Three investigations reveal that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has ignored mistakes it made as part of the reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and is repeating them in Afghanistan.
A $300 million power plant in Afghanistan paid for with U.S. tax dollars was an ill-conceived and mismanaged project that the Afghan government can't afford to switch on now that it's almost finished, a watchdog agency has found.
---
Even when the plant is completed in March, however, the Afghan government is unlikely to be able to pay the millions of dollars for diesel fuel that's needed to power the plant and maintain it, the auditors concluded. The U.S. Agency for International Development has agreed to pay for the fuel temporarily.
---
The special inspector general's office questioned the wisdom of building a diesel and heavy fuel plant that has a "technically sophisticated fueling operation that they (the Afghans) may not have the capacity to sustain."
The audit is the latest to find fault with the USAID's oversight of projects by two U.S.-based contractors, Louis Berger and Black & Veatch.
Last week, the special inspector general's office found while the U.S. has spent more than $732 million to improve Afghanistan's electrical grid since 2002, delays and rising costs have plagued many of the two companies' projects, in part because of a lack of scrutiny by the American government.
In November, another watchdog, the USAID's inspector general, found similar problems with the Kabul project and a plant in Helmand province, in southern Afghanistan.
A diesel-fueled power plant, nearing completion just outside Kabul, demonstrates that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and its contractors have failed to learn lessons from identical mistakes in Iraq, despite clearly signposted advice from oversight agencies.
Conclusions gleaned from three independent investigations into U.S.-financed reconstruction of the Afghan electricity sector, as well as IPS interviews with Afghan government officials and contractors, suggest that the power plant - which will cost taxpayers almost three times as much as comparable projects - may never be used.
First the U.S. planners chose to ignore other ongoing reconstruction projects that were cheaper and more likely to succeed, or to pay attention to alternative recommendations from Afghan government officials.
Second, the planners picked expensive technologies that the city of Kabul could not afford to maintain or utilise.
Finally, USAID asked for the plant to be built in record time - by a complex system of multiple contractors - causing costs to soar.
The construction schedule for the plant outside of Kabul was moved forward so that it would be online before the elections in Afghanistan, and provide a symbol of success in the country to which the Bush administration could point before it left office.
With the myriad of wasted, fraud, and malfeasance that have come to define the reconstruction effort in Iraq, it is difficult to understand why Congressional committees charged with oversight have not done their jobs - again.
Glenn Greenwald unpacks the opinion piece by former AG Michael Mukasey that appeared in today's WaPo - it isn't pretty for Mukasey, nor the rest of the GOP fear mongerers: Michael Mukasey: then and now.
I'll note that there is no such thing as a Miranda Right; police and other authorities read a suspect a Miranda warning, which explains to the suspect that they have certain rights guaranteed to them by our Constitution.
Or, more simply, any person in the U.S. is protected by our Constitution whether they are read a Miranda warning or not.
Sen. Susan Collins was on WGAN this morning, and was asked about her criticism about how Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, aka the Christmas Day Bomber, is being charged in civilian court, not before a military tribunal (h/t Collins Watch).
She makes some interesting claims - listen here:
Collins says:
It's also very troubling that our chief intelligence officials and the Secretary of Defense were not consulted by the Department of Justice on how to treat the Christmas Day Bomber; this was a unilateral decision by the Department of Justice.
On 3 February White House spokesman Robert Gibbs had this to say:
First, all the senior leadership in government involved in intelligence knew that Abdulmutallab was being indicted more than a day before and they supported that decision. Those represented in the Situation Room who discussed how he would be indicted in an Article III include the following:
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, National Security Agency head LT General Keith Alexander, Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, FBI Director Bob Mueller, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, National Counter Terrorism Center Director Mike Leiter, National Security Advisor General Jim Jones, Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Notice that was "all the senior leadership in government involved in intelligence", not just some of them.
And then Collins goes on to speculate if President Obama was even informed of these conversations:
I wonder - and we'll never know - if the president was even consulted, because he said in an interview on 60 Minutes just last year, and he was asked about this - 'Do we read them their Miranda Rights?' 'Of course not.' This is exactly what happened.
I have asked the White House exactly when President Obama was first asked about how Abdulmutallab should be treated, and will report on it when I hear back.
But Collins has used a trick of the Republican fear-mongering machine, and that is to take a quote out of context (not that I expect the hosts to know this off right off). Here is the transcript of what Obama had to say in its context:
Steve Kroft: One question about Dick Cheney and Guantanamo. I'm sure you want to answer this.
President Obama: Oh, absolutely.
