Stossel interviews Ron Paul – Ask ABC to air it Part IV (video)

So harsh! ~ Lo

Dandelion Salad

replaced video

John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul 2007.12.07 part 4

peacespeech

John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul on Amnesty, Immigration 2007.12.05
original location: http://www.abcnews.go.com/2…

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul 2007…“, posted with vodpod

see

John Stossel interviews Ron Paul – ABC Afraid to put it on TV Part I (video)

John Stossel interviews Ron Paul – ABC Afraid to put it on TV Part II (video)

Stossel interviews Ron Paul – Ask ABC to air it Part III (video)

Stossel interviews Ron Paul – Ask ABC to air it Part V (video)

Hutto: A Private For-Profit Prison with Children! (video)

NPR Iowa Public Radio Democratic Debate (audio link) + Iran Sparks Fireworks

Fact-Checking Dobbs: CNN Anchor Lou Dobbs Challenged on Immigration Issues (link)

Kucinich at the Heartland Presidential Forum (videos) + Kucinich ‘connects’ with everyday citizens at massive Iowa Presidential forum

Unfortunately Racism Is Alive And Well And Hiding Out On The US Mexican Border by Guadamour

Virtual Folly Along the Border by Guadamour

Bill Moyers talks with Manuel A. Vásquez (video link; immigration)

Advertisements

Bush League Justice: Signing Statements (video)

King George.  ~ Lo

Dandelion Salad

heathr234

Dan Abrams gives his report on the Bush’administration’s use of signing statements in order to ignore laws that Congress has passed. Charlie Savage and Johnathon Turley weigh in.

see

Dershowitz on Waterboarding – A blatant expansion of state power By Mike Whitney

Bush’s Impeachable Crimes and the Threat of Martial Law by Dave Lindorff (audio)

Signing Statements

Executive Privilege

Olbermann: Overlooking Oversight + Bushed + Worst + From The Top Drown (videos)

Dandelion Salad

Ryokibin

Dec. 11, 2007

Overlooking Oversight

Keith talks with Tim Roemer.

Bushed

Habeas Corpus-Gate, Air-Gate and NIE-Gate

Worst Person

Worse: Isiah Thomas; Worser: Sean Hannity; Worst: Tony Perkins

From The Top Drown 

Keith talks with Howard Fineman about the Trail of Torture.

Victim – Gang-Rape Cover-Up

Keith talks with Sam Seder.

Halliburton rape Allegations ignored. This is just horrible. To hear even if it is true that no one will be brought up on charges in either Iraq or the US is just disturbing.

see

Bush’s Assault On Habeas Corpus By Paul Craig Roberts

Dershowitz on Waterboarding – A blatant expansion of state power By Mike Whitney

Dandelion Salad

By Mike Whitney
12/11/07 “ICH

Alan Dershowitz is a skillful debater, a capable attorney, and and a ferocious defender of Israel. He is also a Harvard professor and a former member of OJ Simpson’s legal defense called the Dream Team.

An article by Dershowitz appeared on op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal on Novemeber 7, 2007, titled “Democrats and Waterboarding”. In that article Dershowitz makes a spirited defense of waterboarding, going so far as to say that (he believes) the Democrats “will lose the presidential race if it defines itself as soft on terror.” Dershowitz thinks the Democrats are headed for trouble if they assume the “pacifistic stance” that he identifies with Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore. By using Moore and Sheehan as examples; it is clear that Dershowitz accepts the media’s attempts to dismiss them as part of an imaginary “leftist fringe”.

Instead, Dershowitz holds up ex-New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani as an example of a candidate whose popularity has steadily grown because of his “tough” stance on national security issues. Dershowitz uses the “national security” hobgoblin in the same way as Bush; to justify government activities that conflict with our existing laws and basic principles. It is a neat bit of lawyerly footwork, but unconvincing.

