protect against future crises. We must crack down on offshore tax havens and money laundering.
Rigorous transparency and accountability must check abuse, and the days of out-of-control compensation must end. Instead of patchwork efforts that enable a race to the bottom, we must provide the clear incentives for good behavior that foster a race to the top.
I know that America bears our share of responsibility for the mess that we all face. But I also know that we need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy. That is a false choice that will not serve our people or any people.
This G-20 meeting provides a forum for a new kind of global economic cooperation. Now is the time to work together to restore the sustained growth that can only come from open and stable markets that harness innovation, support entrepreneurship and advance opportunity.
The nations of the world have a stake in one another. The United States is ready to join a global effort on behalf of new jobs and sustainable growth. Together, we can learn the lessons of this crisis, and forge a prosperity that is enduring and secure for the 21st century.
Barack Obama is president of the United States. A Global Viewpoint article distributed by Tribune Media Services.
WASHINGTON -- Republicans railed against the Democrats' massive economic-stimulus and spending bills as fiscally irresponsible, but some GOP lawmakers are taking credit for projects in their own districts funded by the measures.
"Washington needs to stop spending money that it doesn't have," Michigan Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra said in attacking the $410 billion omnibus-spending bill, which funds the government through September. But once it passed, he touted its benefits for his district, which stretches along Lake Michigan.
"Safe and navigable harbors are economic engines that drive the communities that surround them," Mr. Hoekstra declared, announcing $3 million for harbor improvements.
How some major areas of the stimulus will be shared among the states.
Facing difficult economic times and looking ahead to 2010 elections, lawmakers are under pressure to show they are helping constituents. That is leading some Republicans, and even a handful of Democrats, to highlight funds in bills they voted against.
"There is a political game going on here," said Leslie Paige, spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group. "On the national stage, you want to look like a good-government guy or gal. But at home, you want to get patted on the back and get a photo op."
A number of lawmakers disputed this, saying it isn't surprising that a bad bill would contain some good elements. Even if a spending bill is wasteful, they said, that doesn't mean items for their district can't be worthwhile.
"Not to be rude, but it's one of the dumbest things," Mr. Hoekstra said of the notion that there is a contradiction. "The only people who are supposed to get money in an omnibus bill are the ones that vote for it?...I don't see any inconsistency at all."
Democratic Rep. Dennis Cardoza of California, who brands himself a "fiscally responsible legislator who delivers results for the Central Valley," opposed the spending bill. But when President Barack Obama signed it, Mr. Cardoza said he was "pleased to have been able to secure" nearly $25 million worth of projects.
A staffer for Mr. Cardoza said the lawmaker voted against the bill not because of the spending, but because it gave the administration authority to overturn a rule that relaxed the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
GOP leaders took great pride in the fact that every House Republican voted against the $787 billion economic-stimulus bill and that all but 16 opposed the spending bill. They battered Mr. Obama and other Democrats, saying the spending bill increased outlays by 8% over the 2008 fiscal year. They also criticized its numerous earmarks, the special items inserted by lawmakers for their districts.
Now many of the Republicans who opposed the bills are highlighting earmarks they inserted or other benefits the bills bring to their states.
Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R., Calif.), who denounced the stimulus bill as wasteful, soon announced that it provided a $4.2 million grant for her district to prevent families from becoming homeless. "This funding will provide much-needed assistance," she said.
Spokeswoman Jennifer May said the congresswoman considered the bill "misguided" and "bloated," but that Ms. Bono Mack's district was especially hard-hit by the housing crisis and the funding was crucial to keep families in their homes.
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R., Fla.) voted against the spending bill. When it passed, he announced that he had "secured" $1.7 million in the legislation for a citrus-research project and a mental-health program.
Questioned about this, Mr. Stearns issued a statement saying he opposed the bill because of its cost but would be shortchanging his constituents if he didn't seek money for them. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R., Fla.) also opposed the omnibus bill. After it passed, he announced that it included $570,000 for hybrid-fuel trolleys in Miami Lakes. "I am proud to have secured these federal funds to ensure that all residents of Miami Lakes can have easy access to parks, schools, shops and businesses," Mr. Diaz-Balart said.
In an interview, Mr. Diaz-Balart said, "The omnibus was too much money, too much spending, too much borrowing, too much debt, and no accountability. Now, I have stuff in that bill, but I still voted against it. But what I have in there, I am very proud of."
Rep. Howard Coble (R., N.C.) issued a news release on March 11 boasting that "six Coble earmarks" were in the omnibus bill, including $855,000 to extend an airport runway.
Mr. Coble acknowledged he had opposed the spending bill. "I would be in favor of earmark reform," he said in the statement. "But as long as earmarks remain part of the legislative funding process, I would be doing a disservice to the people of the 6th District by not seeking funding for worthwhile projects."
Write to Naftali Bendavid at naftali.bendavid@wsj.com
Tucker Carlson's Jerk Store
by Jamison Foser
In the Seinfeld episode "The Comeback," George Costanza is embarrassed by his inability to think of a response to a co-worker who made fun of his overconsumption of shrimp cocktail by saying, "Hey George, the ocean called. They're running out of shrimp." George later thinks up what he believes is the ideal comeback, "Well, the Jerk Store called, and they're running out of you," and becomes obsessed with gaining an opportunity to use the line, eventually flying to Ohio in order to do so.