Kroft: A week ago Vice President Cheney-- said essentially that your willingness to shut down Guantanamo and to change the way prisoners are treated and interrogator-- interrogated-- was making America weaker and more vulnerable to another attack. And that-- the interrogation techniques that were used at Guantanamo were essential in preventing another attack against the United States.
Obama: I fundamentally disagree with Dick Cheney. Not surprisingly. You know, I think that-- Vice President Cheney has been-- at the head of a-- movement whose notion is somehow that we can't reconcile our core values, our Constitution, our belief that we don't torture, with our national security interests. I think he's drawing the l-- wrong lesson from history.
The facts don't bear him out. I think he is-- that attitude, that philosophy has done incredible damage-- to our image and position in the world. I mean, the fact of the matter is after all these years how many convictions actually came out of Guantanamo? How many-- how many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? It hasn't made us safer. What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment. Which means that there is constant effective recruitment of-- Arab fighters and Muslim fighters against U.S. interests all around the world.
Kroft: Some of it being organized by a few people who were released from Guantanamo.
Obama: Well there is no doubt that-- we have not done a particularly effective job in sorting through who are truly dangerous individuals that we've got to-- make sure are not a threat to us, who are folks that we just swept up. The whole premise of Guantanamo promoted by Vice President Cheney was that somehow the American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists.
I fundamentally disagree with that. Now-- do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter-- down the block? Of course not.
Kroft: What do you do with those people?
Obama: Well, I think we're going to have to figure out a mechanism to make sure that they not released and do us harm. But-- do so in a way that is consistent with both our traditions, sense of due process, international law. But this is-- this is the legacy that's been left behind. And, you know, I'm surprised that-- the Vice President is eager-- to defend-- a legacy that was unsustainable.
Let's assume that we didn't change these practices. How-- how long are we going to go? Are we going to just keep on going until-- you know, the entire Muslim world and Arab world-- despises us? Do we think that's really going to make us safer? I-- I don't know-- a lot of thoughtful thinkers, liberal or conservative-- who think that that was the right approach.
Why Collins is continuing with this meme I do not understand; there is nothing that I can see for her to gain, and plenty of political cost if she falls on her face.
In an opinion piece in this morning's BDN, Sen. Susan Collins continues to repeat a falsehood that has already been refuted by the Obama administration:
The fact is, Abdulmutallab was questioned by FBI investigators for less than one hour before the Justice Department advised him that he could have a lawyer and refuse to answer.
The fact is, while Abdulmutallab might have "talked" to federal authorities and medical personnel immediately after the incident, talking with Customs agents and doctors is very different from being interrogated by trained intelligence investigators.
The fact is, once Abdulmutallab was provided a lawyer and told he could remain silent, he stopped providing authorities with critical information. He remained silent for nearly six weeks. We will never know how much valuable, actionable intelligence was lost during that time.
In the USAToday today, John Brennan, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, wrote (link):
Politics should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe.
Immediately after the failed Christmas Day attack, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thoroughly interrogated and provided important information. Senior counterterrorism officials from the White House, the intelligence community and the military were all actively discussing this case before he was Mirandized and supported the decision to charge him in criminal court.
The most important breakthrough occurred after Abdulmutallab was read his rights, a long-standing FBI policy that was reaffirmed under Michael Mukasey, President Bush's attorney general. The critics who want the FBI to ignore this long-established practice also ignore the lessons we have learned in waging this war: Terrorists such as Jose Padilla and Saleh al-Mari did not cooperate when transferred to military custody, which can harden one's determination to resist cooperation.
Why did Abdulmutallab begin to cooperate with authorities? As ABC reported last week:
The agents began a "thorough and comprehensive" background investigation of Abdulmuttalab, contacting his family, friends and associates and conducting thorough background interviews "to gain understanding of the subject."
The two agents identified those family members who "directly supported gaining Umar Farouq's cooperation and disagreed with his effort to murder innocent civilians."
The agents and key family members arrived in back in the US on January 17th. The family members met with officials from the Justice Department and the FBI to plan a way forward.
"One of the principal reasons why his family came back is because they had complete trust in the US system of justice and believed that Umar Farouq would be treated fairly and appropriately," the senior official said. "And that they would be as well."
The FBI and Abdulmuttalab's family approached the subject and "gained his cooperation. He has been cooperating for days," the official said.
And as Brennan notes:
There have been three convictions of terrorists in the military tribunal system since 9/11, and hundreds in the criminal justice system - including high-profile terrorists such as Reid and 9/11 plotter Zacarius Moussaoui.