In Dershowitz’s defense, it is true that he does not approve of “the routine use of torture”, but only in the rare situation when it might be useful in gaining “ preventive intelligence information about imminent acts of terrorism–the so-called “ticking bomb” scenario.” But, who decides? Do we bestow this authority on men who have already proven to be untrustworthy—on men who have already created an industrial scale system of torture in black sites around the world? Who do we trust with these new powers?

And how do we know when a so-called “terrorist suspect” is a terrorist at all? Are we being asked to forgo due process and the presumption of innocence along with our revulsion to cruel and inhuman treatment?

Dershowitz’s loves to use the “ticking time-bomb” scenario and trots it out at every opportunity. It is a very persuasive argument, until one really examines the implications. Jose Padilla was supposedly a “ticking time-bomb”, wasn’t he? According to the earliest public statements by the Bush administration, Padilla had smuggled a nuclear device or “dirty bomb” into the country and was planning to use it in a terrorist attack against American civilians. But it wasn’t true. The government had fabricated the entire story and kept him in prison without charges for over 4 years on claims that were manifestly false. The Bush administration has never offered an explanation for their lies.

Padilla’s attorney has produced convincing evidence that he was repeatedly tortured in prison and was, thus, driven insane. And for what? The government knew that he was not involved in a terrorist plot to kill Americans. Under Dershowitz’s regime, Padilla’s treatment would be entirely justified. Is that what we want?

The “ticking time-bomb” argument is a way of challenging our core values. It’s a test. It’s like asking, “How much are we really willing to sacrifice for the sake of our beliefs? Are we willing to risk our lives and the lives of the people we love ?” Or are we ready to “throw in the towel” and hand the government even greater and more lethal powers hoping that they’ll keep us safe?

Dershowitz says, “I am personally opposed to the use of torture.” But that is not true. If he is opposed to torture then how does he explain his support for “torture warrants”? The two are mutually exclusive.

In Dershowitz’s book, “Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age,” he says:

“No torture would be permitted without a “torture warrant” being issued by a judge….An application for a torture warrant would have to be based on the absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it….The warrant would limit the torture to nonlethal means, such as sterile needles, being inserted beneath the nails to cause excruciating pain without endangering life.”

It’s shocking that a respected author and attorney would actually qualify the type of needles (“sterile”) that can be used while conducting torture. Can we see how outrageous this is?

The excerpt proves that Dershowitz advocates torture. The support for “torture warrants” is support torture. Period. It doesn’t matter if the torture is limited to extreme cases or not. It’s barbarism. More importantly, it is barbarism that is vindicated by the state.

Dershowitz has been defending his position on torture for more than 4 years. Here are his comments in 2002 from the op-ed page of the SF Chronicle:

“If American law enforcement officers were ever to confront the law school hypothetical case of the captured terrorist who knew about an imminent attack but refused to provide the information necessary to prevent it, I have absolutely no doubt that they would try to torture the terrorists into providing the information.

Moreover, the vast majority of Americans would expect the officers to engage in that time-tested technique for loosening tongues, notwithstanding our unequivocal treaty obligation never to employ torture, no matter how exigent the circumstances.” (“Want to Torture; Get a Warrant”, SF Chronicle 2002)

Dershowitz is mistaken. According to every survey conducted in the last 5 years, the majority of American people are overwhelming opposed to torture and-–I dare say—they are equally opposed to cops who take the law into their own hands and “engage in that time-tested technique for loosening tongues.” What Dershowitz is suggesting here is deadly serious and paves the way for routine abuses of power and police brutality. It is a wonder that the Bar hasn’t stepped in and chastised him for his public stance on this issue.

Dershowitz’s logic is also flawed. His argument can be reduced to this: “The cops are going to torture anyway, so let’s give them the green light by providing them with “torture warrants”? Isn’t that what he is saying?

This is from the same article:

“Every democracy, including our own, has employed torture outside of the law….Throughout the years, police officers have tortured murder and rape suspects into confessing — sometimes truthfully, sometimes not truthfully.”