George's long-planned zinger falls flat, however, when the co-worker responds, "What's the difference? You're their all-time best seller." Flustered, and again unable to think of a witty response, George blurts out: "Oh yeah? Well I had sex with your wife!" -- a jibe that blows up in his face when he is told the man's wife is in a coma. The episode ends with George driving home, plotting yet another attempt to win the verbal battle.
Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson has been doing his best George Costanza impersonation for the past week, as he lashes out again and again at Jon Stewart, who humiliated Carlson on national television more than four years ago.
In October 2004, Stewart appeared on Crossfire, the long-running CNN debate show Carlson co-hosted at the time. It didn't go well -- either for Crossfire, which was canceled shortly thereafter, or for Carlson. Stewart said Crossfire, and cable shout-fests like it, were "hurting America." Things went downhill from there, with Carlson telling Stewart he should be more aggressive in questioning politicians, and Stewart responding, "[I]t's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility. I didn't realize that ... the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity. ... You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls." Exasperated, Carlson sarcastically told Stewart, "You need to get a job at a journalism school," leading to the response: "You need to go to one."
At that point, Carlson was reduced to pleading for mercy: "I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny." But Stewart wasn't finished, telling him, "No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey."
It now seems Carlson has spent the past four years seething -- and looking for an opportunity to finally put Stewart in his place. And with Stewart in the spotlight following his criticism of financial reporting at CNBC, Carlson pounced -- or tried to.
Carlson began last Friday, telling Politico: "Jim Cramer may be sweaty and pathetic ... but he's not responsible for the current recession. ... His real sin was attacking Obama's economic policies. If he hadn't done that, Stewart never would have gone after him. Stewart's doing Obama's bidding. It's that simple."
It was only a few sentences, but Carlson managed to get two things wrong. Nobody is saying Jim Cramer is "responsible" for the current recession; they're saying he and CNBC and other media didn't do enough to expose problems earlier. And Stewart has been criticizing Cramer for at least a year, so Carlson's claim that he is only doing so because Cramer attacked President Obama's economic policies is demonstrably false.
Carlson must have liked the "sweaty and pathetic" line; he came back to it during an appearance on CNN's Reliable Sources on Sunday: "Cramer was craven and sweaty and pathetic. ... But Jon Stewart, let's be honest, this was a partisan attack. He went after Cramer the moment Cramer criticized Obama's budget. That was the mortal sin. That's what kicked off this entire feud."
Again: That isn't -- can't be -- true, because Stewart was criticizing Cramer a year ago, before Obama had either a budget or a presidency from which to offer one. But Carlson was insistent and offered what he seems to think is proof: "[W]as Jim Cramer the only analyst to call it wrong ... to, you know, come up with stupid stock picks? Of course not. He criticized Obama's budget, and that's what started this, because in the end, Jon Stewart is a partisan hack." According to Carlson, the fact that Stewart singled Cramer out demonstrates that his criticism is really just about defending Obama from Cramer's attacks. Ah, but Stewart hasn't singled Cramer out; he has been criticizing CNBC broadly.
Next, Carlson used his weekly Washington Post online discussion to continue taking shots at Stewart. "Cramer humiliated himself the other night (and on many previous nights on his own show) but that doesn't mean he and his network are responsible for the meltdown. That's way too simple. In fact it's demagoguery." But -- again -- Stewart's argument isn't that CNBC is "responsible for the meltdown"; it's that it acted as cheerleaders for the financial markets rather than a watchdog. There's a difference there, whether Carlson chooses to see it or not.
Carlson continued:
And by the way, where was Jon Stewart when the bubble was swelling? How many shows did he do on the coming financial collapse? Why didn't he warn us?
Stewart's answer invariably is: I'm a comedian. That's not my job. But that's a dodge, and increasingly unsustainable. In fact, Stewart is a player in the national conversation. He seeks to influence politics and policy, and he succeeds. It's time for him to admit that, and be held to the same standards everyone else at his level (including Jim Cramer) lives by.
Got that? The problem isn't that news organizations like CNBC don't meet a high enough standard; it's that Jon Stewart isn't more like Jim Cramer. The news media are fine; our national discourse suffers from the fact that our comedians aren't better journalists. Carlson made a similar argument during his 2004 debate with Stewart, so this is apparently something he really believes. (Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen seems to believe this as well.)
Carlson insists that his insults of Stewart had nothing to do with their run-in on Crossfire:
Obviously I haven't been a big fan since he made that ludicrous scene on Crossfire. (I still have no idea what he was talking about. Honestly.) But if anything, that experience prevented me from criticizing him in public for the past five years. I didn't want to sound bitter, which (and you don't have to believe me) I'm not. But the Cramer exchange was just too phony and annoying, so I lost control of myself and said something.
"Lost control?" Bull. Reliable Sources was the second time in three days Carlson had attacked Stewart, and both times he described Cramer with the same "sweaty and pathetic" line. The Washington Post discussion marked his third attack on Stewart in four days. Two days later, he posted his fourth anti-Stewart tirade on The Daily Beast. Either Carlson is prone to losing control of himself in precisely the same way, over and over, or his campaign against Stewart is a little more premeditated than he wants you to think. Probably because he knows that as lame as "the Jerk Store called, and they're out of you" was, what was really sad was how often George rehearsed it.