I don't understand Sen. Collins' quixotic motive for continuing this argument. She was demonstrably wrong to imply our Constitution applies only to American citizens. She laments that suspects will clam up when provided a lawyer, without suggesting how those accused should be forced to talk. And she ignores long established procedures that as far as I have been able to determine, she has never complained about until now.
As always, Sen. Collins is more than welcome to respond in these pages.
But as of yet, she never has - perhaps she has been read a Miranda warning.
Senator Susan Collins, who's emerged as a leading critic of the decision to Mirandize the bomb plot suspect, raised no concerns about his handling while being briefed on Christmas Day about his capture on a private call with a top Homeland Security official, a source familiar with the conversation tells me.
The call was confirmed to me by Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Bobby Whithorne, who declined to confirm details.
The claim about Collins' silence comes after Obama counterterror chief John Brennan made big news yesterday by claiming that four other top GOP Congressional officials were similiarly told that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was being held in "FBI custody," prompting no objections from the Republican leaders.
I first reported on Sen. Collins' response to the President's weekly address here and in other posts.
In a statement sent to Sargent from Kevin Kelley, her press person, Collins said:
To equate the brief conversation on non-secure telephones between Senator Collins and Deputy Secretary Jane Lute to a comprehensive briefing on the detention and questioning of Abdulmutallab is preposterous. In informing Senator Collins of Abdulmutallab's arrest, Secretary Lute appeared to know very few details.
It is not, however, surprising that the Deputy Secretary knew so little about the detention of Abdulmutallab since we now know that the Department of Justice did not consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security or apparently the Deputy Secretary on how the terrorist should be handled.
It is offensive, to Senator Collins and the American people, that the Obama Administration is more concerned with political spin to cover a mistake than with taking the actions urgently needed to improve our nation's security. Clearly, the Administration is trying to divert attention from the fact that it interrogated a foreign terrorist for less than one hour before the Justice Department unilaterally decided to Mirandize him and he stopped talking.
Senator Collins calls on the Obama Administration to immediately change its policies and ensure consultation with top intelligence and security officials before treating the capture of the next foreign terrorist as only a civilian law enforcement matter. She will continue to press for her bipartisan legislation that mandates this consultation.
As Sargent notes, the statement does NOT say which details are omitted, but he has been told that Collins was not told Abdulmutallab was in FBI custody.
More importantly, the statement does not say whether Collins was given a more through briefing subsequent to the Christmas Day phone call, one that came before her video of 30 January. I have asked the White House if she had received any such additional briefing(s).
A reader sent along this opinion piece from State Journal-Register of Springfield, Illinois, project funds aplenty; none for city schools, detailing why many of that city's school projects are not moving forward:
There isn't a single dollar for the district in last year's $29 billion state capital improvements bill. Why didn't the district get anything at the same time hundreds of school improvement or construction projects elsewhere in Illinois were funded?
As a result of the cuts to the federal stimulus, the Springfield School District lost out on $6.4 million in funding in 2009, while Ball-Chatham lost $239,700, according to an analysis of proposed stimulus spending produced by ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative journalism organization.
This is not an issue just for school districts in Illinois, but for our entire nation. And as the Journal-Register notes, one person is responsible for it:
Members of Congress seemed to think that the $792 billion bill, instead of, say, a $1 trillion piece of legislation, would somehow provoke less outrage. Politics mattered more than getting the right mix of spending and tax cuts to get the economy going again.
At the behest of Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, all of the funding for school construction was cut from the final version. A weak compromise allowed states to use money that they received to stabilize their budgets to instead repair existing schools. There was no money for new school construction, despite $127 billion to $268 billion worth of need nationally, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers.
As I've long argued, rebuilding America's infrastructure is about much more than creating jobs; done properly, it would leave a solid foundation on which the economies for the next three or four generations would rest.
But this requires long-term vision, something that some members of Congress are sorely lacking.
In political news from around the Pine Tree State:
We missed this segment of Countdown with Keith Olbermann this past week, in which he debunks the claims made by Republicans (including Sen. Susan Collins) regarding the Christmas Bomber and how the Obama adminsitration is treating terrorism suspects (h/t Collins Watch):
Update: On Meet the Press this morning, White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan said he briefed four GOP members of Congress on Christmas night regarding Abdulmatallab, including Sen. McConnell, and that "None of those individuals raised any concerns with me."
So in his speech to the Heritage Foundation, McConnell either forgot that briefing or he was lying to score political points. And how is it that Sen. Collins wasn't told about this by McConnell?
At the very least, McConnell let Collins put forth her response video knowing full well that he had not objected to the way the administration was handling the case. Why did he let her do it?
While delegation members generally agree the policy should be reviewed, Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe take a more cautious approach than Democratic Reps. Mike Michaud and Chellie Pingree.
