Posts by Onnesha Roychoudhuri

Onnesha Roychoudhuri is a San Francisco based freelance writer. A former assistant editor of AlterNet.org, she has written for AlterNet, The American Prospect, MotherJones.com, In These Times, Huffington Post, Truthdig, PopMatters, and Women's eNews. She can be reached at onneshatao@gmail.com.

How Phone Companies Team Up With Bush to Spy On You
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on August 14, 2007 at 12:01 PM.

AlterNet readers have now had more than enough time to digest their disappointment with the Democrats' utter capitulation to President Bush on the FISA law. While the focal point of concern thus far has been the breach of Constitutional authority and the brazen disregard for the separation of powers there's an even more practical concern at hand.

Namely, are your communications -- private communications between Americans without suspicion of terrorist ties -- being listened to? And, if so, with which telecommunications companies' assent? The whole NSA program — and thus the FISA violations — is, in fact, a non-issue without the participation of the telecoms.

Despite the fact that Democrats have since taken control of the House and Senate, there is still no substantive investigation into the relationship between telecommunications companies and the White House. It’s a relationship that warrants investigation as select telecommunications companies have gained nearly inconceivable clout. The past three years have seen a string of massive telecommunications mergers leaving Americans with only two major telecommunications options: AT&T and Verizon.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Making Justice Moot
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on May 6, 2006 at 12:43 PM.

Abu Bakker Qassim and Adel Abdul Al-Hakim have been held in Guantanamo since 2002. Natives of China’s Xinjiang Uighur Region, it wasn’t until March of 2005 that it was acknowledged that they were not "enemy combatants." Because they face persecution in China, it was determined that the men should not be returned to their home country.

For over a year, Qassim and Al-Hakim were kept in Guantanamo while U.S. authorities looked for a third country to send them to. But they didn't seem to be in much of a hurry. Both men were still in Cuba this past December when a federal judge ruled that it was unlawful to continue their indefinite imprisonment.

Qassim and Al-Hakim’s have been kept in Guantanamo until just this Friday when they were released to Albania. Why the sudden action? Oral arguments for Qassim and Al-Hakim’s legal challenge to their detainment were scheduled in the Supreme Court for this Monday.

True to their manipulative relationship with the courts, the DoJ just this Friday filed an "Emergency Motion to Dismiss as Moot" the appeal. The six page document is worth reading in full [PDF]. Again, as with most legal requests to keep something from the courts, the DoJ tone is one of pompous self-righteousness. Rather than focusing on why they believe the case to be moot, the DoJ seeks a pat on the back for getting around to releasing the men:

…the Executive Branch has engaged in extensive diplomatic efforts to transfer petitioners to an appropriate country where they will be released for resettlement and treated humanely. These efforts have faced strong diplomatic opposition. The strenuous diplomatic efforts of the United States have persisted, nonetheless, and have now come to fruition…

The Albanian Government has assured the United States that petitioners will be treated humanely, and that they will not be subjected to involuntary transfer to their native country. In Albania, petitioners are being provided food, clothing, financial assistance and telephone access. As applicants for refugee status, they will be free to travel around Albania.

Well. There you have it. What more could you want after being plucked from your country, illegally detained and subject to abuse for four years?

The DoJ’s Motion states,

Given petitioners’ release, this case is now moot. The relief petitioners’ sought -- release from custody -- has now been effectuated. Thus, there is no more live case or controversy and the matter should be dismissed as moot. Because of the timing of this motion (which could not be filed until petitioners’ release had been effected)… we are filing this as an emergency motion…

Regardless of the release of the detainees, this flagrant manipulation to scuttle the case makes it both live and highly controversial. The Supreme Court recently dealt with a similar situation in the case of Jose Padilla. Though the DoJ won out, some of the justices expressed concern over the government's disrespect for the courts. Let’s hope this time, the Court chooses to push back. Hard.

Dirty words in politics
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on May 5, 2006 at 3:08 PM.

Michael Crowley over at TNR gives us a look-see at the latest RNC fundraising email:

This year, we face another momentous choice. Fight and defeat the terrorists, or retreat from the central front in the War on Terror. Live up to our calling as Americans to stand for freedom, or choose Democrats, who have been clear that they will censure and impeach the President if they win back Congress.

Yes. Freedom vs. impeachment -- that age-old dilemma.

With all those focus groups and political consultants mulling around D.C., you'd think they could deliver something a little more stirring. But let's be honest: We're not getting much better from high-level Democrats (er… "Real Security"?).

