Showing posts with label Corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corruption. Show all posts

26 March 2013

Lamar W. Hankins : Texas' Pedernales Electric Coop Violates Cooperative Values

Then Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson at PEC headquarters in Johnson City, Texas, in 1961.
PEC violates cooperative values
and principles of liberty
Perhaps the greatest irony about membership in the PEC is that I have no choice about being a member if I want to purchase electricity.
By Lamar W. Hankins / The Rag Blog / March 26, 2013

SAN MARCOS, Texas -- In 2006, my wife and I built our retirement home in the City of San Marcos, but within a small area of the city where electric service is provided only by Pedernales Electric Cooperative (PEC). We had no choice about whom we bought electric service from -- it was PEC or no electricity. Had we been able to get service from the City of San Marcos, as our neighbors a few blocks away do, we would have been able to pay about half of what we currently pay for electric service.

PEC is unique among member-owned electric utilities. It is the largest electric cooperative in the nation and has operated for over 75 years in Central Texas, now serving more than 200,000 members over 8,100 square miles.

PEC’s service area is vast: it extends from Lampasas in the north, Liberty Hill and Manchaca in the east, Canyon Lake and Bulverde in the south, and Johnson City to the west, and includes a large area around Junction and Rocksprings farther west that is not contiguous with the rest of its service area.

It serves all or part of 24 Texas counties: Bell, Bexar, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell, Comal, Edwards, Gillespie, Guadalupe, Hays, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Lampasas, Llano, Mason, Menard, Real, San Saba, Schleicher, Sutton, Travis, Williamson. It boasts that its service area is larger than the state of Massachusetts.

Ever since PEC corruption was exposed in 2007, I have kept a closer watch on what PEC does, but it is not easy to accomplish. Until the reforms that began in 2008, PEC spent lavishly on its chief officials, including board members, whose median pay in 2006 was over $50,000 each; and the board president was paid $190,000 per year for minimal work (no office, no staff, no regular hours, no specific duties).

Spouses were taken on official trips at co-op expense. Travel for some was first class. The organization hired public relations services at considerable annual expense, lobbyists were used regularly at great expense, health insurance was provided to PEC board members and their families at PEC expense. In 2006, the 17-member co-op board paid itself over $1 million in compensation and benefits.

To put this situation in perspective, it may help to understand that most cooperatives are a special kind of nonprofit organization, operating under unique tax and legal requirements. They are supposed to exist for the benefit of their members. I have had experience throughout my adult life with service on nonprofit boards and organizing committees, including cooperatives, and have helped create several cooperatives. While I am not an expert, I have learned a few things about the responsibilities of nonprofit and co-op board members in the last 45 years.

The National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA), the leading national association dedicated to the creation and support of cooperatives, identifies the values that should guide all cooperatives:
Cooperatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, cooperative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others.
In 1999, PEC was protected from the legislation that permitted many Texans to choose where they would buy their electric service. The inaptly named Electric Choice Act of 1999 was implemented throughout Texas in 2002 -- a time when PEC was mired in corruption, which is why it is no surprise that the PEC board then would not allow its captive members to choose another electricity provider. But we are in a different era now according to the current PEC board. However, we still don’t have the opportunity to choose a different electricity provider.

Randy Claus, a PEC member since 1990, pointed out in a recent letter that, “The sole business purpose of an electric cooperative is to provide safe, reliable and low cost electricity, but it’s not happening (with PEC).” The PEC board seems horrified by the idea of giving those living in its designated service area a choice of electricity providers.

Earlier this year, when Chris Perry, a PEC board member, wrote an op-ed favoring choice and introduced a resolution before the board that would have allowed choice, the board asked Perry to resign from the board, according to an article in the Austin American-Statesman.

The board then stripped Perry of his position as the board’s secretary-treasurer on the grounds that his article “violated the board’s code of conduct, communications policy and statutory fiduciary duties.” So much for openness (the freedom to speak one’s mind), social responsibility, and caring for others.

Perhaps the greatest irony about membership in the PEC is that I have no choice about being a member if I want to purchase electricity. Such a circumstance does not square easily with PEC’s principles that are explained in several of its organization documents that provide, in part:
Cooperatives are independent, private and not-for-profit organizations owned by the members they serve. The priorities of PEC’s members are represented through a democratic process, and every member is encouraged to monitor and regulate the business of our cooperative . . . Cooperatives such as Pedernales Electric are rooted in the Cooperative Principles first established by the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers in 1844. As one of more than 900 members of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, PEC is guided by these seven principles.

These seven principles have been adopted, also, by the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA), which grew out of the movement begun by the Rochdale pioneers in the late 1800s. The ICA provides this definition of cooperatives, which comes directly from the seven principles: “A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise. [Emphasis added]
The first principle that all of these organizations claim as their own provides that cooperatives, by their very nature, have “open and voluntary” membership, something no one now living in a PEC service area can have if it wants electric service, since PEC has a monopoly on providing electricity in its service area. I and others are involuntary members because PEC wants to keep it that way, though it doesn’t have to. We are pressed into involuntary servitude by virtue of where we live and PEC’s policies and practices.