Of course, the real problem isn't that Carlson's attacks on Stewart seem overeager and contrived, it's with the merits of his case. He's wrong or lying about the details of the Stewart-Cramer war of words. In (falsely) challenging Stewart's motives, and in defending CNBC from criticism nobody is making, Carlson is downplaying the problems with, if not defending, CNBC's reporting. And his contention that Jon Stewart, rather than CNBC, fails to meet the appropriate standards of journalism, shows an extraordinary lack of perspective. Maybe he'll come up with a more compelling critique of Stewart soon. We can be sure he'll keep trying -- just like George Costanza.
Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.
| Rather Than Wall Street, Why Not Bail Out A Jesse JacksonGeneration? 3/16/2009 | |||||
|

Colin Powell’s former chief of staff: Cheney is ‘evil,’ his fearmongering is ‘assisting’ al Qaeda.
![]() | |||||||
![]() | |||||||
| |||||||
I watched a middle-aged widow lose her home recently.
Her story was familiar. She owned her simple brick residence outright until four years ago, when a mortgage broker stopped by and offered her a loan too good to be true. In exchange for taking on a modest monthly payment, she could make some needed repairs and consolidate other debts.
More sophisticated than many borrowers, she realized she was getting an adjustable-rate mortgage. What she didn't realize was that, in the biggest "bait-and-switch" ever pulled by an entire industry, her ARM was not tied to the prime rate or any other index, as adjustable-rate mortgages have traditionally been. Her rate simply adjusted periodically, ever upward. When it hit 14 percent, her social worker's salary could no longer cover the payments.
I watched this story unfold in court, from my seat in a bankruptcy judge's chair. While a Chapter 13 filing temporarily stopped the foreclosure on this woman's home, it did little more than buy a few months' time.
Under existing law, bankruptcy courts cannot modify the terms of home mortgages. To keep her home, this debtor needed to demonstrate sufficient income not only to make her ongoing payments at 14 percent but also to cover, during her five-year repayment plan, the payments she had defaulted on. Her proposed plan was clearly not feasible based on her salary, so I had no choice but to lift the stay and allow the foreclosure to continue.Homeowners are the only ones who cannot modify the terms of their secured debts in bankruptcy. Corporate America flocks to bankruptcy courts to do precisely this -- to restructure and reamortize loans whose conditions they find onerous or can no longer meet. Airlines are still flying and auto parts makers still operating because they have used this powerful tool of the bankruptcy process. Lehman Brothers will surely invoke it. But when the bankruptcy code was adopted in 1979, the mortgage industry persuaded Congress that its market was so tightly regulated and conservatively run that it should be exempted from the general bankruptcy rules permitting modification.
How far we have come.
For more than a year, a number of legislators, academics and judges have advocated removing this ban on home mortgage modification to help stem the increasing number of foreclosures. I have twice participated in briefing sessions organized by the House Judiciary Committee, where I was lectured by lobbyists for the mortgage industry about the sanctity of contracts. I have listened to their high-priced lawyers make fallacious constitutional arguments based on discredited cases from the 1930s. (This is, incidentally, an industry that is not particularly concerned about its own contractual obligations as it tries, through various Treasury-aided programs, to stay afloat.)
Allowing modifications is a solid solution, as evidenced by my example. This homeowner could have restructured her loan to terms resembling those of a conventional mortgage. If the court found that the market value of her home had fallen below what she owed, the secured portion that must be repaid in full would be reduced to the house's actual value; otherwise, the amount to be repaid would stay the same. The interest rate would be adjusted to reflect the prevailing market. However, because this homeowner is a riskier borrower than most, I would have raised her rate to account for that increased risk, as Supreme Court precedent requires. Instead of 14 percent, the rate would probably have been in the high single digits. This homeowner -- with her steady income -- could have made the reduced payments.
Such a solution would have been better for everyone. Obviously, it would have been good for the homeowner and the community in which she lives. Instead of another abandoned house tied up in foreclosure, her residence would be owned by a taxpaying citizen. More important, it would have been good for the lender. Whatever unknown mortgage syndicates hold pieces of this loan, they are never going to get their 14 percent return. Instead, the total recovery will be limited to the proceeds from a foreclosure sale in a depressed market. Any deficiency owed by the homeowner will be discharged as part of her bankruptcy. No one has been able to explain to me why it is not better for mortgage holders to get a fair return of principal back, albeit at a lower interest rate, than to take a lump sum through foreclosure that is probably much less than the value of the note.
There is a simple answer to the frequent, hyperbolic assertion that such a process would be abused: Chapter 13 is no walk in the park. It requires public disclosure of every aspect of your life, examinations under oath by a trustee and creditors, allowing creditors to haul you into court on any objection, and relinquishment of control of your financial life for up to five years. If you falter, your case will be dismissed and you will lose the entire benefit of the bankruptcy law, including having your original contract terms reinstated. That is precisely why allowing mortgage modifications is such a good approach. It would elegantly separate those homeowners who desperately need to stay in their homes and have sufficient incomes to make reasonable payments from those investors who bet on lax regulation, easy credit and an appreciating market in buying residential properties. Those in the latter category will have no use for this process, but for the first category, it could be a powerful step back to financial stability.
The writer is a judge with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
-- http://stateofthenation-shelley.blogspot.com/

Dick Cheney's at it again. Desperately trying to rewrite history in a pathetic attempt to salvage his miserable legacy and that of his highly unpopular former boss. "The Dick" took to the airwaves again over the weekend with more "Mission Accomplished" propaganda and to attack President Barack Obama's anti-terrorism policies.