"I support the president's proposal to have the Pentagon do an analysis of the implications and consequences of changing the policy," said Collins, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "I do believe the policy needs to be reconsidered, but I recognize there are a lot of consequences that the Pentagon wants time to figure out."
Collins acknowledged that society has changed since President Bill Clinton signed the policy into law in 1993. During that time, she said, "many of our NATO allies have revised their rules to allow openly gay men and lesbians to serve, and they have done so without it having a negative effect that opponents fear."
Pingree, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said a change is overdue. She backs a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
"Frankly, the sooner we do it and the less painful we make it, the better off the military is to move forward," she said. "We do everything we can to recruit young people into the military and then we spend millions of dollars discharging them - not because they have not performed their duty, but because someone 'outs' them."
Pingree said nearly 14,000 gay and lesbian soldiers have been discharged from the military and untold numbers have been lost to the armed services because they refuse to enlist because of the rule.
On MSNBC last night, Rachel Maddow unpacks Sen. Susan Collins video from this past Saturday. When confronted by Andrea Mitchell with the facts that contradict her, Collins refers to "allegations from the White House." She also destroys the claims made by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell - it's actually disturbing just how wrong these three senators are:
No need to hand Maine's junior senator a shovel - she's doing a fine job with the tools she has:
Mitchell doesn't ask Collins to explain why she thinks our Constitution applies only to American citizens. Will anyone ask her about this? It's not like she mispoke - she read it from a script that she herself wrote.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs issued this statement regarding the continued criticism by Sen. Susan Collins over the handling of suspected bomber , which I've written about here, here, and here:
First, all the senior leadership in government involved in intelligence knew that Abdulmutallab was being indicted more than a day before and they supported that decision. Those represented in the Situation Room who discussed how he would be indicted in an Article III include the following:
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, National Security Agency head LT General Keith Alexander, Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, FBI Director Bob Mueller, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, National Counter Terrorism Center Director Mike Leiter, National Security Advisor General Jim Jones, Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Second, the Bush administration attempted to deny Jose Padilla access to counsel when he was detained as an "enemy combatant," but was overruled by federal judge Michael Mukasey. Mukasey went on to become the Attorney General in the Bush Administration. Mukasey declared that Padilla had a right to access to counsel, even when being held as an enemy combatant. Mukasey even rejected the Bush Administration's arguments that granting Padilla access to counsel for the purposes of contesting the factual basis of his detention would "jeopardize the two core purposes of detaining enemy combatants-gathering intelligence about the enemy, and preventing the detainee from aiding in any further attacks against America." If Abdulmutallab were detained as an enemy combatant, the same standard would have applied to him. If Abdulmutallab were prosecuted in military commissions, he would also be given access to an attorney.
Third, the FBI's current policy vis-à-vis Miranda warnings for arrests inside the United States is articulated in its Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG), which was finalized at the end of the prior Administration, and in the Legal Handbook for Special Agents, the relevant portions of which have been in effect for many years. This policy, which is consistent with the policy of all known U.S. law enforcement agencies, is to provide Miranda warnings prior to custodial interrogation. As the DIOG explains (page 63), "[w]ithin the United States, Miranda warnings are required to be given prior to custodial interviews . . . ." FBI policy also reminds agents that "standard booking questions and public safety questions" are not "interrogation" for purposes of Miranda. In both terrorism and non-terrorism cases, the FBI's experience has been that many defendants will talk and cooperate with the FBI after being Mirandized.
Fourth, Abdulmutallab has not been offered anything. The Department of Justice take his cooperation "into consideration."
Fifth, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is part of the intelligence community. Since 9/11, the FBI has made preventing terrorism its principal mission. The men and women of the FBI have disrupted plots, saved American lives, and acquired intelligence that has allowed us to take the fight to terrorists overseas. That includes the counter-terrorism professionals who were on the scene in Detroit, and those who continue to gather critical intelligence from Abdulmutallab while politicians in Washington second-guess their work.
On Saturday, Maine's junior senator, Susan Collins, delivered the official Republican response to the President's weekly address to the nation. Sen. Collins used this opportunity to express her belief that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, aka the Christmas Bomber, should not be tried in civilian courts, but instead turned over to our military as an "enemy combatant," i.e. a captured soldier.
In so doing, Sen. Collins offered this mistaken opinion about the foundation of law in our country:
Abdulmutallab was questioned for less than one hour before the Justice Department advised him that he could remain silent and offered him an attorney at our expense. Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees American citizens, this foreign terrorist 'lawyered up' and stopped talking.