The credibility gap in Washington is so wide, you'd have to have your back against a wall not to fall into the yawning chasm. One need look no further than the Stephen Colbert craze to realize that people are starved for someone to speak to the obvious: we are lied to on a regular basis because the president views "facts" as mutable puzzle pieces to be ignored, rearranged, or embellished to further an agenda.

Colbert couched his truth in humor, but politicians tend to neuter their outrage or beliefs with empty patriotism and security speak. Over the past four years, I've developed a visceral contempt towards any politician who exploits words like freedom, evil, democracy, security, and terrorism. Yes, the nebulous concepts of freedom, democracy, and security seem great. And yes, evil and terrorism seem bad. But, what do you mean when you use those words?

One of my old English teachers conducted an exercise in which she had each student present on a topic they were passionate about. As we spoke, she would tell us to stop using certain words we were repeating. Stutter. Pause. Think. Without crutch words, you're forced to rethink what you're trying to say, and work to reclaim meaning. If subjected to the same exercise, what words would Ken Mehlman and Harry Reid have left?

The problem with expansive and bastardized words like "freedom" is that they don't inherently express a specific meaning. They have to be qualified. Maybe those words appeal to campaign managers and pollsters because, with such broadly positive or negative connotations, they're thought to capture the attention of the broadest swath of Americans.

But it's a thin line between a politically-inclusive message and empty rhetoric. Everybody knows someone who exemplifies this vacuous quality: That person who is intent on being liked, and thinks the way to do this is to avoid offending anyone at all costs. But oftentimes, despite being incurably friendly and seemingly pleasant, you develop a seething disdain for them. They're at all the social gatherings, nodding gravely when serious topics are broached, laughing at the right moments, but always needing to freshen a drink or use the facilities when called upon to offer their own opinion.

You just can't appeal to everyone, and if that's your main goal, you're going to fail.

In the end, trying to keep everyone happily misinformed during a war didn't work out for the Bush administration. Americans have learned not to trust the manipulation and over-simplification of Bushspeak. A full 67 percent of Americans that think this president is doing a crappy job. It has paved the way for someone to fill the credibility gap. I'd like to see a politician campaign on something, anything other than "defeating the terrorists" and "spreading freedom" throughout the world. And so would the majority of Americans.

Enron still wreaking havoc
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on May 3, 2006 at 11:36 AM.

With Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling currently in trial, and the former Enron headquarters empty, you might be tempted to think the old corporate monster has been vanquished. But you would be wrong: There is still the fallout to be reckoned with.

On Monday, The Seattle Times reported on the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) which has been fighting Enron over the inflated electricity rates during the West Coast energy crisis. Enron creditors are looking to get Snohomish PUD to pay over $100 million in contract cancellation fees and seeking to pay "22 cents on the dollar for $40 million in overcharges that the PUD claims were caused by Enron's market manipulation." That would mean that Snohomish residents could be looking at a 25 percent increase in electricity rates.

Enron lobbyists have approached a group of senators that have been fighting on PUD's behalf, asking them to back off. The senators have written the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to oppose a settlement under these terms. This letter may just end up on the desk of Phil Moeller -- a recent nominee to a FERC vacancy. As The Seattle Times notes, "It could be an awkward issue for Moeller because Lay recommended him for FERC in early 2001 in a letter to the George W. Bush transition team."

Yesterday, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) filed a FOIA request to FERC -- asking for the release of hundreds of hours of tape recordings between Enron officials. The FERC's ongoing Enron investigation has uncovered many recordings that remain sealed. Truly dastardly: Enron's proposed settlement with FERC regarding PUD would "require FERC staff to work to prevent the release of Enron evidence that remains sealed."

That evidence is important because it could prove instrumental in future crafting of federal policies on trading in energy commodities. Senator Feinstein writes,

It's now clear that fraud and manipulation were a major part of the West Coast energy crisis in 2001. Thirty-two companies have already pleaded guilty or settled $6 billion in claims. Yet, many of the same traders who rigged the market are still trading energy commodities," Senator Feinstein said.

As an example, according to media reports, one of the Enron traders who booked $750 million in natural gas contracts in 2001, subsequently started Centaurus Energy, a hedge fund company that trades energy commodities. When he was asked during a deposition about whether he had ever manipulated the Western energy markets while at Enron, he took the 5th Amendment and refused to answer. This man was never prosecuted, and is now trading energy commodities that are not subject to federal oversight.

