I spent 14 years in the NFL. Here’s why I’m quitting Congress after four. by Jon Runyan

Fourth and So Long
By REP. JON RUNYAN
January 24, 2014


People are constantly asking me how similar politics is to pro football. I spent more than a decade in the NFL before spending the past three years in Congress, and the truth of the matter is the two occupations are more alike than not. Both are contact sports, and you’d better be ready to play when you step onto either field. While it’s tough to say which is more difficult, there have been plenty of times in the past few years when I’ve thought politics was harder. At least in football you know exactly who your opponent is.

When I decided to run for Congress, I saw it as an opportunity to serve the South Jersey community that had become my home after signing to play for the Philadelphia Eagles. I didn’t choose public service out of political ambition or a desire for power, and never once thought of making a career of it. For me, it was simply a chance to give back to my community and the country.

There is no doubt that I am enormously proud of the work I’ve done on behalf of my constituents. We’ve got more than 60,000 veterans and their families in the 3rd District of New Jersey — and not a day has gone by that I wasn’t fighting for them. South Jersey is home to Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, one of the finest military installations in the world, and it was my honor to represent the base and all of those who serve there. That’s the stuff that matters to me.

But my frustrations with the ways of Washington have been well-documented. Of course, the things that have bothered me most — the petty ambitions and the misplaced priorities — have frustrated many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Believe it or not, there are members of Congress who actually want to govern and get stuff done. Unfortunately, there are others whose agendas and strategies serve to advance their own interests and expand their donor base.

I guess, to use another football analogy, there’s no substitute for teamwork — and in Washington, I saw too little of it. I got myself into some trouble very early on when my comments in a closed meeting about the importance of working toward a common goal were leaked before the meeting even adjourned! At the time, we were attempting to pass a spending package to fund the government, and I had noticed that individual personalities and self-serving strategies had become the focus of our attention — a classic example, you could say, of guys playing to get to the Pro Bowl rather than the Super Bowl. In the months and years that followed, I watched repeated marches right up to the very edge of fiscal calamity, even the shutdown of the federal government — all of it leaving me quite frustrated and my constituents scratching their heads in bewilderment. Things seemed dysfunctional, and despite all the accomplished people around me, too often we accomplished less than I would have liked.

***

It was Hurricane Sandy that not only decimated parts of my district but pushed me to the brink of my frustrations with the game of politics. In the fall of 2012, in the immediate wake of Sandy, I suspended my congressional reelection campaign and got to work helping those folks in South Jersey whose lives had been turned upside down by the storm. (My political opponent, well, she ran a radio ad comparing my record to that of the hurricane.)

I returned to Washington ready to fight for emergency aid to help the towns affected in my state and throughout the Northeast rebuild. Governors from both political parties joined ranks and Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) and President Barack Obama famously teamed up to “restore the shore.” Republicans and Democrats from the impacted areas worked together in the House on a clean package to get immediate relief to our constituents.

And what did we get out of the Senate? A bill laden with sweeteners intended to secure yes votes from senators whose states weren’t even impacted by the storm. Things like money for fisheries in Alaska. Pretty soon opposition to the bill developed even as millions of Americans sifted through what remained of their possessions — those who were lucky enough to have something to sift through, that is.

It took weeks for a relief package to reach the floor of the House of Representatives. Even when it was pork-free, that bill garnered 180 “no” votes — including 179 members of my own party. Many of these members had previously requested aid for their own districts following other natural disasters. I actually carried the list of those members in my lapel pocket for weeks following that vote.

I can’t really pinpoint a specific moment when I made the decision not to seek a third term in Congress. It was more like a series of gut-check moments. Like on the third day of a seven-day family reunion vacation — I was leaving the next day to return to Washington — when my youngest daughter sat on the end of my bed and made it very clear to me she did not want me to go back, ever. A month before that, I was at the Detroit airport after dropping my son off at football camp at the University of Michigan. I was headed back to D.C. when I took the call from the head football coach at Michigan (my own alma mater), letting me know that my son was being offered a scholarship to play ball there. I missed the first plane that day to take the phone call, but I really missed being with my son and sharing that moment that you get once in a lifetime.

In each of these moments, I was reminded of a promise I made to myself while still playing football, that once I retired, I would be there for my kids. It became clear to me that there was no way I could do both. I came to Washington to serve my constituents, and I gave it my all. I’m grateful for the trust that my constituents in the 3rd District placed in me, and the opportunity they gave me to serve. Now it’s time for me to take my place on the sidelines.

***

Rep. Jon Runyan has represented New Jersey’s 3rd Congressional District since 2011 and previously played 14 seasons as a Pro Bowl offensive tackle in the NFL.

AIPAC 101

uh oh, criticize anything to do with Israel and you are a racist! Israel's people are cool, it's their government that sucks ass. And their govt has way too much sway with the US govt. That is some suck.

Senate Passes Non-Binding Budget in 13 Hour 'Vote-a-Rama'

Saturday, March 23, 2013 by Common Dreams
- Jon Queally, staff writer 

 

After thirteen hours of voting that lasted into the early hours of the morning, the US Senate passed its first budget in nearly four years just after 3 am on Saturday.

The budget passed narrowly 50 to 49 on a largely partisan vote at 4:56 a.m. There was much to yawn about, however, and seemingly little to cheer for a Senate this week that found it impossible to find enough votes to re-instate the assault weapons ban or put any meaningful measures in place to curtail the runaway gun violence in the country.

In addition to a vote calling for the approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline from Canada and a vote against signing an international arms trade treaty, the Senate voted on nearly a hundred other separate amendments.

Among those were a slew of Republican-backed amendments designed to undermine protections for the nation’s air, land, wildlife and public health.

According to the Center of Biological Diversity, the GOP's "backdoor" proposals included efforts to stop the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and slash funding for protection of native wildlife under the Endangered Species Act, placing hundreds of animals and plants at risk of extinction.

“Senate Republicans once again pandered to powerful special interests at the expense of wildlife, our climate and a healthy environment for people,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s ugly to see so many politicians doing so much to try to dismantle crucial environmental laws.”

The Senate's budget, which passed 50-49, was recounted by the Associated Press with the following:

Many of the proposals were offered in hopes of inflicting political damage on Democratic senators up for re-election in GOP-leaning states like Alaska and Louisiana.

Some $1 trillion in new revenue would flow to the government over the coming decade — on top of more than $600 billion in taxes on upper-income earners approved in January — and would be coupled with a net $875 billion in spending cuts. Those reductions would be generated by modest cuts to federal health care programs, domestic agencies and the Pentagon and reduced government borrowing costs. The budget proposes $100 billion in new spending for infrastructure projects and job training programs.

The president will reveal his own overdue tax-and-spending plan in two weeks, a plan that will be judged in part by whether it offers new, more politically risky proposals that could form the foundation for a bipartisan agreement between the two houses.

