Willam Fisher

3 Months in Juvie For a MySpace Joke? How the For-Profit Prison Industry Locks Up More People Each Year

Seventeen-year-old Hillary Transue did what lots of 17-year-olds do: Got into mischief. Hillary's mischief was composing a MySpace page poking fun at the assistant principal of the high school she attended in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Hillary was an honor student who'd never had any trouble with the law before. And her MySpace page stated clearly that the page was a joke. But despite all that, Hilary found herself charged with harassment. She stood before a judge and heard him sentence her to three months in a juvenile detention facility.

Keep reading...Show less

The Obama Administration Will Put a Child Soldier On Trial at Gitmo This Summer

Legal experts and civil libertarians are attacking the administration of President Barack Obama for ressusciting what they regard as "deeply flawed" military commissions to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay -- and their choice of a "child soldier" as the first defendant.

Keep reading...Show less

Is the Obama Administration Covering Up Three Murders at Guantanamo?

NEW YORK, Jan 22  (IPS) -- Is the administration of President Barack Obama concealing evidence suggesting that three suicides at Guantanamo Bay were not suicides at all?

Keep reading...Show less

Christmas Bomb Plot May Mean No Release For Yemeni Prisoners at Gitmo Anytime Soon

NEW YORK, Jan 4 (IPS) - In the wake of the failed attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas day, legal experts and human rights advocates are pushing back against calls from politicians to halt the planned release of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to their home country, Yemen.

The would-be bomber, a 23-year-old Nigerian, was disarmed and taken down by passengers and crew of Northwest Airlines flight 253. Now in government custody, he was carrying an explosive device in his underwear.

Keep reading...Show less

Obama Quietly Backs Renewing Patriot Act Surveillance Provisions

NEW YORK, 23 Nov (IPS) - With the health care debate preoccupying the mainstream media, it has gone virtually unreported that the Barack Obama administration is quietly supporting renewal of provisions of the George W. Bush-era USA Patriot Act that civil libertarians say infringe on basic freedoms.

Keep reading...Show less

Decision to Try Terror Suspects in New York Draws Praise from Human Rights Activists

NEW YORK, 15 Nov - The U.S. government's decision to bring five high-profile terror suspects to the United States to face trials in a civilian court has drawn reactions ranging from praise to condemnation to confusion.

Keep reading...Show less

Could Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft Pay For Jailing an Innocent Man After 9/11?

NEW YORK, Sep 8 (IPS) -- In what is being hailed as an unprecedented ruling, a federal appeals court has concluded that the George W. Bush administration's first attorney general, John Ashcroft, can be held personally responsible for the wrongful detention of an innocent U.S. citizen.

Keep reading...Show less

ACLU Sues Controversial Arizona Sheriff

NEW YORK, Aug 21 (IPS) - The man who boasts he is "America's Toughest Sheriff" - and who is being investigated by the U.S. Justice Department for civil rights violations - this week added another lawsuit to thousands already pending against him.

Keep reading...Show less

Why Are Muslim Charities Still Being Branded as Terrorist Bankrollers?

NEW YORK, Jul 8 (IPS) - While President Barack Obama conceded in his speech in Cairo last month that U.S. rules on charitable giving "have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation," civil rights advocates are pressing the president to turn his words into action.

Keep reading...Show less

Bush Torturers May Face Justice Yet

Human rights advocates who were critical of President Barack Obama’s decision not to prosecute Central Intelligence Agency operatives who tortured war-on-terror prisoners are hailing a Spanish judge’s order to pursue a criminal investigation into the actions of six Bush administration lawyers for providing legal cover for torture -- despite a recommendation from his prosecutors that the case not go forward.

Keep reading...Show less

Foreign Mercenaries Losing Their Immunity in Iraq

NEW YORK, Dec 5 -- The virtually total impunity from prosecution accorded to private contractors in Iraq may be coming to an end.