Not only was Sen. Collins incorrect in her interpretation of whom is protected by our Constitution, but she also is about the wisdom of reading Abdulmutallab a Miranda warning, because despite that, it seems that Abdulmutallab is cooperating with the FBI:
The Christmas Day attempted terror bombing suspect has been talking to investigators since last week, a law enforcement official tells CNN.
Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab has been providing useful, current and actionable intelligence -- leads that the FBI and intelligence officials have been actively following up on, the official says.
The official was not authorized to speak for attribution because the matter is under investigation.
AbdulMutallab is providing information about his training overseas, who he met with, people he worked with, and others that were part of the plot, according to a second law enforcement official.
The "underwear bomber" has resumed cooperating with FBI counterterrorism agents and has provided "useful, current" intelligence, a law enforcement source told POLITICO on Tuesday.
The Obama administration has been criticized for reading Miranda rights to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the suspect in the fizzled airborne bombing attempt on Christmas Day.
The suspect, now being held in a federal prison outside Detroit, was questioned by the FBI for 50 minutes on the day of the attack, then was read his rights.
"Since then, the FBI and Justice Department have been pressing him to cooperate," the source said. "It started last week, and has continued for several days. The information has been active, useful, and we have been following up. The intelligence is not stale. He certainly sees that there are incentives provided by the criminal justice system to cooperate."
Note when these reports say that Abdulmutallab began cooperating with authorities, "last week." Before Collins delivered her response.
Sen. Collins refuses to talk to me; her office has never returned any of my phone calls, nor even added me to their list of media outlets that receive press releases. So perhaps a news organization that she respects, or can't help but acknowledge, could ask her to explain why she is so wrong on this.
Update:Collins Watch points to this statement that Collins sent to MSNBC, in which she does not address her mistaken claim that the Constitution applies only to American citizens, but goes further in her criticism of the way Abdulmutallab is being handled:
I remain concerned that there was no consultation with intelligence officials before the Department of Justice unilaterally decided to treat Abdulmutallab as if he were an ordinary criminal. If Abdulmutallab is now talking in the context of plea negotiations, that is, of course, welcome, but it implies that the government is willing to grant him a measure of leniency for the information he is willing to provide. We will never know whether the quality and quantity of information might have been superior had he not been given a lawyer who is now guiding him on what to reveal and what not to disclose. The lack of coordination on the front end and the inexplicable, reflexive choice to use a law enforcement approach were dangerous decisions.
Collins is either ignorant about the legal protections that our Constitution affords to criminal suspects or she is encouraging the administration to ignore them, an act illegal itself. Further, how does she possibly know if any leniency has been given to Abdulmutallab?
This lack of judgment should cause real concern amongst her colleagues and constituents, and again it is unclear to me why the news media in Maine continues to ignore this story.
Over the weekend, Sen. Susan Collins released a five-minute video in which she sounded as though she were possessed by the angriest, most unhinged version of Dick Cheney. Collins recklessly accused the Obama administration of putting us all in serious danger by failing to wage War against the Terrorists. Most of what she said was just standard right-wing boilerplate, but there was one claim in particular that deserves serious attention, as it has become one of the most pervasive myths in our political discourse: namely, that the U.S. Constitution protects only American citizens, and not any dreaded foreigners. Focusing on the DOJ's decision to charge the alleged attempted Christmas Day bomber with crimes, Mirandize him and provide him with counsel, Collins railed: "Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees American citizens, this foreign terrorist 'lawyered up' and stopped talking" (h/t). This notion that the protections of the Bill of Rights specifically and the Constitution generally apply only to the Government's treatment of American citizens is blatantly, undeniably false -- for multiple reasons -- yet this myth is growing, as a result of being centrally featured in "War on Terror" propaganda.
Sen. Collins is more than welcome to respond in these pages, in her own words, to whatever length she requires.
In the official Republican response to President Obama's weekly address to the nation, Sen. Susan Collins called for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, aka the Christmas Bomber, to be reclassified as a enemy combatant, not a criminal, which is what he is. She laments that he was given a Miranda Warning and a lawyer, and not surprisingly, he stopped talking" after he turned "the skies over Detoirt into a battleground on the War on Terror." Watch it:
I've always thought this idea of labeling terrorists as combatants was wrong, as it gives them credibility that they don't deserve. Thus anointed as warriors, we - our government - provides them with a foundation for their own ideology, something that mere criminals would not have.
I would like to know if Collins wrote the words that she recorded, or if this script were handed to her, because it is nothing but the same fear-mongering used by the Bush/Cheney administration for so long.
In his piece today, nostalgia for Bush/Cheney radicalism, Glenn Greenwald reminds us that that treating terrorists as warriors wasn't always the case. I urge you to read the entire piece, but here is a snippet:
To see how radical our establishment consensus in this area has become, just consider two facts. First, look at the Terrorism policies of what had previously been the most right-wing administration in America's history: the Reagan administration. In this post yesterday, Larry Johnson does quite a good job of documenting how Terrorism by Islamic radicals had been a greater problem in the 1980s than it is now. There was the 1983 bombing of our Marine barracks in Lebanon, a 1982 and 1984 bombing of Jewish sites in Argentina, numerous plane hijackings, the blowing up of an Air India civilian aircraft that killed 329 people, the Achille Lauro seizure, and what the State Department called "a host of spectacular, publicity-grabbing events that ultimately ended in coldblooded murder" (many masterminded by Abu Nidal).
Despite that, read the official policy of the Reagan Administration when it came to treating Terrorists, as articulated by the top Reagan State Department official in charge of Terrorism policies, L. Paul Bremer, in a speech he entitled "Counter-Terrorism: Strategies and Tactics:"
Another important measure we have developed in our overall strategy is applying the rule of law to terrorists. Terrorists are criminals. They commit criminal actions like murder, kidnapping, and arson, and countries have laws to punish criminals. So a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are -- criminals -- and to use democracy's most potent tool, the rule of law against them.
It was also Ronald Reagan who signed the Convention Against Torture in 1988 -- after many years of countless, horrific Terrorist attacks -- which not only declared that there are "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever" justifying torture, but also required all signatory countries to "ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law" and -- and Reagan put it -- "either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution." And, of course, even George W. Bush -- at the height of 9/11-induced Terrorism hysteria -- charged attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid with actual crimes and processed him through our civilian courts.
How much clearer evidence can there be of how warped and extremist we've become on these matters? The express policies of the right-wing Ronald Reagan -- "applying the rule of law to terrorists"; delegitimizing Terrorists by treating them as "criminals"; and compelling the criminal prosecution of those who authorize torture -- are now considered on the Leftist fringe.
Collins, and many others (including members of the current administration and to a certain degree President Obama), would have you believe that our own laws are not enough to confront terrorists, and the ideology that underpins it.
Collins also uncorks this statement that really she should be forced to explain:
Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees American citizens, this foreign terrorist lawyered up and stopped talking.
2. Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus.
This ruling overturned part of a law that she had voted for, and Bush had signed, that stripped the writ of habeas from non-citizens. Greenwald wrote about it here:
As a result, Guantanamo detainees accused of being "enemy combatants" have the right to challenge the validity of their detention in a full-fledged U.S. federal court proceeding. The ruling today is the first time in U.S. history that the Court has ruled that detainees held by the U.S. Government in a place where the U.S. does not exercise formal sovereignty (Cuba technically is sovereign over Guantanamo) are nonetheless entitled to the Constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus whenever they are held in a place where the U.S. exercises effective control.
In upholding the right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees, the Court found that the "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" process ("CSRT") offered to Guantanamo detainees -- mandated by the John-McCain-sponsored Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 -- does not constitute a constitutionally adequate substitute for habeas corpus. To the contrary, the Court found that such procedures -- which have long been criticized as sham hearings due to the fact that defendants cannot have a lawyer present, government evidence is presumptively valid, and defendants are prevented from challenging (and sometimes even knowing about) much of the evidence against them -- "fall well short of the procedures and adversarial mechanisms that would eliminate the need for habeas corpus review." Those grave deficiencies in the CSRT process mean that "there is considerable risk of error" in the tribunals' conclusions.
And Boumediene is just one example of constitutional protections guaranteed to non-citizens - what about persons in the U.S. legally, on Green Cards or tourist visas?
A further examination of Collins' statement demands that she explain how she proposes to force Abdulmutallab to tell what he knows, now that he has "lawyered up and stopped talking."
Today, hundreds of Maine residents will deliver their individual clean energy resolutions as well as evidence of their personal and professional contributions to helping Mainers reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, conserve energy, and lower their energy costs to the offices of Sens. Snowe and Collins - specifically to encourage them to support the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act S. 1733. Sponsored by Repower America, there will be a rally at Lobsterman's Park in Portland's Old Port today, 14 January, at noon. They will have a mobile studio there in which you can record your own message to Maine's senators, from around 11:00 a.m. into the late afternoon. You can also record a message from home at the RePower site above.
Those wishing to can join a march to the Portland offices of Snowe and Collins where DVD's of these messages will be delivered.
