Pesky Little Gnats

(Editorial cartoon by Steve Sack, published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and featured 6/28/13 at the Denver Post.)

The Bradley Manning verdicts are in (it looks like he'll be spending most of the rest of his life in prison) and Edward Snowden remains in limbo at a Russian airport.  Both men were foolish enough to believe that the American people and the world needed to know about the massive spying program undertaken by the US government.  Now both men are suffering for their naivete.

Michael McGough has an op-ed up at the Los Angeles Times which acknowledges the contribution both young men have made.

They call it the “Snowden effect.” Whatever you think of fugitive former National Security Agency consultant Edward J. Snowden -- hero, traitor, something in between -- his revelations about electronic surveillance programs have inspired a debate about broad questions of policy that was impossible because of the secrecy that enshrouded the programs themselves and their legal rationale. And that debate in turn has prompted defenders of the program to acknowledge that it can be reformed. ...

The improvements Feinstein proposes fall short of abolishing the bulk collection of telephone metadata unrelated to a specific terrorism investigation. But would even these refinements be on the table if Snowden hadn’t released information about the metadata program? Would President Obama be inviting congressional critics of the program (along with supporters) to the White House? According to Politico, the president will host a powwow on the surveillance program Thursday.

And without Snowden’s revelations, which continued Wednesday with a report in the Guardian about a versatile search program called XKeyscore, would the Senate Judiciary Committee be discussing changes in the way the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court operates and in how its judges are selected? Would the administration have released key documents about the metadata program, as it did Wednesday?   [Emphasis added]

As McGough put it, "not bloody likely."

Unfortunately about all that will be done is a few cosmetic patches will be loosely stuck on the programs, nothing more.  The spying will continue.  There will be no pardons.

We can't expect anything more.  After all, the administration has bound all government employees to the same secrecy, asking them to spy on each other and to report anything "suspicious."

Transparency in government?

It is to die for.

It Takes A Cartoonist

David Horsey has done a wonderful job in his latest column in explicating some rather complex issues in a way which somehow has eluded the rest of the mainstream media.

There seems to be one thing that unites all the demonstrators in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, from the young secular liberals who are jubilant that Egypt’s military has deposed President Mohamed Morsi to the Islamic militants who demand that he be reinstated: they all are furious with President Barack Obama and the United States of America.

On the one hand, the anti-Morsi crowds think Obama gave too much support to Morsi. On the other, the pro-Morsi marchers are calling Obama a hypocrite for giving lip service to democracy while doing nothing in the face of the military coup that overthrew Morsi’s democratically elected government.

As always, it is hard for the U.S. to get it right in the Arab world. ...

The reality, though, is that the authoritarian actions of the Morsi government were proving detrimental to the long-term prospects for permanent democracy in Egypt. After years of waiting for their chance, Morsi and his comrades in the Muslim Brotherhood were unable to restrain themselves from pushing too quickly toward the Islamic state they want. Perhaps just as damaging, they also proved themselves to be incompetent stewards of government.

Millions of protesters filled the streets to reject the slide away from democracy and toward theocratic rule. There was no vote and no election, but the will of the people was being expressed. That, too, is democracy and Morsi refused to respond to that expression, so the military stepped in.   [Emphasis added]

There.  Was that so hard?

Nicely done, David.  Now, if only White House spokespeople could be so direct and clear in their explanations and the traditional media could shake such explanations out of them to begin with and then actually print the story, we might be a better informed nation.

So Very Transparent

(Political cartoon by Yaakov Kirschen and published 6/21/13 at Dry Bones.  Click on image to enlarge and then hasten back.)

Now this is interesting:  the mainstream media has discovered that portion of the White House web site that allows citizens to petition their government to address issues of concern to them.  What provoked the discovery was the petition which demands Edward Snowden be pardoned for any crime(s) he may have committed while blowing the whistle on the federal government's massive domestic spying.

That petition is located here, and will be up for another 15 days.  It has already passed the threshold of garnering 100,000 signatures and those signatures continue to mount up now that Snowden has been charged with espionage.  If you noodle around on that page you will find the rationale for this web site:

The right to petition your government is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. We the People provides a new way to petition the Obama Administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country. We created We the People because we want to hear from you. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response.

Well, that's the part that the media noticed and they did a little checking, which revealed something we all kind of anticipated.  From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

WASHINGTON — A petition asking President Barack Obama to pardon admitted state secret leaker Edward Snowden has passed 100,000 signatures.

The petition posted on Whitehouse.gov calls the former National Security Agency contractor a "national hero." It says he should immediately be pardoned for any crimes in "blowing the whistle" on classified government programs to collect phone records and online data.

White House policy is to respond to any petition that gets 100,000 signatures within 30 days. The Snowden petition crossed the threshold in two weeks.

The White House wouldn't say when its response will come. But it routinely declines to comment on petitions regarding law enforcement matters, including pardon requests. And the ultimate answer is the administration's pursuit of Snowden on espionage charges.   [Emphasis added]

I think we have our answer.

Hiding The Salami

(Editorial cartoon by Joel Pett / Lexington Herald-Leader (March 26, 2013) and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then hasten back here.)

One of Obama's campaign promises in 2004 was to increase transparency in government.  Well, we know how that has worked out.  From drone assassination to enforcement of the Patriot Acts' invasion of privacy, President Obama has actually decreased open government over that of President Bush.  Here is just one more example.

When the State Department hired a contractor to produce the latest environmental impact statement for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, it asked for a Web-based electronic docket to record public comments as they flowed in each day. Thousands of comments are expected to be filed by people and businesses eager to influence the outcome of the intense international debate over the project.

But the public will not find it easy to examine these documents.

A summary of the comments will be included in the final version of the environmental impact statement when it is released, said Imani J. Esparza of the Office of Policy and Public Outreach in State's bureau of oceans, environment and science.

But the only way to see the comments themselves is by filing a request under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, a process that can take so long that the Keystone debate could be over before the documents are made available.

The public will not be able to access the full electronic docket online.

The State Department "is doing no more than what they have to do, at a time when most other agencies are moving proactively toward timely disclosure," said Katie Greenhaw, an expert in the regulatory process at the Center for Effective Government, which advocates for public involvement and openness. "This is not meaningful engagement." ...

 After the environmental review is complete, the public will have another chance to weigh in on the Keystone project. This time the State Department will consider the broader question of whether building the pipeline is in the "national interest."

During that phase, too, the agency will consider public comments - but the process will likely be even more opaque, because there are no clear guidelines for that phase, as there are for NEPA assessments. In a 2011 go-around of the national interest process, people who spoke at hearings or commented in writing complained to InsideClimate News that their comments were falling into a black hole, not fully considered by the department, or in many cases were lost.   [Emphasis added]

First, why is the State Department so involved?  Isn't this more properly a subject for the EPA?

Second, what is the purpose of withholding the information, of "hiding the salami," from people who need to know just what this pipeline is going to do to the environment in the US and, quite frankly, the rest of the planet, since most of the tar sands cruised will be shipped out?

We may be stupid, but a lot of that is due to being uninformed.  And that is just the way our owners want to keep us.

Too Much Success Is A Problem?

[Note:  I'm having some financial problems right now.  I know my timing is atrocious, given all the fund raisers lately, but if you can spare a little more, please donate to my "cat food for me and Home Boy" fund.  Thank you.]

When I saw this article earlier in the week, I chuckled.  Then I got to thinking about it and got a little annoyed.  The White House came up with what I thought was a terrific idea:  a place where people could go online and post a petition and if enough people signed the petition within 30 days, the White House would respond. A lot of other people thought it was a terrific idea as well, so much so that the White House has felt compelled to adjust upward the number of signatures required a couple of times.

No, the U.S. will not be building a Death Star. And no, President Barack Obama will not deport CNN's Piers Morgan or let Texas secede.

These are just a few of the wacky notions the White House has been compelled to formally address in recent weeks, part of an effort to put open government into action: the First Amendment right to petition your government, supercharged for the Internet age.

These are just a few of the wacky notions the White House has been compelled to formally address in recent weeks, part of an effort to put open government into action: the First Amendment right to petition your government, supercharged for the Internet age.

Now, as the Obama administration kicks off its second term, it's upping the threshold for responding to Americans' petitions from 25,000 signatures to 100,000, a reminder that government by the people can sometimes have unintended consequences. In this case, a wildly popular transparency initiative has spawned a headache of the administration's own making.

The idea, announced in 2011, was simple: Engage the public on a range of issues by creating an online platform to petition the White House. Any petition garnering 5,000 signatures within 30 days would get an official review and response, the White House said. Dubbed "We the People," the program was touted as an outgrowth of the "unprecedented level of openness in government" Obama vowed to create in a presidential memorandum issued on his first full day in office in 2009.

The response was overwhelming, and a month later, the Obama administration increased the threshold to 25,000 signatures, calling it "a good problem to have." The White House cautioned at the time that it might not be the last time the rules of the program would be changed. ...

Whether the petition initiative and the official responses will, in the long run, be deemed an effective use of White House resources remains to be seen. Another unknown is whether signing the petitions, aside from giving impassioned citizens a chance to be heard, has any effect on how Obama governs. Many petitions call for actions that Congress, not the president, would have to take.

While 5,000 signatures in 30 days may have been a somewhat low figure for this kind of set-up, 25,000 is not.  Sure, there will some silly suggestions (intentional or not), but the White House could have sloughed that off with good humor.  100,000 in 30 days seems impossibly high.  Yes, some issue with currency (the Connecticut Massacre) got that many signatures in just over a day, but if 25,000 people are concerned about an issue, the White House should take a look-see.  Staff can always refer the issue to Congress, if that is the appropriate venue and announce it is doing so, or it can put forth a reason why the issue will not/cannot be addressed.

The White House has taken a good idea, one that attracted a lot of attention, and bent it until it might very well now be broke.

And that's a shame.

By the way, the official site for this is here.

A Billion Here, A Billion There ...

I can't wait for Tuesday to be over, assuming (of course) that the election will be wrapped up late Tuesday night.  I'm sick of an email box stuffed with fund raising requests.  I'm sick of media telling me dozens of times a day how close the race is, what the polls say, what the polls don't say, and what the campaigns say about polls and their candidates. 

I'm sick of popcorn.

And I'm disgusted, primarily by all the money being thrown around in this election from the top of the ticket on down.  How much money?  Even Open Secrets doesn't know exactly, thanks to Citizens United, but at least that group has a pretty good idea.

The 2012 election will not only be the most expensive election in U.S. history, the cost will tower over the next most expensive election by more than $700 million.

Earlier this year, the Center for Responsive Politics estimated that the 2012 election would cost $5.8 billion -- an estimate that already made it the most expensive in history -- but with less than a week to go before the election, CRP is revising the estimate upwards. According to CRP’s new analysis of Federal Election Commission data, this election will likely cost $6 billion. ...

"In the new campaign finance landscape post-Citizens United, we're seeing historic spending levels spurred by outside groups dominated by a small number of individuals and organizations making exceptional contributions," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.

Not only is the total cost of the election record breaking, but the rate at which spending has increased -- and continues to increase -- in the closing weeks of the election is as well. In particular, outside groups are spending furiously.  Spending by these groups, for and against the two main presidential candidates, has grown from $19 million per week in early September to $33 million per week in early October to $70 million during the week beginning October 21.

 $6 BILLION.

That's a huge chunk of change in this economy, especially when just about all the candidates are wedded to the idea that we need to reduce the deficit.  They differ only on whose ox gets gored and how big the scar is going to be.

$6 BILLION.

And we're not even sure who's floating that kind of money, at least some of it.

What remains unknown -- and may never fully be accounted for -- is how much money secretive “shadow money” organizations spent, with some investing massive sums on ads, but also on unreported and purportedly "non-political" activities, as the election neared. It may take years to determine how much they spent. Furthermore, it likely will never be known who provided the vast majority of this money, which includes at least $203 million in the last two months.

"One thing we can say for certain is that the transparency the Supreme Court relied upon to justify this new framework has been sorely lacking," said Krumholz.

In addition to the spending reported by nonprofits, however, at least $100-200 million more has been spent by these groups on "issue advocacy" that identifies a federal candidate, but was not required to be reported to the FEC. This is of concern because a number of these organizations -- particularly those that have organized since the Citizens United ruling, are spending huge sums and have super PAC counterparts -- are primarily political in nature. More disturbing than the secret spending (some of which can be pieced together based on studies of political ads and will eventually be summarized in tax reports to the Internal Revenue Service), is the secret source of this money. With no requirements to disclose where the money is coming from, voters in 2012 have been left with no real means to judge the credibility of the message or consider any hidden agendas leading those donors to give.   [Emphasis added]

Lewis Carroll would have been so proud.

Me?  Not so much.

 

Cool Tool

The folks at Open Secrets have come up with a dandy new tool to show who is engaged in buying our government.

Today, we at OpenSecrets.org are unveiling our newest tool to track the influence of organizations here in Washington: at-a-glance profiles that tie together the many different types of information the Center for Responsive Politics collects on any given organization, including campaign contributions, lobbying expenses and even how many members of Congress invest in a company. In the past, we've maintained all of this data, but unless an organization qualified as a "heavy hitter," the various pieces of information were found in separate locations.

Now, however, you can get that info on any organization Open Secrets has been tracking (and there are plenty of them) in a handy one-page form. All you have to do is go to the gateway page, which has charts suggesting some of the usual suspects and a search box if you're looking for something specific not listed amongst the "heavy hitters".

For example, I clicked on my favorite target, the Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfgrs of America (PHRMA) and up popped a nifty one-page snapshot which shows how much was spent on lobbying and on which issues/bills, shows how much was spent on campaign contributions and the recipients, and shows the "revolving door" aspect by noting how many lobbyists were former government employees.

This is a great tool if you are as deeply concerned as I am with the way our government operates and who holds the keys. I urge you to play around with this for a little while. I think you'll be surprised.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

The Republicans in the House are having themselves a high old time. Rather than addressing serious issues, they've been play-acting: holding the Attorney General in contempt; passing a bill to repeal "Obamacare;" and, now, going after journalists who publish leaks from government whistle blowers.

Expressing outrage over national security leaks, Republicans on a House Judiciary subcommittee pressed legal experts Wednesday on whether it was possible to prosecute reporters for publishing classified information.

The response was a qualified yes.

"Under certain circumstances, you can see that if someone acting with impunity and knowledge of the consequences goes ahead and publishes it, that is something that I think would be worthy of prosecution and punishment," said Kenneth Wainstein, a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft who specializes in national security.

The hearing of the crime, terrorism and homeland security subcommittee follows publication in recent weeks in the New York Times and other outlets of detailed accounts about cyber warfare, the slaying of Osama bin Laden and alleged "kill lists" maintained for targeting foreign terrorists. ...

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) suggested that the U.S. attorneys subpoena journalists to determine the names of sources who provide classified information.

"Put them in front of the grand jury," Gowdy said. "You either answer the question or you're going to be held in contempt and go to jail, which is what I thought all reporters aspire to do anyway. I thought that was the crown jewel of the reporter's resume to actually go to jail protecting a source." ...

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) said that some leaks revealed abuses, such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. He questioned why Congress should be so concerned about the current leaks when leaks had occurred in every administration.

Instead of looking for ways to go after journalists, the government should be focused on updating outdated laws like the Espionage Act in a way that will protect journalists and government interests, said Bruce Brown, a partner at Baker & Hostetler law firm.

