“To say the least, we see things very differently,” Curley commented dryly, regarding photographer Bilal Hussein, who was arrested two years ago and remains in military custody.

Noting that at least a dozen other Iraqi photographers have been detained or arrested, Curley stated, “It’s impossible not to conclude that the words and pictures these journalists produced were considered unhelpful to the war effort and that their arrests would have served a broader strategy of information control.”

Curley also called on journalists to demand that all the presidential candidates make a commitment to reversing a directive issued by Attorney General John Ashcroft shortly after September 11 that radically restricted the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

Ashcroft’s memo stated, “When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records.”

Curley told the National Press Club, “When a matter of public policy poses a straight-up choice between the public’s rights of access to government and a government effort to infringe or even narrow those rights, journalists cannot pretend to be disinterested observers.”

“This is the moment to make it clear to all the presidential candidates how important reversal of the Ashcroft directive is to us and to the people,” Curley continued. “We need to ask the candidates at every opportunity … whether they are willing to appoint an attorney general willing to follow the spirit as well as the letter of the law that protects the people’s right to know what their government is doing.”

Gathering in record numbers at the Washoe County convention Saturday, local Republicans united more around the idea of keeping a Democrat out of the White House than behind the party’s expected nominee, U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

For the majority of delegates to the county convention, McCain was not their favored choice for the nomination. They roughly settled into two camps Saturday: those who will vote for McCain because they don’t like Democrats, and those who continue to back U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

Continue reading at the Reno Gazette Journal

read more

<

It’s good to know they are preparing themselves for that 3 a.m. phone call. But I’m not convinced any of them is ready for the 8 a.m. call from the budget director reporting that the deficit is raging out of control. When it comes to combating the fiscal menaces we face, these three are all absent without leave.

The budget situation is already dire. In the last six years, the federal government has spent some $1.8 trillion more than it has taken in. This year, the deficit will hit an estimated $410 billion. If the economy falls into a recession, the gap will grow.

Believe it or not, these are the good old days. In the next few years, the budget will begin to show the effects of a mammoth event that has long been dreaded: the retirement of the baby boomers. Social Security and Medicare already account for one-third of federal spending, and over the next 30 years, they are expected to nearly double in cost as a share of the total economy.

A recent report from the Brookings Institution found that just to pay for all federal outlays, we would have to raise taxes by at least one-third by 2030. To avoid such tax increases without cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, our leaders would have to make cuts of 50 percent or more in all the other federal programs. Or we could slash benefits for the elderly.

Clearly, some hard fiscal decisions will have to be made. But you would never know any of this from listening to presidential campaign speeches. The candidates all act as though we’ve time to kill and money to burn. None has made a priority of finding ways to live within our means.

The parties do have their differences. Obama and Clinton spend most of their time dreaming up new programs. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) estimates that his plan would boost federal spending by some $287 billion a year, while hers would carry an annual price tag of $218 billion.

They claim they can pay for most of this by raising taxes on the wealthy and ending the war in Iraq. But the first would bring in no more than $100 billion a year or so. And the money we are spending in Iraq is money we don’t have in the first place. It’s like saying, I can’t afford a Hawaiian vacation, so
I’ll take the money I’m not spending on that to buy a Mercedes. The clear implication is that either of the Democrats will finance their proposals the same way President Bush has financed his—by sending the bill to our kids.

For all his stern talk about eradicating earmarks, John McCain would take a similar approach. True, he is much less inclined to launch new initiatives, but he spurns the notion of paying for all the expenses we currently have, much less the ones looming ahead.

He says he would not increase taxes under any circumstances. That would be lovely if McCain were proposing deep cuts in the federal budget to eliminate the growing deficit. In fact, NTUF calculates, his plans would increase federal spending by $7 billion a year.

As the Brookings report put it, “Some people might believe that the federal government should both tax and spend at about 18 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), while others might believe it should tax and spend at about 30 percent of GDP. No reasonable person, however, would argue that the government should tax at 18 percent and spend at 30 percent. … Yet, this is the future we will get if we try to fund the spending required by current law with today’s level of taxation.”

It’s 8 a.m., a fiscal crisis is at hand, and the phone is ringing in the White House. Will the next president take the call or let it go to voicemail?

Read More…

Gary Pugh, director of forensic sciences at Scotland Yard and the new DNA spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said a debate was needed on how far Britain should go in identifying potential offenders, given that some experts believe it is possible to identify future offending traits in children as young as five.

‘If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large,’ said Pugh. ‘You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won’t. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society.’

Pugh admitted that the deeply controversial suggestion raised issues of parental consent, potential stigmatisation and the role of teachers in identifying future offenders, but said society needed an open, mature discussion on how best to tackle crime before it took place. There are currently 4.5 million genetic samples on the UK database – the largest in Europe – but police believe more are required to reduce crime further. ‘The number of unsolved crimes says we are not sampling enough of the right people,’ Pugh told The Observer. However, he said the notion of universal sampling – everyone being forced to give their genetic samples to the database – is currently prohibited by cost and logistics.