Keep reading...Show less

How Much Have Taxpayers Coughed Up for the Most Secretive White House Ever?

NEW YORK -- The administration of President George W. Bush continues to expand government secrecy across a broad array of agencies and actions -- and at greatly increased cost to taxpayers, according to a coalition of groups that promote greater transparency.

Dr. Patrice McDermott, director of Open the Government, a watchdog group, told IPS, "The federal government under the Bush administration has shown its commitment to secrecy by where it has put its money -- more no-bid contracts, fewer government employees processing FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests, less on training on classification issues, and almost $200 spent on keeping secrets to every dollar allocated to open them."

"Given our growing deficit, the next administration faces difficult choices in restoring accountable government," he added.

In its "Secrecy Report Card 2008," released Sept. 9th, the group concluded that the Bush administration "exercised unprecedented levels not only of restriction of access to information about federal government's policies and decisions, but also of suppression of discussion of those policies and their underpinnings and sources."

Open the Government is a Washington-based coalition of consumer and good government groups, librarians, environmentalists, labour, journalists, and others.

It says that that classification activity remains significantly higher than before 2001. In 2006, the number of original classification decisions increased to 233,639, after dropping for the two previous years.

The government spent $195 maintaining the secrets already on the books for every one dollar it spent declassifying documents in 2007, a five percent increase in one year.

At the same time, fewer pages were declassified than in 2006. The nation's 16 intelligence agencies, which account for a large segment of the declassification numbers, are excluded from the total reported figures.

Classified or "black" programs accounted for about $31.9 billion, or 18 percent of the fiscal year (FY) 2008 Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition funding requested last year. Classified acquisition funding has more than doubled in real terms since FY 1995.

Almost 22 million requests were received under FOIA in 2007, an increase of almost 2 percent over the previous year. But a 2008 study revealed that, in 2007, FOIA spending at 25 key agencies fell by $7 million, to $233.8 million, and the agencies put 209 fewer people to work processing FOIA requests.

While the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court does not reveal much about its activities, the Department of Justice reported that, in 2007, the court approved 2,371 orders -- rejecting only three and approving two left over from the previous year. Since 2000, federal surveillance activity under the jurisdiction of the court has risen for the ninth year in a row -- more than doubling during the Bush administration.

The court was established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 after revelations of the widespread wiretapping by the administration of Richard M. Nixon to spy on political and activist groups. Recently, efforts to reform the act have been triggered by the Bush administration's admission that it had conducted secret surveillance programs in the U.S. without warrants from the court.

In addition, more than 25 percent (worth $114.2 billion) of all contracts awarded by the federal government last year were not subject to open competition -- a proportion that has remained largely unchanged for the last eight years.

Investigations by Congress and independent government agencies of the war in Iraq have revealed billions of dollars in no-bid contracts, covering everything from delivering food and water to U.S. troops to providing armed security for U.S. officials and visiting dignitaries. There have been widespread allegations of waste, fraud and abuse by contractors. Several have been convicted and prosecutions of others are pending.

During 2007, government-wide, 64 percent of meetings of the Federal Advisory Committee were closed to the public. Excluding groups advising three agencies that historically have accounted for the majority of closed meetings, 15 percent of the remainder were closed -- a 24 percent increase over the number closed in 2006. These numbers do not reflect closed meetings of subcommittees and taskforces.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act was passed in 1972 to ensure that advice by the various advisory committees formed over the years is objective and accessible to the public.

The report also found that in seven years, President Bush has issued at least 156 "signing statements", challenging over 1,000 provisions of laws passed by Congress. In 2007, eight were issued.

The so-called "state secrets privilege" -- invoked only six times between 1953 and 1976 -- has been used by the Bush administration a reported 45 times, an average of 6.4 times per year in seven years. This is more than double the average (2.46) in the previous 24 years.

The "state secrets privilege" is a legal doctrine that contends that admission of certain information into court proceedings would endanger U.S. national security. The Bush administration has frequently invoked the privilege to dismiss lawsuits that would be embarrassing to the government, and the courts have generally been deferential to the government's claims.

National Security Letter (NSL) requests continued to rise; the 2007 numbers are still classified, but the recently unclassified new number for 2006 shows a 4.7 percent increase in requests over 2005. Since enactment of the USA Patriot Act in 2001, the number of NSLs issued has seen an astronomical increase.

The NSL provision of the Patriot Act radically expanded the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to demand personal customer records from Internet Service Providers, financial institutions and credit companies without prior court approval.

Through NSLs, the FBI is authorized to compile dossiers about innocent people and obtain sensitive information such as the web sites a person visits, a list of e-mail addresses with which a person has corresponded, or even unmask the identity of a person who has posted anonymous speech on a political website.

The provision also allows the FBI to forbid or "gag" anyone who receives an NSL from telling anyone about the record demand.

One Fifth of Iraq Funding Goes to Private Contractors

As a new report forecasts that the 190,000 private contractors in Iraq and neighboring countries will cost U.S. taxpayers more than 100 billion dollars by the end of 2008, an under-the-radar Florida court case suggests that U.S. President George W. Bush -- a staunch contractor supporter -- is preparing to throw security contractors such as Blackwater under the political bus.

In the Florida case, relatives of three American servicemen killed in the 2004 crash of an aircraft owned by Blackwater Aviation in Afghanistan are suing the company for damages, based in part on U.S. government reviews that concluded that errors committed by Blackwater staff were responsible for the deaths. Last month, despite Bush's support for what he has called the critical roles played by overseas contractors, his administration failed to meet a deadline for presenting the court with any defense of Blackwater.

The administration's silence has caused consternation for Blackwater and its supporters. Erik Prince, Blackwater's chairman, told Time magazine, "After the president has said that, as commander-in-chief, he is ultimately responsible for contractors on the battlefield it is disappointing that his administration has been unwilling to make that interest clear before the courts."

Some observers have speculated that the Administration's silence can be attributed to the controversial nature of the contractor issue and a reluctance to address it during a hotly contested presidential election year.

The Florida battle, which could eventually find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, turns on the question of whether Blackwater and other overseas contractors are subject to U.S. law. That question arises because of a decree issued in 2005 by the then U.S. Iraq administrator, L. Paul Bremer, granting contractors legal immunity.

The Iraqi government claims that Blackwater and other contractors have been responsible for the deaths of Iraqi civilians and wants to make them subject to Iraqi law. The U.S. has resisted this move, which is thought to be part of the ongoing stalemate in negotiations with Iraq over the future status of U.S. forces in that country.

The White House has also attacked a bill recently passed by the House of Representatives that would place combat-zone contractors under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. It called the measure an unacceptable extension of federal jurisdiction overseas, and said it would place additional burdens on the military.

Blackwater's argument is that the company should be covered by the same "sovereign immunity" that protects the U.S. military from lawsuits because the downed flight in question in the Florida case was under the command and control of the U.S. military.

Last month, this argument was rejected by three federal judges, who cited the U.S. government's failure to take a position in defense of Blackwater as one of their reasons. In their decision to allow the lawsuit to proceed, the judges ruled, "The apparent lack of interest from the United States … fortifies our conclusion that the case does not yet present a political question."

Lawyers for many major contractors including DynCorp, Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), Blackwater and others, say a dangerous precedent would be established if this and similar cases are allowed to go forward. Such a decision, they say, would open contractors to large money damages and greatly higher risk insurance costs that could adversely affect their ability to carry out the jobs the U.S. government has hired them to do.

As the Florida case made its way through the U.S. legal system, a new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) contends that the cost of having military personnel provide security services in Iraq might be little different from the prices charged by private security contractors.

The report said that 6-10 billion dollars has been spent on security contractors thus far in 2008 and estimated that about 25,000-30,000 employees of security firms were in Iraq as of early this year. It estimates that, if spending for contractors continues at about the current rate, 100 billion dollars will have been paid to military contractors for operations in Iraq.

The CBO report revealed that about 20 percent of funding for operations in Iraq has gone to contractors. Currently, it said, there are at least 190,000 contractors in Iraq and neighboring countries -- a ratio of about one contractor per U.S. service member. It noted that the U.S. has relied more heavily on contractors in Iraq than in any other war for functions ranging from food service to guarding diplomats.

The report also noted that the legal status of contractor personnel is a grey area of U.S. law, particularly for those who are armed. It said that military commanders have less direct authority over contractors because a government contracting officer rather than a military commander manages their contracts.

The CBO review was requested by Senator Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. In a statement, Conrad said the Bush administration's reliance on military contractors has set a dangerous precedent. The use of contractors "restricts accountability and oversight; opens the door to corruption and abuse; and, in some instances, may significantly increase the cost to American taxpayers," he said.

The report comes at a time when the actions of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming under increased scrutiny. Contractors -- including Blackwater and KBR -- have been investigated in connection with shooting deaths of Iraqis and the accidental electrocutions of U.S. troops. The Senate Democratic Policy Committee heard testimony a few weeks ago from a former Defence Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) contract overseer who was effectively fired because he refused to authorize 1 billion dollars in unsubstantiated charges from KBR. The Government Accountability Office released a report that confirmed whistleblower complaints of DCAA supervisors issuing unsupported findings that were favourable to contractors. And last week, Government Executive magazine reported that nearly a dozen former DCAA employees see DCAA as a very troubled agency that is more concerned with performance goals than actually overseeing contracts.

The death of a U.S. soldier, who was electrocuted in January while showering in Iraq, prompted a House committee oversight hearing last month into whether KBR has properly handled the electrical work at bases it maintains. The military has also said that five other deaths were due to improperly installed or maintained electrical devices, according to a congressional report.

Contractors' activities have drawn sharp criticism from private non- governmental watchdog groups, such as OMB Watch. OMB stands for the Office of Management and Budget, which prepares and presents the president's budget to congress.

Craig Jennings, OMB's Federal Fiscal Policy Analyst, told IPS, "100 billion dollars is a very large amount of money -- in fact, Iraq's GDP was just over 100 billion dollars in 2007. But what staggers my imagination is how sober adults would be willing to divert such vast sums of America's financial resources to the bank accounts of private firms whose dealings are opaque to taxpayers and, for the most part, held unaccountable."

Jennings added, "I think advocates of unaccountable privatization are beginning to reap what they have sown: defending privatization of war- making on such an enormous scale is becoming tenuous. It's hard to paint a picture of contractors providing taxpayers value when so many instances of contractor misconduct have found their way into the public's consciousness."

Jennings also called attention to the shortcomings of the military auditing process. He told IPS, "This magnitude of expenditures on private contractors is especially striking in light of recent government and media reports of dysfunction in the DCAA. The protection of the interests of American taxpayers is apparently suffering a number of impediments."

Will Bush Officials Invoke State Secrets Privilege to Block Court Review of Arar Case?

NEW YORK, Aug 18 (IPS) -- After suffering a series of stinging defeats of its detention policies in four years of Supreme Court decisions, the George W. Bush administration may be in for yet more bad news.

In what legal scholars describe as a highly unusual move, a federal appeals court in New York last week decided to rehear a case it had decided in June, when a three-judge panel dismissed a lawsuit filed by the man who has arguably become the poster child for the Bush administration's rendition program.

Bringing the suit is Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who was detained incommunicado for two weeks at Kennedy Airport in 2002, flown by U.S. authorities to Jordan and then to Syria, where he was held for 10 months and said he was tortured.

The decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan is unusual because the full circuit assembles for a case only once or twice a year and because Arar's attorneys never asked for a full hearing.

In Canada, a high-level commission concluded that the Canadian police and intelligence officials had erroneously linked Arar to al Qaeda. The commission found that the Canadians had provided U.S. officials with misinformation. The commission also concluded that Canadian officials had been behind a campaign to discredit Arar after he was released from Syria and arrived in Canada in October 2003.

The Canadian government issued a formal apology to Arar last year and paid him $9.75 million. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said last year that the matter had not been "handled as it should have been". In June, the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general said at a Congressional hearing that the Justice Department's ethics office was reviewing the decision to send Arar to Syria.

The rehearing will take place in December, this time before all 13 appeals judges.

The defendants include John Ashcroft, who was attorney general when Arar was stopped at Kennedy airport, and other Bush administration officials at the time -- among them Robert S. Mueller III, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Tom Ridge, then Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security -- of violating federal law and his civil rights.

In the original decision, the three-judge panel agreed with a lower court decision, ruling 2 to 1 that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear Arar's complaint. The reason, they said, was that technically, Arar was never in the United States.

But one of the three judges dissented, describing as "a legal fiction" the idea that Arar was not in this country when he was apprehended at Kennedy.

That judge, Robert D. Sack, a Clinton appointee, said that Arar's case should continue because Arar "was, in effect, abducted while attempting to transit at J.F.K. Airport".

Legal experts believe the rehearing resulted from a request by one of the Appeals Court judges, though it is not known whether it was Judge Sack. The request was granted by a majority of the appeals judges.

However, a full U.S. appeals court hearing is far from a certainty. Even if Arar is able to establish that he has standing to bring his suit, the chances are the government will invoke its "state secrets privilege,� claiming that disclosure of the details of Arar's case in open court would compromise U.S. national security.

So rare is a judge's dismissal of a government "state secrets" motion that, when it happens, it becomes front-page news. That's what happened when a federal judge in Chicago recently disagreed with the government's use of the privilege in a case involving the Department of Homeland Security's terrorist watch list. The plaintiff, a local businessman, sued to discover whether his name was on the list. The government called that a "state secret", but the judge disagreed. The government is appealing the decision.

Once rare, the use of the "state secrets privilege" has grown exponentially during the administration of George W. Bush. The privilege has kept many cases from ever coming before any court. Administration critics say it is an essential part of a curtain of secrecy the Bush Administration has built, often for nothing more than avoiding political embarrassment.

David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an internationally recognized authority on constitutional law, told IPS, "The administration has argued that the president has unilateral executive power in the 'war on terror' to violate even criminal laws, and when it has been challenged on that assertion, it has argued that the courts can't even rule on that assertion of power because the alleged criminal violation is a 'state secret'."

There are currently efforts in Congress to enact legislation to limit the government's use of the state secrets privilege. The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a bill that would require the government to produce the evidence it says is protected for review by a federal judge in a classified setting. But the bill lacks bipartisan support on the committee -- only one Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, voted to move it to the Senate floor. That makes the future of the measure unclear.

Senator Specter is a sponsor of the bill, the State Secrets Protection Act, along with Democratic Senators Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. They said the objective of the proposed legislation is to "provide a systematic approach to the privilege and thereby bring stability, predictability, and clarity to this area of the law and restore the public trust in government and the courts."

A new Judiciary Committee report on use of the state secrets privilege includes dissenting views from several Republican members of the committee, who argue that the existing arrangements already strike the "right balance between openness, justice and national security".

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against the Bush administration on issues surrounding its detention policies. In 2004, in a case involving a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely at Guantanamo as an "illegal enemy combatant," the Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.

In the same year, the court ruled that the U.S. court system has the authority to decide whether foreign nationals (non-U.S. citizens) held in Guantanamo Bay were rightfully imprisoned.

Two years later, the court that held that the military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." That decision led to Congress's passage of the Military Commissions Act.