Senator Cantwell adds,

The American people have a right to know the full extent of Enron's schemes to exploit consumers and steal millions from Western ratepayers. Keeping hundreds of hours of audiotape locked away will make it more difficult to prevent this kind of massive rip-off in the future.

Let's hope they succeed, because we're not getting an further insight from Ken Lay (unless you count a more concrete picture of the depths of his greed) who recently took the stand.

Here's a snippet from the proceedings:

Lay spent nearly $200,000 in February 2001 to charter a boat named "Amnesia" to celebrate his wife's birthday. In April, he spent $12,000 to go to a resort to celebrate his birthday, he said.

"My birthday was cheaper than my wife's," Lay joked.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Guantanamo detainees will be released...
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on May 2, 2006 at 3:22 PM.

Just last week, we heard that the Pentagon was planning to release 141 prisoners who were determined to "pose no threat"

But now, the NY Times reports this:

"The Pentagon has no plans to release any detainees in the immediate future," said a Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon of the Navy. He said the negotiations with foreign governments "have proven to be a complex, time-consuming and difficult process."

The negotiations are in regards to assurances that detainees will not be tortured when repatriated. The sudden concern for human rights is apparently based on State Department pressure:

According to a State Department human rights report released in March, the Saudi authorities have used "beatings, whippings and sleep deprivation" on Saudi and foreign prisoners. The report also noted "allegations of beatings with sticks and suspension from bars by handcuffs."

Hunh. That sounds familiar. Guantanamo detainees have been enduring this and worse while being held at the base in Cuba. But as the State Department wrings its hands over human rights, many Guantanamo prisoners are in such a dire condition psychologically that they are repeatedly trying to commit suicide.

The State Department is calling for "clear assurances that the prisoners will not be tortured and will be treated in accordance with international humanitarian law, and that those pledges can be verified." That has led to a stalemate in terms of "how those commitments should be formalized and monitored." (Note that there is no such concern about the assurances that the CIA supposedly gets on those it sends to "black sites" around the world.)

It looks like the State Department is trying to flex some muscle here, and the Pentagon is happily dragging its feet. What incentive do they have, after all, to allow detainees (the majority of whom are innocent judging by the DoD's own stats) illegally held and tortured for over four years, to speak freely?

"My Guantanamo Diary," written by law student Mahvish Khan, ran the same day as the NY Times article. It's a great first-person account of her experience as a translator for lawyers in Guantanamo, and brings some humanity to the all-too abstract notion of the war on terrorism.

Some excerpts:

I've now been down a total of nine times. And each time, I'm struck by the ordinariness of Guantanamo Bay, the startling disconnect between the beauty of the surroundings and the evil they mask…I've listened to Wali Mohammed protest that he was just a businessman trying to get along in Taliban-run Afghanistan. I've watched Chaman Gul, crouched in his 7-by-8-foot cage, weep for fear that his family will forget him. I've marveled at the pluck and wit of Taj Mohammad, a 27-year-old uneducated goat herder who has taught himself fluent English while in Cuba.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush can disobey 750 laws
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on May 1, 2006 at 12:57 PM.

The fact that Bush wants to rule as something like a dictator is nothing new. Heck, he even said it himself. But a startling new article in Sunday's Boston Globe shows just how far he's already taken his wish: Bush has reserved the right to ignore as many as 750 laws passed by Congress during his presidency.

In the piece, Charlie Savage provides a rundown of how President Bush has used signing statements in lieu of the presidential veto. In contrast to Bush The First's 232 such challenges, and Clinton's 140, George W. has challenged 750 new laws in this manner.

The effects? Jack Balkin over at Balkinization neatly sums them up for us: The signing statements enable the president to pick certain portions of legislation that he doesn't fancy, undermining the will of Congress without any public accountability or effective recourse from Congress or the courts. George W.'s allergy to vetoes smack of a specific intent to avoid public scrutiny of his interpretation of the constitution. As Balkin writes,

The Bush Administration didn't want Congress regulating how it treated prisoners, regarding any such interventions as unconstitutional; at the same time, it didn't want the courts deciding the question of constitutionality either. It simply wanted to be free of legal obligations or responsibilities in this area other than those that it choose for itself.

While a presidential veto would require Congress to weigh in, and change the law if it appeared to be unconstitutional, those 750 signing statements are an effective way of influencing future legislation without facing any oversight.