Again, this is poorly argued. Dershowitz is using the same feeble defense that schoolchildren use when they’re caught breaking the rules: “Everyone else was doing it.” That is not an acceptable defense for torture.

Finally, Dershowitz offers this threadbare excuse for waterboarding:

“There are some who claim that torture is a nonissue because it never works—it only produces false information. This is simply not true,as evidenced by the many decent members of the French Resistance who, under Nazi torture, disclosed the locations of their closest friends and relatives.”

Dershowitz is invoking the classic “ends justifies the means” defense, but not very cogently. What difference does it make if the information that is extracted through “physical coercion” is of some utility or not if the system you are trying to defend has been obliterated by your actions? It doesn’t require a finger-wagging patriot or a moralizing scold to see that state-sanctioned torture means the end of the republic. There is no such thing as “legal torture”. It is a contradiction in terms. Torture is an assault on the fundamental rights of man and the rule of law. It is one of “red lines” that we don’t cross because on the other side is tyranny.

There are certain basic assumptions upon which our country was founded and the entire legal and political system rests. These are our core beliefs; they are not facts. That’s why the preamble of the Constitution reads: “We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT” because the founders posited that these beliefs did not require proof among civilized people. Among those “assumptions” is the idea of “inalienable rights” and the intrinsic value of man. Inalienable rights can’t be casually swept away by a presidential signing statement or a congressional edict legalizing “torture warrants” any more than the Congress can haphazardly repeal habeas corpus by passing the Military Commissions Act. That’s beyond their “pay grade”. These officials weren’t elected to rewrite the Constitution, but “ to preserve, protect and defend” it to the best of their ability. These core principles cannot be changed without destroying the country itself.

Is that the hidden agenda here; to reshape the nation according to an ethos that is more disposed to autocratic government?

The Constitution isn’t a security blanket. If we want to minimize the number of terrorist attacks on American citizens or US institutions; we should stop using war as an implement of foreign policy. As Noam Chomsky says, “The best way to stop terrorism; is stop committing it.” That’s good advice. We ought to put that on a billboard in front of the White House so the occupants can mull it over every day on their way to work.

Dershowitz’s ruminations on waterboarding offer nothing constructive as far as national security is concerned. It just more demagoguery.

I agree with Dershowitz that “waterboarding cannot be decided in the abstract.” Nor has it been. It has been thoroughly researched and condemned under the Geneva Conventions, the US military, and every human rights organization on earth. The issue has already been decided. It is torture, pure and simple, and no amount of legalistic gibberish changes a thing.

There’s another reason for rejecting torture besides the fact that it is morally abhorrent, or because it conflicts with our reading of the Constitution, or even because it abrogates the presumption of innocence, due process, the right to attorney, habeas corpus and every other principle to which we claim to adhere.

The real reason that torture should be rejected is because it confers more authority on the state than is prudent for the safety and welfare of “We the people”. The state is now—and has always been—the greatest threat to human rights and civil liberties. That’s truer today–in our post 9-11 world–than ever before. The state is the natural enemy of personal freedom.

Dershowitz’s polemic has nothing to do with his alleged interest in the security of the American people. That’s hogwash. It is an attempt to expand the authority of the state by softening public attitudes towards torture. It’s a blatant power-grab, pure and simple; and should be repudiated by anyone who grasps its true meaning.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Why We Resist By Chris Hedges

by Chris Hedges
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
TruthDig.com
Dec. 11, 2007

The refusal to pay my taxes if we go to war with Iran, and the portion of my taxes spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if we do not cut off funding for these two conflicts, is not a means. It is an end. I do not know if my refusal, and the refusal of others, will be effective in halting these wars. All I know is that it is worth doing. The alternative, a complacency bred from cynicism and despair, is worse. Refusing to actively resist injustice and flagrant violations of international law, refusing to attempt to turn back the tide of American tyranny, is surrender. It is the death of hope.