Here are a few messages already recorded:
REp. Alex Cornell du Houx (D-Brunswick):
Sen. Seth Goodall (D-Bath, Topsham), Chair, Natural Resources Committee:
State Rep. Alex Cornell du Houx (D-Brunswick) has asked his fellow legislators to join a national effort calling for passage of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733). The effort is being led by the Coalition of Legislators for Energy Action Now (CLEAN), which is working with the White House that will being about action on climate change while creating "green jobs." Over 100 Maine legislators have signed on to Cornell du Houx's letter.
Cornell du Houx is also a member of Operation FREE, a group of veterans from the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan that want to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil and gas.
On his website, Sen. Kerry, the bill's lead sponsor, describes it as:
This bill takes a more comprehensive approach to the fundamental problems created by climate change and dwindling oil reserves than previous legislative measures. By the time it reaches the floor, the bill will reflect the concerns and advice of six Senate committees and dozens of our colleagues. The result will be a thoughtful, innovative and far-reaching solution to one of our most vital challenges.
Our efforts center around four urgent national priorities: putting America back in control of our energy future, reasserting American economic leadership and competitiveness, protecting our families from pollution, and ensuring our national security.
About the effort to convince Snowe and Collins of the importance of S. 1833, Cornell du Houx said, "I am incredibly impressed, although not surprised, that Maine legislators have already signed on in large numbers. Maine has more signatories than any other state. Sens. Snowe and Collins can be comfortable knowing that the people of Maine will stand solidly behind them if they vote in favor of this common sense legislation."
"This legislation is vital for both our economic and national security. We send over $1 billion a day in oil costs to foreign states that do not have our interests in mind," he said. "This is hard-earned American money that should be invested in our own communities."
All of this makes sense to those of us that share these priorities, and judging on the keynote speech delivered by Sen. Collins yesterday at the renewable energy seminar in Orono, she does too.
The letter being sent to President Obamam, et. al., can be found below the fold.
Sen. Susan Collins comments on the Senate's health insurance reform bill:
Collins really has only her Republican colleagues to blame for the partisan nature of the partisan nature of the negotiations on the bill, although to be honest, it was a bipartisan effort that stripped out any hint of a public option.
It was a bipartisan effort that didn't allow even a discussion about a single payer system.
To her credit, Collins wants to control the cost of actual health care. But this is a completely separate issue from the high cost of health insurance, and in fact the most effective way to have an immediate impact on reducing health care costs is to eliminate health insurance from the equation entirely.
Something that Collins isn't willing to do, at least as far as I know.
The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that 56% of Americans support "giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans," with only 38% not. Further, 64% of those asked support "allowing Americans ages 55 to 64 to purchase Medicare coverage," with only 30% opposing (and oddly this enjoys more support from those aged 18-34 (80%) than those aged 55 and older (49%)).
Again, Sen. Collins is more than welcome to post her ideas in these pages, and discuss them with her constituents, and I hope she does.
Our nation's health care system requires substantial reform. The status quo of soaring health care costs, families struggling, millions uninsured, and health care provider shortages is unacceptable. That is why I am so disappointed that the partisan legislation before the Senate falls far short of what should be the goals of reform. This bill will actually increase health care costs, impose billions in new taxes, fees, and penalties, and hurt our seniors, health care providers, and small businesses. I simply cannot support such a bill.
It is particularly disappointing that the bill does not do enough to reign in the cost of health care and to provide consumers with more affordable choices. Whether I am talking to a self-employed fisherman, a laid-off worker, the owner of a struggling small business, or the human resource manager of a large company, the soaring cost of health insurance is a primary concern. Yet, the government's own actuary projects that health care costs will be higher as a result of this bill than under current law.
I am deeply opposed to the nearly $500 billion in cuts to Medicare - a program that already has long-term financing problems. It is fiscally irresponsible to raid Medicare to pay for a new entitlement program at a time when the number of Medicare beneficiaries is on the rise.
It makes no sense that the bill would slash more than $47 billion in payments to home health and hospice providers. That is completely contrary to the goal of controlling health care costs because home care and hospice services have consistently proven to be cost-effective alternatives to institutional care.
According to the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Actuary, these deep cuts could push one in five hospitals, nursing homes, and home health providers into the red. Many of these providers would simply stop taking Medicare patients, which would jeopardize access to care for millions of seniors.
The comments of the Chief Executive Officer of Central Maine Healthcare, reflect what I have heard from many of Maine's health care providers about this bill. He told me that its passage would be 'disastrous' for Maine and would saddle our hospitals with some $800 million in Medicare cuts over the next ten years.
Aside from the devastating cuts in Medicare, additional financing for this bill comes through an array of new taxes, penalties, and fees on individuals, employers, insurance providers, and medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation have testified that these costs will simply be passed on to consumers, further increasing the costs of health care for many Americans - the opposite of what health care reform should produce.