The challenge to that Act was brought by Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver, who recently became the first detainee in seven years to face any kind of trial at Guantanamo. A Pentagon-appointed jury found him not guilty of the most serious charge brought against him -- conspiracy to kill U.S. citizens -- and convicted him of providing material supporting for terrorism. He could be a free man before the end of the year.

Hamdan is expected to appeal his sentence -- and the constitutionality of the military commissions act -- to the U.S. civilian courts.

Will Pay For Good News

Why are we Americans so outraged by the news that money can buy favorable press coverage? Surely it's not that many of us who haven't known for years that journalists in poor countries (and a few rich ones as well) are often venal.

I remember sitting with a journalist in El Salvador 20 years ago. He was interviewing me about an export promotion program I was managing for the U.S. aid agency. I answered his questions and gave him lots of documents describing the program and explaining why it was important to his country. He thanked me, but on his way out, he turned and said, "You know, my newspaper doesn't pay very well. If I could have a small fee, I could write a longer story and it would probably appear on the front page."

Twenty years later in Cairo, a journalist who came to talk with me about a globalization program I was involved in made a similar request. She called it "bakshish"--a tip, an expression of my appreciation. Needless to say, the aid agency didn't pay--and the stories got published anyway.

What outrages many of us is not that corruption is rampant in most of the so-called "developing nations." Corruption is a way of life in poor countries, and is certainly not limited to the press (try getting through Customs sometime).

No, there are three other good reasons why this latest episode ought to make us angry. First, as far as we know, the journalists didn't ask for money--the Pentagon offered it. And it did so as part of an organized and well-funded program, complete with its own contractor.

Second, it did so in secret. Absent the Los Angeles Times , which broke the story, chances are that none of us would ever have known that bribing journalists for 'good news' coverage of the Iraq war was yet another example of our tax dollars at work. Such transparency has been poison to the Bush administration.

Worst of all, the Defense Department's payola scheme was being carried out at the same time the State Department's exchange program was working to teach foreign journalists about the role and responsibility of a free press.

Why is this the worst aspect of this situation? Because it adds to the widespread perception of U.S. hypocrisy-- at a time when we are spending millions trying to "win hearts and minds" around the world. The task that President Bush gave his longtime confidante Karen Hughes--now undersecretary of state for public affairs and public diplomacy--was arguably an impossible job in the first place. How does even the most competent diplomat go about convincing the world that Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe were aberrations, for which people were held accountable and sent to jail? How can Karen Hughes persuade anyone that America is a fair and compassionate society based on the rule of law when evidence keeps piling up that justice is meted out to everyone except the policymakers who are actually responsible?

Now, the Pentagon has hammered another nail into the coffin of Public Diplomacy. That should make us all angry. And, speaking of accountability, the Defense Department's press payola program was the idea of a real person. And that idea was reviewed and approved by other real people.

Who are they, and when will they be fired?

Appearing on ABC's "This Week" yesterday, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley joined Iraqi journalists in the view that, if the DOD investigation supports the allegations, the Pentagon's latest caper was bad policy and should be stopped.

But based on past performance, we'll never know who was responsible for this brainstorm, and no one will ever be held accountable.

Not long ago, the media uncovered another neat little DOD program known as "Total Information Awareness." The program was an advanced form of "data mining," that would have effectively provided government officials immediate access to our personal information such as all of our communications (phone calls, e-mails and Web searches), financial records, purchases, prescriptions, school records, medical records and travel history. Under this program, our entire lives would be catalogued and available to government officials. In the ensuing furor, the program was shut down. But nobody was reprimanded, much less fired.

This was no aberration; it has been a consistent pattern in the Bush administration. No doubt the DOD's media payola program will soon be quietly shut down. But, we--the folks who financed it--have a right to know whose brilliant idea this was in the first place.

BRAND NEW STORIES
@2025 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.