Acts of resistance are moral acts. They begin because people of conscience can no longer tolerate abuse and despotism. They are carried out not because they are effective but because they are right. Those who begin these acts are few in number and dismissed by the cynics who hide their fear behind their worldliness. Resistance is about affirming life in a world awash in death. It is the supreme act of faith, the highest form of spirituality.

[…]

via TruthDig.com

Copyright © 2007 Truthdig

Bush’s Assault On Habeas Corpus By Paul Craig Roberts

Dandelion Salad

By Paul Craig Roberts
December 10, 2007

The US Supreme Court has taken up the issue whether the executive branch can detain people indefinitely merely by declaring them to be suspected terrorists or illegal enemy combatants.

The case is a habeas corpus issue and, therefore, of the utmost importance. Without the protection of habeas corpus, government can lock away anyone on the basis of unsubstantiated charges as the Guantanamo detainees have been for nearly six years.

Reporting on the Court’s deliberations about Odah v. US and Boumediene v. Bush, Tom Curry, a national affairs writer for MSNBC, reports that Justice Stephen Breyer suggested to US Solicitor General Paul Clement that the executive branch could indefinitely hold people such as those in Guantanamo prison if Congress were to pass “some special statute involving preventive detention and danger, which has not yet been enacted.” [Is Breyer floating a Guantanamo solution? December 6, 2007 [PDF of oral argument, P. 54]

According to Curry, senators Dianne Feinstein and Arlen Specter regard a preventive detention statute as a possibility worth considering.

Pray that Curry has misunderstood Breyer. A different interpretation of Breyer’s remarks is that the justice was telling Bush’s solicitor general that, in the absence of a preventive detention statute, there is no legal basis for holding the detainees. If there were such a statute, the case before the court would be its constitutionality.

Support for the latter interpretation comes from House Judiciary Committee member Jerrold Nadler (D.-NY). Rep. Nadler thinks Breyer was merely “thinking out loud,” not “floating an idea” and inviting Congress to pass an unconstitutional statute. Nadler believes that Breyer was telling Clement that, as there is not even a preventive detention statute, the executive branch has no basis for holding the Gitmo detainees.

That Feinstein, Specter, Jon Kyl, and other US senators think it is “worth considering” for Congress to overturn habeas corpus, the greatest bulwark against tyranny, indicates how much the US constitutional tradition has been lost.

The importance of the case seems to be completely over the heads of the media, who appear to be looking for a technical solution that permits people accused without evidence to be held forever. The American press apparently believes that the US government can make no mistake or behave improperly and that the detainees actually comprise, in Senator Kyl’s words, “a danger to our troops.”

It is a “danger” that the Bush regime has been unable to prove even with torture and secret evidence. Half of the detainees have had to be released. According to news reports, the regime has been able to create cases against only 14 of those remaining. After all the years of illegal detention, harsh treatment, and denial of access to attorneys, the Bush regime has come up with 14 cases, and they are probably fabricated.

Where is the rule of law when hundreds of people can have years stolen from their lives?

It is uncertain how the court will decide the case. Bush’s solicitor general has told the justices that they should trust the executive branch to correctly balance “the interests of the prisoners” with the administration’s ability to “prosecute the global war on terror.”

In other words, it is Waco all over again. The executive branch runs roughshod over the US Constitution and then demands, “trust us”, which means don’t take away any of the illegitimate power that the executive branch has claimed and exercised or hold anyone accountable for abusing executive power.

Unfortunately for the future of liberty in America, a number of the Republican justices see the issue as one of the separation of powers. The Republican justices or most of them are, or were, members of the Federalist Society, an organization of Republican lawyers committed to increased power for the executive. These Republican justices will be inclined to decide the case in the interest of executive power.

The Federalist Society is a product of a past time when Republicans were said to have “a lock on the presidency” but could not get their agenda into law because the Democrats had a lock on Congress. Republican frustrations manifested themselves in attempts to heighten the president’s powers so that a Republican agenda could prevail over a Democratic Congress.

Like generals who fight the last war, the Federalist Society is stuck in its assault on the separation of powers in the interest of “energy in the executive.”

Many Federalist Society members join for social reasons and for networking, as the society provides the pool of attorneys for Republican appointments to the federal bench and for Department of Justice appointees. Many members mistakenly think that the society stands for original intent, but as their real interest is career-driven, they don’t pay much attention to the society’s assault on the US Constitution.

Kings exercised the power to throw into dungeons people who offended them or whom they regarded as a threat. Once arrested, a person could be locked up forever without charges or evidence brought before a court.

Habeas corpus was an English invention that provides quick release of a person unlawfully held by orders of the executive.

The Bush Regime has made the most determined assault the Anglo-American world has seen on the principle of habeas corpus. The previous assault was by Stuart kings, who destroyed their rule by proclaiming the “divine right of kings.”

Now Americans are faced with Bush/Cheney and the solicitor general of the US Department of Justice (sic), Paul Clement, proclaiming the divine right of President Bush and his Justice (sic) Department.

We must all pray that there are not enough Federalist Society members on the Supreme Court to uphold a Benthamite ruling of preventive detention.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was the Englishman who renewed the assault on liberty, which centuries of English reforms had created. Bentham believed that tyranny was no longer a problem, because people were empowered by democracy to control the government. He argued that any restraint placed on government’s powers would limit the ability of government to do good. To protect citizens from crime, Bentham favored preventive arrest of everyone whose social class, bone structure or other chosen indicator suggested a proclivity toward crime. The greatest good for the greatest number.”

The Bush regime is comprised of modern day Benthamites. Their agenda is to overthrow the civil liberties that make law a shield of the people instead of a weapon in the hands of the state.

As anyone can be declared a suspect, the weapons that Bush would use to fight “the global war on terror” would soon be turned on the American people.

Without habeas corpus, there is no liberty.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Bombed if you do, Bombed if you Don’t By Ron Paul

Dandelion Salad

By Ron Paul
12/11/07 “ICH

The latest National Intelligence Estimate has been greeted by a mixture of relief and alarm. As I have been saying all along, Iran indeed poses no quantifiable imminent nuclear threat to us or her neighbors. It is with much alarm, however, that we see the administration continue to ratchet up the war rhetoric as if nothing has changed.

Indeed nothing has changed from the administration’s perspective, as they have had this latest intelligence report for some time. Only this week has it been made known to the public. They want it both ways with Iran. On the one hand, they discredit the report entirely, despite it being one of the most comprehensive intelligence reports on the subject, with over 1,000 source notes in the document. On the other hand, when discrediting it fails, they claim that the timing of the abandonment of the weapons program, just as we were invading Iraq, means our pressure must have worked, so we must keep it up with a new round of even tougher sanctions. Russia and China are not buying this, apparently, and again we are finding ourselves on a lonely tenuous platform on the world stage.

The truth is Iran is being asked to do the logically impossible feat of proving a negative. They are being presumed guilty until proven innocent because there is no evidence with which to indict them. There is still no evidence that Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has ever violated the treaty’s terms – and the terms clearly state that Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful, civilian energy needs. The United States cannot unilaterally change the terms of the treaty, and it is unfair and unwise diplomatically to impose sanctions for no legitimate reason.

Are we to think that Iran hasn’t noticed the duplicitous treatment being received by so-called nuclear threats around the globe? If they have been paying attention, and I think they have, they would see that if countries do have a nuclear weapon, they tend to be left alone, or possibly get a subsidy, but if they do not gain such a weapon then we threaten them. Why wouldn’t they want to pursue a nuclear weapon if that is our current foreign policy? The fact remains, there is no evidence they actually have one, or could have one any time soon, even if they immediately resumed a weapons program.