The law is constantly subject to interpretation -- and signing statements have import in future readings of congressional intent. That means that these the president's willfull misinterpretation of Congress (case in point: President Bush's claim that the Authorization to Use Military force -- AUMF -- allows the president to illegally wiretap and search Americans) can impact future court rulings, long after Bush is out of office.

While it's tempting for those opposed to this president to continually ask, "How can he get away with that?" the answer is deceptively simple: because he thinks he can.

As journalist Robert Scheer noted in a recent interview with AlterNet,

These guys are…far worse than the Nixon crowd because they think they can get away with it. Nixon, at the end of the day thought it mattered what the New York Times said. He felt that if there was a big contradiction, a big error, they would catch him and there would be all hell to pay.

But it's not just the specter of the public and press that normally keeps executive power in check: Our political system relies on each branch exercising self-restraint. Fear of and respect for the other branches of government has long provided a more conservative exercise of power. But as Cheney has made explicitly clear, this administration is interested in expanding executive power, not restraining it.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Following the "real news"
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on April 25, 2006 at 9:30 AM.

This past Sunday, CNN anchor Paula Zahn had a brief spat with radio show host Randi Rhodes regarding the Duke rape case. The exchange raises a critical question regarding the role of media: Are we leaders, directing the spotlight where it should be, or are we followers, covering the more sensational issues that everyone else is on top of?

Here's a snippet of the CNN transcript:

RHODES: Don't get mad at me, but my listeners don't care about this. I mean, rape is unfortunate, and everybody understands it happens, and it happens all over the place. It happens to our troops. It happens in -- walking down the street.

We don't -- we're not following gossip. We're doing real news. We're -- we are focused on the fact that, on June 2, they're going to explode 700 tons of a simulated nuclear bomb in the nuclear test site in Nevada. I mean, I do, you know, real talk radio. It's -- it's entertaining, but we don't do gossip. We don't -- we don't deal...

ZAHN: This isn't gossip.

RHODES: This is gossip, Paula. This isn't...

ZAHN: This is an explosive story that has divided a community. It's issues of race....

RHODES: This is not news. It's not news.

ZAHN: ... issues of gender.

RHODES: Rape happens all the time. It happens all the time.

I bet you one out of four women watching this show right this second have a story of rape in their past. It's not anything that needs to be discussed in this -- in this -- in this manner. This one person...got raped and it's a shame.

Rhodes' point is valid -- it's hard to make news out of an issue that plagues us day in and day out -- but at the same time, it seems highly unfair to contrast a rape case with "real news." Certainly we need to pay attention to the latest wonky crusade of the Bush administration -- and it seems there is a new one every day. But at the same time, the press may be neglecting those age old "not news" issues that have plagued our country (indeed, the world) for years: poverty, education, health care, basic human rights...

You could turn the rape case into "sensational gossip" -- but at the heart of it are, as Zahn notes, critical issues of race, gender, and violence that are too often ignored by the media. The fact that, as Rhodes points out, so many women have been raped makes it even more relevant to discuss.

In the media, especially with the frenzied pace ushered in by online news and the blogosphere, there is a bias towards the "what's going to get blown up next" news. The immediate nature of online journalism lends itself to this "latest breaking news" perspective. But what falls to the wayside are the issues that consistently face Americans in their daily lives.

Yesterday, I had the privilege of interviewing journalist Robert Scheer (who just came out with a fantastic retrospective on his interviews with the presidents and presidential candidates since Nixon). I had my "real news" questions all laid out. But in the course of an hour and a half long conversation, Scheer kept returning to the economy, welfare, health care, poverty, and poor education. After decades in the news business, these were the issues that plagued him -- just as they continue to plague our country.

If the story of what happened to one person -- exemplifying what is happening all the time -- isn't news, what's the point of journalists? If we're all focusing national attention on the latest fabricated distraction (Iran, for instance), when will we ever get around to the alleged "not news"?

New blood in the White House...
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on April 19, 2006 at 12:50 PM.

The press seems to be quaking over the alleged "shake up" in the White House. And that is exactly what the president was hoping for. Last week, the Bush appointed a new chief of staff Joshua Bolton. "Appointed" might be the technical word, but "shuffled" seems more apropos, considering that Bolton comes to the position from the Office of Management and Budget.

Indeed, while Bolton and the president seem intent on making the White House appear to have a "fresh start" before the mid-term elections, the demonstrated affinity the president has for a small contingent of (often Texan) buddies seems a distinct limitation.

