Maybe some good news regarding Democrats standing up against secrecy (but is still ongoing and we must wait and see)

Glenn Greenwald

Are House Democrats about to block Obama's new secrecy law?

(updated below - Update II)

Earlier this week, I noted that the Senate had passed -- with Obama's support -- a pernicious amendment to the spending supplemental bill, jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, that empowers Obama and the Pentagon, at their sole discretion, to suppress any "photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States." The amendment has no purpose other than to expressly allow the President to conceal evidence of war crimes (torture) and to block the Supreme Court from ruling (as two federal courts have already held) that the Freedom of Information Act compels disclosure of those photographs. For more on why this new secrecy law is so dangerous, see my post here; even The Washington PostEditorial Page excoriated the amendment and Obama's support for it.

When I wrote about this several days ago, the Senate had passed the Graham-Lieberman secrecy law as an amendment to the spending supplemental bill (which includes funding for Iraq and Afghanistan) without even bothering to take a formal roll call vote (on a voice vote). Although the House version of the supplemental bill did not contain this amendment, it was widely expected that it would simply be inserted in the House-Senate conference and then easily passed along with the final bill.

But passage of Graham-Lieberman now appears much less certain because of what appears to be the refusal of some key liberal House Democrats -- including Barney Frank -- to support it. The votes of liberal House Democrats actually matter (for once) because most House Republicans are refusing to support the overall supplemental bill due to their objections to a provision for $5 billion in funding to increase the IMF's lending capacity. To pass the supplemental spending bill, House leaders need the votes of numerous House Democrats who are currently refusing to vote for anything that contains the photo suppression amendment. If Congressional Democrats succeed in blocking enactment of this amendment, that would be a critical assertion for the first time of Congressional checks on Obama's desired powers and would, independently, prevent a truly odious new secrecy power from being enacted.

First there is this report, yesterday, from Congress Daily:

Democratic leaders postponed a House-Senate conference meeting they hoped would produce a compromise fiscal 2009 war supplemental spending bill Thursday after it appeared they might not have enough votes to pass the measure in the House. . . .

Democratic leaders are counting on convincing 18 of 51 self-described liberal or progressive Democrats who previously opposed the supplemental to now support it, enough Caucus members to ensure its passage. . . .

But liberal Democrats are threatening to withhold their support for the supplemental if it includes a provision in the Senate-passed billthat would allow Defense Secretary Robert Gates to withhold any "photograph relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States" if he certifies that the release of the photos could endanger citizens or the armed forces.

The provision, which is supported by President Obama, was offered as an amendment by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. -- who initially opposed the package and is now trying to help Democratic leaders raise support for it -- said he recently told Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that liberal Democrats would not likely support the package if it includes the Lieberman amendment.

"I made it clear to the administration that I believe that we can get liberals like myself who are against the war [to] vote for it because the IMF is so important, but not if the [Freedom of Information Act] exception is in it," Frank said.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., previously supported the supplemental but said she would not vote for the bill if it includes the amendment.

"There is no reason in the world for us to vote to suspend" FOIA, Slaughter said.

While House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., conceded "we got big problems" with trying to pass the supplemental, he asserted that it would clear Congress by July 1. The military has said it needs the funding by July to avoid a disruption in other accounts, which would have to be raided to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bolstering that report, Jane Hamsher yesterday spoke with Barney Frank, who told her that continued inclusion of the Graham-Lieberman photo suppression amendment would prevent House leaders from getting the votes they need to pass the supplemental bill (either that, Frank said, or they would be forced to remove the IMF funding provision -- which Obama promised G-20 allies -- in order to re-attract GOP votes and then pass the bill with the Graham-Lieberman amendment included but without the IMF funding).

It would seem that Nancy Pelosi has a special obligation to ensure that the House bill does not include the Graham-Lieberman amendment. Despite her vocal support for a "Truth Commission" to investigate Bush crimes, she has been continuously accused of enabling the Bush administration's torture regime by helping to keep it a secret and doing nothing to impede it. If she ends up voting for the supplemental spending bill (as she will) which includes a provision allowing the indefinite suppression of photographic evidence of torture, that would certainly bolster those accusations. Having been briefed early on to some still-disputed extent on the Bush torture regime, does Pelosi now want to vote to vest the Pentagon with the unreviewable power to suppress evidence of torture even where FOIA compels its disclosure?

If, as Obama claims, there are legitimate reasons to suppress these photos under FOIA's exemptions (including its very broad national security exemptions), then the Supreme Court can reverse the two lower court rulings ordering disclosure -- as Obama is asking it to do. But there is no good reason to vest the Obama administration with the unilateral power to simply waive FOIA requirements simply because it loses in court and decides it doesn't want to comply with court rulings and with current transparency laws.

FOIA was enacted by Congress in 1966 -- more than 40 years ago -- and, in 1974, Congress overrode a presidential veto (.pdf) of amendments that expanded its disclosure requirements in the wake of Nixonian secrecy abuses. Congress should defend and insist on presidential compliance with the important transparency law it passed and repeatedly strengthened -- not allow the White House and Republicans to jointly render it illusory by retroactively narrowing its provisions, all because the Obama White House wants to suppress evidence of Bush's war crimes in the face of clear FOIA requirements compelling disclosure.

I hope to post some information in just a little bit about which members of Congress should be called today by those who want to see House Democrats stand their ground. Preventing passage of the Graham-Lieberman amendment would be an important step both for transparency and the re-assertion of Congressional checks on still-expanding presidential powers and secrecy abuses.

UPDATE: As Jane Hamsher noted after speaking with Barney Frank yesterday (read Jane's analysis here), the White House and House Leadership are now working jointly to convince 18 House Democrats who currently oppose the bill [H.R 2346] to vote for it. That's how many are needed to ensure its passage. You can call those key members -- here -- and encourage them to continue to oppose this bill, particularly as long as it contains the FOIA-eroding, torture-protecting Graham-Lieberman photo suppression amendment. Those interested can and should call as many members as possible, and it's particularly important if any of them are your actual representatives. It would also be helpful, once you call, to use the program provided to convey what you were told as each member's response to your call.

UPDATE II: Nick Baumman of Mother Jones cheers the efforts of House Democrats to block this amendment and writes:

The photo suppression bill is an abomination that is reminiscent of the worst Bush-era excesses. It gives the executive branch the power to withhold an entire category of information from public scrutiny without any review. This law is Example A of the theory of the Presidency that says citizens should just trust the benevolent executive to do the right thing. Even if you oppose releasing some of the photos, I don't see why you would want to give the White House the power to unilaterally decide what's best. It says a lot about the Congress that members are willing to give Obama this kind of power. It says a lot about Obama that he supports this bill.

Exactly. We already have a law in place -- FOIA -- that is incredibly permissive in what it allows the government to keep secret. Obama is perfectly within his rights to appeal the two court decisions ruling that these photographs must be disclosed under FOIA. But passing a new law because you don't want to abide by the old one and because courts have rejected the President's claimed powers was one of the most defining and abusive strategies of the Bush administration. The fact that this proposed amendment vests unilateral, unchallengeable power in the Pentagon to decide, with no review and standards, what will remain secret makes it all the worse.