And Politico added:

The 12-hour series of votes — more than 100 amendments were considered, breaking a previous “vote-a-rama” record — is mostly political theater and gives both sides the opportunity to force votes on pet issues. The budget is non-binding, therefore none of the passed amendments will likely carry the weight of law.

But the votes are symbolic victories, demonstrating the ability of one side to rally enough senators to support a measure in hopes of using those votes for future bills. It also gives both sides a litany of roll calls to try to clobber their opponents during the next election.

The Hill cataloged just some of the most distracting and ideological of the GOP amendments, all of which went down to defeat:

- Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) amendment 184, to expedite exports from the United States through reform of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in such a manner that greenhouse gas emissions produced outside the United States by any good exported from the United States are not subject to the requirements of that Act, passed by voice vote.

- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) amendment 382, to increase funding for interstate bridges and pay for it with funding that would have gone to for foreign assistance and the Department of Energy loan guarantees, failed 26-72.

- Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) amendment 526, to require photo ID to vote in federal elections, failed 44-54

- Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) amendment 338, to end subsidized mobile phone service, failed 46-53.

- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) amendment 471, to reduce aid to Egypt to pay for the East Coast Missile Defense Shield, 25-74.

- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) amendment 702, to raise a point of order to prohibit funds to the United Nations while any member nation forces involuntary abortions, 38-61

- Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) amendment 673, to raise a point of order on a bill that would limit the Second Amendment, failed 50-49 to waive the budget act (60 votes are required).

Secretive US Senate Amendment Would Weaken Biotech Oversight

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 by Inter Press Service by Carey L Biron


Food safety advocates, environmentalists and health professionals here are engaging in a fervent last-minute campaign to highlight a controversial legislative amendment they say would gut the ability of both the judiciary and the federal government to regulate genetically modified agricultural products.

The U.S. Senate is slated to vote early this week on amendments to a massive, “must pass” bill that would fund the U.S. government’s operations beyond Mar. 27 to the end of this fiscal year. That bill – a piece of stopgap legislation known as a continuing resolution – is so important that leaders in the U.S. Senate had previously suggested that they would not include any potentially controversial amendments.

Yet late last week, reports arose that a legislative “rider” had been anonymously proposed that would allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to overrule a judge’s decision to outlaw a genetically modified product. (The amendment can be found here, on page 80.)

As such, even if the courts were to rule that the USDA had illegally approved a particular genetically modified crop, the agency would be allowed to continue telling farmers to use the seed in question. Yet while this would seem to maintain at least the government’s oversight responsibilities, critics say the rider’s impact would go still farther.

“This provision also forces the hand of the USDA, forcing the agency to immediately approve any permits for deregulation of these crops,” Colin O’Neil, a researcher with the Center for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group, told IPS. “Basically, it takes these oversight responsibilities away from the courts and government and gives them directly to the biotech companies themselves.”

In fact, almost identical language was used in an amendment proposed last year in the House of Representatives, likewise attached to a large, unrelated bill. That attempt, dubbed the “biotech rider”, failed at the time.

“Those behind these provisions have the interests of short-term profits at heart,” O’Neil continues. “We feel that based on the federal court decisions and government reports that have criticised the USDA’s approval of certain biotech products, we need to think long term about better safeguards that will adequately protect all farmers and the environment.”

This time around, critics were tipped off when Jon Tester, a Democratic senator, sounded an alarm on the floor of the Senate, strongly denouncing what he called a “corporate giveaway”.

“Its supporters are calling it the ‘farmer assurance’ provision, but all it really assures is a lack of corporate liability,” Tester stated.

“The provision says that when a judge finds that the USDA approved a crop illegally, the department must re-approve the crop and allow it to continue to be planted – regardless of what the judge says. Think about that.”

Tester is an organic farmer, described as one of the few in the U.S. Congress who continues to farm. He has now sponsored a counter-amendment that would strip away the “biotech rider”.

“These provisions are giveaways worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this country and deserve no place in this bill,” he added.

“Not only does this ignore the Constitution’s idea of separation of powers, but it also lets genetically modified crops take hold across the country – even when a judge finds it violates the law … the ultimate loser will be our family farmers going about their business and feeding America the right way.”

Herbicide drift

The new rider could also harm U.S. farmers’ attempts to sell their products abroad. In January, for instance, the European Union temporarily froze the approvals process for new genetically modified foods, and dozens of other countries have similarly moved to more tightly regulate their markets.

Yet if the current legislation were to pass, the USDA would be hamstrung from preventing “contamination” of U.S. foodstocks by genetically modified products.

The continued appearance of the “biotech rider” is most likely a reaction to scepticism that has repeatedly been voiced by the federal courts over approval of genetically engineer crops, in addition to the prospect of a new, “next generation” of biotech crops.

The industry has experienced a number of setbacks, including findings that the use of genetically modified crops has increased the use of pesticides, as well as accusations that these crops pose an economic threat to organic and even conventional farmers.

Further, it has become increasingly apparent that genetically modified agricultural material does not necessarily stay on the farms where it is used. In this regard, environmentalists have expressed particular concern over genetically modified crops engineered to withstand stronger and stronger herbicides.

“‘Herbicide drift’ is one of many harms from industrial agriculture – farmers are experiencing economic loss when their crops are killed or damaged when herbicides become volatile and drift in from neighbouring farms,” the Center for Food Safety’s O’Neil says.

“We already have around 64 million acres infested with herbicide-resistant weeds in this country. Yet the next generation of these products appears to be simply moving towards genetically modified crops that are resistant to the older herbicides – what we call the ‘pesticide treadmill’.”

The federal government, he says, has been unable to make headway on the issue.

“So far, the USDA has failed to address issues like the proliferation of herbicide-resistant weeds,” O’Neil says. “We now worry that herbicide drift could be the next issue that the USDA fails to adequately address.”

Amendments to the continuing resolution were to be accepted until late Tuesday, with a vote on all riders expected thereafter. Senate leaders have said a vote would be held on the full bill by the end of the week.

Bernanke tells Warren ‘too big to fail’ banks ‘will voluntarily reduce their size’

By Stephen C. Webster - RAW StoryWednesday, February 27, 2013

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve looked mighty uncomfortable Tuesday being grilled by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a former Harvard professor and economics expert who posed one very blunt question to him that many Americans have been asking for years: “When are we going to get rid of too big to fail?”

His response: “Banks will voluntarily reduce their size” over an undetermined amount of time.

At the Senate banking committee hearing on monetary policy, Warren stressed that small banks are being crushed by interest rates while big banks have made billions from secret, low-interest Federal Reserve loans since the crash of 2008.

“So I understand that we’re all trying to get to the end of too big to fail, but my question, Mr. chairman, is until we do, should those biggest financial institutions be repaying the American taxpayer that $83 billion [yearly] subsidy they’re getting?” she asked

Bernanke said the aid to big banks through cheaper loans came about because of “market expectations” in 2008 that are no longer correct. “We have an orderly liquidation authority,” he said. “Even in the crisis, in the case of AIG, we wiped out the shareholders.”

Warren stopped him there. “Excuse me though, Mr. chairman, you did not wipe out the shareholders of the largest financial institutions, did you? The big banks?”

“We didn’t have the tools, now we could,” Bernanke insisted.

Moments later, Warren doubled back again. “We’ve now understood this problem for five years,” she said. “When are we going to get rid of too big to fail?”

“Well, as we’ve been discussing, some of these rules take time to develop,” Bernanke said. “The orderly liquidation authority, I think we’ve made progress on that. We’ve got the living wills. I think we’re moving in the right direction. Um, if additional steps are needed then Congress obviously can discuss those, but we do have a plan and I think it’s moving in the right direction.”

“Any idea about when we’re going to arrive in the right direction?” Warren asked.

“It’s, it’s, it’s gonna take…” Bernanke stammered. “It’s not a zero-one thing, it’s over time you’ll see increasing, uh, increasing market expectations that these institutions can fail. I would make another prediction, and predictions is always dangerous, that the benefits of being large are gonna be sm– are gonna decline over time, which means that banks will voluntarily reduce their size because they’re not seeing the benefits they used to get.”

“I read you on this,” Warren said. “I read your predictions on this in your earlier testimony, but so far it looks like they’re getting $83 billion for staying big.”

“Well, that’s one study,” Bernanke said. “You don’t know whether that’s an accurate number.”

The Dallas Federal Reserve reported last March that just five “too big to fail” banks control more than 50 percent of the banking industry’s assets. The top 10 institutions controlled over $7 trillion in 2010, or roughly half the U.S. gross domestic product that year.

Meet the New CISPA. Same as the Old CISPA.

Monday, February 18, 2013 by Save the Internet
by Josh Levy

Last year, thanks to a public outcry, the effort to pass overreaching cybersecurity legislation stalled in the Senate. Now supporters have reintroduced the House version of that legislation — the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).

The “new” version is in fact identical to the original CISPA — and poses the same threat to our digital civil liberties and our freedom to connect online.

Here’s what we had to say about CISPA last April:

CISPA would allow companies and the government to bypass privacy protections and share all sorts of information about what Americans do online. The legislation makes it far easier for authorities and private companies to spy on your email traffic, comb through your mobile texts, filter your online content and even block access to popular websites.

The new CISPA — just like the old CISPA — would protect companies like Facebook and Microsoft from legal liability when they hand over your sensitive online data to the federal government, without any regard for your privacy. The bill would permit the government — including the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security — to use that information for matters that have nothing to do with cybersecurity. The whole process would, of course, take place behind closed doors, with no accountability to the public.

Last year’s activism succeeded in improving a similar bill in the Senate, before that bill ultimately failed to move forward. At the time, President Obama vowed to veto any destructive CISPA-like bill that reached his desk.

This time around, for a number of reasons — including changes in Obama’s staff and shifting political dynamics — it’s unclear if the president would once again commit to vetoing CISPA. So if this “new” bill goes farther than it did last time around, we simply don’t know what will happen.

If CISPA becomes law, it will be a major blow to our online privacy. But more than that, CISPA’s passage would have a chilling effect on our freedom to connect online. We won’t feel as free to state unpopular opinions, or to speak truth to power, if we know that Big Brother is getting a feed of everything we say and do.

This is not what the free and open Internet is about. We need to bury this bill for good.

Treasury Dept. warns of ‘extraordinary measures’ amid fiscal cliff deadlock

(The fact the Democrats are playing along with this fake fiscal cliff lowers the little credibility they had almost down to nothing. Both parties are using this scare tactic to justify cutting social security and the people aren't going to fall for it.--jef)

By Dominic Rushe, The Guardian
Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Barack Obama cuts short holiday to tackle budget crisis as country faces breaching its $16.4tn debt limit

US Treasury secretary Tim Geithner warned on Wednesday he would have to take “extraordinary measures” to avoid a default on the US’s legal obligations as the country is set to breach its $16.4tn (£10.16tn) debt limit.

In a letter to Congress, Geithner said the debt ceiling would be reached on 31 December and that the Treasury could raise $200bn (£124bn) to fund government spending as a stopgap measure. But he warned that the current impasse over the fiscal cliff budget crisis meant it was uncertain how long that money would last.

“Under normal circumstances, that amount of headroom would last approximately two months.

“However, given the significant uncertainty that now exists with regard to unresolved tax and spending policies for 2013, it is not possible to predict the effective duration of these measures,” Geithner warned.

In the two-paragraph letter Geithner also warned that “the extent to which the upcoming tax filing season will be delayed as a result of these unresolved policy questions is also uncertain.”

A similar row over increases in the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011 led to a historic downgrade of the US’s credit rating and panic on stock markets around the world.

The Treasury secretary’s warning comes as Barack Obama prepared to cut short his Christmas holiday in Hawaii, with the intention of returning to Washington in the hope of restarting the stalled budget talks.

Discussions with House speaker John Boehner collapsed last week after the top ranking Republican launched his own “Plan B” aimed at tackling the year-end budget crisis. But Boehner’s plan also fell after members of his own party threatened to block any deal that would raise taxes.

Boehner and other senior Republicans released a statement on Wednesday saying: “The lines of communication remain open, and we will continue to work with our colleagues to avert the largest tax hike in American history, and to address the underlying problem, which is spending.”

Obama is hoping to pass a stop-gap deal through the Senate, where he has some support from Republicans. The president wants to implement measures that would raise taxes on those earning over $250,000 (£155,000) while preserving most of the other tax cuts under threat, delaying spending cuts and extending unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed.

Boehner said the Senate would have to make the first move before the House would commit to voting on any bill. He said two bills had already been put forward to tackle the crisis.

“If the Senate will not approve and send them to the president to be signed into law in their current form, they must be amended and returned to the House. Once this has occurred, the House will then consider whether to accept the bills as amended, or to send them back to the Senate with additional amendments,” he said.

The Treasury said it can free up around $200bn (£124bn) by taking four “extraordinary measures.” Nearly all the measures relate to peripheral investments that the Treasury makes in certain funds.

In essence, the Treasury will act like an indebted consumer who stops running up his credit card when he already has more bills than he can pay. The result: the Treasury will not cut its debt, but only stop spending until its credit limit is raised again. Only Congress can raise the debt limit.

The department took similar measures last year, when the US passed the debt ceiling limit in May and Congress didn’t increase it again until August. The most remarkable of the extraordinary measures includes allowing the Treasury to redeem, or stop, any investments in two major pension funds.

The first is the civil service retirement and disability fund. The CSRDF, as it is known, is a kind of pension fund that provides defined benefits (stock market-linked retirement incomes) to retired and disabled federal employees.

The US Treasury puts about $6bn (£4bn)a month into the fund – not in cash, but in Treasury securities. The Treasury would either redeem some of those securities or suspend new payments. It could also choose to continue to make payments to the fund, but if the debt ceiling is not raised within two months, the Treasury would have to stop.

The second major pension fund is the government securities investment fund, or G Fund, which is part of the federal employees’ retirement system thrift savings plan. Like the CSRDF, the G Fund is invested in special securities. But, because the G Fund matures every day, the Treasury can immediately free up money by suspending the whole thing. Suspending the G Fund will do the most to make room for the Treasury, freeing up $156bn (£96bn) of the $200bn (£124bn) it’s aiming for.

After Congress raises the debt ceiling, the Treasury has to make up for all the payments it missed to the pension funds, so none of the employees will be hurt.

The Treasury will also temporarily stop issuing state and local government securities or SLGS – bonds it created to help state and local governments reinvest any profits made from issuing regular municipal securities.

Since state and local governments are not allowed to reinvest their profits in other, riskier kinds of investments, the Treasury gives them SLGS bonds as a way of holding their money safe.

But stopping SGLS bonds won’t cut the country’s debt; it will only avoid adding to it. In its most minor move, the Treasury will stop contributing to the exchange stabilisation fund, which it uses to buy foreign currencies. The public debt of the US is increasing at about $100bn per month, the Treasury said.

A History of the US Congress

Senate Votes 90-1 for Pre-Emptive War Against Iran to Halt their Nuclear Program

Rand Paul stands alone against Senate's 'preemptive war' resolution for Iran
RT: 22 September, 2012

The US Senate voted 90-1 early Saturday on a non-binding resolution to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Voting against the resolution was Sen. Rand Paul, arguing that the bill was a de-facto declaration of war.]

The measure, which was introduced several months ago by Senators Lindsey Graham, Bob Casey and Joe Lieberman, supports continuing to pressure Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program. The resolution advocates using methods other than containment to stop Iran, including exerting economic and diplomatic pressure. Senate Joint Resolution 41 “rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran.” Senators expressed their fears regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

“We know that Iran would create access for terrorists – access for them – to these nuclear weapons, making the Middle East a nuclear tinbox,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal said before the Senate. “We cannot trust this regime. We know that fact beyond any potential doubt.”

The bill states that it should not be misinterpreted as an endorsement for military force or war. But as the only senator to vote against the resolution, Paul argued that the resolution would eventually lead to war with Iran.

“A vote for this resolution is a vote for the concept of preemptive war,” Paul said before the Senate.

Passage of the resolution comes at a time when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been pressuring the US for an answer as to what would prompt a US-led military strike against Iran.

Currently, the US is already imposing tough sanctions on Iran to limit its oil sales, hurt its economy and make it problematic for Iran to finance its nuclear enrichment program.

Iran has continuously insisted that its nuclear program is entirely for peaceful, civilian ends.

YEAs ---90
Akaka (D-HI) Alexander (R-TN) Ayotte (R-NH) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Blumenthal (D-CT) Blunt (R-MO) Brown (D-OH) Brown (R-MA) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Coats (R-IN) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Coons (D-DE) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Durbin (D-IL) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA)	Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Hoeven (R-ND) Hutchison (R-TX) Inouye (D-HI) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (D-SD) Johnson (R-WI) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Lee (R-UT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lugar (R-IN) Manchin (D-WV) McCain (R-AZ) McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY) Menendez (D-NJ)	Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Moran (R-KS) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Portman (R-OH) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shaheen (D-NH) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Toomey (R-PA) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wicker (R-MS) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---1
Paul (R-KY)

Not Voting - 9
Boozman (R-AR) Boxer (D-CA) Burr (R-NC)	Heller (R-NV) Inhofe (R-OK) Kirk (R-IL)	Murray (D-WA) Rubio (R-FL) Vitter (R-LA)

Vast Extent of Congressional 'VIP' Loans from Countrywide Financial Before Crash in Exchange for Influence

Thursday, July 5, 2012 by Common Dreams

In a report released on Thursday, the U.S. House and Government Oversight Committee has revealed how Countrywide Financial Corp sold 'VIP' loans to members of congress in exchange for influence in Washington, Associated Press reports.

In an ongoing bid to kill any legislation that could hurt the company's profits, Countrywide granted hundreds of loans between 1991 and 2008 through the VIP program, which included reduced interest rates and discounted fees, to lawmakers, their staff, top government officials and executives of government-controlled mortgage company Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB), according to the committee's report.

"The VIP loan program was a tool used by Countrywide to build goodwill with lawmakers and other individuals positioned to benefit the company," the report states.

The central findings in the report were also revealed by news reports directly after the crash, but the three-year committee investigation now shows the vast extent of the VIP program, nicknamed “Friends of Angelo” for the company’s chief executive Angelo Mozilo, how it came into existence and how it eventually became one of the biggest scandals of the recession, reports Talking Points Memo.

Countrywide, acquired by Bank of America Corp (BAC.N) in 2008, was a major player in the mortgage business during the housing boom leading up to the mortgage crisis, Reuters reports. The company and its chief executive, Angelo Mozilo, were well known for the risky lending practices which lead to the housing market crash.

The report, obtained by the Associated Press, shows how the discounts were not only aimed at gaining influence for Countrywide but also were used to help other mortgage giants.

"In the years that led up to the 2007 housing market decline, Countrywide VIPs were positioned to affect dozens of pieces of legislation that would have reformed Fannie" and its rival Freddie Mac, the committee said.

See report below.

* * *

Countrywide VIP Report By House Oversight Committee 

* * *

Countrywide VIP Report By House Oversight Committee

# # #

Iran War Hawks in Congress in Some Disarray after Rejection

 Friday, May 18, 2012 by Inter Press Service

by Jim Lobe 

 

 

WASHINGTON - Hopes by Iran war hawks here to get the U.S. Congress to wield the threat of a U.S. military attack on the Islamic Republic on the eve of next week's critical negotiations on Tehran's nuclear program appear to have fallen unexpectedly short.

While the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly Thursday to reject "any U.S. policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran", a key co-sponsor of the resolution emphatically denied that the measure was intended to authorize the use of military force and asserted that Tehran would have to test a warhead before it could be considered "nuclear weapons capable".

At the same time, the House leadership was poised to accept an amendment to the otherwise hawkish 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that declares explicitly "that nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran." The NDAA, as amended, is expected to clear the House Friday.

Meanwhile, on the other side of Capitol Hill, a tough new sanctions bill that was supposed to sail through the Senate Thursday was blocked by some Republicans who said it was insufficiently hawkish.

Sen. Lindsay Graham, one of several influential Republicans who have long urged Washington to prepare for war with Iran, angrily denounced the absence of any reference to possible U.S. military action if Iran fails to abandon its nuclear program.

"These sanctions are great. I hope they will change Iranian behavior. They haven't yet, and I don't think they ever will," he declared. "I want more on the table."

The Congressional debate comes less than a week before Iran is scheduled to meet in Baghdad with the United States and the other members of the so-called "P5+1" countries - Britain, France, China, Russia, and Germany - for a second round of talks on the future of its nuclear program.

Both sides were upbeat coming out of the first round of talks in Istanbul last month. And subsequent contacts, notably between the deputy Iranian negotiator, Ali Bagheri, and his counterpart from the European Union, Helga Schmid, have reportedly encouraged all parties that some important confidence-building measures could be agreed, at least in principle, in Baghdad.

Moreover, the defeat of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose government reportedly was the most antagonistic toward Iran of the P5+1, in this month's elections and his replacement with Francois Hollande, who immediately sent former prime minister Michel Rochard to Tehran, has bolstered hopes that progress can be made when negotiations resume May 23.

Specifically, U.S. diplomats hope that Iran will agree to some portion of a "menu" of steps it can take to build confidence, the most ambitious of which would be to freeze its enrichment of uranium to 20 percent and ship out its existing stockpile of 20-percent enriched uranium in return for fuel rods that can be used for its Tehran Research Reactor (TRR).

Washington also hopes Tehran would agree to suspend operations or close its Fordow enrichment facility which is buried under a mountain near Qom, and ratify the Additional Protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That would permit much more-intrusive monitoring by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of Iran's nuclear facilities or other facilities, such as the Parchim military base, where some Western intelligence agencies suspect nuclear-related work may be taking place.

Among the range of carrots that may be offered are formal recognition that Iran has the right to continue uranium enrichment up to five percent; a cap or delay on any further sanctions - some of which the EU is scheduled to impose next month - on its increasingly distressed economy; and the easing or eventual lifting of some sanctions.

The government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which has repeatedly threatened to unilaterally attack Iran's nuclear facilities, has long expressed strong reservations about any negotiations with Tehran that would permit it to continue any enrichment.

In an interview with CNN Thursday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is meeting with top officials here this week, said any deal must require Tehran to "stop enriching uranium, to 20 percent, or even three to five percent, and to take all the enriched uranium out of the country." Virtually all Iran experts here, however, believe that Tehran will never agree to stop all enrichment.

Nonetheless, Israel enjoys considerable influence in Washington through powerful lobby groups, most importantly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) which appears to have pushed hard for Congress to take up the pending legislation this week in advance of the Baghdad talks.

Over the past six years, AIPAC has played a central role in pushing lawmakers to increase military aid to Israel, impose ever-tougher sanctions against Iran, and, most recently, wield the threat of U.S. military action.

The latter was precisely the original intent of the House resolution approved by a margin of 401-11 Thursday. Not only did the resolution reject any future containment policy toward a "nuclear weapons- capable Iran; but it also declared it a "vital national interest" - code for justifying military action - "to prevent the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability".

Such a stance is distinctly more hawkish than that of the Obama administration which has made a distinction between nuclear weapons capability - a status which many experts believe Iran has already attained - and actual possession of a nuclear weapon.

Unlike the Israeli government, the Obama administration has indicated that it will consider military action only if Iran actually develops a bomb, a much higher threshold than a "capability".

In any event, the resolution approved Thursday failed to define "capability", leaving it to its chief Democratic co-sponsor and the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Howard Berman, to fill the gap, which, to the surprise of many close observers, he did in a way that actually raised the threshold for military action higher than the administration's.

"Nuclear weapons capability? (It takes) three elements defined by the Director of National Intelligence: fissile material production, one; design weaponization and testing of a warhead, two; and a delivery vehicle," he said, speaking from prepared notes during debate on the measure Tuesday. "To be nuclear capable, you have to master all three elements."

"While Iran has a delivery system, they have not yet mastered – but they are making progress on – steps one and two. And if one day, when they master all the elements, and they kick out the inspectors, and they shut off the (IAEA's) cameras, I consider them nuclear capable," he said after repeatedly denying that the measure was meant to authorize military action.

Calls and emails regarding AIPAC's reaction to Berman's remarks were not returned, although the organization "applaud(ed)" the resolution's approval in a release.

Meanwhile, Iran hawks suffered a second setback when the managers of the NDAA bill accepted a bipartisan amendment stating explicitly that nothing in the bill "shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran."

The entire bill, which, among other things, includes provisions calling for stepped-up military operations and planning in the Gulf area, will be up for a final vote Friday after a number of amendments, including one calling for the appointment of a special envoy for Iran, are considered.

At the same time, another major sanctions bill that would punish foreign companies that provide Iran with communications or riot- control technology that could be used to suppress dissent and that urged new sanctions against foreign insurance companies active in Iran, extend existing sanctions to all Iranian banks, among other measures, was at least temporarily derailed by Graham and other Republicans who wanted to include language alluding to the possible use of military force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons.

The Democratic majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, had agreed to incorporate a provision asserting that the bill could not be construed as a basis for military action at the insistence of Republican Sen. Rand Paul who had single-handedly stalled passage of the sanctions bill in March by insisting on the inclusion of such a provision.

Mozilla (Firefox) attacks Congress; denounce CISPA

RT - Published: 02 May, 2012

Silicon Valley’s Mozilla Corporation has tasked themselves with extinguishing a fire, and no, it’s not what you have in mind.

Mozilla, the Mountain View, California-based developers responsible for creating the hugely successful Firefox Web browser, has issued a statement publicly condemning the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA. In a memo sent to Forbes’ data security department on late Tuesday, Mozilla’s privacy and public policy official explains that its newly-publicized stance is not one that encourages online cyber attacks, but merely establishes that the company is in favor of protecting the rights of its users.

“While we wholeheartedly support a more secure Internet, CISPA has a broad and alarming reach that goes far beyond Internet security,” reads the statement. “The bill infringes on our privacy, includes vague definitions of cybersecurity, and grants immunities to companies and government that are too broad around information misuse. We hope the Senate takes the time to fully and openly consider these issues with stakeholder input before moving forward with this legislation.”

Mozilla’s issues with CISPA mirror opposition that was voiced last week on Capitol Hill during debates over the legislation. Rep Jan Schakowsky (D Illinois) said the cybersecurity bill “still fails to adequately safeguard the privacy of Americans” and that the government needs to be able to “combat the serious threat of cyber attacks and still insure that we are protecting our computer systems and the civil liberties of Americans.”

Jared Polis, a Democratic rep for Colorado, issued similar concerns, stating, “CISPA represents a massive government overreach in the name of security” and that “Any America that values his or her privacy should be concerned.”

At this point, however, the US Senate is now the only Washington entity that stands between CISPA and the desk of President Barack Obama. In a hurried vote last Thursday, the US House of Representatives passed the bill in its current form much to the chagrin of lawmakers like Schakowsky and Polis, essentially leaving approval from the other side of Congress the only thing that the bill needs to be brought to the White House.

Advisers for President Obama have issued a statement on their own part insisting that the administration will recommend that the commander-in-chief vetoes the bill if it is brought to the Oval Office, although critics have already come out to call the move another example of election year pandering. The White House issued a similar statement last year regarding the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or the NDAA. Originally the Obama administration said that the president had issues over the bill’s provisions regarding the indefinite detention of American citizens, although Obama eventually inked his name to the paper on New Year’s Eve.

This time around, condemnation is indeed present in regards to CISPA’s future, but Mozilla’s just-released memorandum could be a catalyst in bringing more critics out of the woodwork. Although opponents of CISPA have certainly come out against the bill for weeks now, Mozilla’s statement is among one of the first released by a major Internet entity. Other Silicon Valley giants such as IBM, Facebook and Microsoft still stand in favor of the bill. In recent days, it was reported that Microsoft switched stances and would formally oppose CISPA. This week, however, Digital Journal reports that a spokesperson for the company now confirms that the official Microsoft stance on CISPA is “unchanged,” returning Bill Gates’ billion-dollar corporation to the supportive side of CISPA.

That isn’t to say, of course, that widespread opposition of CISPA is far from rampant. In the recent days since CISPA’s passing, critics have continued to speak up against the act. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, presidential hopeful Ron Paul and the American Civil Liberties Union have all taken an anti-CISPA stance, as well as the popular web forum Reddit.

Unconstitutional National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Pisses All Over the Bill of Rights (5 articles)

(Where to begin with covering this ridiculous fiasco...how about the facts first?--jef)

Senate passes National Defense Authorization Act
Thursday, December 15, 2011

WASHINGTON — The US Senate passed a $662 billion defense bill Thursday that also freezes some Pakistan aid, imposes sanctions on Iran’s central bank, and approves the indefinite imprisonment of suspected terrorists.

The Democrat-led Senate voted 86-13 for the Defense Authorization bill, which was passed Wednesday by the House. President Barack Obama was expected to sign it as early as this weekend after dropping a veto threat.

The measure, which also sets high hurdles for closing Guantanamo Bay, had drawn fire from civil liberties groups that strongly criticized its de facto embrace of holding alleged extremists without charge until the end of the “war on terrorism,” which was declared after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Obama, who had threatened to veto earlier versions of the yearly measure, will sign it despite lingering misgivings, his spokesman Jay Carney said before the House vote on Wednesday.

The legislation, a compromise blend of rival House and Senate versions, requires that Al-Qaeda fighters who plot or carry out attacks on US targets be held in military, not civilian, custody, subject to a presidential waiver.

The bill exempts US citizens from that fate, but leaves it to the US Supreme Court or future presidents to decide whether US nationals who sign on with Al-Qaeda or affiliated groups may be held indefinitely without trial.

The bill also freezes roughly $700 million in aid to Pakistan, pending assurances that Islamabad has taken steps to thwart militants who use improvised explosive devices (IEDs) against US-led forces in Afghanistan.

Earlier Thursday, Pakistan angrily criticized US moves to freeze the aid money — the latest rifts in a fraying alliance that has been in deep crisis since air strikes by US-led forces killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last month.

“We believe that the move in the US Congress is not based on facts and takes a narrow vision of the overall situation; hence, wrong conclusions are unavoidable,” said foreign ministry spokesman Abdul Basit.

The legislation also brings tough new sanctions to Iran, with the aim to cut off Tehran’s central bank from the global financial system in a bid to force the Islamic republic to freeze its suspect nuclear program.

The goal is to force financial institutions to choose between doing business with the central bank — Iran’s conduit for selling its oil to earn much-needed foreign cash — or doing business with US banks.

The legislation meanwhile calls for closer military ties with Georgia, including the sale of weapons that supporters say would help the country, which fought a brief war with Russia in 2008, defend itself.

It also included an amendment ensuring the United States would not hand over sensitive information to Moscow on the US missile defense system, a measure to win over hold-out senators who have been blocking the pending nomination Michael McFaul as US ambassador to Russia.

After Obama lifted his veto threat, rights groups chastised the US leader for his changing stance on holding prisoners without trial.

“It is a sad moment when a president who has prided himself on his knowledge of and belief in constitutional principles succumbs to the politics of the moment to sign a bill that poses so great a threat to basic constitutional rights,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.

“In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side,” Roth said.

Obama had warned he could reject the original proposal over the military custody issue, as well as provisions he charged would short-circuit civilian trials for alleged terrorists.

The lawmakers crafting the compromise measure strengthened Obama’s ability to waive parts of the detainee provisions, and reaffirmed that the custody rules would not hamper ongoing criminal investigations by the FBI or other agencies.

The measure meanwhile forbids the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to US soil and sharply restricts moving such prisoners to third countries — steps that critics of the facility say will make it much harder to close down.

The bill passed by a wide margin, with only six Democrats and six Republicans voting against the legislation, along with the lone Independent of the chamber, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thursday, December 15, 2011 by Al-Jazeera-English

US House Passes 'Indefinite Detention' Bill
House of Representatives approves defense bill including moves to allow terror suspects to be detained indefinitely.

WASHINGTON - The US House of Representatives has voted in favor of controversial proposed legislation that would deny terror suspects, including US citizens, the right to trial and permit authorities to detain them indefinitely.

The bill, said Christopher Anders of the ACLU, "Would authorize the president to order the military to capture civilians and put them in indefinite detention without charge or trial, with no limitation based on either geography or citizenship.". The proposed changes were included in a $662bn defence bill passed on Wednesday by the Republican-controlled House after White House officials withdrew a threat to block the bill over concerns it would undermine the US president's authority over counterterrorism activities.

In a statement, Jay Carney, a White House spokesman said "several important changes" had been made, which meant that presidential advisers would not recommend Barack Obama veto the bill.

The bill, which also endorsed tougher sanctions against Iran's central bank and freezing $700 million in aid to Pakistan, must still pass through the Senate, which is expected to vote on Thursday.

If approved, the bill would require the US military to take custody of terror suspects accused of involvement in plotting or committing attacks against the United States.

But in changes introduced under pressure from the White House, the bill was amended to say that the military cannot interfere with FBI and other civilian investigations and interrogations. The revisions also allow the president to sign a waiver moving a terror suspect from military to civilian prison.

Carney said the new bill "does not challenge the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people."


'Lack of clarity'But some officials had some objections to the clause. FBI Director Robert Mueller criticized the provision for its lack of clarity on how the changes would be implemented at the time of arrest.

The White House said that some of those concerns remained.

"While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counter-terrorism professionals, the most recent changes give the president additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented," added Carney.

But the bill has also attracted criticism from civil rights campaigners.

Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said the bill was a "big deal".

"It would authorize the president to order the military to capture civilians and put them in indefinite detention without charge or trial, with no limitation based on either geography or citizenship," he told Al Jazeera.

"The military would have the authority to imprison persons far from any battlefield, including American citizens and including people picked up in the US."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Obama Reverses Himself: Administration Won't Veto 'Global Battlefield' Indefinite Detentions Measure
President Obama is expected to sign a defense policy bill allowing the military to arrest and indefinitely hold terrorism suspects -- even Americans arrested on U.S. soil. 
By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet
Posted on December 14, 2011

The Obama administration Tuesday reversed itself and said it would not veto a major 2012 defense bill that expands the American military’s authority to arrest suspected terrorists anywhere in the world—including Americans on U.S. soil—and hold them indefinitely without charge or the right to a civilian trial.

“We have concluded that the [defense bill’s] language does not challenge or constrain the President’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people,” Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a written statement. “The President’s senior advisers will not recommend a veto.”

Only two weeks ago Carney told reporters that Obama stood by his veto threat. The reversal by the White House will now subject the president to an unprecedented lobbying campaign by retired generals, intelligence officers, and myriad civil rights organizations to reject the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

“If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law,” said Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill. We hope that the president will consider the long view of history before codifying indefinite detention without charge or trial.”

The 1,844-page conference committee report was passed by the House 283-136 on Wednesday night and now goes to the Senate where an earlier version passed 93-7. While dealing with innumerable aspects of military policy, its counterterrorism section states that the entire world, including American soil, is a battlefield in the war on terror. It expands the U.S. military’s authority to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone, even citizens, suspected of aiding terrorists.

“This is a worldwide authority provision,” said Christopher Anders, the ACLU’s senior legislative counsel. “No corner of the world is off limits… With United States citizens, the hope would be that there would be constitutional protections that would apply. But that kind of challenge is still very uncertain under U.S. law, and it would take years [for such litigation] to work its way through the courts.

In a press briefing earlier this week, Anders and top attorneys from Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and the National Security Network explained the implications of the defense policy bill heading toward President Obama’s desk. The legislation does not fund troops fighting in America's overseas conflicts; that is another bill also heading to his desk.
In sum, the very policies that candidate Obama pledged to end by closing the military’s prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, he is now not only supporting, but expanding onto U.S. soil, the civil rights lawyers said. Besides giving the military authority for indefinite detention without trying suspects, the bill would require military detention for many terrorism suspects. And it would all but ban transferring any exonerated prisoners from Guantanamo, where 88 of the 171 prisoners held there have been cleared of terrorist involvement.

“It would, if enacted into law, significantly change the way the U.S. approaches detentions in a so-called ‘law of war’ context,” Andrea Parsow of Human Rights Watch said, concluding it would lead to the expansion of Guantanamo, not its closure. The legislation envisions the military’s role in current and future conflicts.

Other experts, such as Heather Hurlburt, National Security Network executive director, said no one in senior national security or domestic law enforcement positions—including the FBI director, CIA director, National Intelligence director, and Secretary of Defense—wanted the military detention authority in the bill, and national security officials repeatedly told Senate and House Armed Services Committee members that the provisions were unworkable.
“The national security establishment comprehensively rejects these provisions as representing the militarization of our justice system,” she said, noting that on Monday the New York Times had an unprecedented op-ed co-written by Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar, both retired four-star Marine generals, calling for a presidential veto. They said that inserting military forces into domestic anti-terror operations would vastly complicate law enforcement, undermine constitutional rights and boost Al Qaeda’s recruiting.

Hurlburt pointed out that the Senate and House Armed Service Committee chairs could not even agree on what the military detention provisions would mean, with the House chair saying it was a dramatic expansion of domestic military authority, and the Senate chair saying it was not. That scenario would lead to the Supreme Court having to clarify the legislation’s intent and defense policy sometime in the future, she said.

Consider the case of a Nigerian man, the so-called underwear bomber, arrested last Christmas Eve in Michigan after he failed to detonate a bomb on an airline flight from Amsterdam. Under the law, Hurlburt said, the FBI or local law enforcement would have to turn him over to the military, even though there is no military prison in Michigan. The White House would have to approve a waiver in order for a terror suspect not to be held by the military, which is an unduly complicated procedure. Interrogation time would be lost, Hurlburt said, explaining why so many senior law enforcement and military officials oppose the provision.

None of those arguments, however, are new to Senate or House members who support the expanded military detention powers. After intense debate in the Senate, where all amendments to remove or change the detention provisions failed, the House did not change a single word, the ACLU’s Anders said. Instead it added murky language saying that nothing in the law was intended to interfere with domestic law enforcement.

The White House’s statement saying it would not veto the law ignored these concerns, even as the FBI director again warned senators on Wednesday about the military detention provisions.

“While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counterterrorism professionals,” Carney’s statement said, “the most recent changes give the President additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country’s strength.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil 

Source: Washington’s Blog
December 14, 2011

Even at this 11th hour – when all of our liberties and freedom are about to go down the drain – many people still don’t understand that the indefinite detention bill passed by Congress allows indefinite detention of Americans on American soil.
The bill is confusing. As Wired noted on December 1st:

It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”

A retired admiral, Judge Advocate General and Dean Emeritus of the University of New Hampshire School of Law also says that it applies to American citizens on American soil.
The ACLU notes:

Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.
But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

Another sponsor of the bill – Senator Levin – has also repeatedly said that the bill applies to American citizens on American soil, citing the Supreme Court case of Hamdi which ruled that American citizens can be treated as enemy combatants:

“The Supreme Court has recently ruled there is no bar to the United States holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,” said Levin. “This is the Supreme Court speaking.“

Levin again stressed recently that the bill applies to American citizens, and said that it was president Obama who requested that it do so.

Under questioning from Rand Paul, another co-sponsor – John McCain – said that Americans suspected of terrorism could not only be indefinitely detained, but could be sent to Guantanamo:


U.S. Congressman Justin Amash states in a letter to Congress:

The Senate’s [bill] does not even distinguish between American citizens and non-citizens, or between persons caught domestically and abroad. The President’s power, in his discretion, to detain persons he determines have supported associated forces applies just as strongly to Americans seized on U.S. soil as it does to foreigners captured on a far away battlefield.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson – General Colin Powell’s chief of staff – says that the bill is a big step towards tyranny at home.  Congressman Ron Paul says that it will establish martial law in America.

Indeed, Amash accuses lawmakers of attempting to intentionally mislead the American people by writing a bill which appears at first glance to exclude U.S. citizens, when it actually includes us:

Pres. Obama and many Members of Congress believe the President ALREADY has the authority the bill grants him. Legally, of course, he does not. This language was inserted to keep proponents and opponents of the bill appeased, while permitting the President to assert that the improper power he has claimed all along is now in statute.

***

They will say that American citizens are specifically exempted under the following language in Sec. 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Don’t be fooled. All this says is that the President is not REQUIRED to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. It still PERMITS him to do so.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama Reverses Himself: Administration Won't Veto 'Global Battlefield' Indefinite Detentions Measure

President Obama is expected to sign a defense policy bill allowing the military to arrest and indefinitely hold terrorism suspects -- even Americans arrested on U.S. soil.

December 14, 2011  |  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.

The Obama administration Tuesday reversed itself and said it would not veto a major 2012 defense bill that expands the American military’s authority to arrest suspected terrorists anywhere in the world—including Americans on U.S. soil—and hold them indefinitely without charge or the right to a civilian trial.

“We have concluded that the [defense bill’s] language does not challenge or constrain the President’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people,” Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a written statement. “The President’s senior advisers will not recommend a veto.”

Only two weeks ago Carney told reporters that Obama stood by his veto threat. The reversal by the White House will now subject the president to an unprecedented lobbying campaign by retired generals, intelligence officers, and myriad civil rights organizations to reject the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

“If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law,” said Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill. We hope that the president will consider the long view of history before codifying indefinite detention without charge or trial.”

The 1,844-page conference committee report was passed by the House 283-136 on Wednesday night and now goes to the Senate where an earlier version passed 93-7. While dealing with innumerable aspects of military policy, its counterterrorism section states that the entire world, including American soil, is a battlefield in the war on terror. It expands the U.S. military’s authority to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone, even citizens, suspected of aiding terrorists.

“This is a worldwide authority provision,” said Christopher Anders, the ACLU’s senior legislative counsel. “No corner of the world is off limits… With United States citizens, the hope would be that there would be constitutional protections that would apply. But that kind of challenge is still very uncertain under U.S. law, and it would take years [for such litigation] to work its way through the courts.

In a press briefing earlier this week, Anders and top attorneys from Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and the National Security Network explained the implications of the defense policy bill heading toward President Obama’s desk. The legislation does not fund troops fighting in America's overseas conflicts; that is another bill also heading to his desk.

In sum, the very policies that candidate Obama pledged to end by closing the military’s prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, he is now not only supporting, but expanding onto U.S. soil, the civil rights lawyers said. Besides giving the military authority for indefinite detention without trying suspects, the bill would require military detention for many terrorism suspects. And it would all but ban transferring any exonerated prisoners from Guantanamo, where 88 of the 171 prisoners held there have been cleared of terrorist involvement.

“It would, if enacted into law, significantly change the way the U.S. approaches detentions in a so-called ‘law of war’ context,” Andrea Parsow of Human Rights Watch said, concluding it would lead to the expansion of Guantanamo, not its closure. The legislation envisions the military’s role in current and future conflicts.

Other experts, such as Heather Hurlburt, National Security Network executive director, said no one in senior national security or domestic law enforcement positions—including the FBI director, CIA director, National Intelligence director, and Secretary of Defense—wanted the military detention authority in the bill, and national security officials repeatedly told Senate and House Armed Services Committee members that the provisions were unworkable.

 ontinued from previous page

“The national security establishment comprehensively rejects these provisions as representing the militarization of our justice system,” she said, noting that on Monday the New York Times had an unprecedented op-ed co-written by Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar, both retired four-star Marine generals, calling for a presidential veto. They said that inserting military forces into domestic anti-terror operations would vastly complicate law enforcement, undermine constitutional rights and boost Al Qaeda’s recruiting.

Hurlburt pointed out that the Senate and House Armed Service Committee chairs could not even agree on what the military detention provisions would mean, with the House chair saying it was a dramatic expansion of domestic military authority, and the Senate chair saying it was not. That scenario would lead to the Supreme Court having to clarify the legislation’s intent and defense policy sometime in the future, she said.

Consider the case of a Nigerian man, the so-called underwear bomber, arrested last Christmas Eve in Michigan after he failed to detonate a bomb on an airline flight from Amsterdam. Under the law, Hurlburt said, the FBI or local law enforcement would have to turn him over to the military, even though there is no military prison in Michigan. The White House would have to approve a waiver in order for a terror suspect not to be held by the military, which is an unduly complicated procedure. Interrogation time would be lost, Hurlburt said, explaining why so many senior law enforcement and military officials oppose the provision.

None of those arguments, however, are new to Senate or House members who support the expanded military detention powers. After intense debate in the Senate, where all amendments to remove or change the detention provisions failed, the House did not change a single word, the ACLU’s Anders said. Instead it added murky language saying that nothing in the law was intended to interfere with domestic law enforcement.

The White House’s statement saying it would not veto the law ignored these concerns, even as the FBI director again warned senators on Wednesday about the military detention provisions.

“While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counterterrorism professionals,” Carney’s statement said, “the most recent changes give the President additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country’s strength.”

So Long to the 4th Amendment...

So, now if you're openly critical of the govt and/or its corporate masters, that's just mere steps away from terrorism--you'll find yourself whisked away to one of Glenn Beck's FEMA camps or Gitmo for the rest of your days. Constitutionally guaranteed rights gone like that!--jef

High Noon for Internet Freedom

Friday, September 30, 2011 by SavetheInternet.com

by Tim Karr

 

 

As democracy movements worldwide struggle to speak out via the Internet, many here in the U.S. may have overlooked an effort in Congress to undermine this basic freedom.

It takes the form of an arcane "resolution of disapproval" now wending its way through the Senate. If it passes, the resolution would void a recent Federal Communications Commission rule that seeks to preserve long-held Internet standards that protect users against blocking and censorship.

The resolution would remove these protections. It was put forth by industry-funded members of Congress who don't mind letting the few corporations who sell Internet access in America decide what we get to see, hear and read on the Internet.

These senators are also hoping the resolution will appease the most paranoid among the Tea Party faithful, who equate any consumer safeguard put in place during the Obama era with myriad and shadowy government plots.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who pushed a similar measure through the House earlier this year, stoked these fears when she said, "the FCC is in essence building an Internet Iron Curtain that will restrict more of our freedom."

Blackburn's rhetoric puts her and other supporters of the resolution far outside of the mainstream of Americans, who believe that neither the government nor corporations should be able to censor lawful content online.

If Congress succeeds in passing this measure, it will go well beyond deciding whether the FCC's recent rules are appropriate. The resolution will prohibit the agency from engaging in any effort to protect Internet freedom. The move opens the path for corporations eager to take a wrecking ball to the open architecture that has made the Internet a great equalizer for all users.

Lobbyists and lawyers working for the likes of AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have argued that these companies need to take control of your clicks in order to more efficiently--and profitably--manage the abundance of user-driven innovations online. They promise to be good stewards of this unruly medium if only regulators would take away the one network protection that ensures everyone's right to connect with everyone else on the Internet.

That's not what the Internet's founders intended. They built the network to be free of gatekeepers, giving each user equal access to all the legal content and applications online.
These engineers couldn't have envisioned that this open design would, in a relatively short time, evolve to make the network a potent political tool for freedom movements and democratic organizing worldwide.

But it has. Think of the explosion of Internet organizing and political expression that has swept the world in 2011, from Tunisia to Tehran to Beijing, and is now being embraced in America by protesters determined to Occupy Wall Street.

Americans cherish freedom of speech as much as people across North Africa, the Middle East and Asia. An open Internet allows all sides of contentious issues to be heard by anyone who chooses to listen. It opens up a global pipeline for protest movements, a window for millions to witness injustices and a platform upon which to organize for a better future.

So ask yourself this. Do you want Congress to surrender your right to choose online to a company whose sole motive is to generate as much profit as possible? Do you want to wipe away the only protection that prevents any entity--be it corporate or government--from blocking our right to connect with one another?

The hardliners in Congress who support this resolution have joined in a pact with powerful Internet providers and free-market extremists to kill off your most fundamental online right.
It's now up to us users to use the open Internet to reclaim it.