It's hard to see where the "fresh blood" is when we're getting Rob Portman, Bush's current U.S. trade representative heading over to Bolton's old office and Susan Schwab, currently a deputy trade representative, taking over for Portman. Joel Kaplan, formerly of the OMB, is now deputy chief of staff for policy -- freeing up Karl Rove's time in preparation for elections. And that's exactly how the White House sees it. As McClellan noted today, "Karl is someone who has always been intimately involved in the strategic planning and addressing these bigger strategic issues and this will free him up to do more of that."

The press, waiting breathlessly for the story on the new face of the White House, will be sorely disappointed. This is business as usual -- only more so. The more interesting story here is that, while we watch administration officials trade offices, Bush has given Karl Rove more free time (yikes.) and made clear that Donald Rumsfeld, who arguably should be replaced -- isn't going anywhere.

After McClellan's resignation announcement this morning, he and Bush crossed the lawn to board Marine One to make their choreographed exit. But because of mechanical problems, the helicopter was kept grounded. A fine metaphor -- those closest to the president aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

Easter with the LGBT community
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on April 18, 2006 at 2:24 PM.

Last Christmas, my mother gave me a travel guide, wrapped in shiny green paper. Where was I off to? It was a Lonely Planet guide to the United States. An anthropologist who has spent her fair share of time observing the natives of other countries, my mother has never been more gob-smacked and intrigued than by those comrades closer to home -- our fellow Americans.

I wasted no time in using my new Lonely Planet guide to re-educate myself on the dating rituals, latest lingo, and tips for interacting with my Southern compatriots. A step removed, the advice seemed trite and humorous. But it was fascinating to have a distinct out-of-culture experience.

When you head to the Lonely Planet website on U.S. travel information, and click on the "People & Society" link, you'll be sent straight to this:

Most major cities, particularly those on the coasts, have a visible and open gay community that will be easy to connect with. In particular, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles and New Orleans are centers of vibrant gay life. The level of acceptance across the country varies greatly, and gay and lesbian travelers should avoid hand-holding and outward displays of affection until they know the lay of the land. In some places, there is absolutely no tolerance whatsoever, and in others tolerance and acceptance is predicated on gays and lesbians not 'flaunting' their sexual preference.

Yes, we Americans have a particular preoccupation with those who are comfortable with their sexuality. And the LGBT community has borne the brunt of intolerance. But more culturally jarring than seeing America through a travel guide was seeing it through a recent Knight-Ridder article covering the "Easter egg roll" at the White House this past weekend.

First, the opening sounds an odd ritual: "Thousands of children swarmed the South Lawn of the White House on Monday, pushing eggs across soggy grass with large spoons and hunting for hidden ones."

But here's the departure from humor, to the part that made me feel that I was reading about an entirely different, and anachronistic culture:

President Bush blew the opening whistle on a century-old tradition with a new wrinkle: Sprinkled among the supervising, photo-shooting, toddler-dragging parents this time were about 100 gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples and their kids.

"We're helping people see that gay and lesbian couples go to the same things as any other families," said Jennifer Chrisler, the executive director of the Family Pride Coalition, which had urged its members to line up for tickets. For publicity's sake, and solidarity's, coalition families wore rainbow-hued leis.

"We're normal families," said Heather Davidson of Tacoma Park, Md., who attended with her partner, Rebecca Hawes, and their two kids. "We're so normal that it's easy for us to blend in."

Putting the toothpaste back in the tube
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on April 13, 2006 at 11:36 AM.

George Washington University's National Security Archive recently discovered a covert program that has been hiding the CIA, Air Force's (and a redacted third authority -- likely the NSA) reclassification of public documents. Archive staff members had observed that some documents that were 50 years old had been reclassified. Through a FOIA request for one such reclassified document, a March 2002 "Memorandum of Understanding" (MOA) was obtained by the Archive staff.

The document, signed by an Air Force official and an archivist at the D.C. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) outlines a program through which some "55,000 pages of declassified documents, dating back to the World War II era have been removed from the open files."

The MOA also states that

it is in the interest of both [redacted] and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to avoid the attention and researcher complaints that may arise from removing material that has already been available publicly from the open shelves for extended periods of time…

Researcher requests for withheld documents shall be accepted for processing by NARA and shall not be directed to [redacted] AFDO, or CIA for response. It may be necessary to supplement AFDO with [redacted] personnel. NARA will not disclose the true reason for the presence of [redacted] AFDO [redacted] personnel at the Archives, to include disclosure to person within NARA who do not have a validated need-to-know.

