The Daily Jot: 2010-10-03

Saturday, October 09, 2010

THIS JUST IN! NO ONE LOVES BARRY!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS UP IN ARMS OVER A NEW POLL WHICH FINDS 1/2 OF AMERICA'S REGISTERED VOTERS DISAPPROVE OF HIS JOB PERFORMANCE.

"WHAT DO THEY WANT FROM ME!" SCREAMED BARRY O STOMPING HIS FEET. "I ONLY AVERAGE ABOUT ONE VACATION A MONTH! I'M FUND RAISING ALL THE TIME! ISN'T THIS WHAT I WAS ELECTED TO DO! TRUST ME, THE ECONOMY WILL WORK ITSELF OUT WITHOUT ME WASTING ANY TIME ON IT!"

MORE BAD NEWS, BULLY BOY BUSH TIES BARRY O IN POPULARITY.

IN THE FACE OF THESE REALITIES, BARRY O'S ONE TIME BOY TOY DAVID PLOUFFE EMERGES TO INSIST THAT UNLESS THE G.O.P. 'MAKES A FULL SWEEP,' THEY WILL BE A "DISGRACE." BABY PLOUFFE -- HAVING ALREADY WAXED HIS GROIN - STEPS BACK INTO THE PUBLIC LIFE AND TRIES TO GET THE PRESS TO WHORE FORM BARRY O THE WAY THEY USED TO, TRIES TO PLAY LIKE HE DEFINES VICTORY.

NO, DAVID PLOUFFEY, A VICTORY FOR THE G.O.P. WILL BE WINNING SOME SEATS. THAT IS HOW AMERICA DEFINES VICTORY. NOW GO BACK TO TONGUE BATHING BARRY O, HE FORGOT TO WIPE TODAY AND HE NEEDS YOUR ASSISTANCE.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Turning to safety. For this paragraph, dropping back to yesterday's snapshot: A con artist offers you what sounds like a really good deal but there's a qualifier to it, usually something along the lines of, "there's a limited window of time" as they attempt to hurry you into making a risky move. Remember that as you read Leila Fadel's report (Washington Post) about US officials such as the Commerce Dept's Francisco Sanchez leading an Iraq tour and telling business execs, "If you want to really play a role here, you have to be here now." As Fadel points out, "Iraq is ranked fifth from the bottom on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index - tied with Sudan and ahead of only Burma, Afghanistan and Somalia. Iraq's ranking has dropped drastically since 2003." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) quotes Sanchez insisting, "I'm not trying to sugar-coat this but what I am trying to say is, the Iraqi government is sorting through some of these challenges as the physical security increasingly improves. You can't wait for everything to be perfect." Serena Chaudhry (Reuters) notes, "Companies on the mission included Boeing, Bell Helicopter Textron, ICON Global Architectural Engineering and Wamar International." One wonders Sanchez will promise to attend any and all funerals? Probably not. He'll pitch to get American business into Iraq but he'll be busy if and when the funerals roll around. Like most con artists, he'll have moved on to his next mark.

There's our context. There's the US government insisting that US companies need to get started in Iraq because it's good business and safe, and it's safe, and it's safe. (Nod to Bob Hope in My Favorite Brunette.) Today Yasmine Mousa (New York Times' At War) reports on a new Baghdad super market (multi-story supermarket) which is doing big business. There are a few . . . what Sanchez might call 'bugs' to be worked out:

Food and loading trucks are nowhere to be seen, yet the aisles are stocked with kitchen utensils, brands of shower gels and clothing.

"Because of the security situation we have to work like thieves; right before dusk or soon after dawn we hastily carry our merchandise into the store in batches, in saloon cars," said Fareed Sadoun Salih, an employee.

Mr. Rifai added: "We cannot rely on remote suppliers. We purchase from nearby vendors."

Business is good, but the staff members maintain a low profile because their biggest fear is "getting kidnapped." Such is life for anyone with money in Iraq.

And that's the environment that the US Commerce Dept is attempting to send business into. Meanwhile Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses were discovered in Baghdad (one shot dead, the other "with signs of torture"). Reuters adds 1 police officer was shot dead in Baghdad "by a sniper" and there was an attack on a river in Basra in which seven security guards were left wounded. The boats were by a prison and, inside the prison, a riot reportedly broke out.

Friday, September 24th FBI raids took place on at least seven homes of peace activists -- the FBI admits to raiding seven homes -- and the FBI raided the offices of Anti-War Committee. Just as that news was breaking, the National Lawyers Guild issued a new report, Heidi Boghosian's [PDF format warning] "The Policing of Political Speech: Constraints on Mass Dissent in the US." Heidi co-hosts WBAI's Law and Disorder Radio (9:00 a.m. EST Mondays -- also plays on other stations around the country throughout the week) with fellow attorneys Michael Ratner and Michael Smith and Monday the program explores the raids with guest Jim Fennerty. You can stream the broadcast at Law and Disorder Radio online and, for the next 85 or so days only, at the WBAI archives. Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan interviewed activist Jess Sundan for Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox last Sunday.

Jess Sundan: On Friday, September 24th, I awoke to the sound of pounding at my door around seven in the morning. By the time I got downstairs, there were six or seven federal agents already in my house.

Cindy Sheehan: How many?

Jess Sundan: Six or seven.

Cindy Sheehan: [Laughing] Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said 57. Six or seven, that's bad enough.

Jess Sundan: [Laughing] No, I don't think they would have fit if it was that many. But my daughter and my partner were already awake and they showed us the search warrant which allowed them to take - to search and seize my house -- seize things in my house -- including -- I don't know how many boxes they carried out filled with papers and books, CDs, checkbooks, computers, cell phones, my passport, photographs. They spent about four hours here going through everything in our house. And when they left, they not only left a bit of a mess but they left a subpoena for myself and my partner for a grand jury in Chicago.

Cindy Sheehan: And what makes you so dangerous or subversive to national security that they would do that to you?

Jess Sundan: Well I'm an anti-war activist and myself and all the other people who received subpoenas or had their homes raided that day are people that I've worked with for several years on different anti-war campaigns. We also have in common, all of us have a real perspective of international solidarity. Many of us have traveled to other countries and in our anti-war work tried to give voice to those most affected by US policies abroad. So in their search warrant they were specifically looking for evidence that we had given material support to foreign terrorist organizations -- including naming someone from Palestine and someone from Columbia. Most of our subpoenas and search warrants were roughly the same. And they named the Antiwar Committee and we also had our offices searched --

Cindy Sheehan: Of Minneapolis, right?

Jess Sundan: Yeah, that's right. So I think, their real concern is that we've been very effective . And secondly, that we've -- in the anti-war movement -- done good work to break the information blockade, making sure that real stories and pictures come back home to the United States from places where the US is militarily involved.

And we'll note this from the show when Cindy's asked about the legal issues in terms of the grand jury and appearing before it.