The issue is not whether disclosure of these photographs will produce value (although given that we are in the midst of an ongoing debate over both torture and accountability for it, it seems obvious that there is great value in having more evidence released showing how brutal and lawless our Government's treatment of detainees was). But that isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not you believe in transparency in government (a major plank of Obama's campaign), and whether you want the President to have the unilateral, unreviewable power to simply decree that the 4o-year-old FOIA law need not be complied with when it comes to all photographic evidence of detainee abuse.

-- Glenn Greenwald

Original article posted here.

The nightmare subsides for XDR-TB victim

One year in solitary - TB sufferer's nightmare

A Russian-American citizen who went to America to treat his virulent tuberculosis has had to return to Russia to avoid jail. Robert Daniels spent a year in prison after endangering others with his illness, and authorities say that he is still a risk to public health.

Robert Daniels is now free but he is still traumatised by the events of the past 18 months.

“It was just so horrible, I've just been thinking about killing myself,” he said.

When he contracted TB in Moscow, he thought he'd get the best treatment in America.

Born to an American father and a Russian mother, he has dual citizenship. He travelled to Arizona and immediately told the authorities about his condition. But that was only the start of his troubles.

He had XDR-TB a highly virulent and drug resistant form of the disease and was made to wear a special mask. He says he ignored these orders just once, during a trip to the supermarket. The consequences though were disastrous.

He was immediately arrested for recklessly exposing others to his illness, and placed in solitary confinement.

According to the documents provided by his lawyers, Robert Daniels was allegedly subjected to more than 20 different forms of inhumane treatment.

He was only allowed to go outside once, his lights were kept on 24 hours a day, he wasn't allowed a TV, or a phone to call his family, and he wasn't even allowed to take showers. As a result he has suffered psychological deterioration, severe mood swings and post traumatic stress disorder.

He has the same rights as any other citizen of the U.S. He is a U.S. citizen, he is not contagious,

Burt Rosenblatt,
Robert Daniels' lawyer

Robert Daniels says that he was not against being isolated for his treatment, but does not believe the extra measures were necessary.

“I think that locking people up is too extreme. We don't do this to people these days. We don't lock people up unless they commit a crime,” he said.

Eventually, under pressure from the media and his lawyers, Mr Daniels was transferred to a hospital.

This summer one of his lungs was removed and now he says he is no longer ill.

But not according to the Arizona authorities. They have prescribed a course of medicine, which Mr Daniels claims causes severe side effects and which he does not need. By refusing to take it, he is once again breaking the law.

He has fled to Moscow to avoid further prosecution.

But he has not abandoned hopes of once again living in the U.S.

“He has the same rights as any other citizen of the U.S. He is a U.S. citizen, he is not contagious,” Burt Rosenblatt, Robert Daniels' lawyer, said.

Robert Daniels is renting a small apartment with his wife and young child. He does not have a job,and still suffers from the severe after-effects of his treatment.

While he feels remorse over his actions, he feels the treatment he received was out of proportion to the danger he posed to the public.

Original article posted here.

Moron George and the State of Fascism: Just when you thought things couldn't get worse

FBI Proposes Building Network of U.S. Informants

The FBI is taking cues from the CIA to recruit thousands of covert informants in the United States as part of a sprawling effort to boost its intelligence capabilities.

According to a recent unclassified report to Congress, the FBI expects its informants to provide secrets about possible terrorists and foreign spies, although some may also be expected to aid with criminal investigations, in the tradition of law enforcement confidential informants. The FBI did not respond to requests for comment on this story.

The FBI said the push was driven by a 2004 directive from President Bush ordering the bureau to improve its counterterrorism efforts by boosting its human intelligence capabilities.
The aggressive push for more secret informants appears to be part of a new effort to grow its intelligence and counterterrorism efforts. Other recent proposals include expanding its collection and analysis of data on U.S. persons, retaining years' worth of Americans' phone records and even increasing so-called "black bag" secret entry operations.

To handle the increase in so-called human sources, the FBI also plans to overhaul its database system, so it can manage records and verify the accuracy of information from "more than 15,000" informants, according to the document. While many of the recruited informants will apparently be U.S. residents, some informants may be overseas, recruited by FBI agents in foreign offices, the report indicates.

The total cost of the effort tops $22 million, according to the document.

The bureau has arranged to use elements of CIA training to teach FBI agents about "Source Targeting and Development," the report states. The courses will train FBI special agents on the "comprehensive tradecraft" needed to identify, recruit and manage these "confidential human sources." According to January testimony by FBI Deputy Director John S. Pistole, the CIA has been working with the bureau on the course.

The bureau apparently mulled whether to adopt entire training courses from the CIA or from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which like the CIA recruits spies overseas. But the FBI ultimately determined "the courses offered by those agencies would not meet the needs of the FBI's unique law enforcement." The FBI report said it would also give agents "legal and policy" training, noting that its domestic intelligence efforts are "constitutionally sensitive."

"It's probably a good sign they are not adopting CIA recruitment techniques wholesale," said Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, an expert on classified programs. U.S. intelligence officers abroad can use bribery, extortion, and other patently illegal acts to corral sources into working for them, Aftergood noted. "You're not supposed to do that in the United States," he said.

Original article posted here.

Yes, baby, use those fabricated UK "terror" plots to strip Americans of their rights! If they're too stupid to see the fraud, screw em!

Lieberman Uses Foiled British Terror Plot To Push For Greater U.S. Domestic Spying

Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) used the foiled terror attempts in London to call for greater domestic spying here in the United States. Lieberman said, “I hope these terrorist attacks in London wake us up here in America to stop the petty partisan fighting going on about…electronic surveillance,” in apparent reference to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas for documents related to Bush’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

Lieberman claimed, “We’re at a partisan gridlock over the question of whether the American government can listen into conversations or follow email trails of non-American citizens.” This is false; the NSA spying program covered the surveillance of American citizens. The “gridlock” exists over whether the administration will cooperate with Congress by explaining why it feels current law is inadequate and why President Bush decided to ignore the law in authorizing a spying program that almost led to mass resignations at the Department of Justice.

Liebermen went further in his calls for greater domestic spying. “The Brits have got something smart going. … They have have cameras all over London. … I think it’s just common sense to do that here much more widely.” Watch it:

In the same interview, Lieberman said of the situation in Iraq, “The surge is working.” He refused to say whether he would back a withdrawal if Gen. Petraeus reports in September that progress is not being made.

Also, Lieberman reaffirmed his previous statements that Democratic candidates do not have “strong and muscular” approaches to foreign policy. Today, he said, “I would say that Democratic candidates, in the larger questions of American security, have been disappointing.”

Original article posted here.

No Surprise: Once again EU compromises laws and privacy rights of citizens in face of US bully tactics and fraudulent fearmongering

EU approves US data transfer deal

Swift says it was obliged to obey US subpoenas

The European Union has approved a deal allowing the Swift international bank transfer network to show US investigators details of transactions.

European and Belgian watchdogs say Brussels-based Swift has been violating privacy rules since it started sharing the data after the 9/11 attacks.

The new deal says the US can only use the data to fight terrorism, and can only hold it for five years.

A senior European official will also monitor how the data is used.

Secret operation

BANK DATA CONTROVERSY A Belgian money transfer firm, Swift handles 11m transactions per year US agencies subpoenaed Swift to provide transaction data to help disrupt terrorist financing The company has more than 7,500 clients, most of them global financial institutions It operates in 200 countries, including Burma In November, the European Commission told Swift to stop violating EU privacy laws

The deal is expected to be rubber-stamped by ministers on Thursday, after agreement among ambassadors.