Of course, PEC claims that it has debt and contractual obligations that must come before the liberty concerns of its captive customers. If PEC had clean hands, that argument might have merit, but its hands are far from clean considering the millions of dollars it squandered during decades of prodigal spending and opulent operations that benefited the few at the expense of the members.

It is past time to free the citizens living in PEC’s service area and permit them a choice of electricity providers. The liberty that we have come to expect as our birthright is held captive by the power given to PEC by the Texas Legislature to make its involuntary customers pay exorbitant prices created by PEC’s own past corruption.

[Lamar W. Hankins, a former San Marcos, Texas, city attorney, is also a columnist for the San Marcos Mercury. This article © Freethought San Marcos, Lamar W. Hankins. Read more articles by Lamar W. Hankins on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

19 September 2010

Ted McLaughlin : Fingering Corruption in Afghanistan

President Hamid Karzai votes: Supposedly indelible ink used to mark voters' fingers in the Afghanistan election to prevent fraud may have been easily washed off. Photo by Reuters.

Ink hardly dry on electoral farce:
American opinion and the Afghan fiasco

By Ted McLaughlin / The Rag Blog / September 19, 2010

The citizens of Afghanistan went to the polls this last weekend to elect 249 new members of their parliament, but initial reports said the voting was much lighter than it was in the presidential election a few months ago. Some will say it's because the Taliban has tried to discourage people from voting (and they have). But they did the same thing in the presidential election.

It is far more likely that after the corrupt and fraudulent presidential election, few Afghans expect this election to be any different. Why risk your life to vote when the election is probably going to be decided more by fraud than the will of the people? And it looks like the worries about fraud are being borne out.

At the polls they used ink on a finger to keep people from voting more than once. But the ink given out turned out to be easily washed off with just a little water, and household detergent or bleach. There have been reports of people voting repeatedly by washing off the ink. There are also reports of thousands of forged voter cards being used and of bribes being taken by those working at the polls.

The results from the election will probably not be known until near the end of October. Many of the outlying and remote polling places will be transporting the ballot boxes back to more populated areas by donkey to be counted. And all the counting will be done by hand.

But even after the results are announced it is unlikely that most people and/or candidates will trust the results. There is already talk of the results being challenged. And while this fraudulent mess goes on, American soldiers fight and die to continue propping up this corrupt government.

It's no wonder that many Americans are losing faith in what we're trying to accomplish in Afghanistan -- or don't think we are capable of accomplishing anything in that country. A new survey done by The New York Times and CBS News shows this clearly.

The poll asked Americans whether we are doing the right thing by fighting in Afghanistan or whether we should not be involved in that war. Here's what they said:

Doing the right thing...............38%
Shouldn't be involved...............54%
Don't know...............9%

Then people were asked whether the war there is going well or going badly. They said:

Going well...............38%
Going badly...............55%
Don't know...............7%

The American people may have supported this war years ago, but it has gone on for too long and too little has been accomplished with too many lives lost. They no longer believe we are doing the right thing by continuing the war, or even that anything could eventually be accomplished by dragging out the war. It is not likely that the corrupt government and fraudulent elections will change that opinion.

And the opinion is even worse about the Iraq war, where 50,000 American soldiers remain involved regardless of what the government has said. The poll showed that 71% of Americans do not believe the Iraq war was worth the cost in American lives and money.

It is sheer insanity and misguided pride that keeps these wars going (just like the Vietnam war was continued long after it was known that it could not be won). This country is very good at fighting conventional wars (which is what our soldiers were trained for and our military equipment designed for). But the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were not and are not conventional wars. They are efforts at nation-building through military power -- and that is something we've never been very good at doing (and are unlikely to be any better at it in the future).

Americans have always been better at changing the world through providing a shining example of democracy, rule of law, and tolerance. Sadly the current wars and the tactics we have used in them, including torture, have caused us to lose the respect of much of the world. We have muddied the shining example we once provided.

It is time to end these ridiculous wars and bring all our soldiers home. It is also time to try and rebuild a respect for democracy, rule of law, and tolerance once again in this country in the hope that we can once again be respected as a world leader instead of just being seen as an international bully.

[Rag Blog contributor Ted McLaughlin also posts at jobsanger.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

07 March 2010

KBR and the Army : Rewarding Incompetence and Scandal

Image from Ms. Sparky.

Repeating bad behavior:
Houston's KBR gets $2.8 billion contract


By Ted McLaughlin / The Rag Blog / March 7, 2010

It looks like the United States Army is incapable of learning from past mistakes. On Tuesday, the Army awarded defense giant KBR (once an affiliate of Halliburton) a new contract for support work in Iraq. The contract could be worth as much as $2.8 billion for the Houston-based company.

KBR was quick to jump on the new contract saying, "The award demonstrates that the government recognizes KBR's ability and expertise in delivering high quality service in challenging contingency environments." Despite their bragging, the record shows that KBR has definitely NOT shown "ability and expertise" in its Iraqi operations. Let me remind you of just a few of KBR's screw-ups in Iraq.