Our badly misguided foreign policy has already driven this country’s economy to the brink of bankruptcy with one war based on misinformation. It is unthinkable that despite lack of any evidence of a threat, some are still charging headstrong into yet another war in the Middle East when what we ought to be doing is coming home from Iraq, coming home from Korea, coming home from Germany and defending our own soil. We do not need to be interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and waging war when honest trade, friendship, and diplomacy are the true paths to peace and prosperity.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Five Front War: The Better Way to Fight Global Jihad (video)

Dandelion Salad

NewAmericaFoundation

Noted middle east and terrorism expert Daniel Byman offers a new approach to fighting the war on terrorism in his new book, The Five Front War. He argues that two of the main solutions to terrorism offered by politicians — military intervention and the democratization of the Arab world — shouldn’t even be our top priorities. Instead, he presents a fresh way to face intelligence and law enforcement challenges ahead: conduct counterinsurgency operations, undermine al-Qaeda’s ideology, selectively push for reforms, and build key lasting alliances.

Daniel Byman directs the Security Studies Program and the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University. He is a Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and also served on the 9/11 Commission. He regularly writes about terrorism and the Middle East for The Washington Post, Slate, and other publications.

Added: December 11, 2007

New Document Reveals Military Mystery’s Powers By David Hambling (HAARP)

Dandelion Salad

By David Hambling
Wired
Dec. 10, 2007

For years, no military program has sparked more fevered speculation from conspiracy theorists than  the mysterious High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, or HAARP.  And for years, the Pentagon has been pooh-poohing speculation that the enormous collection of transmitters, radars, and magnetometers in Alaska was some sort of superweapon.But, it turns out, the conspiracy theorists may not have been entirely off-base, after all.

Since its inception, there’s been a huge range of opinion on what HAARP actually does: everything from a giant mind control facility to a space nuke countermeasure to a weather controller to an  ionosphere-boiling mad science experiment to the mother of all pork projects has been suggested. But now that the program is actually up an running, military managers say the electronics array has much more benign use.  “HAARP’s main job is to produce radio waves to probe the ionosphere,” an Air Force Research Laboratory officer said in October.

Which is true — up to a point.

A drive by Clifford Stone on the X-Files-esque uber-site Above Top Secret to use the Freedom of Information Act to turn up UFO-related documents has led to the release of a fascinating report, HAARP: Research and Applications. It’s from the Air Force Research Laboratory and Office of Naval Research, and it lays out the uses the military see for HAARP.  Turns out the Pentagon wants some military bang for their buck from the program.

HAARP can actually perform a lot of militarily important functions, all involving the interactions of radio waves with the high atmosphere, magnetosphere and ionosphere.

he document points out that “on the higher frequency end (VHF/UHF) transionospheric propagation is a ubiquitous element of numerous civilian and military communication systems, surveillance and remote sensing systems.” In other words, messing with the ionosphere means you can shut down VHF radio, TV and radar signals at will. As radio hams know, the reflection and refraction effects of the ionosphere make a huge difference to long-range radio reception, and HAARP provides the only means of influencing that.Another interesting feature is how HAARP can influence the ‘auroral electrodynamic circuit’, a natural flow of electricity with ranges from 100,000 to 1 million megawatts (“equivalent to 10 to 100 large power plants”).  Messing with the electrical properties of the ionosphere means some of this tremendous flow of power can be changed at the flick of a switch. In effect, the natural flow can be modulated to create a gigantic low-frequency radio transmitter.

Which is extremely interesting to military types.  Extremely low frequency, or ELF, waves can be used for submarine communications and for probing the planet; because of the way they propagate, HAARP can cover “a significant fraction of the Earth.” The document says that the waves can be used for “seabed exploration” and even locating mines underwater, not to mention “underground target detection.”

HAARP can also “induce precipitation of energetic particles” in the ionosphere, which “could impact the operation and lifespan of satellites.” While this is mainly about protecting satellites from particles from solar flares or nuclear explosions, the phrasing suggests that it might be able to have a subtle negative impact on satellites as well.

At the High Frequency range, HAARP also has some useful tricks, including being able to “enhance ground-to-ground and satellite-to-ground links that would otherwise be marginal or absent.” Its ability to create a radio-reflective layer means it can create new over-the-horizon capabilities for radio and radar systems. It can even act as a HF radar emitter itself.

The third band is optical and near-optical: HAARP can make lights in the sky. While we have looked at the effect of creating high-altitude plasmas before (as possible anti-missile defence), the document notes that it can also produce “airglow with megawatt power…in the IR [infrared] region of the spectrum.” This has “significant military implications for IR detection and countermeasures.” The picture with this shows the IR glow below a satellite, suggesting that the system may be able to blank out the view of IR satellites selectively. Given that such satellites are the best way of detecting the launch of ICBMs, this is a significant capability.

All in all, it’s a set-up that can do a lot more than just basic research. And while this may not seem much compared to weather modification, remember that these are just the capabilities they’re willing to make public…

Also:

h/t: Speaking Truth to Power

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

The U.S. government routinely conducts experiments on weather modification by Chris Handy (07.30.07)

Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

“It Is Time to Make Peace With the Planet”–Al Gore Accepts 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (link)

Dandelion Salad

Democracy Now!
Dec. 11, 2007

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded Monday to former Vice President Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their work to help combat global warming. “We and the earth’s climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: ‘Mutually assured destruction,’” Gore said in his acceptance speech. “It is time to make peace with the planet.” Continue reading

Poll-obsessed media focus on strategy over substance By Peter Hart

Dandelion Salad

By Peter Hart
FAIR
12/11/07
Op-ed Seattle Times

With just a few weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, polls are providing pundits and political junkies with fresh data to spin out a new round of the usual “who’s up, who’s down” campaign coverage. But while the press seems settled on a new narrative for the campaign, journalists should recall what the polls told them last time around about who would likely win the Iowa caucuses.

The tone of coverage of the Democratic race seemed to shift when a Nov. 19 ABC/Washington Post poll of likely caucus-goers showed a tight race among three candidates: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

The difference from the previous survey was within the poll’s margin of error, so the actual data said very little. Much of the media seemed to think otherwise. “The ground may be shifting,” announced NBC anchor Brian Williams. The Los Angeles Times called it “a shift in momentum in this crucial state” — in an article that boiled the race down to just two candidates, Clinton and Obama.

The Washington Post‘s write-up was downright confusing — the Post mentioned the results were “only marginally different” from their poll several months prior, yet nonetheless pointed to “significant signs of progress for Obama — and harbingers of concern for Clinton.”

On ABC, reporter Kate Snow mentioned something most of her colleagues seemed unconcerned with: the fact that these polls actually tell you very little about the outcome of the race. Snow recalled that “four years ago, John Kerry — who eventually was the Democratic nominee — he was polling in Iowa at 4 percent.”

Indeed, campaign reporters should all remember the lesson of the 2004 Iowa caucus. A little more than a month before Iowa Democrats actually caucused in January, the poll-obsessed media had narrowed down the field to two “front-runners”: Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

“Two See Iowa as Crucial Battleground,” announced The Washington Post on Nov. 29, 2003, billing the race as a “fight rich in substance and symbolism.” A Nov. 9 Post report said that Dean was “for the first time, threatening to pull away from the pack,” and even discussed his “opening for a quick-kill strategy” by winning Iowa and New Hampshire.

The polling was presumably a key factor leading reporters to reach such conclusions. A December 2003 Pew poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers showed Dean leading the pack with 29 percent, followed by Gephardt at 21 percent.

Kerry was in third with 18 percent, followed by John Edwards at 5 percent. A Zogby poll from around the same time had a closer race between Dean and Gephardt (26 to 22 percent), with Kerry and Edwards picking up 9 and 5 percent, respectively.

And what happened when Iowa Democrats actually caucused? Kerry won with 37 percent, followed by Edwards at 32 percent. “Front-runners” Dean and Gephardt finished with 18 and 11 percent, respectively.

The point is not just to note that polls at this stage are hardly predictive — though the media acknowledging as much would be a start. Nor is it to wish that the national press would simply work at finding a better method of declaring which candidates are “front-runners,” and whose campaigns aren’t worth your attention.

The more fundamental problem for the press — and for American democracy — is that the media’s overreliance on polls encourages a kind of political conversation that prioritizes strategic consideration and tactics over substance.

A recent study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism confirmed that much of what passes for campaign journalism focuses primarily on the tactical dimensions of the race (like poll results and fundraising) and not on the actual policy differences between the candidates.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, former ABC News political director and current Time magazine editor-at-large Mark Halperin admitted that most political coverage is built around the notion that you can judge candidates’ potential to be a good president based on how well they run their campaigns.

Halperin admits he was “wrong,” and suggests a change of course: Journalists “should examine a candidate’s public record and full life as opposed to his or her campaign performance.” What a concept. But then Halperin added a strange qualifier: “But what might appear simple to a voter can, I know, seem hard for a journalist.”

Halperin seems to be saying that if you think it’s hard to cover the substance of electoral politics, it’s a good bet you’re a campaign reporter.

That’s bad news, to say the least — and makes it hard to imagine journalists are going to change any time soon.

See FAIR’s Archives for more on:
Elections/2008

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Covering the Underdogs by Ralph Nader

PDA Rocks! By Steve Cobble (Kucinich)

Determined, Steady Kucinich Quadruples Support By Joe Shea & Ted Manna + Kucinich 1st, Edwards 2nd in PDA Straw Poll

Bush’s Impeachable Crimes and the Threat of Martial Law by Dave Lindorff (audio)

Dandelion Salad

by Dave Lindorff
After Downing Street

Hear Dave Lindorff make the case for impeaching President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and talks about the steps that are being taken to lay the groundwork for the imposition of martial law, in a talk given Oct. 21 in West Hartford, CT.

This program was organized by Connecticut activists Marge and David Schneider. The recording was produced by Dori Smith of WHUS Radio in Mansfield, CT.

__________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and columnist. His most recent book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net


FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Impeach

Police State

Executive Privilege

Open Letter to President Sarkozy by James Petras

Dandelion Salad

by James Petras
Dissident Voice
December 11th, 2007

On the Humanitarian Exchange of Political Prisoners in Colombia and the United States

I read with great interest your letter to FARC leader Manuel Marulanda. I share with you a humanitarian impulse to end the imprisonment of political prisoners in Colombia. However let us be clear, principled and realistic about this: The freedom of the political prisoners of the FARC is dependent on a quid pro quo — the liberation of the resistance fighters of the FARC in the dungeons of the Colombian state.

Your dramatic and highly publicized intervention has focused world public opinion on the prisoners held by the FARC, but you failed to mention the plight of the Colombian government’s political prisoners, tortured and brutalized by a President, whose many closest Congressional associates are awaiting trial for their long-term ties to the paramilitary death squads and narco-traffickers.

Let us begins anew, President Sarkozy. If your want to be an honest mediator or consequential humanitarian leader you must act impartially with a spirit of reciprocity. You have, up to now, acted in a one-sided manner, which is not conducive to a positive resolution of the interchange of prisoners. In your short, highly publicized appeals you have not acted in good faith and equanimity.

continued…

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Medvedev: Putin will be my Prime Minister + World mulls over ‘President’ Medvedev (videos)

Dandelion Salad

RussiaToday

Dmitry Medvedev, the leading candidate to become Russia’s next President, has announced that if he’s elected next March, Vladimir Putin will be the country’s Prime Minister. The announcement came in a televised address to the nation. Added: December 11, 2007

Dmitry Medvedev’s presidential hopes and Vladimir Putin’s possible role as Prime Minister has caught many countries by surprise. In Europe, leaders hope at times shaky relations will improve, while in the U.S. government officials refused to be drawn on Russian developments. Added: December 12, 2007

see

Putin names his candidate for presidency (video)