The US says it needs the information, such as customer names, account numbers and amounts transferred, to crack down on funding for to terrorist cells.

Swift says it was obliged to obey US subpoenas to share the data, and denies breaking data protection rules.

The system operated secretly until it was exposed in summer 2006.

In February, European Data Protection Superviser Peter Hustinx said Swift had "breached the trust and private lives of many millions of people".

He also accused the European Central Bank of failing to demand a halt to the data transfers.

Original article posted here.

EU, U.S. officials clinch air data deal: EU

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - EU and U.S. officials reached a deal on Wednesday on the transfer to the United States of private data on transatlantic air passengers for use in the fight against terrorism, an EU spokesman said.

The deal was reached in talks between European Union Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini, German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble and U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a spokesman for Frattini said.

"Schaeuble, Frattini and Chertoff agreed," spokesman Friso Roscam Abbing said. Details of the accord must now be approved by the EU's 27 member states, who will study it on Friday.

Under an interim agreement reached in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, European airlines must pass on up to 34 items of passenger data, including address and credit card details, to be allowed to land at U.S. airports.

That deal expires at the end of July, potentially leaving airlines in a legal limbo and exposed to privacy complaints.

Roscam Abbing did not give details of the deal but another EU diplomat has said previously that under the new arrangement, data would be kept for 15 years.

During the last eight years of that 15-year period, the information will only be available for access with the permission of a designated senior U.S. Homeland Security Department official, the diplomat said.

Under the interim accord, information can be held between 3-1/2 and 11-1/2 years.

Original article posted here.

Britain fighting for paper rights, legal fictions and symbolic rhetoric. Nice.

Germany sets collision course with UK on rights


Ian Traynor in Brussels

Germany threw down the gauntlet to Britain yesterday over one of the issues that will dominate a crucial EU summit starting today in Brussels. Addressing one of Tony Blair's "red line" subjects, the Germans made clear they want the so-called charter of fundamental rights to be legally enforceable as part of a new deal on how Europe is run.

The charter is a comprehensive catalogue of human, civil and social rights agreed by the EU in 2000 but never enforced. Though it will not be at the heart of any new treaty, the German government, chairing the summit, said it should still be referred to as "legally binding".

Both Mr Blair and Gordon Brown are flatly opposed to the charter becoming European law, and thus enforceable by the European court of justice.

"It's a proposal from the [German EU] presidency and it does indeed contain a proposal to make the charter legally binding," said a senior Berlin government official closely involved in planning the summit and drafting the new treaty. The case for the charter was overwhelmingly supported by the rest of the EU, he added. "Some see that as a concession because they want it in the treaty. They absolutely insist on the legally binding charter."

The charter enshrines everything from the right to strike to the right to preventative medical treatment. EU trade unionists demonstrated in Brussels in support of it yesterday, but it is strongly opposed by Britain's business leaders and the government has said it will not tolerate any European interference in the UK's social and labour law.

The charter formed chapter two of the proposed European constitution that died two years ago after France and the Netherlands voted against it.

Signalling a possible way out of the impasse, however, the German official also acknowledged that Britain's common law system made the UK a special case in the EU, and indicated that the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, could negotiate terms exempting the UK from the charter's application. A senior commission official said: "The Germans have told the UK that opt-outs can be organised."

The constitution was officially buried on Tuesday night in Brussels when Mrs Merkel's team tabled a mandate for a new reform treaty which seeks to salvage much of the constitution, minus its symbolic and solemn trappings. "We need to mutilate the constitution in order to save it," said another senior German official.

German officials hope that, if consensus can be reached, the treaty will be accepted at the summit scheduled for today and tomorrow, but which is expected to run into Saturday. EU government officials would then meet for a couple of months in the autumn to dot the i's and cross the t's in the new treaty.

The new pact would reshape the way the EU is run by giving it a full-time president, a European foreign policy supremo, a slimmed down commission, and a new "double majority" voting system based on a country's population size, which will raise Germany's clout relative to other members for the first time.

The latter change is seen as the biggest threat to a summit triumph for Mrs Merkel because Poland, wary of German domination, is demanding to reopen the issue of voting weights.

Other British sore points include the role and powers of a European foreign minister (who would be called something else), and the surrender of Britain's veto on criminal justice and home affairs.

British officials admit that reaction to Downing Street's demands among other EU states this week has been "vituperative". But diplomats in Brussels yesterday characterised the German proposals as a shrewd piece of drafting that appeared to leave enough flexibility to secure a deal at the high-stakes summit.

Original article posted here.

Problem-Response-Solution: Didn't take long for them to spit out legislation in response to XDR-TB fright

The Stop TB Now ACT of 2007 (H.R.1567, S.968)

Full text of the Stop TB Now ACT of 2007

The Stop TB Now Act (H.R.1567) was introduced in the House on March 19 by Representatives Eliot Engel (D-NY), Adam Smith (D-WA), and Heather Wilson (R-NM); Chairman Lantos is a cosponsor. It was introduced in the Senate (S.968) by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Gordon Smith (R-OR).

The new bill is similar to the Stop Tuberculosis (TB) Now Act of 2006 (H.R.5022), which was introduced in the House last March by Representatives Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Jim Leach (R-IA) — so it should be easy to ask members who were previous sponsors to cosponsor the new bill.

The bill calls for the U.S. to commit the funds and put in place the policies necessary to reach the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of halting and reversing the spread of TB. It specifies that the U.S. should strive to halve TB deaths by 2015 and sustain or exceed diagnosis of at least 70 percent of TB cases and cure at least 85 percent of those patients. It puts in place policies to help ensure the most effective investments to achieve these targets.

This bill comes at a key time to help move support for TB to a new level, especially given the recent attention to XDR-TB and its link to AIDS.

Ask Your Representative and Senators to Cosponsor the Stop TB Now ACT
To cosponsor in the House, contact Joe Moser in Rep. Wilson’s office at (202) 225-6316 and Emily Gibbons in Rep. Engel’s office at (202) 225-1464 and Emily.gibbons@mail.house.gov. To cosponsor in the Senate, contact Sean Moore in Sen. Boxer’s office at (202) 224-3553.
For more information about the Stop TB Now Act of 2006, contact Jennifer Maurer at jmaurer@results.org.

For coaching to get your representative to sign on to this important legislation, contact Ken Patterson kpatterson@results.org.

Please also ask your representative to cosponsor the domestic TB bill: Comprehensive TB Elimination Act (H.R.1532).