Yup. Some agency, ostensibly that ever-creepier monolith, the NSA, is staffing the D.C. Archives so as to more efficiently reclassify historical documents without the public being aware of it. Rep. Christopher Shays, speaking of a government reform committee meeting addressing the memorandum, had this to say:

This absurd effort to put the toothpaste back into the tube persists despite the growing consensus -- supported by testimony before this Subcommittee -- that from 50 to 90 percent of the material currently withheld should not be classified at all.

Far more disturbing than this revelation is the simple fact that we only found about this program because an academic archivist filed a FOIA request for an obscure document.

Just to freak you out a little more -- NSA looks to be staffing more than just archives. Lindsay over at PEEK today points to former AT&T employee Mark Klein's statement about separate rooms established at AT&T headquarters throughout the country. These are designed to feed customer communications directly to the NSA. From Klein's observations, a separate task-force was employed to work in the secret rooms:

While doing my job, I learned that fiber optic cables from the secret room were tapping into the Worldnet (AT&T's internet service) circuits by splitting off a portion of the light signal," Klein wrote. The split circuits included traffic from peering links connecting to other internet backbone providers, meaning that AT&T was also diverting traffic routed from its network to or from other domestic and international providers…

Meaning that those being wiretapped are not limited to AT&T customers.

Skilling takes the stand...
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on April 12, 2006 at 10:24 AM.

Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling has finally taken the stand. And while many were anticipating the volatility and pompous arrogance that became his trademark at Enron -- what he has delivered so far is even more nauseating: contrived humility. Yes, he told jurors that "by some huge mistake on the part of Harvard Business School, they let me in," and qualified his offer to return to Enron when it was in crisis with "not that I'm God's gift to the world or anything."

Interestingly, this "humility" runs parallel to an insistence that, not only is he innocent, but that nearly every prosecution witness who has pled guilty and testified against him is innocent, too. This just reinforces something that was pointed out months ago: Skilling just doesn't see anything wrong with the conduct of Enron.

Skilling admits his clearly unhealthy relationship with his company. "Some would say I was obsessed with Enron," he told jurors. When Enron filed for bankruptcy, Skilling notes, "I wanted to die." Skilling, it seems, had his ego all wrapped up in Enron, and he's telling jurors all about it: "I was consumed by this company. I wanted to build this company to be an institution. We thought there was a chance Enron could become the energy company, and later the company of the 21st century."

Skilling doesn't seem to be a very healthy person in the head. Recall: "Back in 2004, he had an encounter with the NYPD outside a bar after trying to fight two men who he claimed were undercover FBI agents. (They weren't.) Apparently, Skilling, who was with his wife, "even tried to lift the woman's (companion of the "FBI agents") blouse, claiming he was looking for a 'wire.'" This week, he told jurors that he drank and cried after Enron collapsed.

The Enron trial opened with Skilling lawyer Daniel Petrocelli posing this question to the jury: "In 1999, [Skilling] had more money than he ever dreamed of having. So why would he do it? What is Jeff Skilling's motive?" On a similar tack, Skilling this week argued that "Enron's underlying financial performance was strong enough that there was no need for anyone to even consider committing fraud."

Skilling and lawyer Petrocelli's use of the "what was my motive?" strategy presumes that Skilling is a rational human being who would only seek a certain level of wealth and financial performance for himself and his company.

But the definition of "greed" is simply "selfish desire beyond reason." And by his own admission, Skilling was a man obsessed. He has essentially told jurors directly that he was bent on building an empire. Add to that his incapability to see that the charges against him are criminal, and it's hard to see Skilling as anything but a sociopath.

But in case you're wondering whether or not the sneaky accounting practices and fraud were a conspiracy, just talk to Skilling. On the stand, "he told jurors he has sifted through 'tens of thousands' of documents, memos, and e-mails and saw nothing that indicates a conspiracy."

Well, that settles it then.

A supposedly funny thing...
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on April 10, 2006 at 2:12 PM.

Ever hear an alledegly amusing story second-hand and find it completely...well...not funny? You just had to be there the narrator will insist. This morning, President Bush addressed students at Johns Hopkins' School of Advanced International Studies where he shared some of his wisdom on our real challenge in Iraq: "The advance of democracy is the terrorists' greatest fear. That's an interesting question, isn't it -- why would they fear democracy?"