Jess Sundan: Well the main things is the grand jury which all of us are very concerned about. A grand jury meets in secret. If you appear before a grand jury, you can't have an attorney with you. There's no one to object if you're mistreated. And if you don't testify, there's a risk of jail time and so we're very concerned. It's a very undemocratic court., you know. Except it's not really a court. None of us have been charged with any crime. A purpose of the grand jury is to investigate possible crimes and see if they can generate enough evidence to make a case against someone. We haven't been told who is the target of the grand jury -- like who they think may have committed a crime or what crimes may have been committed but obviously there whole search warrant was around this material support to foreign terrorist organizations. Any of us that were served on any of these subpoenas, and also some people were named on a search warrant at the Antiwar Committee office in addition to those of us that got subpoenas -- any of us realize that at any time there could be indictments brought against us. We don't know, we don't really know what our legal standing is. So we're working with our attorneys. I know that I myself intend to plead the Fifth [Amendment] which means that I will not testify.

Stephanie Weiner and Joe Ioskaber's home was among the ones raided. Wednesday, Andy Grim (Chicago Tribune) reported that they say "they will refuse to answer questions before a grand jury". Democracy Now! featured the news in headlines and showed Stephanie Weiner stating:

We believe we have been targeted because of what we believe, what we say, who we know. The grand jury process is an intent to violate the inalienable rights under the Constitution and international law to freedom of political speech, association and the right to advocate for change. Those with grand jury dates for October 5th and those whose subpoenas are pending have declared that we intend to exercise our right not to participate in this fishing expedition.

The statement was from a press conference Tuesday. Fight Back! News reports Pastor Dan Dale spoke at the conference noting an interfaith statement people were signing on to: "We are people of faigh and conscience who condemn the recent FBI raids in Chicago as a violation of the constitional rights of the people organizations raided. They are a dangerous step to further criminalize dissent. The FBI raids chisel away and byprass fundamental constitutional rights by hauling activists before grand juries under the guise of national security."

Grand juries were discussed on Law and Disorder Radio this week:

Michael Ratner: Yeah. Jim Fennerty, what people in Chicago are you personally representing and what's their political story? Why do you think they're targets?

Jim Fennerty: Well this is the thing. I was just at the US Attorneys office. I had another case in federal court this morning and the US attorney afterwards -- turns out it's the same attorney on these cases -- and he wanted to talk to me. Basically, so far he has not told me anybody who is actually a target, so we're concerned what that means. Now I've been lied to before when I went down to Florida in the Sami al-Arian case with somebody else who was involved with that. And they said, they couldn't tell me, they couldn't tell me. I get down there, we take the Fifth Amendment and they say, "We're not offering your guy immunity, go home." And then I, you know, a month or two later, he gets an indictment. Under their manual, tecnically, they're not supposed to send out a subpeona in a grand jury for a target unless they get higher authority to do that.

Michael Ratner: Heidi and I were talking about that.

Heidi Boghosian: So let's just explain for our listeners about grand juries a bit. When you talk about a target, you mean an individual who is under suspicion for violating the law.

Jim Fennerty: That is correct.

Heidi Boghosian: But what's happening now is that individuals are being given subpeonas in what we call a fishing expedition to try to get information about other people?

Jim Fennerty: That's what it sounds like now but I -- like I said, that's what they told me but it's happened before where somebody told me something and it didn't actually work out true but that's what I've been told today. Basically, a grand jury in its inception historically, you know, hundreds of years ago, was supposed to be citiznes coming together and determining if charges should be filed criminally against somebody. But what it's become, it's become almost, to me, almost like a rubber stamp for the government because basically what happens is the government, US attorneys, can be inside the grand jury. There's usually around 23 people who are called, citizens, to be at the grand jury and what happens is that the US attorney can be inside, they can ask you questions, you can refuse to answer those questions, but your side never gets told to these 23 people. In other words, your lawyer can't come in there and argue for you and give your side of it. That's why it's, like I said, it's pretty much a rubber stamp for what the prosecutors want and people should be very, very concerned about going there because what you say could be twisted around and you've just got to be very vigilant about what you do. You know, most cases, people can say they don't want to testify at the grand jury, they're going to exercise their Fifth Amendment rights against incrimination. What they could do at a grand jury, they could offer you immunity which is use immunity, it's not total immunity, but what that means is they offer you immunity and then you refuse to testify, you can be taken to a judge, they'll read the question to the judge and then they'll ask you the answer to that question. If you continue to refuse to answer that question, then a judge can hold you in civil contempt and you could be incarcerated for the remaining time of the grand jury.

Heidi Boghosian: And that can be a long time.

Jim Fennerty: Well that can be depending how long the grand jury is sits. But your lawyer can go back periodically and say, "Look it, Judge, this person's been there for three months or whatever and they're not going to testify. They're still not going to testify. So it makes no sense to keep continuing to lock them up." And hopefully you'll get a sympathetic judge for that.

Heidi Boghosian: Because it is -- it is lawful to hold someone in civil contempt, to incarcerate them as a method of coercion --

Jim Fennerty: Correct.

Heidi Boghosian: -- but not as punishment --

Jim Fennerty: Correct.

Heidi Boghosian: -- and that's why we try to argue that it's not doing any good.

And we'll again note this section from the broadcast because activists are being targeted.

Michael S. Smith: Heidi, when the FBI knocks, what do you do?

Heidi Boghosian: It is crucial that if anyone listening to this show is contacted by the FBI or if your friends or family members are, that you do not talk to them. You just say, "I would like to consult with my lawyer. May I have your business card? My lawyer will get back to you." Never say anything because anything you say, no matter how seemingly mundane -- answering a question: Do you live here?, Is your name such and such? -- can be used against you in further grand jury proceedings.

Michael S. Smith: Well they can go after you saying that you lied to them. Don't talk to them. Call your lawyer. Call our hotline. Get out a pencil. Heidi, give them the hotline.

Heidi Boghosian: If you're visited by the FBI, you can call the NLG's Hotline. It's 888-NLG-ECOL. Or 888-654-3265.

Michael S. Smith: Heidi, please repeat the hotline.

Heidi Boghosian: The hotline is 888-NLG-ECOL. And how you can remember that is that originally we started this as a hotline for environmental and animal rights activists so it was for ecology. It was Eco Law but we shortened it.

And on Heidi Boghosian's [PDF format warning] "The Policing of Political Speech: Constraints on Mass Dissent in the US," two people e-mailed about getting it in book form. It is available online for free. Some people don't want to read a screen. Some people have problems with PDF files. Some people use public computers -- such as at a library -- where they have limited time to be on them. For those reasons and more (including maybe you want a book to give as a gift), please note that the report is available in booklet form. For all NLG publications, click here. Click on the title you want and they will give you info -- usually it's an e-mail address. It's below five dollars a copy but I don't know the exact price, sorry -- and the cost is strictly for postage and handling.

Thursday, October 07, 2010

THIS JUST IN! BARRY O THE HYPOCRITE!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O TROTTED THE BITCHY OUT OF HIS WARDROBE CLOSET FOR HIS MARYLAND VISIT.

OF THE GOP'S "PLEDGE TO AMERICA," BARRY O HISSED, "THEY PUT IT OUT WITH GREAT FANFARE, BUT NOW, NOBODY'S REALLY TALKING ABOUT IT. YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP!"