The former vice president said on CNN's State of the Union that Obama "is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack." This type of incendiary rhetoric is outrageous and irresponsible. That Cheney, as the chief architect of the Iraq war, the biggest blunder in U.S. military history, has the audacity to pawn himself off as an expert on anything military is even more offensive. That he disparages and undermines a new sitting president during a time of war is reprehensible.
Cheney continues to call Iraq a "great success story." But is it? Are we certain that the country, with its warring sectarian factions, won't implode once America withdraws its troops? And if there is such success there, and we, as the Busheviks like to claim, "won the war," why is there so much concern about pulling out too soon? Wouldn't we be able to pack up and leave tomorrow given such lofty claims of victory? Call me crazy, but real success will be measured by whether or not there's a self-sustaining Democracy that survives after we leave. Until then, nothing has been "won."
At the White House Monday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs sarcastically linked Cheney to another GOP blowhard: "Well, I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy, so they trotted out the next most popular member of the Republican cabal." But back on CNN this past weekend, The Dick defended his partner in propaganda: "Rush is a good friend. I love him. I think he does great work and has for years. Liars of a feather.....
And as for rewriting history, last week Bush's former Press Secretary Ari Fleischer duked it out with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who raised Fleischer's ire by having the gall to claim that the Iraq war was unjust and, worse, occurred on his boss's watch:
"Chris, how dare you...what you just did is shameful," Fleischer sanctimoniously whined. He then went on to incredibly declare that, "after September 11th, having been hit once, how can we take a chance that Saddam might not strike again? Let's make sure we got that right: ..."Saddam might not strike again," the man said. Can you fucking believe this unconscionable deception that real terrorists like Fleischer still perpetrate eight years after the 9-11 attacks? Shame on you, Ari. Shame on you.....
You can check out Fleischer's unbelievably arrogant drivel below...
| Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. |
The International Committee of the Red Cross concluded in a secret report that the Bush administration's treatment of al-Qaeda captives "constituted torture," a finding that strongly implied that CIA interrogation methods violated international law, according to newly published excerpts from the long-concealed 2007 document.
The report, an account alleging physical and psychological brutality inside CIA "black site" prisons, also states that some U.S. practices amounted to "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." Such maltreatment of detainees is expressly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.
The findings were based on an investigation by ICRC officials, who were granted exclusive access to the CIA's "high-value" detainees after they were transferred in 2006 to the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 14 detainees, who had been kept in isolation in CIA prisons overseas, gave remarkably uniform accounts of abuse that included beatings, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures and, in some cases, waterboarding, or simulating drowning.
At least five copies of the report were shared with the CIA and top White House officials in 2007 but barred from public release by ICRC guidelines intended to preserve the humanitarian group's strict policy of neutrality in conflicts. A copy of the report was obtained by Mark Danner, a journalism professor and author who published extensive excerpts in the April 9 edition of the New York Review of Books, released yesterday. He did not say how he obtained the report.
"The ill-treatment to which they were subjected while held in the CIA program, either singly or in combination, constituted torture," Danner quoted the report as saying.
Many of the details of alleged mistreatment at CIA prisons had been reported previously, but the ICRC report is the most authoritative account and the first to use the word "torture" in a legal context.
The CIA declined to comment. A U.S. official familiar with the report said, "It is important to bear in mind that the report lays out claims made by the terrorists themselves."
Often using the detainee's own words, the report offers a harrowing view of conditions at the secret prisons, where prisoners were told they were being taken "to the verge of death and back," according to one excerpt. During interrogations, the captives were routinely beaten, doused with cold water and slammed head-first into walls. Between sessions, they were stripped of clothing, bombarded with loud music, exposed to cold temperatures, and deprived of sleep and solid food for days on end. Some detainees described being forced to stand for days, with their arms shackled above them, wearing only diapers.
"On a daily basis . . . a collar was looped around my neck and then used to slam me against the walls of the interrogation room," the report quotes detainee Tawfiq bin Attash, also known as Walid Muhammad bin Attash, as saying. Later, he said, he was wrapped in a plastic sheet while cold water was "poured onto my body with buckets." He added: "I would be wrapped inside the sheet with cold water for several minutes. Then I would be taken for interrogation."
ICRC officials did not dispute the authenticity of the excerpts, but a spokesman expressed dismay over the leak of the material. "We regret information attributed to the ICRC report was made public in this manner," spokesman Bernard Barrett said.
"The ICRC has been visiting the detainees formerly held by the CIA," he added, "at Guantanamo since 2006. Any concerns or observations the ICRC had when visiting the detainees are part of a confidential dialogue."
President George W. Bush acknowledged the use of coercive interrogation tactics on senior al-Qaeda captives detained by the CIA in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but he insisted that the measures complied with U.S. and international law. Former CIA director Michael V. Hayden confirmed last year that the measures included the use of waterboarding on three captives before 2003.
| Page 2 of 2 < Back |
| Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. |
President Obama outlawed such practices within hours of his inauguration in January. But Obama has expressed reluctance to conduct a legal inquiry into the CIA's policies.
The report gives a graphic account of the treatment of Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, better known as Abu Zubaida, a Saudi-born Palestinian who was the first alleged senior al-Qaeda operative seized after Sept. 11 -- a characterization of his role that is disputed by his attorneys, who describe him as having a different philosophy of jihad than bin Laden.