And there is a four-year gap between when billions of new taxes and fees are imposed and when the new subsidies go into effect. The bill would provide fewer and more expensive insurance choices for many self-employed individuals who will not qualify for subsidies.
The detrimental impact of this bill on small businesses, our nation's job creators, concerns me greatly. This bill would discourage small businesses from hiring more employees and paying them better. It could lead to onerous financial penalties on small businesses that are already struggling to provide health insurance for their employees.
Small businesses want to provide health insurance for their employees, but many simply cannot afford to absorb double-digit increases in their health insurance premiums year after year. The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), the nation's leading small business association, says this bill does too little to reduce insurance costs, imposes new taxes, establishes new entitlement programs, and creates new mandates that will burden small business owners and their employees. In short, the NFIB says, 'the Senate bill fails small business.' I agree.
To remedy some of these fundamental problems, I worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to offer significant bipartisan amendments aimed at containing costs, helping small businesses, increasing affordability, and providing more choices for consumers. Unfortunately, we were precluded from offering our amendments due to procedural roadblocks.
It is unfair that Republicans were allowed to offer only seven amendments to a bill that affects every single citizen and one-sixth of our nation's economy.
The health care legislation before the Senate has enormous consequences for our economy and our society. The Senate missed the opportunity to produce true, bipartisan health reform. Unfortunately, the process became too divisive and partisan, and the result is a bill that takes us in the wrong direction and will do more harm than good. Keeping in mind the oath every physician takes to 'first, do no harm,' I will cast my vote against this legislation.
DEC. 9, 2009 - Rosa Scarcelli, Democratic candidate for governor, today urged Maine's two Republican senators to support efforts to use a portion of the returned federal bailout money to create jobs here in Maine.
In letters to Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Scarcelli said funds from the previous stimulus package went mostly to prop up existing programs in Maine, such as Medicare and unemployment benefits, and created only a handful of jobs compared to the nearly 30,000 that have been lost in the current recession. In fact, Maine ranks 48th in the nation in the number of jobs saved or created from federal stimulus money, according to the website recovery.gov.
Now, with banks and investment firms returning hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout money to the federal treasury - the so-called TARP funds - Scarcelli believes some of that money should be used to create jobs here in Maine and elsewhere.
"While deficit reduction is an important goal, some of the bailout money, I believe, should be directed at job creation here in Maine," Scarcelli wrote. "American taxpayers, the true victims of our economic downturn, have waited patiently while billions of their tax dollars were handed over to some of the very institutions that got us into this fiscal mess. Simple fairness should now suggest that Maine workers, contractors, small business owners, homeowners and farmers are deserving of some bailout money too. Our dire economic situation demands it."
Scarcelli suggested that the funds be used to create a large-scale energy efficiency and weatherization program in Maine.
"Such a program would have the dual benefit of creating good construction jobs while helping to lower electricity bills for Maine residents and businesses," she wrote. "Lower energy costs are essential if we are going to keep and attract new jobs in Maine.
"My own experience shows that an energy efficiency and weatherization program works. My company, Stanford Management, was the recipient this year of $25.5 million in federal funds for capital improvements and weatherization of our affordable housing units. With these funds, we employed hundreds of workers here in Maine, bought thousands of dollars in materials from Maine companies like the Mathews Brothers in Belfast, and helped lower heating costs for residents of our facilities."
Last year, Congress authorized up to $700 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to shore up financially troubled banks and investment firms. About $290 billion has been distributed under the program, but banks have repaid, or will shortly, about $116 billion. Another $317 billion is left unallocated.
"I urge you to support efforts by President Obama and members of Congress to use some of the federal bailout funds for job creation, here in Maine and elsewhere," Scarcelli wrote. "Maine's recovery from this awful recession will be slow, and without your help, it will be even slower.
About Rosa Scarcelli: Scarcelli, 39, Democratic candidate for governor, is the owner and CEO of Stanford Management that provides quality, affordable housing in more than 30 Maine communities. A native of Wilton, Scarcelli said she wants to use her business skills to help create a better climate in Maine for job creation and growth. She lives in Portland with her husband Thom and their three children ages 12, 9 and 8. For more information, go to www.RosaForMaine.com
By a nine vote margin (Roll Call 369), the Senate rejected an amendment to its version of the health insurance reform bill that would have severely restricted poorer women's access to affordable abortions.
Maine's senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, were the only Republicans to vote against the amendment (you can't leave office soon enough Judd Gregg). Seven Democrats voted for the measure.
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an