NO, YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

YOU CAN, HOWEVER, NOTE THAT SWORE TO RELY ON SCIENCE, TO ISSUE NEW SCIENCE GUIDELINES WITHIN SIX MONTHS . . . AND IT'S BEEN 15 MONTHS.

HEY, BARRY O, YOU ANNOUNCED THAT MOVE "WITH GREAT FANFARE" AND NOW? YOU REALLY DON'T TALK ABOUT IT.

HEY, BARRY O, YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The illegal war has led to filings with the Iraq Inquiry from human rights attorneys. The UK's Law Gazette reports, "The Solicitors International Human Rights Group and the Law Society's international action team found fault with the UK government's two main justifications for the invasion, in a written submission to Sir John Chilcot's inquiry into the Iraq conflict."

Turning to the US, are the surviving spouses of deceased veterans receiving all they are owed? Senator Daniel Akaka's office issues this alert:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) is urging widows and widowers of deceased veterans to check to be sure that they received VA compensation for the month of their spouse's death. According to new figures from the Department of Veterans Affairs, approximately 196,030 widows and widowers have received a total of $124,348,136 in month-of-death back payments since Senator Akaka uncovered a VA accounting error in December 2008.

"Nearly 200,000 widows and widowers have finally received their benefits, but I want to be sure that all surviving spouses receive the compensation they are eligible for. I urge the survivors of disabled veterans to contact VA if they did not receive compensation during the month of their loved one's death," said Akaka.

For almost 12 years, surviving spouses of veterans were wrongly denied benefits. In 1996, a law was enacted instructing that when a veteran receiving VA benefits died, the spouse would be entitled to a payment for the month of death. However, due to an error, VA wrongly demanded the money back from many surviving spouses. Senator Akaka learned of the problem when a Maui widow contacted him for assistance after a paymetn for the month of her husband's death was taken from her bank account by the Treasury Department.

Looking into the case, Akaka discovered that VA had failed to adjust its computer programs and notification letters to surviving spouses after the law was changed. As a result, surviving spouses were still being told that the check they received was an overpayment which needed to be returned to VA. In cases where the money had been spent, such as for funeral expenses, the Treasury would withdraw the money from the widow or widower's bank account.

VA has implemented new notification letters and changed its practices. However, surviving spouses should ensure that their month-of-death benefit was paid as promised. In some cases, VA may not be aware that the veteran had a surviving spouse, as marital data is not always collected if the veteran's benefit does not take a spousal amount into account. (This occurs when a veteran's monthly compensation check is based on a disability rating of less than 30 percent, or when a veteran does not tell VA that he or she has married after VA benefits are commenced.)

For more information from the Department of Veterans Affairs, click here. LINK.

Kawika Riley

Communications Director and Legislative Assistant

U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs

Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), Chairman

http://veterans.senate.gov

Yesterday's snapshot covered the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on the VA's IT program. Kat covered the hearing last night in "MUMPS?" covering the technology aspect (confusing terms) and noting Roger Baker stated, "We wrestled mightily with implementing the Chapter 33 system and a lot of it was because of the short time frame to get it implemented and then the fact that it was very popular with the folks using it. And so we had a relatively poor IT system that VBA had to use in that first semester and we saw the impact of that. Veterans did not get paid in a timely fashion. With another year, we're able to implement the longterm solution much better." That was the only other mention of the 'mix up' involving the Post 9/11 GI Bill. (Yesterday's snapshot noted Belinda's Finn's remark on it.) Wally covered it at Rebecca's site with "The economics of today's hearing" which focused on asking why are contractors getting bonus pay just for doing their job, and Ava covered the hearing at Trina's site focusing on Scott Brown (Trina's senator) "What Senator Scott Brown has learned (Ava)."

An important hearing took place last week, Bob Filner chaired a hearing on the true costs of war which was covered in the September 30th snapshot and the October 1st snapshot. Kelley B. Vlahos (Antiwar.com) reported on the hearing at length on Tuesday and I want to note one section first:

You could practically count the number of members who bothered to show up on one hand, and they were all Democrats. Three congressmen not on the committee sat in, including Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), one of the few GOP war critics in Congress, who sat noticeably in front of 25 empty committee seats. But within an hour or so, all were gone but Chairman Bob Filner (D-Calif.), looking lonely across from the sizable (but definitely not standing room only) audience of mostly veterans' advocates all too used to the feeling of talking to a wall.

Congress voted to adjourn before the hearing. Filner and those present deserve tremendous credit -- my opinion -- for being there. I believe the others were Walter Jones, Harry Mitchell, Harry Teague, Ciro Rodriguez, Jerry McNerney, Zachary Space, Jim Moran and George Miller. All of those House members are running for re-election but they managed to be at the hearing. And Congress is still adjourned so I think Senators Daniel Akaka, Richard Burr, Scott Brown and Mike Johanns deserve credit for being present for yesterday's Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing. And, personal note, if I'm tired or have a small child with me, I usually sit as far in the back as possible. At the House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing, I was both tired and had one of my goddaughters with me (Rebecca's daughter) so I was in the back.

The hearing focused on the true costs of the war which including caring for those who served -- a bill that's ignored repeatedly. We'll again note this from Chair Bob Filner's opening statement (delivered, not his written statement:

Chair Bob Filner: It struck me as I looked at a lot of the facts and data that we-we see across our desks that, as a Congress, as a nation, we really do not know the true costs of the wars we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. [. . .] We all look at the data that comes from these wars. It struck me one day that the official data for, for example, the wounded was around 45,000 for both wars. And yet we know that six or seven hundred thousand of our veterans of these wars -- of which there are over a million already -- have either filed claims for disability or sought health care from the VA for injuries suffered at war -- 45,000 versus 800,000? This is not a rounding error. I think this is a deliberate attempt to mask what is going on in terms of the actual casualty figures. We know that there is a denial of PTSD -- Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It's a 'weakness' among Marines and soldiers to admit mental illness so we don't even have those figures until maybe it's too late. We all know that women are participating in this war at a degree never before seen in our nation's history and, yet, by whatever estimate you look, whether it's half or two-thirds have suffered sexual trauma. The true cost of war? We know that over 25,000 of our soldiers who were originally diagnosed with PTSD got their diagnosis changed or their diagnosis was changed as they were -- had to leave the armed forces, changed to "personality disorder." And not only does that diagnosis beg the question of why we took people in with the personality disorder, it means that there's a pre-existing condition and we don't have to take care of them as a nation. Cost of war? There have been months in these wars where the suicides of active duty have exceeded the deaths in action. Why is that? When our veterans come home from this war, we say we support troops, we support troops, we support troops? 30% unemployment rate for returning Iraqi and Afghanistan veterans. That's three times an already horrendous rate in our nation. Guardsman find difficulty getting employment because they may be deployed. Now a democracy has to go to war sometimes. But people have to know in a democracy what is the cost. They have to be informed of the true -- of the true nature -- not only in terms of the human cost, the material cost, but the hidden cost that we don't know until after the fact or don't recognize. We know -- Why is it that we don't have the mental health care resources for those coming back? Is it because we failed to understand the cost of serving our military veterans is a fundamental cost of the war? Is it because we sent these men and women into harms way without accounting for and providing the resources necessary for their care if they're injured or wounded or killed? Every vote that Congress has taken for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has failed to take into account the actual cost of these wars by ignoring what we will require to meet the needs of our men and women in uniform who have been sent into harms way. This failure means that soldiers who are sent to war on behalf of their nation do not know if their nation will be there for them tomorrow. The Congress that sends them into harms way assumes no responsibility for the longterm consequences of their deployment. Each war authorization and appropriation kicks the proverbial can down the road and whether or not the needs of our soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan will be met is totally dependent on the budget priorities of a future Congress which includes two sets of rules: One for going to war and one for providing for our veterans who fight in that war. We don't have a budget for the VA today as we are about to enter the new fiscal year. We are trying to provide for those involved in atomic testing in WWII -- who were told would be no problems and yet they can't get compensation for cancers. We cannot -- This Committee and this Congress has a majority of people who say we should fully compensate the victims of Agent Orange for injuries in WWII -- I'm sorry, Vietnam. Yet was have a pay-go rule on a bill that's coming out of here. They say it's going to cost ten billion dollars or twenty billion over the next ten years. We don't have it. Why don't we have it? They fought for this nation. We're trying to deal with the Persian Gulf War still -- not to mention all the casualties from this one. So we have to find a pay-go. But the Dept of Defense doesn't have to. So they system that we have for appropriating funds in Congress is designed to make it much easier to vote to send our soldiers into harms way. That's much easier than to care for them when they come home. This Committee and everyone of the people here has had to fight tooth and nail to get enough money for our veterans. We got to fight for it every day. We've been successful in the last few years but we don't know if that will -- if that rate of growth will continue. This is morally wrong in my opinion and an abdication of our fundamental responsibilities as members of Congress. It is past time for Congress to recognize that standing by our men and women in uniform -- meeting their needs -- is a fundamental cost of war and we should account for those needs and take responsibility for meeting them at the time that we send these young people into combat. Every Congressional appropriation for war, in my view, should include money for what, I'm going to call it, a veterans' trust fund that will ensure the projected needs of our wounded and injured soldiers are fully met at the time that their going to war is appropriated. It's not a radical idea. Business owners are required to account for their deferred liability every year. Our federal government has no such requirement when it comes to the deferred liabiilty of meeting the needs of our men and women in uniform even though meeting those needs is a moral obligation of our nation and a fundamental cost. It does not make sense fiscally, it does not make sense ethically. If in years past, Congress had taken into account this deferred fiscal liability and moral obligation of meeting the needs of soldiers, we would not have the kind of overburdened delivery system that we have today in the Veterans Administration. And would veterans and their advocates on Capitol Hill have to fight as hard as they do every year for benefits that should be readily available as a matter of course? Would they have to worry as much as they do today that these benefits will become targets in the debate over reducing the federal budget? Listen to this statement by one of the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility -- that's trying to figure out how we balance our budget -- former Senator [Alan] Simpson said, "The irony is that veterans who saved their country are now in a way not helping us to save this country in this fiscal mess." That is, they should defer their health and welfare needs because of a budget problem.

On the mounting costs of the current wars, Kelley B. Vlahos offers a common sense solution:

Here's an idea -- how about ending the wars? Several (failed) attempts were made in July by members to start withdrawing troops now (instead of 2011 -- what's the difference?). Most "experts" are increasingly framing operations in Afghanistan as hopeless, and with Muqtada al Sadr on the ascent in Iraq, we're likely not too long for that place either. Why not save a few skulls (and a lot more money) in the meantime? Then we can concentrate on the billions in lifetime costs we're already obligated to pay.

If a kid repeatedly broke his bones climbing trees, his father wouldn't take on a part-time job just to pay for the medical bills, he would tell the kid to stop climbing the damn trees and come home.

We need to get our men and women out of the trees and back home, and then we can start the healing.

THIS JUST IN! HE LIKES 1 OF YOU!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

IN THE MIDST OF THE GREAT RECESSION, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O LETS VOTERS KNOW THERE ARE TWO CLASSES OF VOTERS. THERE ARE THE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE ("CLINGYS," BARRY O LIKES TO CALL THEM) WHO GET SCOLDED BY BARRY O, JOE BIDEN AND JOHN KERRY.

AND THEN THERE ARE THE 'GOOD PEOPLE,' THE ONES BARRY O HANGS WITH FOR $30,400 A PLATE.

BARRY O -- REPRESENTING THE WEALTHY AND HANDING OVER CORPORATE WELFARE TO THEM WHILE DOING NOTHING FOR HARD WORKING AMERICANS.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Back to the US, Friday, September 24th FBI raids took place on at least seven homes of peace activists -- the FBI admits to raiding seven homes -- and the FBI raided the offices of Anti-War Committee. Just as that news was breaking, the National Lawyers Guild issued a new report, Heidi Boghosian's [PDF format warning] "The Policing of Political Speech: Constraints on Mass Dissent in the US." Heidi co-hosts WBAI's Law and Disorder Radio (9:00 a.m. EST Mondays -- also plays on other stations around the country throughout the week) with fellow attorneys Michael Ratner and Michael Smith and Monday the program explores the raids with guest Jim Fennerty. You can stream the broadcast at Law and Disorder Radio online and, for the next 89 days only, at the WBAI archives. (There are excerpts in Monday's snapshot and in Tuesday's snapshot of the broadcast.) Stephanie Weiner and Joe Ioskaber's home was among the ones raided. Andy Grim (Chicago Tribune) reports that they say "they will refuse to answer questions before a grand jury". Today Democracy Now! featured the news in headlines and showed Stephanie Weiner stating:

The statement was from a press conference yesterday. Fight Back! News reports Pastor Dan Dale spoke at the conference noting an interfaith statement people were signing on to: "We are people of faigh and conscience who condemn the recent FBI raids in Chicago as a violation of the constitional rights of the people organizations raided. They are a dangerous step to further criminalize dissent. The FBI raids chisel away and byprass fundamental constitutional rights by hauling activists before grand juries under the guise of national security."

This morning the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing held a hearing on the VA's IT program. Senator Daniel Akaka is the Chair of the Committee and his office notes:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, held an oversight hearing today on the status and future of VA's Information Technology (IT).

"Information technology plays a critical role in all that VA does, from delivering benefits to veterans' health care records," said Chairman Akaka. "VA's use of information technology has been marked by successes and failures. When it was first created VA's electronic health record was on the cutting edge, and I have faight that under the current leadership, VA's use of technology will continue to progress."

The hearing related to both health and claims processing information technology systems, and looked specifically at how aspects of IT have impacted GI Bill recipients. Witnesses at the hearing included top VA IT officials, a VA computer specialist, and a private sector authority on IT and electronic health records.

More information about the hearing, including statements, testimony and the webcast, is available here: veterans.senate.gov

Kawika Riley

Communications Director and Legislative Assistant

U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs

Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), Chairman

http://veterans.senate.gov

Ranking Member Richard Burr noted early in the hearing, "Mr Chairman, I thank you for your willingness to schedule this hearing even though the Senate is out of session. I want to thank my colleagues Mr.[Mike] Johanns and Mr. [Scott] Brown, for being here." And if you're Senator was present, you should be thankful as well because the IT problems include the notorious lack of tuition payments to veterans that began in the fall of 2009 and continued well into the spring of 2010 (to be clear, waiting for their fall 2009 education benefit checks -- to cover tuition, books, lodging -- through the spring of 2010.) This is a serious problem and Burr, Brown and Johanns didn't have to be there and not only did Chair Akaka not have to be there, he's the one who had the say-so in whether or not the hearing would take place. He made the call to hold the hearing and deserves strong credit for that. In his opening remarks, Johanns noted that when he was US Secretary of Agriculture (2005-2007), "IT systems were the bane of my existence" so the current problems were not shocking to him.

Burr noted that failed programs and discontinued ones by IT have costs tax payers "millions" of dollars. He noted what he saw as a "genuine effort" on the part of VA Assistant Secretary for IT Roger W. Baker who was confirmed to that position 15 months ago. Baker was one of the witnesses appearing before the Committee. The others were Belinda J. Finn from the VA's Inspector General Office, Tom Munnecke who was a VA IT official, Edward Francis Meagher who chairs VisA Moderinzation Committee of the American Council and Glen Tullman who is CEO of Allscripts. We'll note this from Finn's opening remarks but LTS refers to the "fully automated claims processing system that utilizes a rules-based engine to process Post 9/11 GI Bill Chapter 33 veterans' education benefits."

Belinda Finn: Finally, our audit of the GI Bill Long Term Solution reported that OI&T developed and deployed both LTS Releases 1 and 2 on time; however these releases did not always meet the functionality that was expected for those releases. We concluded that the program still needed more management and disciplines and processes to ensure the project meets both the performance and the cost goals required.

We'll note this exchange from the hearing.

Chair Daniel Akaka: Mr. Baker, what can you point out that would help persuade the Committee that VA has learned from its past and that will not experience expensive IT failures in the future?

Roger Baker: Thank you, Senator, I will keep this answer brief because I'd love to give you ten minutes on that one. I think the biggest lesson that we took from the failure of the Replacement Scheduling Application was that we have to make certain that the hard decisions are faced and made. From there, I think you've seen a series of hard decisions made at the VA relative to other projects. Stopping 45 projects in July of last year was frankly a hard decision for our customers -- based on that those projects were not delivering. Stopping some of those projects and saying 'We're not going to be successful at those,' has been a series of hard -- of hard decisions. Frankly, reforming a few of them was not -- was not viewed positively but we recognized that they were not going to deliver if we didn't change them to an incremental delivery. Even some of the more notable ones that I think that we get criticized for -- for example, stopping the FLITE program [Financial and Logistics Integrated Technology Enterprise], they're hard decisions. They're not decisions that we take lightly. And they're not decisions that we view from only one aspect. But in the end, we have to determine: Can we be successful? And if we believe we can't be, if we believe it's an overreach, we need to not do the program. So I would -- I would point you to not just some of the things we've done, some of the programs we've instituted but the results of those programs. And, most importantly, we don't allow a project to move forward today if they don't have a customer facing deliverable within the next six months. What that means is they're not going to go a long time like Replacement Scheduling did. Replacement Scheduling went years without delivering anything before they finally figured out it couldn't deliver anything. We now are implementing a technique we're calling "Fail Fast." If it's going to fail, figure it out quickly and stop spending money on it. That has generated a lot of facing up to those hard decisions again inside the organization. So I would give you those two things. Again, in many ways, that's my life inside the VA, is making certain we don't replicate those things from the past and we don't have anymore replacement scheduling. One thing I would add I've also promised Secretary [Eric] Shinseki that we will not have another replacement scheduling while he and I are at the VA.

Chair Daniel Akaka: Well let me give the other witnesses a chance, if you want to add anything to that about how to avoid these high profile failures. Mr. Munnecke?

Tom Munneck: Yes, as a software architect faced with these demands on the technical side, I often find that the users -- and this might come from Senate and Congressional committees, by the way -- want to have the penthouse suite on the skyscraper but they don't want to pay for the lower 22 floors and the foundation of the building. And so they say, "I want this thing up at the top, give it to me tomorrow or yesterday." And everybody else just scrambles to build the rest of the skyscraper -- the building. And, as an architect, you say, "First of all, I have to dig a hole in the ground to build a foundation.' They say, 'No, no, I want this skyscraper. I want this penthouse suite.' So I think Mr. Baker's approach, which I wholly endorse, should also include the requirements that people are building and not make gold plated penthouse suites but maybe even the 10th floor of an existing building and scale it down and allow it to evolve over time rather than go for the big push and the big bang that may not be possible. So it should be a process of discovery and working forward gracefully rather than expecting the gold-plated requirement to be met immediately.

Edward Francis Meagher: One thing I would add to this answer is this notion of accountability, personal accountability. When you have the projects broken up into small pieces, where you make sure all the parts are in place before you begin, that there's agreed upon business requirements, there's a business owner, there's competent, experienced program managers and then you hold people accountable for their deliverables and for meeting their milestones. That's a culture change that is taking place, I would suggest over the last 18 months that's very dramatic and is probably one of the main pillars as to why I think you're seeing the turnaround now that some of you have recognized and I really believe is there.

Chair Daniel Akaka: Mr. Tullman?

Glen Tullman: Yes, I'd again compliment Assistant Secretary Baker on the progress and what I heard today. You know, we believe that the private sector should play an increasingly large role in developing these systems. We're developing very similar systems for the civilian health care system and increasingly what we're seeing is these two are meshing together so people are moving back and forth in and out of the military and other services and the government as well. So we'd like to make sure that, number one, that the government is looking at what the private sector has to offer. And two, we believe that there are much better systems to form the community that my counter-part here talked about: A community of the VA, they're out there, they're social networking systems, their open platforms, their Microsoft-based systems. They're not based on what is essentially a 25-year-old transaction processing language called MUMPS. So we'd like to see the new system based on newer, broader standards and have the government in the role of setting the standards for what they want and let the private sector compete to deliver and get the and be punished if they don't.

Kat will cover more of the hearing at her site tonight.

Tuesday, October 05, 2010

THIS JUST IN! CELEBRITY SLIP!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

WHILE SPEAKING TODAY IN D.C., CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O SUFFERED ONE OF THE WORST THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN TO A CELEBRITY.

NO, NOT A NIP SLIP. WE SAID "WORST THINGS." CELEBS LIVE FOR NIP SLIPS AND ALL THE PRESS THEY GARNER DUE TO THEM.

LET'S JUST SAY THAT IF IT HAD BEEN CARROT TOP, HE WOULD HAVE BOMBED.

YES, BARRY O'S PROPS DID NOT COOPERATE WITH HIM TODAY.

IN THE MIDST OF HIS SPEECH ON YET ANOTHER TOPIC HE KNOWS LITTLE ABOUT, THE STATE SEAL BEGAN TO PEAL OFF THE PODIUM AND FELL TO THE FLOOR.

BARRY O TRIED TO MAKE A JOKE OF IT AND THEN, BACKSTAGE, BEGAN THROWING A HISSY FIT SUPREME, GOING SO FAR AS TO DROP KICK A MONITOR AT A GROUP OF SMALL CHILDREN WHILE UNLEASHING A STREAM OF NAUGHTY CURSES.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

DAVID SCHAPER: Early last Friday morning, before 7:00, Joe Iosbaker says he heard a loud, sharp knock on the door of his Chicago home.

Mr. JOE IOSBAKER (Labor Organizer) When I came down the stairs, there were, I don't know, seven, eight, 10 agents standing on our front porch, and I thought they were Jehovah's Witnesses and I opened the door and they showed me a search warrant.

SCHAPER: Iosbaker, a labor organizer, says the agents came in and started searching the house, every inch of it. Joe's wife, Stephanie Weiner, says as many as 25 agents came through their house that day, searching and removing stuff for 10 hours.

Ms. STEPHANIE WEINER: The house was turned upside down, tip to toe, to such an extent that boxes from the '70s and '80s in our attic were brought down and looked through.

DAVID SCHAPER: Weiner, a community college teacher, says the agents went through their teenage sons' belongings too - notebooks, posters. They even went through the words and designs on their T-shirts.

Back to Heidi Boghosian -- along with being a National Lawyer Guild member, Heidi co-hosts WBAI's Law and Disorder Radio (9:00 a.m. EST Mondays -- also plays on other stations around the country throughout the week) with fellow attorneys Michael Ratner and Michael Smith and Monday the program explores the raids with guest Jim Fennerty. You can stream the broadcast at Law and Disorder Radio online and, for the next 89 days only, at the WBAI archives. We noted Heidi and Michael S. Smith's discussion on the raids yesterday, today, we're going to excerpt the conversation that took place with Jim Fennerty later in the week. The raids involved at least eight homes and the Twin Cities Antiwar Committee's headquarters. Excerpt:

Heidi Boghosian: The FBI search warrants indicate that agents were looking for connections between local antiwar activists and groups in Columbia and the Middle East. We're pleased today to be joined by attorney, activist and National Lawyers Guild member Jim Fennerty. Jim, welcome to Law and Disorder.

Jim Fennerty: It's a pleasure to be here today.

Heidi Boghosian: Well you've had a busy last week with the raids taking place all around the country. Can you tell us briefly what your role is in all of this?

Jim Fennerty: Well my role -- and I'm not the only one -- is basically we're putting a group of lawyers together from the National Lawyers Guild to try and represent people at the grand jury and, if any indictments come out of this, to represent people if anybody is indicted. So we have been basically speaking to our clients right now about what a grand jury is, how it functions and telling them that they have a right to refuse to testify at a grand jury or not.

Heidi Boghosian: How many clients are we talking about?

Jim Fennerty: Well as of Friday [the 24th], I knew of about 10 people who got subpeonas. As of Monday [the 27th], I've found out that 2 more people in Minneapolis got subpeonas. So far there's a total of 12 people with subpeonas.

Heidi Boghosian: Now do you think there's a connection between the Supreme Court's decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project and this rash of raids and issuance of subpeonas?

Jim Fennerty: Well I guess my feeling is, I think, after this decision, which I don't know if your listeners know about or not, but I think this emboldens the government to push the envelope and see what they can get away with here. Basically, trying to say that certain things that people have done may involve, as they say, "material aid to terrorist groups."

Michael Ratner: Yeah, that's like giving people free legal counsel is "material aid."

Heidi Boghosian: And we're talking international terrorist groups.

Michael Ratner: Yeah. Jim Fennerty, what people in Chicago are you personally representing and what's their political story? Why do you think they're targets?

Michael Ratner: Heidi and I were talking about that.

Heidi Boghosian: So let's just explain for our listeners about grand juries a bit. When you talk about a target, you mean an individual who is under suspicion for violating the law.

Jim Fennerty: That is correct.

Heidi Boghosian: But what's happening now is that individuals are being given subpeonas in what we call a fishing expedition to try to get information about other people?

Heidi Boghosian: And that can be a long time.

Heidi Boghosian: Because it is -- it is lawful to hold someone in civil contempt, to incarcerate them as a method of coercion --

Jim Fennerty: Correct.

Heidi Boghosian: -- but not as punishment --

Jim Fennerty: Correct.

Heidi Boghosian: -- and that's why we try to argue that it's not doing any good.

Jim Fennerty: There's not much difference, is there?

Heidi Boghosian: No. Do you expect there to be more raids, Jim?

Jim Fennerty: I don't know if there's going to be more raids or not. They're not showing us all their cards yet so we don't know where they're going with this but, I mean, there could be raids, but I think that -- it seems that maybe this is like a test. Like a test case to see how far they can push the envelope. since the Humanitarian aid project case (Holder v. ]. And so I don't know if there's going to be any, I can't say. But I think people have to be careful but not so careful that they just shut up, don't demonstrate.

As with the segment noted yesterday, it was stressed that if the FBI contacts you, you should call an attorney (Jim stated have them slide their card on the door and tell them your attorney will contact them) and that the NLG hotline if the FBI visits you is 888-654-3265 or 888-NLG-ECOL. In addition, they stressed the need not to lie. And the reason you shouldn't speak without an attorney present is you may be caught in a lie without knowing it and they can turn around and charge you with lying to a federal officer. Political prisoner Lynne Stewart, Mother Courage, as she is often billed, turns 70-years-old this Friday and you can send her a birthday greeting or write her a letter to let her know you stand with her:

Lynne Stewart

53504-054

MCC/NY

150 Park Row

New York, New York 10007

Heidi noted that the recent NLG convention in New Orleans was the first convention she could remember without Lynne being present (but noted that Lynne was present in spirit).

Back to the attacks on activists, as noted yesterday, in an earlier segment of the broadcast, Michael S. Smith noted that the chilling of dissent in such cases includes that "the movement that you're part of being sidetracked and depleted in its efforts to defend you" and Heidi noted that, after being targeted, "these individuals are caught up in the legal system for two or more years. That, in and of itself, is a disruption of one's life, costly even if they get lawyers who donate some of their services, it still brings an enormous cost to their lives and their immediate community." And Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan is fully aware of that. Last November, almost a year ago, she took part in a peaceful demonstration at Travis Air Force Base. She explains that they were yelled out by war-niks, who continued to harass and approach them and began yelling in Cindy's ear as she was speaking to the press, he slapped a bullhorn in her hand and the police -- civilian and military -- did nothing leaving the women with Cindy in the position of erecting a human barrier between Cindy and the nut. Cindy was then ticketed -- as she was leaving -- for "obstructing traffic" and she goes back into court tomorrow in Fairfield. But before the 8:30 start time, she will join other peace activists protesting the use of drones at Travis Air Force Base: "Take Air Base Parkway off of Interstate 80 and go south to the end of the road to the Main Gate." Her court appearance is at Solano County Superior Court, Traffic Dept 26.

Cindy knows a great deal about efforts to silence dissent. When some people could hide behind her or use her to attack George W. Bush (while apparently just pretending to call out the Iraq War -- and don't pretend that those faux activists ever called out that illegal war on Afghanistan because they didn't), they did so gladly. When she wanted to challenge Democrats other than the small group of women that the so-called peace movement allows you to go after (women and Joe Lieberman who is now billed as "an independent"), she saw how the walls could close. When she ran opposite Nancy Pelosi in 2008 for the House seat in the eighth district, she found out what scorn was as various types attacked her. And excuse the hell out of me, that's my district. I have a say in that district. Katha Pollitt? Is she voting in NYC or Conn.? It's hard to keep track because she keeps flipping her registration? The little __ that produced the T&A feature and saw fit to attack Cindy at The Huffington Post? She lives in Los Angeles. If you can't vote in the race, maybe your opinion on it isn't needed?

I know that's shocking to the likes of Katha Pollitt who always seem to think they're babble is needed. On the plus side, when Katha wrote her attack on Cindy -- an attack in which she claimed to have huge admiration for Cindy -- she finally wrote about Cindy. The rest of the press had been writing about Cindy for three years by the time 'feminist' Katha finally found time to write about the face of the peace movement. A woman. And 'feminist' Katha never thought to write about her before? (Katha's not a feminist. She writes bad poetry, she cries about her ex leaving her for a thinner woman -- most of us are thinner than Katha, she spreads nasty rumors about that woman, she whines and indulges in her addiction of choice but none of that makes her a feminist.) So Cindy knows about internal attacks and she certainly knows governmental attacks. Today at Al Jazeera, she tackles the raids and the efforts to suppress free speech. Excerpt:

There is nothing noble about an agency that has reduced itself to being jackbooted enforcers of a neo-fascist police state, no matter how much the FBI has been romanticised in movies, television and books.

For example, in one instance, early in the morning of September 24, at the home of Mick Kelly of Minneapolis, the door was battered in and flung across the room when his partner audaciously asked to see the FBI's warrant through the door's peephole. At Jessica Sundin's home, she walked downstairs to find seven agents ransacking her home while her partner and child looked on in shock.

These raids have terrifying implications for dissent here in the US.

First of all, these US citizens have been long-time and devoted anti-war activists who organised an anti-war rally that was violently suppressed by the US police state in Minneapolis-St. Paul, during the 2008 Republican National Convention. Because the Minneapolis activists have integrity, they had already announced that they would do the same if the Democrats hold their convention there in 2012.

I have observed that it was one thing to be anti-Bush, but to be anti-war in the age of Obama is not to be tolerated by many people. If you will also notice, the only people who seem to know about the raids are those of us already in the movement. There has been no huge outcry over this fresh outrage, either by the so-called movement or the corporate media.

I submit that if George Bush were still president, or if this happened under a McCain/Palin regime, there would be tens of thousands of people in the streets to protest. This is one of the reasons an escalation in police state oppression is so much more dangerous under Obama - even now, he gets a free pass from the very same people who should be adamantly opposed to such policies.

Secondly, I believe because the raids happened to basically 'unsung' and unknown, but very active workers in the movement, that the coordinated, early morning home invasions were designed to intimidate and frighten those of us who are still doing the work. The Obama regime would like nothing better than for us to shut up or go underground and to quit embarrassing it by pointing out its abject failures and highlighting its obvious crimes.

Just look at how the Democrats are demonising activists who are trying to point out the inconvenient truth that the country (under a near Democratic tyranny) is sliding further into economic collapse, environmental decay and perpetual war for enormous profit.

In political news, this Sunday NBC's Meet The Press is bringing on the Illinois' candidates for the US Senate . . . well some of them. Kimberly Wilder (OntheWilderSide) reports that Green Party candidate LeAlan Jones is not currently invited for this October 10th broadcast and he is calling on Meet The Press to open the gates. A copy of the letter he wrote is posted and people are encouraged to write letters to Meet The Press -- BUT, it's too late for letters. You can send the message "Let LeAlan debate!" by calling 202-885-4598 or you can e-mail Meet The Press by clicking here. But it is really too late to count on the postal service to get your hand written letter delivered in time to make a difference. So if you believe in more choices and if you believe the media needs to cover ALL the candidates, you can call the number and/or you can click here and write an e-mail to Meet The Press. Lynne Stewart, for those who wonder, most likely will not get your birthday greetings until after the weekend even if you send it tonight (the authorities go through her mail first). In terms, in case anyone's wondering, of Meet The Press, this issue needs to be dealt with no later than Friday, a decision made about it. That's why you need to use -- if you're going to write "Let LeAlan debate!" -- the e-mail form online.

THIS JUST IN! 'BRAINY' STARLET!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS DECLARED THAT THE ANSWER TO "THE NATION'S HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT RATE" IS . . . COLLEGE AND HIGHER EDUCATION.

OF COURSE THIS DOES INTERFERE WITH THE ACTUAL FACTS:

Educated face higher unemployment

CBS 21 - ‎3 hours ago‎

A new report on the state's unemployment is showing those without a job aren't the people you'd expect. The report includes details on demographics, ...

Pa. profiles its unemployment ranks Philadelphia Inquirer

Thousands to lose unemployment benefits Pittsburgh Post Gazette

Is local economy on rebound? Indiana Gazette

PR Newswire (press release) - WGAL Lancaster

all 11 news articles »

BUT IF HE COULDN'T BLAME OTHERS HE MIGHT HAVE TO BLAME HIMSELF.

MEANWHILE BARRY O'S LOSING THE YOUNG FANS.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Turning to the US, Friday, September 24th FBI raids took place on at least seven homes of peace activists -- the FBI admits to raiding seven homes -- and the FBI raided the offices of Anti-War Committee. Just as that news was breaking, the National Lawyers Guild issued a new report, Heidi Boghosian's [PDF format warning] "The Policing of Political Speech: Constraints on Mass Dissent in the US." Along with being a National Lawyer Guild member (she's actually Executive Director of the national office), Heidi co-hosts WBAI's Law and Disorder Radio (9:00 a.m. EST Mondays -- also plays on other stations around the country throughout the week) with fellow attorneys Michael Ratner and Michael Smith and today the program explores the raids with guest Jim Fennerty. And that's 9:00 a.m. I wrongly said 10:00 a.m. EST. WBAI is no longer airing Democracy Now! twice a day and Law and Disorder has moved up an hour. My apologies to anyone who missed today's broadcast because of my error. You can stream the broadcast at Law and Disorder Radio online and, for the next 89 days only, at the WBAI archives. Today, we're going to excerpt the conversation that took place at the top of the show. We'll note the interview with Jim Fennerty later in the week. Excerpt:

Michael S. Smith: Heidi Boghosian, you're the Executive Director of the National Lawyers Guild and you've been following this story very closely. As you know, at around 7:00 a.m. Friday, September 24th, agents of the Joint-Terrorism Task Force of the FBI barged into eight homes in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Chicago, Illinois breaking down doors and in coordinated raids against leftist activists. Agents seized papers, computers, cell phones and personal items of Hatem Abudayyeh, Joseph Iosbaker and Stephanie Weiner in Chicago and served Thomas Burke of Chicago with a subpoena ordering him to appear before a grand jury investigating "material support to terrorism." In Minneapolis - St. Paul, agents raided the homes of Meredith Aby, Mick Kelly, Tracy Molm, Anh Pham, Jess Sundin and the offices of Twin City's Antiwar Committee. FBI spokesmen said that, "interviews" were being conducted across the country. No arrests have been made or charges reported, yet about a dozen activists have been supoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury whose proceedings are secret. Heidi, put this in context for our listeners please.

Heidi Boghosian: Michael, these raids are actually not surprising. Over the last decade, the National Lawyers Guild has witnessed a pattern of government intimidation of activists ranging from infliltrating, spying on peace, antiwar and other political organizations, targeting individuals whom they perceive as lead organizers so that before national special security events -- for example, the 2004, 2008 Republican National Conventions -- we saw FBI agents and members of Joint-Terrorism Task Force going around the country, visiting activists at their homes, going to their families, their place of work, asking them questions about their political views, whether they plan to attend the conventions, sending what we call a chilling effect on free speech. Other tactics we've seen take place at these mass assemblies such as the RNC and the DNC where police engage in a wide range of really fearful activities -- not only the use of less lethal weapons against crowds but using horses, bicycles, motorcycles to push crowds to then trap detain and then mass arrest without probably cause. Meaning that they're taken off the streets, out of the site of the media, out of the sight of the delegates, detained for often days with no charges and then released. Many individuals are charged with anti-terrorism laws and that's the trend that we're seeing that these trends are apart of, vilifying domestic activists. And the Supreme Court has a body of case law that supports vigorous language such as "Shut down the convention." We've been seeing that for decades. All of the sudden, such words and even ordinary household objects that are picked up in these raids become "Oh, the makings of a molotov cocktail!" Police and law enforcement are ascribing evil intent to political literature, political jargon and household objects. In these recent raids, I think we have to look at the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. And that means that any politically active entity or individual who provides what they call material support -- and it can be in the form of legal advice, the writing of an amicus [friend of court -- supporting] brief, humanitarian aid, any kind of dialogue even if it's aimed at coming up with peaceful resolutions or ways to work together , that becomes a terrorist activity.

Michael Smith: Remember that Lynne Stewart issuing a press release was 'material support to terrorism.' Heidi, what's your take on the level of government where these recent September 24th raids originated. My thinking is that they happened in Illinois, they happened in Minnesota. This wasn't a local decision. It must have been a decision that went up at least as high as [Eric] Holder, the Attorney General, and maybe in consultation with advisers in the White House -- perhaps even former Constitutional Law professor President Obama. Have you thought about that?

Heidi Boghosian: There's no doubt that this originates from the top. This comes from the Oval Office. This now is a hallmark of the Obama administration. One of the interesting developments is that at the same time as the same time these raids took place, the Obama administration announced it was supporting new regulations to compell popular internet messaging services like Facebook, Blackberry, to open up their systems to FBI surveilance. So it was reported right after the raids and one may wonder if the raids are also a distraction from pushing through this kind of legislation that more deeply erodes our fundmental rights to privacy.

Michael S. Smith: I think it's ominous. There was discussion last month about their ability to turn off the internet so that those of us that had hopes about the internet being this marvelous way to organize, you know, unless you have meetings where you actually, physically rub shoulders with people, we could be in a lot of trouble because they'll turn off our lights.

Heidi Boghosian: Michael, I think it's worth noting also that we see greater repression on the part of the government at times when the popular movement begins to have measures of success. So, for example, we've seen the creations of domestic anti-terrorism laws aimed at shutting down the very successful animal rights welfare movement in this country, the environmental movement -- laws that were particularly designed to penalize actions that are related to those two groups. Why? I think because they've had success.

Michael S. Smith: I think that you're absolutely correct. Look at the three sorts of groups that were targeted in the September 24th raids. One of the people, Abudayyeh, a Palestinian living in Chicago was the head of the solidarity movement in Chicago of the Palestinian people. And this is coming just a time when more and more Americans and particularly more and more Jewish Americans and younger Jewish Americans are disgusted with Israel's policy towards Palestinians and want to change. Or, a second example, the Twin Cities' Antiwar Movement against the escalating war in Afghanistan and the fake pull-out from Iraq and the drone bombings in Pakistan, this excellent group of antiwar activists in Minneapolis gets targeted.

Heidi Boghosian: Now we saw that under the [Richard Tricky Dick] Nixon administration, we had the same kind of crackdown on domestic dissent . We had the use of grand juries as fishing expeditions to gather personal information rather than to seek an indictment. We had raids, we had the villification of activists as subversive entities. We've seen the use of informants. And I'm going to mention the case of the RNC 8 which happened during the 2008 RNC in the Twin Cities. Individuals were arrested, their homes raided, materials confiscated on the basis of search warrants that had been based on informants false information. What happens? Then these individuals are caught up in the legal system for two or more years. That, in and of itself, is a disruption of one's life, costly even if they get lawyers who donate some of their services, it still brings an enormous cost to their lives and their immediate community. Now, in a postivie development, but I think it's telling about where these indictments come from, recently charges were dropped against three of the RNC 8. There are four remaining who will stand trial on October 25th of this year. But I think the fact that the charges were dropped is an indication that there really was nothing other than rhetorical speech -- "Shut down the convention" -- and good organizing on the part of these individuals. And I should remind you that these individuals did nothing other than organize and the police are saying that one or two acts of vandalism or property damage that happened at the RNC are the direct result of that and they tie them in under state terrorism laws to riot. But we see this, what I think is pre-emptive punishment that sends a chilling message of 'If you are an organizer, if you have literature that calls for people to take action, you risk arrest under severe anti-terrorism statutes. And you risk not only having your life ruined but the specter of decades in prison.

Michael S. Smith: And the movement that you're part of being sidetracked and depleted in its effort to defend you. And you risk having your computer taken and downloaded. Your Blackberry, same thing. The list of how your organization raises money and who gives it, same thing. This is what they ripped off when they went into these various homes and offices on September 24th.

Heidi Boghosian: Well they're building enormous data banks and what they call terrorists watch lists. And the government itself has admitted that a lot of the information on these lists is inaccurate but there's no way to get your name off it once you're there. And as you know, it's shared widely with law enforcement all around the country.

Michael S. Smith: Believe me, I know. Every time I try to get on the airplane. Heidi, when the FBI knocks, what do you do?

Michael S. Smith: Well they can go after you saying that you lied to them. Don't talk to them. Call your lawyer. Call our hotline. Get out a pencil. Heidi, give them the hotline.

Heidi Boghosian: If you're visited by the FBI, you can call the NLG's Hotline. It's 888-NLG-ECOL. Or 888-654-3265.

Michael S. Smith: Heidi, please repeat the hotline.

Michael S. Smith: It may be that the government bit off more than it could chew here, that democratic rights are cherished by a lot of people in this country. In the wake of their September 24th raids, demonstrations were called to happen simultaneously in 27 cities across the country. So we can fight back on this one, we can win on this one. We can shame them and hold them off.

Heidi Boghosian: I think the response has been great and it must continue to have a groundswell of support from everyone who cares about protecting their Constitutional rights.