Civil liberty groups condemned his comments last night by likening them to an excerpt from a ‘science fiction novel’. One teaching union warned that it was a step towards a ‘police state’.

Pugh’s call for the government to consider options such as placing primary school children who have not been arrested on the database is supported by elements of criminological theory. A well-established pattern of offending involves relatively trivial offences escalating to more serious crimes. Senior Scotland Yard criminologists are understood to be confident that techniques are able to identify future offenders.

A recent report from the think-tank Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) called for children to be targeted between the ages of five and 12 with cognitive behavioural therapy, parenting programmes and intensive support. Prevention should start young, it said, because prolific offenders typically began offending between the ages of 10 and 13. Julia Margo, author of the report, entitled ‘Make me a Criminal’, said: ‘You can carry out a risk factor analysis where you look at the characteristics of an individual child aged five to seven and identify risk factors that make it more likely that they would become an offender.’ However, she said that placing young children on a database risked stigmatising them by identifying them in a ‘negative’ way.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty, denounced any plan to target youngsters. ‘Whichever bright spark at Acpo thought this one up should go back to the business of policing or the pastime of science fiction novels,’ she said. ‘The British public is highly respectful of the police and open even to eccentric debate, but playing politics with our innocent kids is a step too far.’

Chris Davis, of the National Primary Headteachers’ Association, said most teachers and parents would find the suggestion an ‘anathema’ and potentially very dangerous. ‘It could be seen as a step towards a police state,’ he said. ‘It is condemning them at a very young age to something they have not yet done. They may have the potential to do something, but we all have the potential to do things. To label children at that stage and put them on a register is going too far.’

Davis admitted that most teachers could identify children who ‘had the potential to have a more challenging adult life’, but said it was the job of teachers to support them.

Pugh, though, believes that measures to identify criminals early would save the economy huge sums – violent crime alone costs the UK £13bn a year – and significantly reduce the number of offences committed. However, he said the British public needed to move away from regarding anyone on the DNA database as a criminal and accepted it was an emotional issue.

‘Fingerprints, somehow, are far less contentious,’ he said. ‘We have children giving their fingerprints when they are borrowing books from a library.’

Last week it emerged that the number of 10 to 18-year-olds placed on the DNA database after being arrested will have reached around 1.5 million this time next year. Since 2004 police have had the power to take DNA samples from anyone over the age of 10 who is arrested, regardless of whether they are later charged, convicted, or found to be innocent.

Concern over the issue of civil liberties will be further amplified by news yesterday that commuters using Oyster smart cards could have their movements around cities secretly monitored under new counter-terrorism powers being sought by the security services.

“Beginning of the One World Government is near, where everyone is nothing but a slave, existing only as a file within a supercomputer system.”

A couple of months back, I wrote the following:

The unprecedented wealth transfer from poor and middle income families to the uber rich is nearly complete. The folks at the bottom of the GOP-led financial pyramid scheme are nearly bled dry, and the pyramid is about to collapse. To sustain itself a little longer, the folks at the top of the pyramid will have to start an Amway-style ritual of financial cannibalism amongst themselves. I think that (to an extent) this is exactly what we’re seeing in the stock markets and big financial houses as the true meltdown begins…

On Friday, it was announced that JP Morgan Chase Bank was acting as an intermediary to bail out the financial investment bank Bear Stearns, and essentially funneled billions of dollars from the U.S. Federal Reserve (read: you and me) to those who had entrusted their investment fortunes to Bear Sterns.

I don’t even know where to start on this one. How about here?

So the only possible justification for such Fed action is to engineer an orderly rather than a disorderly shutdown of this institution. But unfortunately the Fed is behaving as if Bear Stearns is illiquid but solvent. That is delusional and the official sector support of an otherwise insolvent institution will end up – like many other recent Fed actions – being paid for by the US tax-payer…

On Friday, Bear Stearns stock closed at $30 / share, down nearly 50% from the prior day.

Today, J.P. Morgan Chase agreed to buy Bear Stearns for $2 / share. You read that right.

$2 / share.

But almost as importantly (riffing on the link above), it was also announced that the Federal Reserve will now extend their “lender of last resort” protection not just to banks, but to investment houses. So, the next time a Bear Sterns (or Merrill Lynch) gets into trouble because of bad investments, the U.S. Federal Reserve will bail them out. Or more correctly, their well-heeled institutional investors.

I freely admit I know very little about the inner workings of the banking and investment industries. But even a financial neophyte like me can understand that the Fed appears to be engaging in a totally knee jerk reaction to a liquidity crisis of a single, poorly risk-managed company.

This is getting really scary. I can’t imagine that the markets will react well to this when they open on Monday.