Previous cosponsors of the Stop TB Now Act in 2006: Wilson (R-NM), Udall (D-NM), Lee (D-CA), McCollum (D-MN), Berman (D-CA), Honda (D-CA), McNulty (D-NY), Crowley (D-NY), McDermott (D-WA), Schakowsky (D-IL), Waxman (D-CA), Miller (D-CA), Inslee (WA), Grijalva (AZ), R. Andrews (D-NJ), Holt (D-NJ), Baird (D-WA), Baldwin (D-WI), Barrow (D-GA), Capps (D-CA), Clyburn (D-SC), Cummings (D-MD), J. Davis (D-FL), S. Davis (D-CA), DeGette (D-CO), Delahunt (D-MA), Dicks (D-WA), Dingell (D-MI), Doggett (D-TX), Edwards (D-TX), Emanuel (D-IL), Eshoo (D-CA), Farr (D-CA), Filner (D-CA), Frank (D-MA), A. Green (D-TX), G. Green (D-TX), Hall (R-TX), Hastings (D-FL), Herseth (D-SD), Inglis (R-SC), Jackson (D-IL), Jefferson (D-LA), Kucinich (D-OH), Larsen (D-WA), Larson (D-CT), Lewis (D-GA), Lofgren (D-CA), Matheson (D-UT), Matsui (D-CA), McCaul (R-TX), McCotter (R-MI), McKinney (D-GA), Meehan (D-MA), Meeks (D-NY), Moran (D-VA), Ortiz (D-TX), Pallone (D-NJ), Pastor (D-AZ), Payne (D-NJ), Price (R-NC), Reichert (R-WA), Reyes (D-TX), Rohrabacher (R-CA), Sanders (I-VT), Saxton (R-NJ), Schwarz (R-MI), Scott (D-GA), Serrano (D-NY), A. Smith (D-WA), C. Smith (R-NJ), Spratt (SC), Stark (D-CA), Tauscher (D-CA), Tierney (D-MA), M. Udall (D-CO), Van Hollen (D-MD), Walsh (R-NY), Waters (D-CA), Wexler (D-FL), Wilson (R-NM), Young (R-AK).

Original article posted here.

More Problem-Respose-Solution propaganda to type the evisceration of rights in the wake of overblown TB case

TB Case Shows Need for Tighter Law

By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer

(AP) -- States should have the power to restrict the movement of patients with contagious diseases even before they have the chance to disobey doctors' orders, federal health officials say.

The need for such authority to order someone quarantined emerged as lesson No. 1 from the case of the Atlanta lawyer who went to Europe despite having a dangerous form of tuberculosis.

If we believe the patient has a strong intent to put others at risk, we need to have confidence we can take action absent documentation of intent to cause harm," Dr. Julie Gerberding, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told lawmakers last week.

Gerberding also mentioned outfitting a CDC plane so the government could fly patients long distances without fear of contaminating others on board and improving communications among government agencies.

Also cited by the Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing was the lapse at the U.S.-Canadian border that allowed Andrew Speaker to enter the U.S. even though his name was on a watch list with instructions to detain him. Officials said a lone border agent made a bad decision.

The ability to require that someone be kept in isolation leads to legal and ethical questions about possible overreaching by the government.

"First of all, up front, before the patient left the United States, we believe that we could strengthen our states' ability to restrict the movement of patients before they demonstrate noncompliance with the medical order," Gerberding told lawmakers.

Peter Jacobson, a health law professor, had concerns about Gerberding's statement on two fronts.

"That's not the federal government's role and it's far, far too broad a statement. There has to be a credible threat, a direct threat of harm before you restrict someone's freedom to move, before you intrude on their individual liberties," said Jacobson, director of the Center for Law and Ethics and Health at the University of Michigan.

"For her to say in such a broad manner that a state should restrict people before they're noncompliant is extremely intrusive in my view," he said.

Also, the District of Columbia-based association representing state health officials noted that it is now up to the states, not the federal government, to determine when to issue an isolation order.

Even if Congress went along with Gerberding's idea, state legislatures seemingly would have to follow with their own changes for the proposal to take effect.

"Each governor does have the ability to quarantine. But the circumstances around it, how it's done and for how long, is tailored to each state," said Paula Steib, communications director for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, an organization that represents state health departments.

Besides granting states more power to isolate patients, Gerberding said the federal government should clarify its quarantine laws. Now, the laws focus on preventing sick people from coming into the country.

"Our statutes weren't really designed for this modern age of global travel," she said.

Gerberding said health officials in Fulton County, Ga., knew that Speaker had tuberculosis that was resistant to antibiotics and that he had travel plans. They met with him on May 10.

In the following days, county health officials tried to serve Speaker with written notice summarizing what was discussed at the meeting, including advice that he not travel. But they could not find him. He flew from the U.S. on May 12 for his wedding and honeymoon.

Speaker told lawmakers that doctors recommended he not travel, but they never said he was contagious or a threat to others. A county official disputed Speaker's recollection.

"I was not in the meeting, but the patient's chart indicates that he was told he was not highly contagious," said Dr. Steven Katkowsky, director of the county's Health and Wellness Department.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, questioned the CDC's ability to take quick and decisive action.

Harkin, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that questioned Gerberding, said the agency was notified May 18 that Speaker had multiple drug resistant tuberculosis, but the Homeland Security Department was not told until four days later. Speaker was not placed on a no-fly list until May 24.

"Again, with the rapidity of world travel today, it seems to me that this time frame should have been collapsed to just a few hours," Harkin said.

Said Gerberding: "I think we should have done it faster, and I think we'll be able to accelerate this next time. In retrospect, that was a mistake and I wish we had done it differently."

---

On the Net:

CDC background on Extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis: http://www.cdc.gov/tb/xdrtb/

CDC background on isolation and quarantine: http://tinyurl.com/33kohf

Original article posted here.

Taking Liberties: Perhaps Worth Watching

And our own story of our "Patriot" Act

The Fascism Juggernaut Just Grows Stronger and Stronger on a Daily Basis

No jobs for US citizens without Homeland Security approval

US citizens who apply for a job will need prior approval from Department of Homeland Security under the terms immigration bill passed by the Senate this week.

American Civil Liberties Union pointed out that the DHS's Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS) is error plagued and if the department makes a mistake in determining work eligibility, there will be virtually no way to challenge the error or recover lost wages due to the bill’s prohibitions on judicial review.

Even current employees will need to obtain eligibility approval from the DHS Within 60 days of the Immigration Reform Act of 2006 becoming law.

"EEVS would be a financial and bureaucratic nightmare for both businesses and workers," said Timothy Sparapani, ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Under this already flawed program no one would be able to work in the U.S. without DHS approval - creating a ‘No Work List’ similar to the government’s ‘No Fly List.’ We need immigration reform, but not at this cost."

The act allocates US$400 million for the implementation of the EEVS, but the Congressional Budgeting Office estimates the system to cost in excess of a billion dollars.

Original article posted here.

Poland and Romania violate human rights. Will the EU care? They'll likely give lip service, and then bury it with haste

ICIJ: Poland, Romania served CIA program

WASHINGTON, May 25 (UPI) -- A U.S. group has criticized Poland and Romania for cooperating in secret CIA arrest and detention policies since Sept. 11, 2001.

"Both Poland and Romania have sent troops to Iraq, assisted U.S. anti-terrorism policies by detaining terrorism suspects and faced criticism by European Union government investigators for their involvement in a CIA program of secret prisons and extraordinary renditions ... without any legal due process," the Center for Public Integrity said in a statement.

The CPI announced the results of a series of investigations by its International Consortium of Investigative Journalists

The CPI said that nations such as Poland and Romania had "made concerted efforts to curry favor with the United States by supporting the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies."

"In the three years before 9/11, Poland received just over $33 million in U.S. military training and assistance. Three years after, the amount was nearly tenfold, more than $300 million in mostly Coalition Support Funds to reimburse expenses incurred by Polish forces in Iraq," according to ICIJ's database of military training and assistance, the statement said.

"Since 1998, Romania has received more than $100 million in U.S. military aid, primarily from the Foreign Military Financing program, which provides grants to buy U.S. military equipment and services," it said.

The Center for Public Integrity describes itself as "a nonprofit, nonpartisan Washington-based organization that does investigative reporting and research on significant public issues."

In general, the Bush administration has found a significantly greater willingness to cooperate on many of its security policies from many of the so-called "New Europe" former communist nations in Central Europe than from its older, more established allies in Western Europe.

Original article posted here.

CIA: Violating laws both home and abroad, of friends and foes

Anatomy of a Rendition

In cleric's abduction in Italy, the CIA all but left a calling card

By Leo Sisti
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists

MILAN, Italy — Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, a Muslim cleric from Egypt also known as Abu Omar, had just stepped out of his home on via Conte Verde in Milan around noon on February 17, 2003, and was heading for prayers at the mosque when a military policeman confronted him. "Mi mostri il passaporto!" came the order. "I don't speak Italian," the cleric responded, so the officer, Luciano Pironi, repeated the question in English. "Show me your passport!"

Omar handed over his passport, and suddenly someone inside a parked white van flung open the side door. According to the account of a witness later interviewed by the police, two men grabbed the cleric and shoved him inside. The van roared away, and thus began a tangled spy story that has resulted in a major political and diplomatic embarrassment for the United States and its close ally in the war on terror, Italy.

ITALY

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

U.S. Military Aid Rank Amount Three Years Before 9/11 (1999-2001) None $0 Three Years After 9/11 (2002-'04) None $0

Spending on Influence (FARA) 1999-2004 $6.7 M

Human Rights Violations Ethnic/Minority/Refugee Oppression Violence Against/Oppression of Women Threats to Civil Liberties Child Exploitation Religious Persecution Judicial/Prison Abuses Sources: Center for Public Integrity analysis of U.S. Defense Department, U.S. Justice Department and U.S. State Department records

Four years later, on February 16, 2007, Italy indicted 25 Americans it said were CIA agents, a U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel, and five high-ranking members of Sismi, the Italian military secret service, on charges of kidnapping Omar, then 40 years old, and performing an "extraordinary rendition" — seizing a terrorist suspect without a warrant and transferring the person to another country, often one known to employ torture.

The CIA will neither confirm nor deny allegations about this or any other rendition. But investigative records filed with the Italian court that issued the indictments present a vivid picture of Omar being kidnapped and taken to his native Egypt, where he claims he underwent lengthy detention, questioning and torture. These records say the rendition was engineered by U.S. diplomats suspected of being CIA agents. By the time the indictments were issued, all of the officials in question had been transferred to other countries. The State Department also declined to comment, and the Egyptian Embassy in Washington did not return calls seeking comment.

Just who is Abu Omar? A veteran of military training camps in Bosnia and Afghanistan, Omar allegedly was a member of the Egyptian radical movement Gama'a al-Islamiyya, which has been designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization supported by Osama bin Laden.

In the 1990s he left Egypt for Albania, residing in the capital city of Tirana and quickly attracting suspicion as a terrorist. According to Italian intelligence sources, Albania expelled him for helping to plot an attack on a visiting Egyptian minister. In 1997 Omar moved first to Germany and then to Italy, where in 2001 he was granted political asylum. He first served as an imam at a mosque in Latina, close to Rome. He went to Milan, where he was an imam in a radical mosque, and then worked in an Islamic cultural center attended by Islamic fundamentalists who were later arrested and convicted of recruiting jihadists for Iraq.

The Italian court documents include evidence that by 2002 Abu Omar was under investigation by Digos, the Italian special police branch that investigates terrorism. But in February 2003 he disappeared. The documents also allege that on March 3, two weeks after the abduction, a first secretary at the U.S. Embassy in Rome sent Italian authorities the following message: "Abu Omar disappeared in the Balkans, where he could have been relocated." That diplomat is among the Americans who have been identified as CIA agents by the Italian authorities and who have been indicted in Milan for Abu Omar's kidnapping.

Detention in Egypt

In April 2004, Armando Spataro, the deputy chief prosecutor in Milan for investigations of the Mafia and terrorism, began probing Abu Omar's disappearance. Spataro's task was tough. He knew that Digos had tailed Abu Omar as a terrorist suspect and for good reason. How could he have disappeared without a trace?

The same month, court records show, Abu Omar was released from detention in Egypt and Digos, which was still investigating Omar's disappearance from Italy, intercepted phone conversations between him, another imam, Elbadry Mohammed Reda, and his wife, Nabila Ghali.

"He told me that he had been kidnapped in Milan," she said in excerpts from an interview with the Milan prosecutor made public in the court documents, "and that some people had captured him violently and taken him away in a white van. … My husband … told me he hadn't been kidnapped by Egyptians. … He had always been kept blindfolded during the kidnapping. … He was certainly flown to Egypt with a military aircraft, surely not a civilian plane. … He told me that he had always been detained and subject to awful torture … all kinds of torture … because the Egyptians wanted information from him that he was unable to give. … He added that he was made to sign a statement after the torture where he declared that he had turned himself in to Egyptian authorities on his own free will."

More details came from Reda, the other imam, who in an interview with the Milan prosecutor said Omar told him this story: "Speaking perfect Italian, the two men told Abu Omar to be quiet and remain still, otherwise he would be dead. … Thanks to his watch, he was able to ascertain that he had traveled by car with the two men for about five hours. … The two abductors handed Abu Omar to other people inside a military base that he believed to be an American base … with the U.S. flag. … He didn't say whether the captors were Italians … just that they spoke Italian. The two men departed and left him with a group of English- and Italian-speaking people … who availed themselves of an Arab interpreter. [They] asked him questions repeatedly, accompanied by outbursts of violence, about three specific issues: … on his dealings with al Qaeda … on his activities related to the war in Iraq, asking him if he was sending volunteers to fight the U.S. in those areas … and on his relationship with Albanian Islamic groups."

Reda's transcript continued: "He told me that he had been beaten … tortured … questioned. At dawn he was loaded onto a U.S. military aircraft and traveled for just under one hour … he thought he had been taken to a Rome airport. The aircraft was stationed in a restricted area inside a huge airport, probably military. … Abu Omar was taken off the plane … got on another U.S. military plane … and took off again immediately. … The second plane landed at a U.S. base in the Red Sea in Egypt. … From this base he was flown to a Cairo airport, this time [aboard] Egyptian and military [aircraft] … he was blindfolded and taken by car, with Egyptians on board, to a Secret Service building in Cairo. … He had to meet an important personality … the Egyptian Home Secretary, Habib Al Adly. … [Al Adly] told him that if he agreed to work as an infiltrator for the Egyptian secret service he would be home in 48 hours, otherwise he would have to bear full responsibility for his refusal. … Abu Omar refused.

"He was subject to serious torture. … The first measure was to leave him in a room where incredibly loud and unbearable noise was made. ... He has experienced damage to his hearing. … The second kind of torture was to place him in a sauna at tremendous temperature and straight after to put him in a cold storeroom … causing terrible pains to his bones … as if they were cracking. The third was to hang him upside down … and apply live wires to the sensitive parts of the body including his genitals … and producing electrical shocks. … He has suffered damage to his motor and urinary systems … he became incontinent. … They tortured him and accused him of being an al Qaeda terrorist and a militant against the Egyptian regime."