"What's unfortunate is that rather than grappling with this question in a measured, rationale [sic] way, whenever disclosures are in the headlines then lawmakers have a tendency to latch on to this area," Brown said.

What? Approach an issue in a rational way? Oh, please. We're talking Republicans and we're coming up on an election.

To be fair, it's not just Republicans. The administration is none too pleased with the published leaks and it has gone after whistle blowers with a vengeance. But it hasn't so far threatened the journalists who are the recipients of the leaks.

Apparently the message the Republicans are sending to the media is that journalists should stick to what they do best: covering missing white women, shark attacks, and unedited GOP talking points. Straying from those beats will cause problems for everyone.

In other words, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Shiny Keys

I guess there are some weekends I should just stay in bed, covers pulled up over my head. This past weekend was one of those in many respects. David Horsey, in his recent cartoon and commentary, gives one of the chief reasons why. Congressidiot Issa (Stooge, CA) is gunning for Attorney General Eric Holder, hoping to nail him with contempt charges for not cooperating with Congress in spilling his guts on the issue of "Fast and Furious" and the nefarious White House plan on taking away our Second Amendment Rights.

The brouhaha over Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. and the contempt of Congress charge brought by U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) are providing new evidence that the lunatics are running the Republican asylum.

Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, would have us believe President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege in the dispute -- “an eleventh-hour stunt,” he called it on Fox News -- is part of a White House cover up of something much more sinister. ...

Just what is being covered up is not so apparent, at least to objective observers. But less-than-objective right-wing conspiracy theorists have a ready answer: Operation Fast and Furious was part of an elaborate plot to undermine the 2nd Amendment and take away citizens’ guns.

Yup. That's it. They want my guns and your guns and the late Charlton Heston's guns, and everyone else's guns so they can hand the nation over to Islamic Jihadists.

Here's the problem I have, however. I am damned sick and tired of this White House and the White House before it raising the issue of executive privilege whenever there's been a screw-up. I would feel far more comfortable with an executive branch saying that the plan was flawed, was executed poorly with lousy oversight, and we will be doing some serious review with Congress to make sure it never happens again. Instead, the Obama folks, like the Bush folks before them, are taking the position of "Nanny, nanny boo-boo, certainly sucks to be you."

But wait, there's more. Horsey's column appeared on Friday. Issa got to bloviate on Sunday with the bobbleheads. He backed down a little, but not much.

House oversight committee chairman Darrell Issa said Sunday that he has no evidence the White House was involved in what could be a Justice Department "cover up” to contain fallout from the botched “Fast and Furious” operation.

In a series of interviews on the political talk shows, the California Republican repeatedly accused Justice Department officials of lying to Congress about the gun-trafficking sting operation and withholding documents from congressional investigators.

But Issa acknowledged his committee has seen no evidence the White House was involved.

“And I hope that they don’t get involved,” Issa said, speaking on “Fox News Sunday.” “I hope that this stays at Justice, and I hope that Justice cooperates because, ultimately, Justice lied to the American people on Feb. 4, and they didn’t make it right for 10 months.” [Emphasis added]

So, what's going on?

While I admit it's hard to tell when you're dealing with inarticulate illiterates like Darrell Issa, I think Nancy Pelosi just might have it right, even if Horsey somewhat downplays her assessment:

As an answer, House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has her own conspiracy theory. She asserted in her weekly press briefing that the Republicans are gunning for Holder with the clear aim “to undermine the person who is assigned to stop the voter suppression in our country. I’m telling you, this is connected. It is no accident.”

To be honest, I think Pelosi has nailed it in one. Issa and his owners needed some shiny keys as Holder and the DOJ actually filed suit against the Florida voter-list purge ordered by the governor. The contempt citation is the "shiny keys" we are expected to fall for.

Hey! But what do I know. I'm just an old woman sucking on the teat of Social Security. I'll go back to bed now.

Without Questions There Are No Answers

Doyle McManus, of the Los Angeles Times Washington DC Bureau, has a pretty decent column up on the use of drones for targeted assassinations. He's a bit more cautious than I would like, but at least he's talking about the issue.

In recent weeks, a parade of top officials has given sober, underpublicized speeches explaining why President Obama not only considers "targeted killing" drone strikes against terrorists legal but has massively expanded their use, even approving a strike against a U.S. citizen, the New Mexico-born Al Qaeda preacher Anwar Awlaki, in Yemen last year.

Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. gave a lecture arguing that the government has a right to kill U.S. citizens who practice terrorism as long as it observes some form of "due process" in its secret decision-making. The chief lawyers of the State Department and Defense Department weighed in as well. ...

The administration should be applauded for lifting the veil of secrecy even slightly on the drone attacks, which for years weren't even officially acknowledged. (Most of them are still officially covert.) Americans have a right to know how their government makes these decisions. The people living in countries that are being bombed are entitled to an explanation too; we're unlikely to win many hearts and minds solely by buzzing them with drones.

But there is still too much that Brennan and his colleagues aren't divulging. The administration hasn't spelled out who makes the decision to approve a drone strike, or how many levels of review such a decision gets. Brennan said Congress exercises oversight of the operations, but there has been no clear explanation of that process either. And the administration hasn't publicly addressed the practice of "signature strikes" — drone attacks against targets whose identities aren't known but who fit the profile of enemy combatants — except to say they are considered "with similar rigor." [Emphasis added]

OK, Mr. McManus did at least drop a hint (perhaps unintentionally) as to one of the problems I see. We don't know very much about the program because clearly the administration wants it kept from the public and the press has not seen to push the issue. I will admit that the Los Angeles Times has done some decent reporting recently on the issue of drones (e.g., on the their use domestically, see my post here), but as far as I can tell no mainstream media outlet has seen fit to push back after such outrageous comments as Attorney General Holder's comment that such targeted assassinations are "legal" as long as some form of "due process" is used. And in the administration's lexicon, that "due process" involves several layers of government bureaucracy signing off on the attack. No judge, no congressional hearing, just some members of the administration saying, "Yeah, OK, let's get this SOB."

McManus duly notes that most Americans seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of the program. However, since most Americans don't know just what is involved, this is no surprise. Most Americans were in favor of the way we treated detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay until word leaked out on how we, WE AMERICANS, were torturing the crap out of people, many of whom were mistakenly detained. Most Americans didn't see any problem with "water boarding" until it was described in detail. It wasn't until the press did its job that Americans began having second thoughts about the process. Their response was sufficient to cause Candidate Obama to make some promises about torture and Gitmo. Unfortunately, President Obama has forgotten those promises.

Until the press does its job in educating the American public about the program (which this column just barely begins), this administration and the next will feel free to continue it, perhaps even expand it, much as it has expanded the secrecy surrounding so much of "national security."

Doyle McManus's call for more transparency is the right call, but it will only be heard when journalists push hard for that transparency so that the public can also push hard for it once they realize how important that is.

Lift The Rock ...

...and see what skitters out.

We're finally seeing some MSM reporting on ALEC and its effect on governance in this country. Finally. And it's amazing what a little sunshine can do.

First, from McClatchy DC:

At least 30 bills have been introduced in the Missouri statehouse in recent years that are nearly identical to legislation originally written by a conservative organization whose membership includes some of the country’s largest corporations.

A study released Monday by the liberal group Progress Missouri purported to detail how the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, has “exerted extraordinary and secretive influence in the Missouri legislature and other states.”

Nearly 50 current and former legislators in the Show-Me State have ties to ALEC, including House Speaker Steven Tilley, House Majority Leader Tim Jones and Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer. ...

To encourage attendance at their conferences, where the work drafting model legislation is done, ALEC offers “scholarships” to members to pay for transportation, hotel and meals. In addition to working groups that actually craft the organization’s model legislation, lawmakers are treated to corporate-sponsored events, such as golf tournaments and evening receptions. [Emphasis added]

So, for a paltry $50, state legislators get invited for an all-expenses paid trip to, say, New Orleans for a weekend of legislative training, golf, and booze. They go home with the bills proposed already written for them. All they have to do is introduce them. Voter suppression bills, anti-environmental regulation bills, anti-union bills, guns-for-everybody-all-the-time bills: all tied up in a neat package for them. No additional effort required.

And then the Trayvon Martin case hit the national consciousness, along with the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida, a law which has been replicated in many other states. Suddenly people started paying attention.

From an editorial in the New York Times:

A year ago, few people outside the world of state legislatures had heard of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a four-decade-old organization run by right-wing activists and financed by business leaders. The group writes prototypes of state laws to promote corporate and conservative interests and spreads them from one state capital to another.

That was before Trayvon Martin was shot. Here's what happened after:

That was apparently the last straw for several prominent corporations that had been financial supporters of ALEC. In recent weeks, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Intuit, Mars, Kraft Foods, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have stopped supporting the group, responding to pressure from activists and consumers who have formed a grass-roots counterweight to corporate treasuries. That pressure is likely to continue as long as state lawmakers are more responsive to the needs of big donors than the public interest. ...

The corporations abandoning ALEC aren’t explicitly citing the Stand Your Ground statutes as the reason for their decision. But many joined the group for narrower reasons, like fighting taxes on soda or snacks, and clearly have little interest in voter ID requirements or the N.R.A.’s vision of a society where anyone can fire a concealed weapon at the slightest hint of a threat. [Emphasis added]

And ALEC has noticed. From The Nation (via Susie Madrak):

Pressured by watchdog groups, civil rights organizations and a growing national movement for accountable lawmaking, the American Legislative Exchange Council announced Tuesday that it was disbanding the task force that has been responsible for advancing controversial Voter ID and “Stand Your Ground” laws.

ALEC, the shadowy corporate-funded proponent of so-called “model legislation” for passage by pliant state legislatures, announced that it would disband its “Public Safety and Elections” task force. The task force has been the prime vehicle for proposing and advancing what critics describe as voter-suppression and anti-democratic initiatives—not just restrictive Voter ID laws but also plans to limit the ability of citizens to petition for referendums and constitutional changes that favor workers and communities. The task force has also been the source of so-called “Castle Doctrine” and “Stand Your Ground” laws that limit the ability of police and prosecutors to pursue inquiries into shootings of unarmed individuals such as Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.

The decision to disband the task force appears to get ALEC out of the business of promoting Voter ID and “Stand Your Ground” laws. That’s a dramatic turn of events, with significant implications for state-based struggles over voting rights an elections, as well as criminal justice policy. But it does not mean that ALEC will stop promoting one-size-fits-all “model legislation” at the state level. [Emphasis added]

While seeing the scurrying by major corporations and even ALEC itself away from the voter suppression law and "Stand Your Ground Laws" is heartening, the caveat at the end of the above quoted material is important. ALEC will continue facilitating the secret meetings between corporations and state legislators, even if the more flammable subjects are off the table. Unless the media and citizens continue to raise hell over this blatant attempt to run state governments in a mode contrary to the interests of citizens, things will go along as usual.

Like I said, a little sunshine can cure all sorts of evils. That's why a truly free press is important.

Super Secret Committee

Because Congress couldn't play nice in the traditional manner, someone came up with the idea of putting together a "Super Committee," one that would be bipartisan and would find a way to reduce the federal deficit. Congress then decided to give it "Super Powers" by which any consensus reached by the committee would be entitled to an up-or-down vote without debate. Congress also gave it an additional power:

The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is a 12-member, bipartisan panel that has been meeting,mostly in secret, to devise a proposal to cut deficits by as much as $1.5 trillion over the decade. The committee was created from the summer debt ceiling deal, and has wide-ranging authority but a short window to accomplish its task. [Emphasis added]

That's right, the committee work is being done in secret. We don't know what is being considered for remedies to the economic miasma, we don't know what exact input is being given the committee or from whom, and we won't know until a bill is reported out. It's bad enough that a committee has been created with extra-constitutional powers of any kind, but that it is allowed to operate in secret is horrendous.

On the somewhat brighter side, we won't have to wait long.

...The committee has until Nov. 23 to vote on a proposal. If a committee majority passes the proposal, it would be presented to Congress for an up-or-down vote, with no amendments, by Dec. 23. By January, the committee, by law, disbands..

So much for a transparent government. This doesn't even rate one cheer for democracy.

Exceptional

Watching America had a more diverse menu this week, but the WikiLeaks stories continue to pop up across the world press. People around the world are watching to see just what the US does to punish Julian Assange for his temerity. What was interesting to me is that many of the articles recognize the role the First Amendment to the US Constitution plays in this.

There are several articles worth perusing (which is why I included the link to Watching America's home page), but the one I was intrigued by came from Germany's Süddeutsche Zeitung.

The Obama administration is desperately trying to put WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on trial. The White House should back away from that idea as soon as possible. Public reaction to an indictment would be disastrous.

The desire to teach someone a lesson isn’t a valid basis for a fair trial, and slick tricks are unbecoming to a constitutional government. That’s why the Obama administration should back away from any plan to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for aiding and abetting the illegal transfer of classified documents.

If Reymer Klüver, the author of the op-ed, is referring to the US public when he uses the term "public reaction," I think he will be disappointed. Most Americans have no clue as to the basis for the whole kerfuffle, although major news outlets in this country are trying to educate them on the fly as to the nature and the importance of the First Amendment. That said, I think many in the rest of the world get it and get the hypocrisy of the Obama administration in grasping for ways to punish Julian Assange so that international public reaction might indeed be disastrous.

Klüver also has some advice to the US with respect to how to avoid some of the problems attendant to the release of classified information. That advice is nothing new or startling, and it only addresses things at the most basic level, but apparently the Obama White House needs some rudimentary education:

Of course, the United States can’t afford to have its secret documents flooding into the public marketplace en masse. But it should address that situation by improving its intelligence procedures, not by trying to put together a questionable legal maneuver.

In other words, quit classifying every document that might be embarrassing as secret, and quit employing tens of thousands of people to manage those documents.

Not rocket science, you know.

Look! The Emperor Has No Clothes

I guess I won't have to perform my weekly trek to Watching America. The New York Times did it for me. The "Gray Lady," which is one of the papers publishing the latest round of WikiLeaks, surveyed the major European newspapers for their coverage of the hysterical response of the United States to the leaked diplomatic cables and to Julian Assange.

The summaries provided by the New York Times are concise and quite useful. While some of the European papers point out that the contents of the leaks are fairly harmless and in fact show a diplomatic corps trying to do its job fairly and responsibly, and others note the importance of some secrecy on delicate subjects, many of the cited articles emphasize the heavy-handed hypocrisy of the US government in trying to shut down the flow of information whenever that information might embarrass the government.

Here are just two of those summaries:

For Seumas Milne of The Guardian in London, which like The New York Times has published the latest WikiLeaks trove, the official American reaction “is tipping over toward derangement.” Most of the leaks are of low-level diplomatic cables, he noted, while concluding: “Not much truck with freedom of information, then, in the land of the free.”

John Naughton, writing in the same British paper, deplored the attack on the openness of the Internet and the pressure on companies like Amazon and eBay to evict the WikiLeaks site. “The response has been vicious, coordinated and potentially comprehensive,” he said, and presents a “delicious irony” that “it is now the so-called liberal democracies that are clamoring to shut WikiLeaks down.” [Note: the NYT provides links to the various articles.]

The New York Times has done a good job in this article, just as it has been doing a good job in presenting the WikiLeaks materials. That "freedom of information" is an integral part of our democracy, and it is imperative that our press promote the free flow of that information.

The story this time is not so much the contents of the WikiLeaks but the horrendous response of the US government. It's absolutely necessary that our press push back, and push back hard to keep the information flowing.

Leakage

Blogspot still won't publish the post, so with the help of a good friend, we worked around blogspot. I know the print is tiny, but if you click on each section, it will, hopefully, enlarge.

There's something foul afoot.

The Right To Know

I went to Watching America yesterday looking for something specific, but had one of those serendipitous moments in which what I found was so much better that I don't even remember what my initial search was for. This article in China's Ifeng explores a concept which we tend to take for granted, that of our right to know just what our government is doing.

We tend to think of the right to know as a peculiarly American ideal, but, as this opinion piece points out, it's a right that all people deserve and one that many governments espouse. President Hu of China listed it first on a list of four basic rights. Now, while the leader of China may just have been paying lip service to that right, at least he acknowledged its importance.

Here in the US, that right is enshrined in the Freedom of Information Act, a law which was enacted during President Lyndon Johnson's administration. The law was obviously not a big hit with members of his administration, especially those working in the Pentagon. It still isn't. It's tough to pry information out of any agency, especially when secrecy is cloaked in "security" needs. Dogged journalists still find ways to get enough information to inform the public if they are tenacious enough. And that is what this article is ultimately about.

...don’t be mistaken — the right to know, as an important democratic principle and a civil right, was not freely given to the people by the Constitution — at least not in England, France or America. ...

America started to legally recognize the people’s right to know when the Freedom of Information Act was passed in 1966 and took effect in 1967. President Lyndon Johnson, the president who signed the law, praised the law, saying that it showed that the United States "values highly the right of the people to know how their government is operating."

The passage of this law created an entirely different situation compared to how this issue was previously handled. ...

The inspiration that I drew from the American federal government and its people’s movement toward the right to know is that in order to gain the trust of its citizens, the government cannot rely solely on its “benevolent policy.” It has to rely on the law. The government has to make sure that there are laws to follow, and the laws must be followed. As for the public, it is not enough that the laws exist. People have to use the laws to counter the government actions and use the laws to protect themselves. [Emphasis added]

Like any muscle, this right has to be exercised constantly if it is to maintain its usefulness and purpose. Journalists and citizens themselves have to constantly request full information, not just the partial, heavily redacted mess that the government tends to send out until the lawsuits make it too embarrassing not to comply. Only in this way can citizens protect themselves from government over-reaching.

The reason why President Hu put the right to know above the other three rights is not because it is the most important right. It is because in modern, civilized society, without the right to know, people cannot truly have their right to participate, their right to express or their right to oversee the government’s actions. How can you participate when you know nothing? How can you express freely when you are kept in the dark? How can you oversee the government’s actions when you as a citizen don’t even know what the government is doing?

Precisely.

And well said.

We Are Neither Suprised ...

... nor amused.

One of the changes promised by candidate Barack Obama was a return to transparency in government. His White House, however, hasn't shown much in that regard. The latest evidence of the opacity comes in a rather startling McClatchy DC article posted yesterday.

Government scientists wanted to tell Americans early on how bad the BP oil spill could get, but the White House denied their request to make the worst-case models public, a report by the staff of the national panel investigating the spill said Wednesday.

White House officials denied that they tried to suppress the information.

The allegation was made by unnamed government officials cited in a staff working paper released Wednesday by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. Although not a final report, it could raise questions over whether the Obama administration tried to minimize the extent of the BP oil spill, the worst man-made environmental disaster in U.S. history.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), tasked "to coordinate and review all interagency materials developed in response to the BP oil spill," denied a request to present the worst case scenario as part of a modeling analysis. OMB staff indicated that the denial was based on scientific factors, not public relations.

Yeah, and I'm the Queen of Romania.

The government knew from the start what the worst case scenario was: BP itself listed a potential for 162,000 barrels a day in its drilling permit, yet that figure was withheld during the early weeks of the spill. Instead, the government went along with BP's estimates of 1,000-5,000 per day and little was done early on to force more dramatic action in containing the spill. It was only when it became patently obvious that the spill rate far exceeded the BP figures that the White House started paying attention to the tragedy unfolding.

The staff paper said that underestimating the flow rates "undermined public confidence in the federal government's response" by creating the impression that the government was either incompetent or untrustworthy. The paper said that the loss of trust "fuels public fears." [Emphasis added]

You think maybe?

The whole episode reminds me of the last Gulf tragedy when another president rose to the occasion by stating, "Heckuva job, Brownie."

Same Song, Different Singer

So much for the return to transparency in government promised by candidate Barack Obama. President Obama is having none of that, particularly when it comes to health care reform, as this Los Angeles Times story points out.

Invoking an argument used by President George W. Bush, the Obama administration has turned down a request from a watchdog group for a list of health industry executives who have visited the White House to discuss the massive healthcare overhaul.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Secret Service asking about visits from 18 executives representing health insurers, drug makers, doctors and other players in the debate. The group wants the material in order to gauge the influence of those executives in crafting a new healthcare policy.

The Secret Service sent a reply stating that documents revealing the frequency of such visits were considered presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws. The agency also said it was advised by the Justice Department that the Secret Service was within its rights to withhold the information because of the "presidential communications privilege."

The presidential communications privilege? Shades of Dick Cheney! Remember those meetings on energy to which only oil company executives were invited? This sounds remarkably like the same scenario.