I imagine that was a rhetorical question -- but the Q&A session following the vacuous speech might just provide the answer: If democracy means an elected official can publicly proclaim his ignorance and be met with what sounds like the kind of laugh track that accompanies mind-numbing sitcoms, we should all be scared stupid of it.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. It's an honor to have you here. I'm a first-year student in South Asia studies. My question is in regards to private military contractors. Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions.

THE PRESIDENT: I was going to ask him. Go ahead. (Laughter.) Help. (Laughter.)

Q: I was hoping your answer might be a little more specific. (Laughter.) Mr. Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws which he assumed applied to those private military contractors. However, Iraq is clearly not currently capable of enforcing its laws, much less against -- over our American military contractors. I would submit to you that in this case, this is one case that privatization is not a solution. And, Mr. President, how do you propose to bring private military contractors under a system of law?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that very much. I wasn't kidding -- (laughter.) I was going to -- I pick up the phone and say, Mr. Secretary, I've got an interesting question. (Laughter.) This is what delegation -- I don't mean to be dodging the question, although it's kind of convenient in this case, but never -- (laughter.) I really will -- I'm going to call the Secretary and say you brought up a very valid question, and what are we doing about it? That's how I work. I'm -- thanks. (Laughter.)

Yes, ma'am.

Watch the video.

Of the Iraq war and "tactical errors"
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on April 6, 2006 at 2:43 PM.

George McGovern once said, "I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in."

Amend men with "and women" and it's just as pertinent as it ever. 72 percent of soldiers in Iraq think the U.S. should leave Iraq in 2006. But what do they know? They're just the folks on the ground fighting the war -- and a Zogby poll is enough input from them.

Leave it to the politicians to frame what we talk about when we talk about Iraq. A Washington Post article today catalogues the back and forth between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It's worth quoting at length just to get a sense of how incredibly vacuous the discussion of this war is within the Bush administration.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said he did not know what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was talking about when she said last week that the United States had made thousands of "tactical errors" in handling the war in Iraq, a statement she later said was meant figuratively.

Rumsfeld said calling changes in military tactics during the war "errors" reflects a lack of understanding of warfare. Rumsfeld defended his war plan for Iraq but added that such plans inevitably do not survive first contact with the enemy.

"Why? Because the enemy's got a brain; the enemy watches what you do and then adjusts to that, so you have to constantly adjust and change your tactics, your techniques and your procedures," Rumsfeld told interviewer Scott Hennen, according to a Defense Department transcript. "If someone says, well, that's a tactical mistake, then I guess it's a lack of understanding, at least my understanding, of what warfare is about."

Rice said she "wasn't sitting around counting" U.S. tactical errors and instead meant her remark figuratively. "The point I was making . . . is that, of course, if you've ever made decisions, you've undoubtedly made mistakes in the decisions that you've made, but that the important thing is to get the big strategic decisions right."

So, over three years after the war began, with U.S. soldiers saying that we need to get out of Iraq, after intelligence officials warned the president that the presence of U.S. troops will only make the insurgency grow stronger, we have members of the administration publicly disagreeing on the nature of warfare? Maybe someone could take some time out of their busy schedule of speaking "figuratively" and sit down and actually count those "tactical errors," eh?

It's also interesting that we read more about politicians' backpedaling and justifying of this war to each other rather than those in Iraq, the families of those who are dying, or the taxpayers who are funding this war.

America, this just ain't about you.

The update on Padilla
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on April 5, 2006 at 2:50 PM.

The case of Jose Padilla has been shuffling from one court to another. Deemed an "enemy combatant, Padilla was kept in a naval brig for over three years without charges. When a U.S. District judge ruled that the government either had to charge or release Padilla, the DoJ insisted that the enemy combatant status was necessary for the security of the nation and appealed the decision:

"the government will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay of the court's order. The President… has determined that petitioner [Padilla] 'represents a continuing, present and grave danger to the national security of the United States' and that his military (as opposed to civilian) detention is 'necessary to prevent him from aiding al Qaeda in its efforts to attack the United States or its armed forces, other government personnel, or citizens."

The courts bought the argument… but once Padilla appealed to the Supreme Court, the Bush administration quickly changed its tack. Padilla was put into civilian custody and charged. And while Justice Department officials were throwing around allegations that Padilla was planning to blow up hotels and apartment buildings with a "dirty bomb" -- those charges weren't anywhere to be found in the indictment.