There was seemingly no legal basis for Abu Omar's arrest and transfer to Egypt — he had long been under investigation, but no arrest warrant had ever been issued. Omar was initially released by Egyptian authorities on April 20, 2004. But on May 12, 2004 — 22 days after he was freed — press reports indicated that the Egyptian police arrested him again. Almost three years later, in February 2007, he was finally released to his family in Alexandria, Egypt — and promptly announced through his attorney that he planned to sue the U.S. and Italian governments for damages. In late March 2007, Montasser Al Zayat, Abu Omar's attorney, stated that his client was seeking "a compromise solution with the Italian government, asking for compensation of 20 million euro (approximately $26 million)."

The kidnapping investigation

In the first months of 2005, Milan prosecutor Spataro began to make some progress on recreating what had happened that February day in 2003. One helpful bit of evidence was provided by Bruno Megale, the Milan anti-terrorism chief at Digos, who gave Spataro an analysis of local mobile phone records on the day of the abduction. According to court records, the analysis found that 17 cellular phones had been used during the kidnapping. Some were registered to people unconnected to the abduction; others were registered under fake names, and investigators were able to eventually link those phones to credit card, hotel and car rental records. They began to compile a list of people they believed were present when Abu Omar was abducted.

At different points in 2005 and 2006 before two different judges, Spataro requested arrest warrants charging 26 Americans and two Sismi agents with Abu Omar's kidnapping. They included Jeff Castelli, officially a diplomatic counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Rome but identified in the most recent arrest warrant as the Rome CIA station chief and the top CIA official in Italy. Others named included Robert Seldon Lady, identified in the warrant as the Milan CIA station chief; a first secretary at the U.S. Embassy in Rome; and a second secretary at the embassy who was assigned to the American consulate in Milan, both of whom were identified in the warrant as CIA agents. Also indicted was a U.S. military officer: Lt. Col. Joseph Romano III, in charge of security at the Aviano airport, an air base in northern Italy used by the U.S. Air Force. It is where Abu Omar was transferred after being abducted off the street in Milan.

The judges granted Spataro's requests. He was unable to take the Americans into custody, because they were outside of Italy by then. But on July 5, 2006, two high-ranking Sismi officials were arrested: Marco Mancini, head of military counterespionage, and Gen. Gustavo Pignero (who died of cancer in September 2006 while under house arrest), director of Sismi's Operational Division. Both were charged with supporting the CIA's kidnapping.

Spataro investigated Sismi's chief, Gen. Nicolò Pollari, on the same charges, but he was not arrested. His predecessor as Sismi chief, Adm. Gianfranco Battelli, was also questioned, and a transcript filed in court records shows that Castelli had broached with Batelli the notion of kidnapping terrorism suspects in Italy.

In the transcript of Spataro's questioning, Battelli said that Jeff Castelli of the U.S. Embassy had contacted him, requesting a conversation. "During the meeting he wanted to know my opinion about the possibility of performing the strategy of the so-called 'renditions' in Italy. He referred to the possibility of carrying out an abduction of a suspect terrorist in Italy, bringing him to an airport and sending him to a foreign country. … He didn't mention Abu Omar or any other names of people to kidnap. … I told Castelli that if he requested formal assistance, I would be forced to inform the prime minister or the political authorities. I thought that due to the delicacy of the request, before informing the political authorities, I would have directly made inquiries to the CIA chief, at that time George Tenet, to check if Castelli's request was really coming from CIA bosses [at the Langley headquarters] or if it was an autonomous initiative by Castelli. … I referred my conversation with Castelli to my successor, General Pollari."

Identifying CIA agents

A few months after Abu Omar was abducted, Spataro's investigators were digging to find out if the names of the people they had gleaned from the phone, hotel, car rental and credit card records were real. The investigative report says that Castelli, Lady, two other American diplomats, and Lt. Col. Romano were all positively identified due to their official jobs; what of the other names?

Dozens of reporters who have covered the Abu Omar rendition have tried to find out whether any of the remaining names of those indicted were real; almost all have come up empty-handed, believing most of the names to be fakes or aliases. Two notable exceptions are the Chicago Tribune's John Crewdson, who reported that he confirmed two agents through the use of frequent flier records, and an Italian reporter who spoke with an American agent on background, publishing the conversation without identifying the agent by name in December 2006 but writing that the agent confirmed that the CIA was involved in the operation.

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) was also able to confirm a name as real. A public records search carried out in the United States showed that the mortgage on the individual's home is held by a small federal credit union that caters exclusively to CIA agents, their families and CIA contractors. An ICIJ reporter visited the home. There is no publicly listed phone number, and none of the neighbors have a phone number for their neighbor, about whom they know little. In a brief interview, all the person would say was, "I don't know what you're talking about."

Based on a bilateral treaty between Italy and the United States, an Italian prosecutor such as Spataro is entitled to seek the arrest and extradition to Italy of U.S. citizens provided that the request is approved by the Italian minister of justice. In April 2006 Roberto Castelli, who was then the justice minister and who represented the Northern Alliance Party, a nationalistic center-right coalition led by Silvio Berlusconi, the prime minister at the time, refused to sign the extradition request. "It is known that Mr. Spataro is an activist magistrate," Castelli said. "I think that towards America he is not so unbiased."

Key Italian players

That same month Spataro summoned Luciano Pironi, the officer who asked to see Abu Omar's passport as he was being abducted, to testify in the Milan court about his role in the cleric's disappearance. Pironi, a lower-level warrant officer in the Italian Carabinieri, the country's constabulary, decided to cooperate with prosecutors from the outset and thus was spared arrest.

According to a deposition transcript on file with the court, Pironi began by telling Spataro that he "met with Robert Lady, the Milan CIA station chief, at the end of 2000 or at the beginning of 2001. He came frequently to our offices to exchange information. … Lady and I became friends, and I called him Bob. Once I told him that I'd like to join the Sismi. He promised to talk to the man who ran the Sismi office in Milan, a lieutenant colonel of the Carabinieri, Stefano D'Ambrosio. … In August 2002 during a dinner at the Tosca restaurant, in Piazza Risorgimento, Bob Lady mentioned the name of Abu Omar for the first time. Bob said that Abu Omar is important and dangerous, a leader of an Islamic terrorist organization in Europe. … Bob told me that he got news that the Egyptian was planning to seize a bus of an American school in the Milan suburbs. … In September Bob Lady said to me that, together with Sismi, they were planning a great operation where I could play a useful role. But he didn't elaborate any further."

D'Ambrosio, who ran Sismi's Milan office from December 2001 until being dismissed in November 2002, was questioned by Spataro in April and May of 2006. According to a transcript, he told prosecutors: "At the end of October 2002, Bob Lady informed me confidentially of a plan worked out jointly by the CIA and Sismi on a 'rendition' of Abu Omar, where he would be transferred to a place unknown to me. [Lady] wanted to see if I was aware of the plan. He went on to say that the plan had been worked out by Jeff Castelli, in charge of the CIA office in Rome as well as the rest of Italy, under precise orders coming from the United States, from Langley.