Now, it is entirely possible that insurance company executives and health care providers were called to the White House for a little old fashioned jawboning, but if that is the case, then the President should have no reason to keep such information secret. To invoke the excuses of the last administration does nothing more than add legitimacy to the concept of the Unitary President, a concept which was rejected in the last election because that concept upends the ideal of a government with three co-equal branches, and, even worse, it disenfranchises the electorate. That is intolerable, so intolerable that the country swept the Republicans out of office.

I am not really interested in knowing what the President is having for dinner, but I am interested in knowing who he is conferring with when it comes to dealing with such issues as health care access. I may be just a commoner, but I, along with several hundred million other Americans, hold the title to the White House. If Mr. Obama is unwilling to keep crucial campaign promises, then he is just another politician, one whom I will be happy to evict from his current address for failing to pay the rent when the opportunity arises.

Enough.

Well, Bravo!

To my complete surprise but absolute relief, the center-left editorial board of the Los Angeles Times got it totally right with respect to releasing the photographs depicting US torture of detainees.

While acknowledging that the photos will inflame both our friends and our enemies, the editorial makes it clear that if we are ever to move past the shame of the past eight years, this country must come clean and admit to the horrors our military and intelligence agencies committed. Releasing those photos, as ordered by a trial judge and appellate court, is an important part of that process, even if in the short run the move will raise the danger level.

It's terrible that the president was faced with such an unpalatable choice, but it's just one of the many awful results of the culture of torture and lawlessness put in place by the Bush administration. This country has already alienated allies and seen its moral standing crumble. Now, as we try to get to the bottom of what happened during those years, we have to acknowledge that doing so might put us in further danger. ...

Photographs are part of the historical record. Think of these images: black men hanging from trees in the American South; emaciated concentration camp survivors; prisoners shackled into cramped "tiger cages" in South Vietnam. Would this be a better world without those photos?

Trying to cover up atrocities because someone might be angry isn't right and won't work. Instead, the Pentagon should release the photos while making it clear that the U.S. repudiates such barbaric behavior and is committed to dismantling the culture that allowed it to occur. [Emphasis added]

Exactly so. Acknowledging the shame we should be feeling at those atrocities is very much a part of the process of "moving forward." To hide the details belies the promise of a new culture, one which is humane, law abiding, and (above all) transparent.

I am grateful to the Los Angeles Times for taking this bold and very necessary stance, so grateful that I am going to pick up a paper copy of today's paper, clip the editorial and mail it to the White House with a quarter taped to the bottom. My message will be brief:

"Here, Mr. President. Now go buy a clue."

Sunshine

Last week was Sunshine Week, a national effort by media organizations to promote openness in government. I knew about it only because the Sacramento Bee had a couple of editorials on the issue as it pertains to the California State government. One of those editorials decried the fact that even though state regulations require agencies to post pertinent information on web sites, those sites are incomplete and difficult to navigate, increasing the opacity.

At this critical time in the state's history, when the public is being asked to pay higher taxes, it's especially important for the state and local governments to be transparent. Before voters approve measures to give the state more money, they want to know how their money is being spent and to what effect. That information is in databases the public pays to maintain.

Open government is not just a benefit for reporters in pursuit of news stories. It's an essential element for all citizens of a healthy democracy. Through freedom of information laws, everyone has a right to find out how government is working and to hold public officials accountable.

The editorial sets forth nicely just what state sunshine laws are all about. The problem at the federal level, however, is more complicated because of a system of classification now run amok. The New York Times published an editorial yesterday (which may have been a belated nod to Sunshine Week) which lambastes the hiding of information by agencies through spurious designations which imply that the information must be restricted in its dissemination for security reasons.

By last count, the federal government employs 107 different categories of restricted information — one off-limits category zanily pronounces, “sensitive but unclassified.” This muddle of mislabeling seems designed not to protect legitimate secrets but to empower bureaucrats. The end result has been to greatly blunt the Freedom of Information Act’s mandate to let the public in on the business of government, plain and simple.

The House has just approved a measure to end this plague of pseudoclassification. Its backers say it is not just a boon for the public, but an attempt to promote “a common language within government.” There are so many taboos that agencies are even having trouble understanding one another’s rubber-stamp restrictions. ...

According to the bill’s sponsor, Representative Steve Driehaus, Democrat of Ohio, there were 362,000 F.O.I.A. requests last year, and almost a third of them still remain to be processed because of overclassification. The bill requires classifiers to be trained for the task and to put their IDs on what they deem out of bounds, subject to inspector general review.

While the St. Peter Principle ("give a janitor a key and he thinks he's St. Peter") may be at work, the last administration relied on such secrecy to promote its own agendas. It is no wonder that so many F.O.I.A. requests remain unanswered. That was the intention. There is no telling at this point just how our government was subverted to enrich some favored campaign contributers or to gut regulations designed to protect the health and welfare of the citizens. We may never know if the current administration persists in its view that it is better to look forward than to actually learn from the past. That's why this proposal is so very necessary.

Congressman Driehaus's bill, HR 1323, has been passed by the House, received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. If one of your senators serves on that committee, make a call and urge him or her to pass it out of committee to the entire Senate for a vote.

Then the rest of us need to get our typing and dialing fingers busy to make sure the bill becomes law.