Why the sudden shuffle of this too-dangerous-for-a-regular-jail criminal? Well, the Bush administration would be in quite the pickle if a Supreme Court ruling found that holding a human being without charge for an indefinite period of time was not so legal.

The move shows the incredible contempt this administration has for the rule of law -- and implicitly, the awareness that their conduct in the war on terror is simply not legal. Unfortunately, the Padilla shuffle (vb: to manipulate the legal system in order to prevent justice from being served) worked. The Supreme Court refused to rule on Padilla's case, because "Even if the Court were to rule in Padilla's favor, his present custody status would be unaffected." The case, arguably, had become moot or "hypothetical". But Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer still wanted to go forward with the case -- arguing that the questions of executive power were important enough to merit a decision. The usual suspects -- Alito, Scalia, and Thomas were against hearing the case.

While Justice Kennedy denied to grant Padilla's writ, he acknowledged the sketchy nature of the DoJ's tactics in the case and encouraged the U.S. District Court in Florida, currently serving as the site of Padilla's new criminal trial, to keep a close eye on the DoJ's maneuverings. With good reason: If charges are dropped against Padilla, there is nothing stopping the Bush administration from re-classifying him as an enemy combatant and throwing him back in the brig.

That's right, the president is going to go ahead and let a U.S. court have their little "trial" and then they'll do with Padilla what they see fit.

Kennedy writes, "Padilla's claims raise fundamental issues respecting the separation of powers."

Yeah. No kidding. Judges have time and again and time and again said the same damn thing.

Kennedy states in his opinion that among the concerns raised by Padilla's case is "the consideration of the role and function of the courts."

Yes, the courts, Mr. Kennedy. That's you! This administration is challenging your powers. Some backbone, please?

The endurance of impermanence
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on April 4, 2006 at 5:30 PM.

There has been quite a bit of talk of late about whether or not "permanent" military bases are being built in Iraq -- and what this means for American troops.

The AP reports,

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked about "permanent duty stations" by a Marine during an Iraq visit in December, allowed that it was "an interesting question." In Washington, Iraq scholar Phebe Marr finds the language intriguing. "If they aren't planning for bases, they ought to say so," she said. "I would expect to hear 'No bases.'"

The language is indeed intriguing. But, before we frame the fight against "permanent bases," we should recognize that the phrase is something of a redundancy. My housemate Gwyn Kirk, who happens to be the woman behind the East Asia, U.S., Puerto Rico Women's Network Against Militarism, has studied military bases for years. Here's what she has to say:

At her town hall meeting in San Francisco in January, Rep. Nancy Pelosi insisted that U.S. military installations in Iraq are not permanent bases.  Many of the audience were, rightly, skeptical.  The issue of whether a base is 'permanent' is largely a semantic one.  A base is developed and used for as long as it is needed by the military.  U.S. bases in Okinawa (Japan) were developed in 1945 at the end of World War II.  Okinawa was under U.S. military administration until 1972, when it reverted to Japanese control.  But the bases remained and have been used for training and deployments to the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and the current war against Iraq. 

There are churches, schools, playgrounds, baseball fields, and family housing on the larger bases, as well as administration buildings, aircraft hangars, repair shops, refueling depots, and the like.  To all intents and purposes they are permanent bases. They have been there for over 60 years.  They could be abandoned at some point by the U.S. military when they cease to be useful.  Or Japanese citizens could make life so politically difficult for the military that they would be thrown out, as happened in the Philippines in 1991. 

U.S. bases in the Philippines dated back to the American War against the Philippines which started in 1899.  Were these bases permanent?

This administration has become quite accomplished in the art of employing pseudonyms and wordplay (see: "enhanced interrogation techniques", "self-injurious behavior"). So while Congresswoman Barbara Lee announces that "Congress Has Spoken: No Permanent Military Bases in Iraq," it's important to clarify that the Pentagon prefers to call them "enduring" or "long-term" bases. Many of the 14 sites that the military has identified as such are already built -- structures formerly used by the Iraqi military.

So let's not listen to Rumsfeld when he says that suggestions that the U.S. is planning a permanent military presence in Iraq are "inaccurate and unfortunate." Whether or not a base is called "permanent," in practice, it is. And the view of the bases from the ground only bolsters this:

Away from the flight lines, among traffic jams and freshly planted palms, life improves on 14-square-mile Balad for its estimated 25,000 personnel, including several thousand American and other civilians. They've inherited an Olympic-sized pool and a chandeliered cinema from the Iraqis.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »