In the United States, the State of Maine's election processes are better than any other state in America



Black Box Voting has been researching nitty-gritty election issues state by state, community by community. Maine, it turns out, is a standout. Overall, Maine's current processes are better than any other state in America.


BlackBoxVoting.org
July 30, 2009


FRAMING THE ISSUES*

* Thanks to voting rights scholar and attorney Paul Lehto for phrasing and framing in this section

To understand why Maine's current processes are better than other states, and why certain federal legislative efforts threaten Maine's good processes, let's look at the core issues facing election integrity: Right to self-government ("Right to Know") and compliance with protective laws and procedures.

RIGHT TO KNOW: The key question is that of accountability to the people (put positively) or anti-secrecy (put in its negative form). If we allow any key process to be concealed in elections, we transfer power from the public to government insiders.

Any voting system based on concealed processes (that is, processes that cannot be examined by the public) fails to recognize that the people are the sole legitimate and ultimate source of power.

Concealment of any key election process violates the following:

(1) the Constitutional frame ("We the People...do hereby ordain...)

(2) the Declaration of Independence (governments are formed to "secure these rights" and "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed") and

(3) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (holding the sole source of legitimate political authority is the people of a nation).

Argumentation used to establish women's suffrage came from the Declaration of Independence.

The argumentation for your right to public vote-counting goes like this:

Right to liberty: You can't have liberty without self-government.

Right to alter our governance: You can't have self-government if insiders count the votes in secret.

Inalienable right: You can't do away with these rights by passing a law. Laws that violate inalienable rights, like slavery, can be passed but constitute invalid law.

HOW MAINE PROTECTS RIGHT TO SELF GOVERNMENT / NEW THREATS

1. MAINE HAS EXCELLENT RIGHT TO KNOW LAWS, permitting any person to examine records, including ballots (after the election), plus all election records and election accounting.

- The state of New Hampshire forbids anyone -- even candidates -- from
examining the original ballots, even after the election, even after the 22-month
retention period expires for federal elections.

- The state of Utah places not only ballots, but all accompanying election accounting documents under seal, forbidding the public and even candidates from examining them without court order.

- King County, Washington refused to provide certain accounting for absentee votes in the 2004 Rossi/Gregoire gubernatorial race. Five years later, the county was fined $225,000 for noncompliance.

- Pima County, Arizona does not permit either the public or party observers to watch vote tallying in the precincts for nonpartisan elections like tax, construction and bond issues.

- Maine has very few restrictions on Right to Know, allows the public (not just political parties) to observe polling place tallying, and has consistently responded to Black Box Voting public records requests quickly, fully and courteously.

2. MAINE REQUIRES BALLOTS TO BE COUNTED IN PUBLIC and requires that the public be permitted to observe the proceedings. In contrast, many states have consolidated the counting into large, centralized locations with poor chain of custody during ballot transport, and obstructions to public observation. Several states limit observation to designated observers selected by political parties. (Note that our founding documents refer to "The People," not "The Parties.")

Threats: A proposal for federal legislation, the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act" (H.R. 2239 -- referred to by many in the election reform movement as "The Holt Bill") contains a shocking contract-steering clause, allocating nearly a billion dollars towards forcing every jurisdiction in America to place a special new high tech voting machine into every polling place. The bill requires the purchase and sets out specifications which only one manufacturer (ES&S) can meet, then effectively precludes any other manufacturer from obtaining certification by setting strict deadlines for purchase dates

This is contract steering, and threatens to interfere with the way Maine runs its elections. It will also produce closure of polling places due to cost increases.

Still a problem: Voting machines in Maine's heavily populated metropolitan areas conceal the counting of the ballots, and unless additional procedures are implemented, violate Maine's own requirement to count in public. One no-cost, simple improvement: Add a step: As soon as polls close, deal the ballots out one by one allowing the public to videotape them if desired, so that the public can compare input to optical scan results. Because ballots are anonymous, this does not threaten political privacy, and this procedure would be legal in Maine simply by changing procedures, without new legislation. Even more transparent: Public hand counting of the ballots at the polling place, as is done now in many Maine locations. This year, the nation of Germany removed all voting machines and reverted to nationwide hand counting in order to honor the public right to examine the count.

3. MAINE'S CLEAN ELECTIONS LAW REDUCES CANDIDATE DEPENDENCY on donations by corporations and vested interests. Though not perfect, better than states like California, which had zealots and vested interests pumping millions into ballot issues in 2008, and some states have tainted processes for electing judges, with almost no campaign finance restrictions for those positions.

Threats: Quite a lot of tinkering is being attempted with Maine's Clean Elections laws. Most of it dies, some of it passes. The tinkering consists of multiple proposals to adjust language and procedures; some may strengthen Maine's Clean Elections law, other proposals will weaken it. The sheer number of tweaks being proposed indicates that Maine's Clean Elections law is under attack, and warrants continued vigilance for those who support its purpose. You can view the many attempts to tinker with Clean Elections law here: http://janus.state.me.us/Legis/LawMakerWeb/advancedsearch.asp
(enter the word "election" in the title or subject bar).

4. MAINE IS EXPANDING ETHICS LAWS. Newly passed legislation expands ethics actions into the executive branch of Maine's government, a step in the right direction. The bill was amended to stop short of implementation, recommending a study first. At least Maine is working on expansion of public rights to disclosure and ethics, while some other states are trying to roll back public rights and ethics. (Tennessee, working to close an ethics agency and New Hampshire, with a proposal that would exclude the executive branch from right to know laws.)

5. MAINE IS AVOIDING INTERNET AND PERMANENT ABSENTEE VOTING TRAPS. Several states are now trying to install "permanent absentee voting", "forced absentee voting," and Internet voting. Hawaii just had a dismal failure with Internet voting. Maine has so far held the line with "no excuse" absentee voting. As soon as this moves into recommendations for opt-in "permanent absentee" status, the wheels come off the checks and balances.

Threats: Internet, permanent absentee, and forced absentee voting are being rolled out in cookie-cutter proposals in state after state. Black Box Voting has reviewed legislative proposals, and so far these risky procedures have not been proposed in Maine. Expect to see them in the future. Fight such proposals, because they produce elimination of the polling place and maximum concealment of essential election processes.

6. MAINE ALLOWS ACCESSIBLE 100 PERCENT HAND RECOUNTS AT AFFORDABLE PRICING. Even write-in candidates can purchase full hand recounts. A sliding scale, based on the margin of the win, allows very reasonable recounts for close races, and even the largest spread costs no more than $10,000.

7. MAINE HAD THE HIGHEST TURNOUT IN THE NATION IN 2008. Despite claims by states like Oregon and Washington, where forced mail-in voting is justified on the grounds that it is claimed to produce higher turnout, Maine had higher turnout with less absentee voting.

8. MAINE REQUIRES ID TO REGISTER TO VOTE, BUT ALSO ALLOWS SAME-DAY REGISTRATION. This bypasses the voter purge strategy. We have not examined compliance with the checks and balances for Maine's same-day registration, however. We note that in New Hampshire, checks and balances were poorly followed, and in some cases new Election Day registrants were dumped onto the rolls without even listing their addresses.


YOU CAN DISCUSS THIS HERE:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/80553.html
____________________

Who's in charge at CNN?

Klein capitulates, allows Dobbs' birther coverage to continue


Media Matters
July 24, 2009


SUMMARY: Apparently contradicting a statement he reportedly made the day before pronouncing the birther story seemingly "dead," CNN president Jonathan Klein has reportedly said that CNN would allow Lou Dobbs to continue airing conspiracy theories about President Obama's birth certificate.

In a July 24 interview with Washington Post Co. blogger Greg Sargent, CNN president Jonathan Klein reportedly said that CNN would allow Lou Dobbs to continue airing conspiracy theories about President Obama's birth certificate and stated: "I think no good journalist would ever say that a particular story will never be covered again. Every day brings new facts, new pegs."

Klein's reported statement appears to directly contradict an email he sent to Dobbs' show just one day earlier, in which he reportedly pronounced the birther story seemingly "dead" and declared that "anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef."

As Media Matters for America documented, Dobbs appeared to disregard Klein's admonishment that the story was "dead," asking CNN contributor Roland Martin on July 23: "When this could be dispelled so quickly, and -- and simply by producing [the birth certificate], why not do it?"

Despite his reported statement that the story is "dead" and that the birth certificate conspiracy theorists don't "really have a legitimate beef," Klein reportedly told The New York Times on July 24 that, in the Times' words, "the e-mail message should not be interpreted as an order to stop debating the subject."

According to the Times, Klein "defended Mr. Dobbs' broadcast, saying that 'what we do here all the time is dig into the truth about all kinds of controversial issues.' "

From Klein's July 23 email, obtained by TVNewser [emphasis added]:

----- Original Message -----

From: Klein, Jon (CNN)
Sent: Thu Jul 23 19:00:44 2009
Subject: Important re birth certificate

I asked the political researchers to dig into the question "why couldn't Obama produce the ORIGINAL birth certificate?"

This is what they forwarded. It seems to definitively answer the question. Since the show's mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead - because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef.

Thx

*****************

*In 2001 - the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless.
*Paper documents were discarded
*The official record of Obama's birth is now an official

ELECTRONIC record Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Health Department told the Honolulu Star Bulletin, "At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," she said.

From Sargent's July 24 post:

Asked if CNN is concerned that Dobbs' repeated granting of airtime to theories the network has conclusively debunked amounts to overkill and could harm CNN's credibility, Klein brushed off the possibility. "We respect our viewers enough to present them the facts and let them make up their own minds," he said, adding that what Dobbs does is "his editorial decision to make."

Klein sent a private memo to Dobbs staffers yesterday saying the birther story is "dead" and questioning its legitimacy, but Dobbs has continued to discuss it on the air, anyway. Klein said the memo wasn't a sign of concern, however, calling that conclusion "overblown."

Asked if CNN would take any action if Dobbs continued airing the birther theories, Klein said No: "I think no good journalist would ever say that a particular story will never be covered again. Every day brings new facts, new pegs."

Source:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200907240045?lid=1053742&rid=32241584
_______________

Jon Stewart: Still The Most Trusted Newscaster in America





by Nancy Now
Huffington Post
July 23, 2009


Just last Friday we lost the most trusted man in America. This week we've anointed a fake journalist his replacement. Or so Time magazine would have us believe. See Graphic

Nothing to get apoplectic about, even if you are Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow fans. This poll, based on a whopping 9409 votes, is a vox populi selection. Who would you rather have represent the voice of the people--Brian Williams (who's that?) or faux pop journalist Jon Stewart? For any liberal under 50 (Stewart is 46), the answer is clear.

To be fair, Brian Williams came in second place in the Time poll, but my Newhouse School and Cal State Fullerton students don't gush about Brian Williams and NBC Nightly News as they do about Jon Stewart and The Daily Show.

Time's poll is just reconstituted news. It's so 2004. Jon Stewart has been in this category of a most trusted newscaster for years. He didn't catapult to the top in the post-Cronkite era.

It was Stewart's appearance on CNN's Crossfire with Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson on Friday, October 15, 2004 that cemented his reputation as the only honest broker about what was happening to the real news. Stewart had always maintained that Comedy Central's The Daily Show was shtick journalism. After all, fake puppets making crank calls preceded the program at the time.

Crank Yankers, like Crossfire, would later be cancelled. I'm sadder about the demise of the former. Much more creativity there.

On that October day in 2004 Jon Stewart called on Begala (Democratic hack on the left) and Carlson (Republican hack on the right) to move away from their partisan bickering and become more responsible news people. He told Begala and Carlson that they were "hurting America" for continuing to serve the American people partisan hackery porridge for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Just a few weeks before Election 2004 and Bush's reelection to a second term, Stewart called on the so-called real news networks to take their jobs more seriously. Instead of blowing hot air at each other, Stewart asked why Crossfire didn't do real debate. Calling Crossfire a debate show, he quipped, is like "saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition."

Stewart was both funny and serious, which seemed to catch his hosts, particularly Carlson, off guard. It made for astounding live television. Stewart fired a shot across the bow of serious news. Unless the major cable and network news broadcasters did their jobs better, the American people would move away from CNN to shows like his that didn't hold pretenses about being anything but entertainment delivery systems for the news-savvy.

Most memorably in the eyes of many, Stewart called Tucker Carlson a "dick" or as some newspapers reported a [male pride] in response to Carlson's saying that Stewart wasn't as funny in person as he was on Comedy Central.

Stewart said what so many Americans were thinking but were in no position to say. No, I don't mean the "dick" comment. It took America's most prominent shtick journalist to tell pseudo journalists to stop using false advertising labels about what it is they were doing. "You are helping the corporations and the politicians," he said, with all the partisan hacks screaming at each other instead of monitoring political power and corporate corruption.

Stewart's name-calling to CNN's "Richie Rich" bowtie newsman Carlson was an instant Internet video sensation, not on YouTube (it came about in February 2005) but on iFilm. It made many of us who teach media classes stop and think about what journalism is and who is a journalist.

Jon Stewart on Crossfire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

Stewart, a William and Mary graduate, is quick to plead that he's not a trained "serious news" journalist, but it really doesn't matter. He's more gifted at delivering the pulse of the political and entertainment culture than anyone else on TV today. That is a strong negative if you are politically conservative. He's a very transparent liberal with a crack writing team. Or did I mean crank?

Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-snow/jon-stewart-still-the-mos_b_243646.html
___________________

Senator Wants FCC To Look Harder Into 'Fake News'


By John Eggerton
Broadcasting & Cable
7/22/2009


Senator McCaskill said she was particularly concerned about stimulus money ads masquerading as news.

"Our news folks have enough problems with credibility right now without fake news being aired," said Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) at a subcommittee hearing Wednesday (July 22) on advertising and consumer protection.

She said she was infuriated by ads that mimic newscasts, with actors or even news anchors from a TV station being paid "to pretend like it is a newscast, with a ticker running underneath."

She said it was "unconscionable," and added that she was particularly concerned about stimulus money ads masquerading as news. McCaskill said she was "amazed" that journalists had not complained more about the ads, though she said it may be because they were too focused on trying to keep their jobs.

Citing FCC action two years ago against Comcast, McCaskill conceded the FCC had taken some "limited action" already, but said she would contact the commission for an update given her continuing concerns.

But she also wanted to know what the Federal Trade Commission could do about it, asking why there wasn't a way for the FTC to say: "You can't do that. You can't pretend like you are broadcasting news when it is a paid advertisement."

David Vladeck, director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, at the FTC, was a witness at the hearing. He told the Senator that the FTC "can and does" say that, citing an action against a dietary supplement whose ad looked like a TV program. But he pointed out that the FTC targets its limited resources on public health issues and economic loss.

"Where we see an infomercial masquerading as real news, we will add a charge. But in our view, given our enforcement priorities, the principal actor has to be the FCC."

He said the FTC didn't have the resources to go "one by one" after the fake news ads. C. Lee Peeler, president of the National Advertising Review Council, said he thought the industry had made a lot of progress in the past 20 years on the issue of TV ads that looked like newscasts. He said the additional complexity was that if it is a Video News Release, for which there was no direct payment, "there would be an issue about whether they could second guess the judgment of the news program."

McCaskill said she was talking about a paid ad. "It is deceptive on its face. Give me that case in front of a juror, I'll do it pro bono and get the result that we all know would happen if a jury looked at it. This is not complicated. It's common sense." Greg Renker, co-chairman of direct-response giant Guthy-Renker LLC, said he agreed that what McCaskill was describing was "deceptive and wrong." He said it was "harmful to the industry and consumers." McCaskill advised the industry to "get aggressive," adding, "because I will follow-up with the FCC."

The hearing was in the Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee. It dealt with a number of ad-related issues including the FTC's review of its guidelines on green marketing and its proposal to change its guidelines on testimonials to require that "results may vary" and similar "atypical" qualifiers be clearer to consumers, and that, where possible, advertisers include an average result, not just the best case.

Renker and Peeler both had problems with requiring an average result. Renker said determining that average could be prohibitively expensive for some smaller companies, though not necessarily his, and would be hard to determine. For example, he said he launched his company with motivational tapes, for which there was no measurable "average" of success.

Vladeck said that in cases where it was not possible, the alternative would simply have to be a large, conspicous "results may vary" or "are not typical" disclaimer. Renker remained concerned about adding the "average requirement," but said he was all for making the "atpyical" disclaimers larger, clearer and ubiquitous.

Jon Congdon, president of Product Partners, which markets dietary supplements and exercise/weight loss programs, said he was also concerned about the effect of the guideline change on broadcasters trying to interpret it. He pointed to the FTC's "red flag" initiative, in which it asked broadcasters to be on the lookout for specious claims for diet supplements, like losses of more than two pounds a week.

Congdon said a broadcasters refused to run the testimonial ad for his product because it made a claim of over two pounds, though it was for a combination of diet and mostly exercise, which should not have raised the red flag. The guildelines had not made it clear that the flag should only have been raised on the supplement alone, he said, and "we were harmed in the marketplace" as a result.

Committee Chairman Mark Pryor (D-Ark) said Congress was looking to find a way to target bad actors without hurting the "good guys," But he insisted that, if necessary, the government would have to step in and insure that "information on our airwaves is accurate and truthful."

Source:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/316104-Senator_Wants_FCC_To_Look_Harder_Into_Fake_News_.php
_______________

Walter Cronkite Dead
Legendary Newsman Dies At 92

Huffington Post
July 17, 2009


Scroll down for videos of Cronkite at his best

Walter Cronkite, the legendary TV news anchor once known as the "most trusted man in America," has died at the age of 92.

Cronkite anchored the CBS Evening News from 1962 to 1981 with his trademark sign-off, "And that's the way it is..."

The Huffington Post had the privilege of posting blogs from Cronkite.
Read them here.

The White House issued the following statement from President Obama:

For decades, Walter Cronkite was the most trusted voice in America. His rich baritone reached millions of living rooms every night, and in an industry of icons, Walter set the standard by which all others have been judged.

He was there through wars and riots, marches and milestones, calmly telling us what we needed to know. And through it all, he never lost the integrity he gained growing up in the heartland.

But Walter was always more than just an anchor. He was someone we could trust to guide us through the most important issues of the day; a voice of certainty in an uncertain world. He was family. He invited us to believe in him, and he never let us down. This country has lost an icon and a dear friend, and he will be truly missed.

CBS News issued statements from network president Leslie Moonves, anchor Katie Couric, and "60 Minutes" correspondent Mike Wallace, among others.

Leslie Moonves:

"It is with enormous sadness that we mark the death of Walter Cronkite. His passing is, of course, a major loss for journalism. He was a great broadcaster and a gentleman whose experience, honesty, professionalism and style defined the role of anchor and commentator. For almost two exciting and turbulent decades during the 1960s and 1970s he helped inform our nation, and bring us together. In so doing, he transcended his field to become the most trusted man in America. The legacy he left us all will endure. It was one of the great honors of my career to have had the opportunity to know him."

Katie Couric:

"When I think of Walter Cronkite, I think of his high journalism standards, integrity - but most of all his humanity. I think he was so trusted because he exhibited a sense of purpose and compassion, night after night. He was the personification of excellence."

Mike Wallace:

"We were proud to work with him - for him - we loved him."

ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer issued the following statement:

"He was the defining anchor of America's story - reminding us of what we can be at our best. He had depth, foreign reporting experience, endless excitement about the news, and an irresistible irreverence.

A call, a note, a compliment from Walter was pretty much the Nobel Prize for a young reporter. I am so lucky to know what it was to be part of the Cronkite team."

ABC News legend Barbara Walters:

"There never was and there never will be another Walter Cronkite. We trusted him and that trust was well founded. He was also a jolly and supportive friend. He will be missed by each of us individually who knew him and by the whole country who loved him."

NBC anchor Brian Williams:

America has lost an icon, our industry has lost its living giant, and all those who learned about the world from Walter Cronkite have lost an exceptional teacher.

He loved his country and had a profound effect on it. He told us the truth in a plain-spoken manner. He never forgot that he was one of us, and yet we admired him so. That's why I can't help but fear that his loss means we've lost a tiny bit of who we are. He was a founding father of our profession. Others had done the job before him, and yet no one before or since has had just a mystical hold on the American people. He perfectly reflected his audience and our times.

Watching Walter do what he did -- better than anyone -- was a formative experience. While he was deeply uncomfortable with overstatements of his own
importance, those of us watching at home were so comfortable knowing he was in
that chair during those years of great change and upheaval.

To use the terminology of his beloved sailboat, he was our national barometer, our compass and our rudder. With Walter at the helm of that broadcast, we knew we would sail through whatever crisis we faced as a country. He always seemed to point the wheel, with a gust of wind in his sails, toward our collective North Star.

On a personal note, Walter Cronkite was the man I grew up wanting to be. Our household, like many, came to a halt when his broadcast came on the air each night, and dinner was served only after he said good night. Knowing Walter was among the great blessings of my life.

Here's an excerpt from former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee's essay in Newsweek:

He conveyed seriousness through that face. That face and his behavior. He had no flaws. He was not young and hustling; he was not overly aggressive. He was such a nice person on top of everything else. Generally you get in these fights, and you can't pick your allies. But if you had to pick an ally, then Cronkite was a perfect person. Everyone respected him. He was so well known in a way that journalists aren't known now. Cronkite was a national figure when the rest of us were struggling for national notoriety.

For more on Cronkite's broadcast career - from his groundbreaking coverage of the Vietnam War and his emotional moment after the JFK assassination to his love of sailing and his moment at a Grateful Dead concert - read this obituary at WCBSTV.com

Last month, there were numerous reports that Cronkite was gravely ill.

At the time, he was reported to be recovering from an undisclosed illness and recuperating at home in New York with his companion Joanna Simon, sister of singer Carly Simon.

Watch the legend at his peak, reporting on the JFK assassination in 1963:




Here is Cronkite reporting on the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968:




Here is Cronkite's earliest newscast in 1962:





Watch this video of Cronkite remembering his famous 1968 Tet Offensive editorial which is considered to have played a major part in the public's growing criticism of the Vietnam War:





Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/17/walter-cronkite-dead-lege_n_238714.html
____________________

Criticism of Afghan War is on Rise in Britain


by Katrina vanden Heuvel
The Nation
07/12/2009


In a brilliant essay in a recent issue of the London Review of Books ("The Irresistible Illusion, July 9), Rory Stewart, the Director of the Carr Center on Human Rights Policy at Harvard, writes that "Afghanistan..is the graveyard of predictions." I'd add that is is also the graveyard of empires. Stewart is critical of President Obama's "new policy," which he explains "has a very narrow focus--counter-terrorism--and a very broad definition of how to achieve it: no less than the fixing of the Afghan state."

Alternatives, for the moment, have been excluded. Yet too few are asking the tough questions that need to be asked about how we might better provide security -- in the region and for the US -- through a non-military regional strategy to stabilize Afghanistan. Why are too few pointing out that it is crazy to pour billions into a war whose mission we're still unable to clearly define when the U.S. economy is in crisis and millions (here and globally) face joblessness?

While the newly arrived top commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McCrystal, champions a 21st century counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy, few in Congress have bothered to question the Administration about the fact that while this COIN strategy calls for a ratio of 80 percent political and 20 percent military, 90 percent of the recent war supplemental goes towards military expenses.

And just last week, according to the Washington Post, McCrystal concluded that Afghan security forces will have to expand far beyond currently planned levels. Such an expansion would require additional billions beyond the $7.5 billion the administration has budgeted annually to build up the Afghan army and police over the next several years; it will also mean the deployment of 1000s of more US troops as trainers and advisers.

Obama has so far committed to building an Afghan army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000. McCrystal now appears to be pushing for what some US generals have earlier spoken about wanting: a combined Afghan army-police-security apparatus of 450,000 soldiers. Such a force would cost $2 or $ 3 billion a year to maintain; as Rory Stewart points out, the annual revenue of the Afghan government is just $600 million. "We criticize developing countries for spending 30 percent of their budget on defense," Stewart notes, and "we are encouraging Afghanistan to spend 500 percent of its budget."

As the US plans to sharply increase its troop strength, it's important to note that Britain's involvement in the war has come under the fiercest criticism yet at home. Some of this comes as a result of a sharp increase in British casualties, including the deaths of 15 soldiers in the past 10 days. (By July 7th, 176 British soldiers had died in Afghanistan, roughly the same number as were killed in Iraq. America has lost 726 soldiers in Afghanistan and 4321 in Iraq--though those figures may have increased in these past few days.)

What has also led to criticism in Britain are the grim images that have led the nightly television news. According to the New York Times, the news has shown "slate-gray transport aircraft carrying coffins landing at a military airbase in Wiltshire and being driven slowly in hearses past crowds lining the high street in Wootton Bassett, a nearby town. When live coffins passed down the street on Friday, on their way to a mortuary in Oxford, women wailed."

Where is the US nightly television (broadcast and cable) coverage of our servicepeople returning in coffins?

Where are the brutal and honest images of Afghanistan -- of Afghan women and children killed, of US soldiers in the hell of combat. Where is the coverage of the staggering increase of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, traumatic brain injuries and suicides among the many 1000s of service members who've already paid a price for Iraq and Afghanistan?

Have the networks and cable channels spent so much of their budgets covering Michael Jackson's untimely death and star-studded memorial, Sarah Palin's ramblings and Mark Sanford's personal and political derelictions that they can't give us the real news we need if we're to be a democracy informed about what our country is doing in our name?

I believe the escalation of Afghanistan will bleed us of the resources needed for economic recovery, further destabilize Pakistan, open a rift -- as we're now seeing with Britain and others -- with our European allies, and negate the positive consequences of withdrawing from Iraq and Obama's powerful Cairo speech on our image in the Muslim world. Nor will escalation secure a better future for the Afghan people, for its women and children, or increase US security.

Withdrawal or de-escalation doesn't mean abandoning the Afghan people. It means using our resources more wisely -- for reconstruction, targeted economic development, peace-keeping operations under an international mandate (not NATO, which is perceived as a militarized, occupying force), funding for alternative agriculture (not eradication of poppies), for education for women and children and support for multilateral regional diplomacy and common sense counter-terrorism measures.

It will take time, but as casualties mount Americans will turn against this war and demand a way out. For now, we need to lay out constructive, smart, effective non-military alternatives to stabilize Afghanistan and strengthen Pakistan's fragile democratic government. We need to work with those in Congress prepared to hold hearings, increase pressure for a defined exit strategy, call for oversight of contractors and transparent budgeting.

Citizens can get involved in many ways-- link up with Brave New Films' Rethink Afghanistan, and with bloggers, MoveOn, Win Without War, and with our work and activism at The Nation and thenation.com. And let's demand that those corporations which been given the rights to the American peoples' airwaves show us the reality of Afghanistan.

Source:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/451033/criticism_of_afghan_war_is_on_rise_in_britain
_________________

Senate Bill Would Allow Prosecution of Bush for Iraq War


Democratic Underground
July 8, 2009


Senators Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, and Patrick Leahy have introduced a bill in the United States Senate (S. 1346) that would allow the prosecution of George W. Bush and his subordinates for the invasion of Iraq. Before concluding that the Spirit of Justice has risen from the flames, a few caveats: First, none of these senators intends the bill for this purpose, and they would all vehemently and honestly deny that they had any such thing in mind. Second, the bill still has to pass both houses and be signed into law. Third, it has to be signed without a signing statement completely altering it. Fourth, the same Department of Justice that won't prosecute torturers would have to prosecute those who attacked Baghdad.

Nonetheless, the possibilities are worth considering.

The legislation, S. 1346, is called "A bill to penalize crimes against humanity and for other purposes." Human Rights First has praised it in a press release that makes clear the bill's purpose: to allow the prosecution of foreigners who commit crimes abroad and then come to the United States to live:

"Crimes Against Humanity Bill Would Close Loophole in U.S. Law
"Human Rights First Urges Passage of Legislation Criminalizing These Heinous Acts, Granting Prosecutors Expanded Powers to Prosecute

"Human Rights First is urging Congress to swiftly pass the Crimes Against Humanity Act of 2009, legislation that would close a loophole in U.S. law that currently allows perpetrators of some heinous international crimes to avoid accountability in U.S. courts. The organization welcomed the bill, introduced today by Senator Richard Durbin, noting that it would expand existing prosecutorial powers beyond genocide, strengthening America’s ability to bring to justice those who commit horrific and pervasive crimes against humanity. . . .

"The Crimes Against Humanity Act of 2009 covers some of the most atrocious crimes committed in recent history, such as the campaigns of mutilations and murders of civilians in Sierra Leone and Uganda, the systematic rape of women in Burma and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo. Because these crimes are not considered to be genocide, under existing U.S. law prosecutors do not have the ability to hold the perpetrators accountable. Crimes against humanity is a distinct category of crime and a separate statute is needed to provide United States courts with jurisdiction to indict those who commit these acts if they are ever present in the United States. . . .

"Though U.S. law prohibits grave human rights violations such as genocide and torture, alleged perpetrators of crimes against humanity may escape accountability due not to their innocence of unforgivable acts but to loopholes in the U.S. criminal code. The Crimes Against Humanity Act of 2009 would close this illogical gap in U.S. law. Just as they may pursue those who have committed related and similarly horrific crimes, U.S. prosecutors would have the authority to ensure that those in the United States who have committed crimes against humanity may not evade accountability merely by fleeing to our country."

But the bill, as written (See http://thomas.loc.gov ), would allow the prosecution of Americans for crimes against humanity wherever committed. Here is the section of the bill listing the punishable offenses (emphasis mine):

"(a) Offense- It shall be unlawful for any person to commit or engage in, as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against any civilian population, and with knowledge of the attack--

1) conduct that, if it occurred in the United States, would violate--
A) section 1111 of this title (relating to murder);
B) section 1581(a) of this title (relating to peonage);
C) section 1583(a)(1) of this title (relating to kidnapping or carrying away individuals for involuntary servitude or slavery);
D) section 1584(a) of this title (relating to sale into involuntary servitude);
E) section 1589(a) of this title (relating to forced labor); or
F) section 1590(a) of this title (relating to trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor);

2) conduct that, if it occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would violate--
A) section 1591(a) of this title (relating to sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion);
B) section 2241(a) of this title (relating to aggravated sexual abuse by force or threat); or
C) section 2242 of this title (relating to sexual abuse);

3) conduct that, if it occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and without regard to whether the offender is the parent of the victim, would violate section 1201(a) of this title (relating to kidnapping);

4) conduct that, if it occurred in the United States, would violate section 1203(a) of this title (relating to hostage taking), notwithstanding any exception under subsection (b) of section 1203;

5) conduct that would violate section 2340A of this title (relating to torture);

6) extermination;

7) national, ethnic, racial, or religious cleansing;

8) arbitrary detention; or

9) imposed measures intended to prevent births.
b) Penalty- Any person who violates subsection (a), or attempts or conspires to violate subsection (a)--
1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
2) if the death of any person results from the violation of subsection (a), shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life."

If George W. Bush did not conspire as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against a civilian population to murder, arbitrarily detain, and torture (and probably a few more offenses), then nobody ever has. Now it's true that Bush is not from Sierra Leone, Uganda, or Burma. He's American and he committed his crimes in the United States, giving orders for crimes to be committed abroad. But wait until you read the section of the bill on jurisdiction:

"Jurisdiction- There is jurisdiction over a violation of subsection (a), and any attempt or conspiracy to commit a violation of subsection (a), if--
1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
2) the alleged offender is a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States;
3) the alleged offender is present in the United States, regardless of the nationality of the alleged offender; or
4) the offense is committed in whole or in part within the United States."

Oops. The authors of the bill apparently neglected to consider the possibility of the existence of the most glaring incident in the past decade of our nation's existence. How can you fail to imagine what has just occurred in front of you? I'm not sure. I think a lot of humming and averting of the gaze must be involved. In any case, I do not see how this bill can fail to accidentally criminalize in the US Code what we agreed was a crime, if not the gravest crime of them all, when we agreed to the U.N. Charter, namely aggressive war. Of course, there are a million and one ways out, beginning with simple inaction and including all sorts of legalistic sophistry, such as claiming that the bombing of Baghdad was not directed at civilians but at Saddam Hussein. However, should honesty and decency ever gain the upper hand, I would prefer to have this law on the books and available.

There is one concern I would take seriously, and that is that we not punish crimes that occur prior to the creation of laws. However, doing so seems to be the clear intent of this bill as regards foreigners, the crimes of George W. Bush and gang were already widely known crimes under the UN Charter and Article VI of our Constitution, the War Crimes Act, the Anti-Torture Act, and other laws at the time committed, and as long as we are retroactively granting immunity for warrantless spying, refusing to prosecute torture, and permitting the widespread prosecution of local elected officials for political purposes, a little retroactive criminalization of the murder of a million human beings seems to me a move in the right direction.

Source:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5960435
_________________

Seattle doctors try flat-rate no-limit primary care


By David Lawsky
Reuters
July 7, 2009


A Seattle clinic for people fed up with insurance, started by doctors fed up with insurance, has gotten $4 million in private venture capital money to expand, it announced on Monday.

Qliance says it has a profit-making solution to the problems of long waits, rushed doctors and cursory care that bother patients, at the same time that it eliminates the paperwork and pressure that plague primary care doctors.

"If you spent five minutes in my office you would notice there is nobody waiting. We don't have to stack them up like jets over Newark," said Garrison Bliss, a doctor and co-founder of the primary care clinic.

The new venture funding comes from Second Avenue Partners with participation by New Atlantic Ventures and Clear Fir Partners, bringing total capital raised to about $7.5 million.

Co-founder Norm Wu said per-patient revenue is triple that of insurance-based clinics. He said many costs are fixed so the firm, now losing money, will turn to profit as business grows.

More than 50 noninsurance clinics operate in 18 U.S. states, based on different business models, Wu noted.

The backers believe Qliance can grow very profitable, and the clinic uses stock options to attract new doctors. The next step is to open a suburban office.

Qliance says it is a private alternative to the failures of insurance, which have made health care President Obama's top legislative priority in Congress, with a price tag of $1 trillion or more.

Qliance customers pay $99 to join, then a flat monthly rate of $39 to $119, depending on age and level of service. Patients can quit without notice and no one is rejected for pre-existing conditions.

Patients must go to outside brokers and qualify medically to buy catastrophic care. One broker said a 30-year-old could expect to pay $133 per month for such care, and a 60-year-old nearly $400, plus substantial deductibles.

Qliance patients get unrestricted round-the-clock primary care access and 30-minute appointments.

"Why would a doctor not want to see sick people? That doesn't make sense, unless you're an insurance company," Bliss said.

He rejected the idea that unrestricted access causes overuse, calling that "nonsense promoted by insurance companies .... There's nobody I've ever met who gets their pleasure by seeing doctors."

Bliss said dumping rigid, convoluted insurance requirements and paperwork saves large amounts of money.

UnitedHealth, which processes 60 billion health care transactions a year, argued in June that better use of technology would save $332 billion annually, with some going to physicians.

Other big health insurers include WellPoint, Humana, Cigna and Aetna.

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5660N620090707
_________________

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski Slams Palin


The Mudflats
July 7, 2009


It’s interesting to see the reactions coming in from Alaska’s politicos to the surprise resignation of Governor Sarah Palin yesterday. But, perhaps the most surprising of all is that of Alaska’s Senior Senator, Republican Lisa Murkowski.

We expect politicians to be…well…politicians. We anticipate all kinds of pussy-footing around, saying things without really saying them, and trying to offend the least number of people while saying the bare minimum to satisfly the public that they’ve actually responded.

That’s why Murkowski’s response was so refreshing, an so unexpected. She said what many Alaskans, especially those who have supported Sarah Palin, are feeling.

“I am deeply disappointed that the Governor has decided to abandon the State and her constituents before her term has concluded.”

Abandonment. Strong words to use against the woman who used the analogy in her State of the State speech this year of being Alaska’s mama bear, defending her cubs. Palin has often referred to Alaska as a family. And now, Mom has skipped town, and Murkowski has called her on it.

Some in the national media are speculaing that Palin will enter a run for the senate against Murkowski in 2010, but those odds are slim to none. Holding the coveted place that Palin used to hold, Murkowski is undisputably the most popular politician in the state, with approval ratings of over 70% to Palin’s rapidly plummeting 54%.

In the days that follow, my hunch is that more Alaskans will start to think of Palin as a quitter.

There’s just no glossig over the fact that a governor didn’t even make it through the first term. But questions continue to be raised about the hurried nature of the announcement, and the fact that Todd Palin flew in from the very brief fishing season in Bristol Bay to stand by her side on the Friday before a holiday weekend.

Here are some other reactions coming from the state:

Alaska’s Junior Senator Mark Begich (D) - “I’m as surprised as all Alaskans by Governor Palin’s decision to step down with nearly two years left in her term. There was speculation she would not seek re-election, but she gave no indication of a resignation when I met with her for 45 minutes in her Anchorage office two days ago.”

Alasa Gubernatorial Candidate Bob Poe (D) - “As I stated when I announced my candidacy, Alaska needs a Governor who is fully committed our state, not on other jobs and I am pleased Sarah Palin recognized this and is doing the right thing for Alaska . When I announced in January, I really saw that something like this was coming. When she came back from the vice-presidential campaign trail, she really wasn’t focusing on Alaska. She was blinded by the bright lights of national attention.””

Alaska Representative John Harris, Valdez (R) - “I am going to run for governor. We’ll begin next week.”

And remember what Sarah Palin herself said about her perceived rough treatment during the campaign. “Nobody should have hurt feelings! My goodness, this is politics! Politics is rough and tumble, and people need to get thick skin, just like I’ve got,” she said.

Source:
http://www.themudflats.net/2009/07/04/republican-senator-lisa-murkowski-slams-palin/
_____________

The still-growing NPR "torture" controversy


by Glenn Greenwald
Salon.com
July 2, 2009


(updated below - Update II - Update III)

There are several noteworthy developments since I wrote on Tuesday about the refusal of NPR's Ombdusman, Alica Shepard, to be interviewed by me about NPR's ban on using the word "torture" to describe the Bush administration's interrogation tactics.

Given the utter vapidity of her rationale ("there are two sides to the issue. And I'm not sure, why is it so important to call something torture?"), I was momentarily amazed to learn that she actually teaches "Media Ethics" to graduate students at Georgetown University (my amazement quickly dissipated once I recalled that this is the same institution that, until last year, paid Doug Feith -- Doug Feith -- to teach students "national security policy" and that Berkeley Law School has John Yoo "teaching law" to its students; next semester at Georgetown: Karl Rove teaches Civility in a Post-Partisan Age, Bill Kristol lectures on Accountability in Punditry, while David Gregory examines The Role of Intellect in Adversarial Questioning).

NPR's "torture" ban and its Ombudsman's incoherent defense of it has now turned into a significant controversy for NPR -- and rightfully so.

Yesterday, The Huffington Post trumpeted the controversy in a prominent headline all day long, focusing on Shepard's refusal to be interviewed here. The media reporter Simon Owens wrote a long column on Shepard's refusal to discuss her rationale with me despite my having been a primary critic of NPR's policy (indeed, this controversy began several weeks ago when I noted the ample documentation from NPR Check of NPR's steadfast refusal to use the word "torture" and the embarrassing contortions it employs to accomplish that).

Also, along with her On the Media appearance this weekend, Shepard went on another NPR-affiliated show -- Patt Morrison's KPCC Southern California Public Radio program -- in a quality segment that included several good questions from Morrison (and even better ones from callers); a very well-compiled, illustrative and cringe-inducing montage of NPR's repeatedly going out of its way to avoid calling Bush interrogation tactics "torture," juxtaposed with an excerpt where NPR explicitly accused Iraqis in Sadr City of "using torture" against detainees; and, finally, the inclusion in the discussion of a Berkeley Professor of Linguistics explaining why it matters so much what the media does in this regard and how virtually all media around the world -- other than what he called the "spineless U.S. media" -- call these tactics "torture" (the KPCC program credits my criticisms of Shepard for catalyzing the controversy and the segment can be heard here).

Amazingly, a caller asked Shepard about the advent of blogs and how it has diversified commentary, and in replying, Shepard put on her most condescending and self-glorifying voice to say this:

I think, um, we're now at a stage where the debate is between dialogue and diatribe, and I wish there was more dialogue. I think there's more diatribe.

That's from the same person who refuses to "dialogue" about her views outside of NPR-affiliated confines.

Along those lines, Shepard has gone back to her NPR blog to write yet another column about this controversy and to assure NPR listeners in her headline that "Your Voices Have Been Heard." In it, she references my criticisms without bothering to address any of them, and also claims, for whatever it's worth:

"For the record, I have brought this issue and the volume of comments to the attention of NPR's top editorial staff."

Finally, Shepard today will appear on yet another NPR program, the nationally broadcast Talk of the Nation, beginning at 2:00 p.m. EST, for a segment entitled "Why Doesn't NPR Call Waterboarding Torture?"

Readers here are obviously quite familiar with this controvery as well as Shepard's conduct in it thus far and could obviously pose excellent questions to her. Her appearance this afternoon on Talk of the Nation provides a good opportunity for that (the call-in number is 800-989-8255; for those in cities (such as NYC) where NPR doesn't broadcast that show, CarolynC has information about where to hear it).

* * * * *

Several weeks ago, when writing about all of the various euphemisms employed by The New York Times to avoid using the word "torture," I wrote about why I think this matters so much and why the media's use of euphemisms invented by the government torturers themselves so vividly reflects the core corruption of American "journalism":

This active media complicity in concealing that our Government created a systematic torture regime -- by refusing ever to say so -- is one of the principal reasons it was allowed to happen for so long . . . The steadfast, ongoing refusal of our leading media institutions to refer to what the Bush administration did as "torture" -- even in the face of more than 100 detainee deaths; the use of that term by a leading Bush official to describe what was done at Guantanamo; and the fact that media outlets frequently use the word "torture" to describe the exact same methods when used by other countries -- reveals much about how the modern journalist thinks.

These are their governing principles:

There are two sides and only two sides to every "debate" -- the Beltway Democratic establishment and the Beltway Republican establishment. If those two sides agree on X, then X is deemed true, no matter how false it actually is. If one side disputes X, then X cannot be asserted as fact, no matter how indisputably true it is. The mere fact that another country's behavior is described as X doesn't mean that this is how identical behavior by the U.S. should be described. They do everything except investigate and state what is true. In their view, that -- stating what is and is not true -- is not their role.

The whole world knows that the U.S. tortured detainees in the "War on Terror." Yet American newspapers refuse to say so.

That second paragraph is a pure distillation of how Shepard -- the "Media Ethics" Professor in Georgetown's graduate journalism program and NPR's Ombudsman -- explicitly thinks. And that -- a refusal to state facts and instead amplify and give credence to plain falsehoods -- is one of the principal and most destructive sicknesses in American establishment journalism. All of that was perfectly captured by penetratingly true satire back in August, 2004, from Jon Stewart and Daily Show "reporter" Rob Corddry [sent to me this week by a reader to illustrate what NPR is doing]:

Stewart: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the U.S. military, and hasn't been disputed for 35 years.

Corddry: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.

Stewart: That's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established.

Corddry: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontrovertible fact is one side of the story.

Stewart: But isn't that the end of the story? I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion?

Corddry: I'm sorry, "my opinion"? I don't have opinions. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called "objectivity" -- might want to look it up some day.

Stewart: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't?

Corddry: Whoa-ho! Sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! Listen, buddy: Not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.

That derision is also as pure an expression of how Alicia Shepard and NPR think as one can imagine. And it's not just Shepard, but American journalists generally. From a 2006 interview Jim Lehrer gave to Columbia Journalism Review:

CJR: At CJR Daily, we spent a lot of time during the 2004 presidential campaign criticizing just the sort of story that it seems [Ben] Bradlee is describing — stories that "highlight the controversy," report this claim versus these competing claims, rather than providing facts for the reader and helping them navigate toward the truth. What are your thoughts on this? How do you approach reporting what a public official has said something that is blatantly untrue?

Lehrer: I don’t deal in terms like "blatantly untrue." That’s for other people to decide when something’s “blatantly untrue.” There’s always a germ of truth in just about everything . . . My part of journalism is to present what various people say about it the best we can find out [by] reporting and let others — meaning commentators, readers, viewers, bloggers or whatever . . .

But remember: don't ever call them "stenographers." That's insulting and offensive. Rather, what they do is called "reporting," by which they mean: "We call people in power and write down what they say really accurately and then we faithfully repeat what 'each side says' without commenting on it or judging it (except where it's our Government's claims against some foreign country, in which case we state our Government's claims as fact)."

* * * * *

What makes this practice particularly destructive in the torture context is that the central enabling deceit of the Bush administration was that there are no objective, verifiable standards for what "torture" is. Instead, it's just all in the eye of the beholder, easily re-defined to include or exclude anything we want, dependent upon who is doing it, devoid of any authoritative sources on what it means, and, ultimately, entirely subjective.

It is that rotted premise -- that there is no fixed, known understanding of "torture" -- that outlets like NPR are not just accepting, but actively promoting, by refusing to use the term on the ground that "there are two sides to the question" (see ABC News' Jake Tapper for an imperfect though still commendable exception: tactics used by CIA "qualify under international law as torture").

It is vital to keep in mind -- as I noted last week in arguing why it's so vital that torture photos be released -- that there is still very much an active, vibrant debate over torture in this country.

That debate encompasses not only the question of whether we should punish those who did it, but whether or not it is right and just for us to use it. In fact, as reported just recently by Harper's Luke Mitchell, Jeremy Scahill, and Lt. Col. Barry Wingard, there is ample evidence that very serious abuse is still occurring in America's detention facilities, including at Guantanamo (all of which confirmed similar reports from earlier this year).

Whether the U.S. should torture people is a matter of opinion about which reporters need not take a position. But that is plainly not the case for the proposition that these tactics are "torture." There are not two sides to that question, and media outlets that suggest otherwise are actively deceiving their audience.

UPDATE: I neglected to mention this strange email exchange I had with Anna Christopher, NPR's "Senior Manager, Media Relations," who contacted me on Tuesday after I wrote about Shepard's refusal to be interviewed. In posting the exchange, I'm editing out one sentence from my reply which references an insignificant fact about why Shepard was out of the office last week that the Salon intern who spoke with Shepard's office (on my behalf) agreed to keep off-the-record (an agreement I therefore feel compelled to respect).

UPDATE II: In comments, Paul Daniel Ash points out the glaring dishonesty in Shepard's central defense of NPR's policy.

UPDATE III: On a not unrelated note, long-time journalist Charles Kaiser (Newsweek, NYT, WSJ) notes that The Washington Post has been caught selling lobbyist access to their reporters and political officials; declares the Post dead; and writes its obituary.

Source:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/02/npr/
__________________

Passport details to be kept on ID register despite card U-turn

Johnson accused of pressing ahead compulsory scheme by ‘back door’


by Alan Travis
The Guardian International Edition
July 1, 2009


British citizens who apply for or renew their passport will be automatically registered on the national identity card database under regulations to be approved by MPs in the next few weeks.

The decision to press ahead with the main elements of the national identity card scheme follows a review by the home secretary, Alan Johnson, of the £4.9bn project. Although Johnson said the cards would not be compulsory, critics say the passport measures amount to an attempt to introduce the system by the backdoor.

Johnson said he had halted plans to introduce compulsory identity cards for airline pilots and 30,000 other “critical workers” at Manchester and London City airports this autumn in the face of threats of legal action. Longer term plans to extend compulsory ID cards to other transport industries, such as the railways, as a condition of employment have also been scrapped.

But two batches of draft regulations to be approved by MPs today and next week are expected to include powers to make the passport a “designated document” under the national identity card scheme. This means that anyone applying for or renewing their passport from 2011 will have their details automatically added to the national identity databases.

The regulations also include powers to levy a fine of up to £1,000 on those who fail to tell the authorities of a change of address or amend other key personal details such as a change of name within three months.

Johnson said he wanted to see the introduction of identity cards accelerated for foreign nationals resident in Britain and for young “early adopters” for whom they would act as a useful proof of age. This trial is to be extended from Manchester to other parts of the north-west.

The home secretary is also looking at the possibility of waiving the £30 fee for those over 75 who want a voluntary identity card.

“There will be significant benefits to individuals from holding an identity card, which will become the most convenient, secure and affordable way of asserting identity in everyday life,” said Johnson. “Identity cards will also be valid for travel throughout Europe in place of a British passport.”

The home secretary emphasised his personal commitment to a voluntary scheme, saying it should be a personal choice for British citizens just as it is now to obtain a passport.

He also denied that there were any significant public spending savings to be made by cancelling the project saying: “This scheme pays for itself. If you cancel all you will get is diddly squat.”

This is a reference to the self-financing nature of the project under which it is to be paid for through increased charges for passports and the £60 cost of a biometric identity card.

The only way for ID card critics to avoid being included on the national identity card databases will be not to apply or renew their passport – and so not to leave the country. As about 80% of the population currently hold a passport, the and Passport Service believe that take-up of the voluntary scheme would be high.

Critics argue that at that point a political decision could be made about whether it should become compulsory for the rest of the population.

Isabella Sankey, director of policy at the human rights group Liberty, said the home secretary needed to be clear as to whether entry onto the national identity register was going to continue to be automatic when applying for a passport.

“If so, the identity scheme will be compulsory in practice. However you spin it, big ears, four legs and a long trunk still make an elephant,” she said.

“And this white elephant would be as costly to privacy and race equality as to our purses.”
Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said the decision to drop the compulsory airport trials was symbolic of a government in chaos.

“They have spent millions on the scheme so far – the home secretary thinks it has been a waste and wants to scrap it, but the prime minister won’t let him. So we end up with an absurd fudge instead,” he said.

Guy Herbert of the No2ID campaign said the pressing ahead with making the passport a “designated document” made a nonsense of the home secretary’s assertion that the scheme was not compulsory.

“It is not compulsory as long as you don’t want to leave the country,” he said.

He said that the announcements made by Johnson were part of the Home Office’s continuing strategy to defend the scheme against cancellation by stretching it out further and further and by aligning it ever closer with the passport system.

Source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/30/passport-details-id-card-database
_________________

Deep-Packet Inspection in U.S. Scrutinized Following Iran Surveillance


By Kim Zetter
Wired
June 29, 2009


Following a report last week that Iran is spying on domestic internet users with western-supplied technology, advocacy groups are pressuring federal lawmakers to scrutinize the use of the same technology in the U.S.

The Open Internet Coalition sent a letter to all members of the House and Senate urging them to launch hearings aimed at examining and possibly regulating the so-called deep-packet inspection technology.

Two senators also announced plans to introduce a bill that would bar foreign companies that sell IT technology to Iran from obtaining U.S. government contracts, legislation that is clearly aimed at the two European companies that reportedly sold the equipment to Iran.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Nokia Siemens Networks, a joint venture between Germany’s Siemens and Finland’s Nokia, recently gave Iran deep-packet inspection equipment that would allow the government to spy on internet users.

According to the Journal, Iranian officials have used deep-packet surveillance to snoop on the content of e-mail, VoIP calls and other online communication as well as track users’ other online activity, such as uploading videos to YouTube.

Iranian officials are said to be using it to monitor activists engaged in protests over the country’s recent disputed presidential election, though the Journal said it couldn’t confirm whether Iran was using the Nokia Siemens Networks equipment for this purpose or equipment from another maker.

Nokia Siemens has denied that it provided Iran with such technology.

But similar technology is being installed at ISPs in the U.S.

It spurred extensive controversy last year when Charter Communications, one of the country’s largest ISPs, announced that it planned to use deep-packet inspection to spy on broadband customers to help advertisers deliver targeted ads.

The plan sparked a backlash and heated congressional hearings. Publicity about the issue died down, however, after Charter retreated from its plan, and Congress moved on to other matters.

But deep-packet inspection didn’t go away.

ISPs insist they need it to help combat spam and malware. But the technology is ripe for abuse, not only by ISPs but also by the U.S. government, which could force providers to retain and hand over data they collect about users.

In its letter to lawmakers (.pdf) urging them to investigate the technology, the Open Internet Coalition delicately avoided placing the U.S. government in the same category as Iran by not mentioning possible U.S. government abuses of the technology.

“We do not believe U.S. network owners intend to interfere with political communications in the way the Iranian government is doing, but the control technologies they are deploying on the internet carry the same enormous power,” the Coalition writes. “And, whether an inspection system is used to disrupt political speech or achieve commercial purposes, both require the same level of total surveillance of all communications between end-users and the internet.”

At a House subcommittee hearing this year to examine the technology, Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Virginia) also expressed alarm.

“The thought that a network operator could track a user’s every move on the Internet, record the details of every search and read every e-mail or attached document is alarming,” he said.

With regard to the sale of the technology to Iran, Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) attempted to address the Nokia Siemens issue with a bill that would prevent foreign companies selling sensitive technology to Iran from either obtaining new government contracts or renewing existing ones, unless they halt their exports to Iran.

According to NextGov, Nokia did more than $10 million in business with the U.S. government between 2000 and 2008; Siemens has nearly 2,000 U.S. government contracts and obtained $250 million in U.S. government contracts this year alone. Nokia Siemens Networks currently has more than $5 million in U.S. government contracts.

Neither Schumer nor Graham mentioned how such a law would be enforced if foreign companies used proxies to sell their products to Iran to circumvent the regulation.

The U.S. government embargo against U.S. companies selling to Iran is one of the tightest. The embargo currently prevents any U.S. individual or company from obtaining a license to sell goods and technologies to Iran that could be used for, among other things, missile proliferation purposes, chemical and biological warfare proliferation, human rights and crime control.

The embargo, however, has done little to prevent Iran from obtaining U.S. technology anyway.

In the meantime, consumers called for a boycott of Nokia and Siemens products. And Hands Across the Mideast Support Alliance (HAMSA) has organized a writing campaign urging users to send a protest letter to Nokia. According to the organization’s site, nearly 4,000 people have acknowledged sending the letter so far.

See also:
WSJ: Nokia, Siemens Help Iran Spy on Internet Users
Consumers Boycott Nokia, Siemens for Selling to Iran
Leaked Report: ISP Secretly Added Spy Code to Web Sessions

Source:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/deep-packet-inspection/
__________________