"According to Lady, a unit of the CIA which was part of a structure called the Special Operation Groups (SOG) had already been in Italy, and specifically in Milan, where they had made a pre-action inspection. SOG staff is made up of CIA agents with a military background. Lady said they were tough, not assigned to gathering intelligence or conducting investigations but to special intelligence operations. As a member of Sismi, the existence of SOG was known to me. Under the plan, Abu Omar was to have been taken in Milan and brought to Ghedi, in the province of Brescia, where the Americans use part of an air base there. On this point Bob specified that Sismi personnel were busy in that area looking for the right place where Abu Omar could be held in custody while waiting for a CIA plane from Ramstein, Germany, to transfer him abroad to a place unknown to me and never mentioned.

"Lady was critical of the plan," the transcript continued. "He said that it was foolish to take a person being investigated by Digos agents who were doing a very good job. They [Digos] could keep on investigating and monitoring the situation in order to identify other associates of Omar's. He couldn't understand why that investigation had to be broken off, spoiling a profitable collaboration with Digos. Bob felt sorry for having to betray Digos' trust since they were not aware of the plan. He was also worried because Abu Omar was being tailed and was nervous that some sort of incident could occur, even a gunfight.

"Bob asked me if I was aware of the planned operation. I was astounded. I didn't know anything. I, too, was critical of the plan. … [W]e were both convinced that Abu Omar, once captured, would be immediately replaced by another man more difficult to spot and keep under control. Lady added that Jeff Castelli and [another agent] were very keen on the plan."

D'Ambrosio was officially dismissed from Sismi for "poor performance." In his interview with prosecutors, he implied that the real reason was for being critical of the rendition plan.

The abduction

In his testimony to prosecutors, Pironi, the Carabinieri officer, who is known as "Ludwig," told this story of what led up to the kidnapping in February 2003:

"Between December 2002 and January 2003 Bob Lady explained to me what my role would be in a joint intelligence operation with Sismi. A group of people would take Abu Omar to an unknown place in order to get information from him on his illegal activity and to convince him to cooperate. …

"My role was to stop him on the street very close to his home pretending to ask about police identification so as to allow other people to approach him and take him away. … I pointed out that as far as I knew Digos agents were working on Abu Omar, but Bob Lady answered that the Interior Ministry assured CIA that in that period [of the planned kidnapping] Abu Omar would not be tailed. …

"On Monday, February 17, 2003, I left my office at 11:30. I reached Piazza Maciachini on board my scooter, which I parked there. In that precise moment a Volkswagen, dark blue or black, approached me, and the driver, short, black haired, in his forties, who I'd never seen before, lowered the window of his car and called to me, 'Ludwig, sono l'amico di Bob, sali!' [Ludwig, I'm Bob's friend, get in!]. … He explained to me that I should go to a white van parked on via Guerzoni where I could identify Abu Omar. … When we got there, the Volkswagen driver stopped his car in the middle of the roadway on via Guerzoni; Abu Omar was walking fast and moving towards me on the left side of the sidewalk, on the opposite side from where the van was parked. I called to him [Omar] and showed him my Carabinieri card" — then came the passport request, and the door of the white van flew open.

Once Abu Omar was inside the van, according to court documents, cell phone records gave Italian investigators what they needed to trace what happened next. Two sets of telephone subscribers were active that day, as described in detail in the arrest warrants. According to court documents, one set of subscribers was present where Omar was taken, then headed to Cormano, a few kilometers from Milan. There, the documents say, the first set of subscribers met up with the second group. Nine people in the second group drove toward the air base at Aviano, some placing calls to mobile phones used by officers, including Lt. Col. Romano, who were stationed there. After about five hours, the court documents continue, all of the subscribers were at or near the air base.

When the CIA team arrived in Aviano, plans were ready for the second leg of Abu Omar's journey, according to the same court documents. A Learjet LJ35 flew Abu Omar to the American base in Ramstein, Germany, where a Gulfstream executive jet (tail number N85VM), leased by the CIA from a private American company, brought him to the headquarters building of an Egyptian state intelligence agency; he was later transferred to the Tora Prison in Cairo, Egypt, according to the Italian court's arrest warrant.

Italian court records indicate that Bob Lady, the U.S. Embassy employee identified as the Milan CIA station chief, traveled to Egypt shortly after the kidnapping took place. These records show that "from February 19, 2003, to February 22, 2003, [Lady's] number…maintained its location in the city of Milan. But on February 23, 2003, the user of this device moves to the province of Gorizia [near Aviano] and from that day no calls are made or received by that number until March 3, 2003, when it received two calls from an unidentified number while using a mobile phone 'cell' in Egypt. Days later, on March 15, 2003, the number picks up Italian cells again, confirming it has [re-]entered Italian territory. … One can comfortably assume that the user of the said Vodafone card stayed in Egypt from February 22 to March 15,^. 2003, during the first days of Abu Omar's unlawful detention in Egypt, and when he was most likely being subject to the first spate of 'treatment.'"

Mystery within a mystery

No one has been able to explain how, if CIA agents were on such a secret mission, they could have been so careless as to leave such an obvious paper trail. Records show that those linked to the abduction stayed in luxury hotel rooms that cost up to $500 per night, always paid with credit cards and sometimes made telephone calls from their hotel phones (ICIJ, for instance, was able to match certain calls made from those hotels to the home of the person listed in the Italian arrest warrants that we attempted to interview for this story).

Further, the evidence gathered from public records matches the identity of the person ICIJ identified with the paper trail left in Milan. Court records describe how Italian investigators reported finding compromising material on Lady's home personal computer, including surveillance photos of Abu Omar and files describing the best way to reach the Aviano air base by highway.

Crewdson reported in his July 2006 Tribune story that the CIA director at the time, Porter Goss, was reported to be so disgusted with the sloppiness of the Milan rendition that he ordered a full review of the agency's field operations.

According to Italian court records, CIA agents spent tens of thousands of U.S. taxpayer dollars during their stay in Italy. In addition, Luciano Pironi, the Italian officer who asked to see Abu Omar's passport, received a gift from U.S. taxpayers — reimbursement for a week of vacation in the U.S. In September 2003, seven months after Abu Omar was abducted, Pironi traveled to CIA headquarters and met with two high-ranking CIA officers who had jurisdiction over Europe. They toasted their success over a bottle of Bordeaux, according to Pironi's transcript. "For me to get to Langley," he said, "was like for a little priest to get to the Vatican."

Prosecutor Spataro, beneficiary of a paper trail spies aren't supposed to leave behind, continues his battle today. In July 2006, with a new minister of justice in office, he lodged a new request for permission to seek extradition of the Americans he has charged. But the newly appointed minister, Clemente Mastella, a member of the new left-leaning government of Romano Prodi, has not answered Spataro's request.

On December 5, 2006, Spataro officially wrapped up the investigation by asking a court to put all 26 Americans plus Pollari, Mancini, Pironi and other Sismi officials on trial, charging them with complicity in a kidnapping. He also asked that three people charged with lesser crimes, including aiding and abetting a kidnapping, be tried.

The first hearing was January 9, 2007. Pollari's attorney, Titta Madia, announced his intention to ask the judge to summon former Prime Minister Berlusconi and current Prime Minister Prodi as witnesses as well as to stop the proceedings on the grounds that issues pertaining to the case are restricted by state secrecy. On February 6, Judge Caterina Interlandi denied Pollari's request to compel testimony from Berlusconi and Prodi. Eight days later, Deputy Prime Minister Francesco Rutelli said that the Milan prosecutors had breached state secrecy by ordering wiretaps of Sismi agents' telephones. Now, the Italian Constitutional Court must rule on the state secrecy issue.