Abu Zubaida was severely wounded during a shootout in March 2002 at a safe house he ran in Faisalabad, Pakistan, and survived thanks to CIA-arranged medical care, including multiple surgeries. After he recovered, Abu Zubaida describes being shackled to a chair at the feet and hands for two to three weeks in a cold room with "loud, shouting type music" blaring constantly, according to the ICRC report. He said that he was questioned two to three hours a day and that water was sprayed in his face if he fell asleep.
At some point -- the timing is unclear from the New York Review of Books report -- Abu Zubaida's treatment became harsher. In July 2002, administration lawyers approved more aggressive techniques.
Abu Zubaida said interrogators wrapped a towel around his neck and slammed him into a plywood wall mounted in his cell. He was also repeatedly slapped in the face, he said. After the beatings, he was placed in coffinlike wooden boxes in which he was forced to crouch, with no light and a restricted air supply, he said.
"The stress on my legs held in this position meant my wounds both in my leg and stomach became very painful," he told the ICRC.
After he was removed from a small box, he said, he was strapped to what looked like a hospital bed and waterboarded. "A black cloth was then placed over my face and the interrogators used a mineral bottle to pour water on the cloth so that I could not breathe," Abu Zubaida said.
After breaks to allow him to recover, the waterboarding continued.
"I struggled against the straps, trying to breathe, but it was hopeless," he said. "I though I was going to die."
In a federal court filing, Abu Zubaida's attorneys said he "has suffered approximately 175 seizures that appear to be directly related to his extensive torture -- particularly damage to Petitioner's head that was the result of beatings sustained at the hands of CIA interrogators and exacerbated by his lengthy isolation."
Danner said the organization's use of the word "torture" has important legal implications.
"It could not be more important that the ICRC explicitly uses the words 'torture' and 'cruel and degrading,' " Danner said in a telephone interview. "The ICRC is the guardian of the Geneva Conventions, and when it uses those words, they have the force of law."
He discounted the possibility that the detainees fabricated or embellished their stories, noting that the accounts overlap "in minute detail," even though the detainees were kept in isolation at different locations.
Human rights groups echoed his assessment.
"These reports are from an impeccable source," said Geneve Mantri, a counterterrorism specialist at Amnesty International. "It's clear that senior officials were warned from the very beginning that the treatment that detainees were subjected to amounted to torture. This story goes even further and deeper than many us of suspected. The more details we find out, the more shocking this become
A comeback in bank shares handed the stock market its best week since November as fears eased that major financial institutions would collapse or require additional government lifelines. Market veterans were quick to rein in hopes that the market would chart an uninterrupted recovery but many still saw the four straight days of gains a good sign.
The Republican Party's Death Wish
Paul Jenkins (http://www.pjpolitics.com)
The political death-watch for RNC Chairman Michael Steele is wildly entertaining: who knew the party that gave us George W. Bush and Sarah Palin was holding back its best buffoon yet? The bigger question, though, is not so much whether Steele will survive, but whether it his party that is doomed.
Defeated, lacking in leadership, deeply divided despite its shrinking size, out of touch with the country, demographically unrepresentative: the GOP has hit the kind of perfect storm that it has not faced in a long time, and it is not an exaggeration to state that the party's survival is at stake. Yes, Republicans have been in deep crises before, most recently in the aftermath of Watergate, and have lived to see another day. Yes, the party's corporate benefactors are not likely to let it go down without a fight. And yes, the US electoral system is not conducive to change: since the demise of the Whig Party 150 years ago, Democrats and Republicans have mostly had the field to themselves.
But the current crisis feels different. The Republican Party's defeat in November was so complete that you have to go back to, well, the post-Watergate 1970s for a comparable imbalance in Congress in favor of the Democratic Party. And it could get worse in 2010: four GOP-held Senate seats are open, with probably more to come. Thanks to infighting, other seats are also endangered: in Kentucky where the party is desperate to get rid of its mad Senator Jim Bunning, who will have none of it; and in Pennsylvania, where the 79 year-old moderate incumbent Arlen Specter is unlikely to make it past the GOP primary, so despised is he in his party. On the presidential front, the numbers are equally as grim: in a two-person race, one has to go back to 1964 for a Republican performance as dismal as John McCain's.
McCain's campaign and defeat, combined with Bush's record unpopularity, have left the party absolutely leaderless. There are at least two-dozen men and women who could claim to be the most powerful person in the Republican Party: from Steele to Palin to Rush Limbaugh, through a list of members of Congress, Governors and failed Presidential candidates, it is a complete free-for-all. Making matters worse, these would-be leaders are mostly a deeply unappealing bunch born to do anything but lead. On what is clearly the most pressing issue of the time, the economy, top Republicans have neither followed, nor lead: not only did they get us into this spot, but they have absolutely no idea how to get us out of it. If there were one, just one, strong voice in the party to argue coherently against the stimulus package and government spending generally, perhaps the country would listen. But instead, there is a cacophony of absurd doomsday forecasts, trickle-down retreads, senile railings against earmarks, rantings about the stimulus' lack of religiosity, or simply silence. We have yet to hear a single realistic scenario from a top Republican that would outline how and when the country could move forward from its current meltdown.