Despite the constitutional tussle, on February 16, Judge Interlandi indicted all 26 Americans as well as five Sismi agents, including former chief spy Pollari and his right-hand man Mancini. She also set June 8, 2007, for the trial to begin, presuming that the Constitutional Court allows the case to move forward against the Americans, who would be tried in absentia.

In late February 2007, the State Department's legal adviser, John Bellinger, told a news briefing in Brussels, Belgium, that the indicted Americans deserve special treatment despite the bilateral extradition treaty that exists between Italy and the U.S. "We've not got an extradition request from Italy. ... If we got an extradition request, we would not extradite U.S. officials to Italy," Bellinger said.

At the same time the indictments against the American agents were coming down in Milan, the U.S. and Italian governments declined to join 57 other governments in signing a new United Nations treaty prohibiting governments from holding terrorism suspects in secret detention and from kidnapping terrorism suspects outside of the rule of law. The American Civil Liberties Union characterized the kidnappings outlawed by the treaty as "forced disappearances [that are] used by dictatorships to secretly detain, arrest or kidnap individuals and then deny it occurred." A State Department spokesman declined to comment on the treaty, which the U.S. had originally helped to draft beginning in 2001, saying only that it "did not meet [U.S.] expectations."

Original article posted here.

Dickhead Cheney: Hating America, Americans and the Constitution one day at a time

Cheney Confirms New 'NYT' Report on Domestic Spying

Dick Cheney

Published: January 14, 2007 11:55 AM ET
WASHINGTON Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday the Pentagon and CIA are not violating people's rights by examining the banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage in the United States.

National security letters permit the executive branch to seek records about people in terrorism and spy investigations without a judge's approval or grand jury subpoena.

''The Defense Department gets involved because we've got hundreds of bases inside the United States that are potential terrorist targets,'' Cheney said.

''The Department of Defense has legitimate authority in this area. This is an authority that goes back three or four decades. It was reaffirmed in the Patriot Act,'' he said. ''It's perfectly legitimate activity. There's nothing wrong with it or illegal. It doesn't violate people's civil rights.''

The Pentagon and the CIA, to a lesser extent, have used this little-known power, officials said. The FBI, the lead agency on domestic counterterrorism and espionage, has issued thousands of such letters since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The letters have generated criticism and court challenges from civil liberties advocates who claim they invade the privacy of Americans' lives, even though banks and other financial institutions typically turn over the financial records voluntarily.

The vast majority of national security letters are issued by the FBI, but in rare circumstances they have been used by the CIA before and after Sept. 11, according to a U.S. intelligence official. The CIA has used these noncompulsory letters in espionage investigations and other circumstances, the official said.

The New York Times, which reported Sunday on the expanded use of the technique by the Pentagon and CIA, said military intelligence officers have sent the letters in up to 500 investigations.

Cheney was interviewed on ''Fox News Sunday.''

Original article posted here.

Sadly, we already know the answer

Will the Democrats Save our Civil Liberties?

Anthony Gregory

Many commentators have called the Democratic victory in the November elections a referendum on the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq. They have also noted that the voting public is concerned by the attacks on civil liberties so loyally defended by nearly all the Republican lawmakers in fighting the war on terror. The Democrats, presumably, now have a mandate to reverse current trends in domestic as well as foreign anti-terror policy.

There is little reason for optimism that the Democrats will follow through on this supposed mandate, and deliver us from the evil of the growing police state of warrantless searches, indefinite detentions, sweeping surveillance, and other attacks on civil liberties.

For one thing, Democrats have supported the worst of Bush’s policies. Only one Democrat in the Senate, Russ Feingold, opposed the Patriot Act when it was first proposed. Just this year, Democratic members of the House overwhelmingly, and Democratic Senators unanimously, approved the Defense Authorization Act for 2007, which contains frightening modifications of the Insurrection Act and new exceptions to Posse Comitatus, empowering the president to summon the National Guard, without gubernatorial authority, and to enforce martial law during “emergencies” ranging from natural disasters to health crises. More than 25 percent of Senate Democrats even voted for the Military Commissions Act, marking the first time since the Civil War that the federal government suspended Habeas Corpus.

Although the Democrats will sometimes attack an egregious Bush proposal, they have not used the power of the purse or the filibuster to do anything about it. Nor should we assume they will be so mindful of civil liberties now that they are in the Congressional majority and have their eyes set on the presidency. Power corrupts, and Democrats in power have long shown a willingness to shred the Bill of Rights.

Woodrow Wilson arrested hundreds of antiwar Americans, including a presidential candidate, for protesting the draft; deported anarchists to Communist Russia; and imprisoned a movie producer for depicting the British as an American enemy in his film about the American Revolution. (Under the 1918 Sedition Act, it was a federal crime to criticize a U.S. ally, which Britain was.) Franklin Roosevelt oversaw an Office of Censorship, made plans to detain hundreds of peaceful political enemies, imprisoned war opponents, and interned 110,000 innocent Japanese Americans. Lyndon Johnson had the FBI spy on reporters and used the FBI and CIA to wiretap, monitor, and infiltrate the campaign of his presidential rival, Barry Goldwater.

But we don’t need to go back so far to indict the Democrats on civil liberties issues. Under Bill Clinton, the police state grew perhaps as much as it feasibly could during a relative time of peace. According to the ACLU, Clinton expanded stealth surveillance of the citizenry far beyond anything seen under any prior administration. Clinton sought to allow the feds to peek at everyone’s bank account, have a key to all private encryption and e-mail, and censor the Internet. After the Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton signed the draconian Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, expanding the authority of secret courts, unleashing the FBI to investigate First Amendment–protected activities, and allowing the INS to deport American citizens.

Under Clinton, there was also the military operation on American soil just outside Waco, Texas, where about 80 American civilians died when a 51-day standoff culminated in a fire breaking out after a federal tank rammed through a religious sect’s home and gassed its women and children with poisonous and flammable CS gas. In this case, an imaginary meth lab was the original rationale to circumvent Posse Comitatus’s prohibitions on military involvement in law enforcement—the drug war, which the Democrats have consistently and enthusiastically upheld, has also been a disaster for civil liberties and the rule of law.

When the Democrats controlled both the presidency and the legislature, as they did during much of Wilson, all of FDR, and all of Johnson, civil liberties suffered greatly. When, under Clinton, they split the government with Republicans, the police state nevertheless grew—meaning neither the GOP nor partisan gridlock is our salvation, either.

If the Democrats want to win points as better guardians of American liberty than the Republicans, they can begin by abolishing huge portions of the war on terror infrastructure—the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the new presidential powers over martial law. They should then challenge Bush on the principle of the unitary executive, block funding for warrantless military surveillance of the population, and strip away the Justice Department and military’s power to indefinitely detain people without due process.

The Democrats, however, have had about as shameful a record on all this as the Republicans, even when they were the opposition party. Now that they have a better seat at the table of power, who thinks they’ll do anything to curb the police state they helped so much to build?

Anthony Gregory is a Research Analyst at The Independent Institute. He earned his bachelor's degree in American history from the University of California at Berkeley and gave the undergraduate history commencement speech in 2003. In addition to his work with the Independent Institute, he regularly writes for numerous news and commentary web sites, including LewRockwell.com, Future of Freedom Foundation, and the Rational Review.

Original article posted here.