Of course, the Republican Party could go on losing elections ad eternam and still survive, as it did for the twenty years following the Great Depression (with one electoral hiccup of a win in 1946). But the rumblings of discontent from those whose individual political careers are at stake are already getting louder. The split is most evident among Governors: the sniping between moderate, or at least pragmatic Republican chief executives, and their right-wing orthodox counterparts is striking. In one corner, are most prominently Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Charlie Crist of Florida, who are embracing the stimulus funds coming their way. In the other corner are nutjobs Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, who have threatened to turn down stimulus money, or perhaps some of it, especially that which would go to increasing unemployment checks, because, well, we don't really know. But that's what Ronald Reagan would have done. They're pretty sure. Perhaps. Anyway, it's government money, so it's bad money and they don't want it. Look for the pragmatic wing of the party to chuckle ever louder at their party's economic ayatollahs and, eventually, to ignore them, as Utah Governor Jon Huntsman has decided to do: "I don't even know the congressional leadership. [...] I have not met them. I don't listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential -- completely."
It is telling that Congressional Republicans' biggest self-perceived achievement in months (or is it years?) was the unanimous rejection of the stimulus package by their House caucus. They partied like it was 1984 in celebration of this symbolic success, ignoring the fact that a growing majority of voters favor increased government spending. This is nothing unusual, as, on nearly every issue, Americans prefer the Democrats' positions, which only seems to harden the besieged Republicans. Rather than make them look strong and consistent on their core values and principles, Republicans increasingly come off as stubborn lunatics sticking to failed policies and dismissive of the country's will. Perhaps one day Americans will again favor economic policies that destroy the middle class, further impoverish the poor, create billionaires by the boatload and threaten the country's stability, but even for a people with a strong capacity to forgive and forget, this does not seem likely to happen soon. That the Republican Party is out of touch with a vast majority of the country should not be a surprise: even as heterosexual Christian white men are shrinking in numbers (probably fewer than a quarter of Americans could be so described), they make up well over 90% of the party's members of Congress. There is nothing inherently wrong with heterosexual Christian white men, but a party this homogeneous does not have a shot at understanding what the country needs. It also explains why Republicans are left dredging for diversity among the Palins, Jindals and Steeles of the world. More ominously, you cannot expect much of a future when you have lost an entire generation of young people, and several generations of immigrants, for the benefit of short-term electoral gains that never materialized. Nor can you beat up on every significant growing constituency and expect it to come around at election time.
For now, Republicans seem to be settling their hopes on the usual suspects: abortion and gay people. When Steele is deposed of his chairmanship, it will be because of his intemperately moderate comments on both issues, which have predictably energized the party's social conservatives. Indeed, Barack Obama may well add fuel to the fire if he extends benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers. This, says sex-obsessed right-winger Gary Bauer, will "provoke a furious grass-roots reaction [and] reinvigorate the conservative coalition." So that is what will unify the Republican Party: keeping gay people uninsured. A sure winner. The GOP has long been fissured along social issues, with moderates generally losing the internal battles on abortion and gay rights, but winning the bigger war, as America in general has progressed their way. Now economic policy is proving equally as divisive, except that most Americans actually care deeply about the issue (as opposed to, say, late-term abortions.) This is why Republicans' position on the stimulus package is so unfathomable: what base exactly are they catering to? Surely not to their shrinking bastions in Appalachia and the Deep South, among the poorest states in the country, and precisely those most dependent on federal money. As irrational as we may think they were for voting for McCain, does the Republican Party really think that struggling white voters in, say, Alabama, Mississippi or Louisiana will take kindly to the GOP's bizarre last stand on the economy?
The current Republican in-fighting is often described as a battle for the soul of the party. The GOP has no soul, so that description is inaccurate. However, many of its members, like all politicians, have an instinct for self-preservation. The question now is where these survival impulses take individual Republicans. There is talk of some moderates leaving the party, either as independents (Schwarzenegger) or Democrats (Specter). Those who remain will either reengineer the party to look, act and think more like mainstream America; or they will delve deeper into its most extremist recesses. If it is the former, it is hard to imagine the party's right-wingers staying onboard and, with nowhere to go but out, it is likely they would at least attempt the previously unthinkable: forming their own conservative party. If the extremists win and take the party ever further right, what will happen to the middle-of-the-road wing of the Republican party, let alone its moderate and liberal members? Their political careers, already threatened, are likely to become yet more tenuous, at least as Republicans. With the Democratic Party occupying the terrain from the center of the spectrum to the far-left, there is little room for an alternative moderate, centrist party. That would give the more pragmatic members of the GOP little choice: to lose as Republicans, or win as Democrats or independents. In either scenario, the Republican Party in its current incarnation would wither away, or perhaps even disappear.
That the GOP survived the 1970s is no indication that it can survive its current crisis: Watergate was very much about one man, Richard Nixon, and while the Republican brand was badly damaged, its policies were not: Vietnam was not a Republican war, and the dreadful state of the economy was not particularly perceived to be the responsibility of the GOP, or even of Nixon. In fact, Nixon's approval ratings remained quite high until the Watergate scandal fully unfolded. His Republican successor, Gerald Ford, started his own term with sky-high popular approval. The party is in a very different situation now: the Iraq folly and the disastrous economy are widely believed to be the result of Republican policies, which the party endorses to this day. The GOP's bulwark of corporate benefactors is also crumbling: they have far more pressing matters than to prop up a party that has not done much for them lately. Indeed, the US Chamber of Commerce, not exactly a Marxist stronghold, enthusiastically endorsed the stimulus package. The Republicans' best friend remains an electoral system that entrenches the two-party system. That said, there is precedent for more than two parties in countries with similar first-past-the-post elections: the UK, for instance, has three main parties, all of which have parliamentary representation. And, also in the UK, the emergence of the Labour Party in the 20th century spelled the doom of the Liberal Party, until the latter reincarnated and merged with a fourth party in the 1980s.
The Republican Party's predicament bears little resemblance to the one facing Democrats in Bush's first term, when Karl Rove famously predicted a long-lasting Republican majority. This asinine forecast was based on the flimsiest of evidence: four years during which Republicans were in charge of both the White House and Congress, a Bush defeat in the popular vote followed by a narrow win, and a few equally narrow Congressional victories, mostly eked out through a probably illegal redrawing of districts in Texas. To put things in perspective, the only time Republicans have matched the kind of majority Democrats now enjoy was in 1921-23, after which a string of increasingly slim GOP victories eventually yielded the Great Depression (funny how that works). Even so, no one is predicting a permanent Democratic majority: that does not happen in a democracy. What we are predicting is that a party as failed, rudderless, and out-of-touch as the present-day GOP is destined for extinction unless it changes drastically and quickly. And that by staking its future on the likes of Palin, Jindal, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, all of whom have failed every significant test of political leadership, the Republican Party is simply accelerating its increasingly inevitable demise.
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
In a testament to the vital need for non corporate, independent media, the non-profit MinnPost.com posted a Five Alarm bombshell: Seymour Hersh stated that a top secret assassination squad reported directly to Dick Cheney in the Bush Administration.
Ignored by the corporate mainstream press -- as usual -- Hersh's comments were picked up and followed up upon by the MinnPost following a forum at the University of Minnesota.
Hersh almost in passing revealed:
"Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command -- JSOC it's called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...
"Congress has no oversight of it. It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths.
"Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us.
Moreover, Hersh dropped a second Five Alarm bombshell: the CIA was more deeply involved in spying on American citizens than ever previously revealed: "After 9/11, I haven't written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven't been called on it yet."
Like BuzzFlash, the MinnPost has shown the importance of a completely independent media, free of corporate influence, to expose the crimes and shocking actions of those in power.
Coming from anybody else, these allegations would be met with some skepticism. But Eric Black of the online MinnPost knew that Hersh, a long-time intelligence correspondent for the New Yorker, has impeccable credentials and bats nearly 100% with his analysis and conclusions. So he not only found the dynamite buried in a question and answer session, Black followed up by e-mail with Hersh to verify the quotes.
Let BuzzFlash know if a former vice-president ordering and overseeing the assassinations of people in foreign countries makes the front page news of any mainstream corporate newspaper, the nightly news, or corporate radio. Somehow we doubt it will get much play, if any.
That's why we need the independent media, such as MinnPost and BuzzFlash.
Hersh spoke indirectly to the need for alternative sources of information when he observed:
"The major newspapers joined the [Bush] team," Hersh said. Top editors passed the message to investigative reporters not to "pick holes" in what Bush was doing. Violations of the Bill of Rights happened in the plain sight of the public. It it was not only tolerated, but Bush was re-elected.
But the only completely independent alternative to the corporate press is a grassroots-supported media, which is accountable to the citizens of America and its communities.
MinnPost.com proved that once again.
Now, we still have a question at BuzzFlash.
When will Dick Cheney be tried and put away for war crimes and violations of American law?
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
I left the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Gulfport, Mississippi exactly four years ago yesterday. It was a bittersweet parting--I had seen what happened to our Deputy Director firsthand and tried to get the news out that she was railroaded. The entire story is sordid and filled with conniving backstabbers in the staff and resident ranks.
The Armed Forces Retirement Home, established in 1851, today provides accommodations for 1,200 veterans. (By Carol Guzy -- The Washington Post) Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. |
The sagging real estate market has prompted the Armed Forces Retirement Home to freeze an ambitious plan to build housing, a hotel, a supermarket and medical offices on a sprawling portion of its Northwest Washington campus.
Two years ago, the home announced that it had chosen a North Carolina-based developer to oversee the project on 77 acres adjoining Catholic University and Washington Hospital Center.
But retirement home officials, without a public announcement, last fall terminated the relationship with the builder, Crescent Resources LLC, which had planned to begin construction this year.
"Right now, it looks like the value of land and real estate continues to drop, so it would not be in the home's interest to develop," said Timothy Cox, the home's chief operating officer.
Asked when the home plans to build the project, Cox said: "We don't know. We need some stabilization."
The home's decision was a disappointment for the development company, which had "invested a tremendous amount of time, effort and money" in the project's planning, said Bobby Zeillor, Crescent's regional vice president.
"We were willing to sit down and talk about fundamental deal points that had obviously changed with the declining market. The home opted not to do so," he said. "To be shut out is unpleasant and not what we wanted."
Established in 1851, the home has provided accommodations for generations of military veterans, 1,200 of whom live there now. Their average age is 83. The grounds are also the site of the cottage where Abraham Lincoln went for respite and where he wrote the final draft of the Emancipation Proclamation.
As health-care costs have increased in recent years, the home has sought ways to raise revenue. Although it is under the auspices of the Defense Department, the home receives no budgetary appropriation. Instead, Cox said, its funding comes from a trust fund consisting of revenue derived from sources such as residents' fees.
Developing the campus would also raise revenue. Under the plan, which has been approved by the National Capital Planning Commission, the home was to lease the grounds to Crescent, which would have developed the housing, office and retail components. But falling land values affected how much the home could charge Crescent.
"How much they were willing to pay in the way of ground leases was at issue," said Chris Black, a consultant to the home.
The project had provoked resistance among community leaders, who objected to development eating away at open space on the land, which is bordered by North Capitol and Irving streets.
Cliff Valenti, an Advisory Neighborhood Commission member in Park View, which adjoins the home, called the project's delay "excellent news."
"It's historic property and should be left alone," he said. "We feel that the better place for development is along Georgia Avenue."
But D.C. Council member Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5), whose district includes the site, said the decision will slow the neighborhood's evolution.
"When you abandon the developer in midstream, it leaves a difficult taste," he said. "We had a good partner. That was not a prudent decision. I was very eager to move forward."
Black, who handles public relations for the project, said the home did not intend to keep a "big secret" by refraining from announcing that it had delayed the project.
Rather, she said, the home planned to "announce something when we have something good to say."
| And he got what he deserved -- being one who walks like that too. Don't Honk At Old People
| |||||
| |
With the revelation that Brent Warr's purchase of AFRH land is being looked at by Congressman Gene Taylor's office, and that the possibility exists that the AFRH COO sold it at a 'bargain basement' price to the Mayor in 2003 without a public listing for the property, a door opens for a probable Congressional Investigation into all of Cox's land deals as COO of AFRH.
Labels: Warr Cox
There are times in our lives when we want to believe that the best quality of people in leadership positions are geared toward doing what is best for the people even if it means sacrificing individual gains.
Congressman Gene Taylor Wants Details on Warr Purchase of Home Property from AFRH
Labels: Warr Cox
GULFPORT U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor wants to know more about the sale of federal property to Gulfport Mayor Brent Warr and his father, he says in a letter written Tuesday to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
"I write to express my concerns about the acquisition and subsequent sale of real property of the Armed Forces Retirement Home at Gulfport, Miss., occurring in 2003," Taylor's letter begins.
Brent Warr and his wife, Laura, have been indicted for Katrina fraud because the government contends they lied when they claimed a house on the property was their primary residence when Katrina hit. They received a $150,000 federal homeowners grant and $9,558 in FEMA relief for the damage.
No charges have been filed over the property transactions with the Armed Forces Retirement Home in 2003. Federal law gives the secretary of defense authority to buy property for AFRH's benefit and to sell property the home does not need as long as the chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services committees are notified.
AFRH bought the property on an unspecified date in 2003, according to the Under Secretary of Defense's Office, but had decided to sell it to the Warrs by August 2003. Another document indicates AFRH bought the property in 2002.
In an August 2003 letter, Principal Deputy Charles S. Abell, in the Under Secretary's Office, said the federal government bought 10.02 acres next to the Armed Forces Retirement Home for $5.692 million. Abell said the Warrs had offered to buy two beachfront parcels.
"The resale of the two smaller beachfront properties will result in $1 million, which will be deposited in the AFRH Trust Fund," Abell wrote in the letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services committees.
Taylor, whose office has been looking into the property acquisitions since the Sun Herald published a story about them in October, enclosed the 2003 correspondence with his letter to Gates.
"We ought to know why something was bought and, if something was sold, for how much," Taylor said Tuesday. "Did it at least turn a profit for the taxpayer? That's something I want to know off the bat."
Taylor made sure restrictions were placed on Veterans Affairs property recently deeded to the city so that it could not be sold in the same way.
"It's very important that when we're dealing with public resources, everything should be transparent and aboveboard," he said.
Brent Warr and his father, Gene Warr, could not be reached to comment. Gene Warr and his wife live in the house next to their son's. Both homes are east of the site of the remaining Armed Forces Retirement Home property off U.S. 90. A new retirement home is being built there.
County land records show that Gene Warr's home sits on 1.42 acres, while Brent Warr has 2.39 acres. Realtor Sherry Owen, who handled the property transactions, told the Sun Herald in October that she called Brent Warr about the property because she knew he was looking for land.
Owen's husband, Joe Sam Owen, is Brent Warr's attorney in the Katrina fraud case made public last week.
In his letter, Taylor has asked Gates the appraised value of the 10.02 acres, plus buildings, when AFRH purchased the property; the appraised value and size of the parcels sold to the Warrs; and whether there was any discrepancy between the amount earned from the sale and the amount deposited in the AFRH trust fund.
Taylor wrote, "I would greatly appreciate it if you could furnish answers to the questions posed above and any relevant documents on which they are based, including but not limited to appraisals, deeds, financial transactions, property descriptions, sale papers, etc."
Taylor asked for a response within two weeks.
It seems that as time passes the conditions at AFRH worsen; there is a hostility evident from resident to resident. The Gulfport refugees from Hurricane Katrina are blamed for sucking the life out of the sytem when in fact they have contributed more than their fair share to keep it going. Cox used Gulfport funds to bolster the failing financial situation at Washington DC. Now a bigger problem may have surfaced and brought attention to the property sale by Cox to Gene Warr and his son, then mayoral candidate (now indicted Mayor Warr for fraud, public theft, 16 counts, each of which carries a maximum of ten years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. His wife was co-indictee.)
The Armed Forces Retirement Home Gulfport, MS, my home for 27 months (today, 17 February 2008, is the third anniversary of my voluntary departure as a resident), was not destroyed by hurricane Katrina, but by the incompetent chief operating officer, Mr. Tim Cox, who refused the facilities manager's requests for assistance to save the building after the nation's worst natural disaster. But that's not all.
Labels: anniversary pankey
Keelhaul the bastard!
View All Comments »