First, consider the death of Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, a 24 year-old Green Beret. Maseth was electrocuted while taking a shower in 2008. It turned out that his death was due to faulty electrical work done by KBR. An investigation then found 17 other deaths due to faulty electrical work, most of it done by KBR. The company was denied $25 million in awards for this shoddy work.

But this was not all. Earlier, it was discovered that KBR had been selling the Army contaminated water. The water caused our soldiers to experience skin abscesses, cellulitis, skin infections, diarrhea, and other illnesses. Instead of fixing the problem, KBR covered it up and continued selling the contaminated water to the Army for THREE YEARS (from January 2004 through December 2006).

And it goes on. In 2005, a young woman named Jamie Leigh Jones was working for KBR in Iraq when she was raped by several male employees of KBR. Did KBR report this to the proper authorities? Of course not! When the young woman tried to go to authorities, they had her kidnapped and held in a shipping container with no food, water or medical help.

Thank goodness there was a single KBR employee with a shred of a conscience who allowed her to use his cell phone. She called her father in the United States, who then called Houston Rep. Ted Poe. Poe contacted the State Department and demanded her release. The State Department sent investigators, who rescued Ms. Jones and got her medical help.

Ms. Jones sued KBR, and instead of doing the right thing, the company is fighting the case tooth-and-nail. They even tried to get the case thrown out of court, claiming that her contract with the company denied her the right to file suit. Fortunately, the court did not buy this feeble argument and ruled she had the right to sue.

These are just some of the more well-known examples of KBR demonstrating its "ability and expertise" in Iraq. I'm sure there are more. KBR has not only not shown a level of excellence, it has not even shown a basic level of competence in Iraq. They have also shown they care little about our soldiers or even about their own employees.

But the company did make billions of dollars from the Iraqi war, and now it stands to make billions more. How can the Army reward this incompetence with a new multi-billion dollar contract? Even the dumbest individuals know better than to touch a stove a second time, after being burned the first time. Why can't the Army learn from its past mistakes?

There are those who think our government is broken. Things like this make me think they could be right.

[Rag Blog contributor Ted McLaughlin also posts at jobsanger.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

20 October 2009

Greg Moses : The Cash Cops of Tenaha, Texas

Welcome to Tenaha! Photo by Exquisitely Bored in Nacogdoches / Flickr.

Bizarre License on Highway 59:
The Cash Cops of Tenaha


By Greg Moses / The Rag Blog / August 20, 2009

It was Friday of the last day of August, 2007 when Arkansas resident James Morrow attempted to mind his own business while driving peaceably through Tenaha, a small East Texas town in Shelby County south of Shreveport and Longview.

According to a federal lawsuit (Morrow v Tenaha) filed by attorneys Tim Garrigan and David Guillory, there was “no legal justification” for what happened next. Morrow was stopped by Tenaha Deputy Marshall Barry Washington and asked to step out of his car. Deputy Washington then searched Morrow's car.

Then Deputy Washington was joined at the scene by Shelby County Precinct Four Constable Randy Whatley who searched the car with a dog.

Following two searches of his car, Morrow was asked by Deputy Washington if he had any money, and he said yes, he was carrying about $3,900 in his wallet. Deputy Washington promptly seized $3,969 from Morrow, confiscated his two cell phones, and arrested him for “money laundering.”

“Washington had no reason to believe Plaintiff Morrow was guilty of money laundering,” says the federal lawsuit. “Defendants Washington and Russell told Plaintiff Morrow they would hold him prisoner and prosecute him for money laundering unless he would agree to forfeit the $3969. Under this duress and these threats, Defendants Washington and Russell coerced Plaintiff Morrow to execute documents memorializing the forfeiture, and released him, and warned him to not hire a lawyer or try to get his money back.” The “money laundering” charges were subsequently dismissed.

Morrow is a black African American and the lead plaintiff in a case involving eight motorists who claim they were stopped and stripped of their cash for no other provocation than driving or riding through Tenaha while black. The cars they all drove were either rented or displayed out-of-state license plates.

On August 13, 2007, Deputy Washington lifted $50,291.00 from two black African Americans from Washington D.C. and Maryland who were traveling through Texas together.

“Washington threatened Plaintiffs with charges of money laundering and lengthy sentences if they would not execute documents allowing the seizure or if they otherwise contested the seizure,” says the lawsuit. “Washington did not charge Plaintiffs with any criminal offense, nor did he have legal justification to do so.”

On June 11, 2008, Deputy Washington confiscated $13,000 from a black African American from Wisconsin.

“Washington threatened to bring money laundering charges against Plaintiff, and to prosecute him on those charges, if he did not execute documents permitting Defendant Washington’s seizure and forfeiture of the money,” says the lawsuit. “Under this coercion, Plaintiff signed the documents.”

On April 18, 2007, Deputy Washington stopped and detained another pair of black African American motorists, Linda Dorman and Marvin Pearson, both from Ohio. While under detention they were questioned by Shelby County District Attorney Investigator Danny Green. He asked them if they had any money. According to court documents Dorman and Pearson admitted to having $4,500, but after Green confiscated the cash under the usual coercive threats, he handed them a receipt for only $4,000. No charges against Dorman or Pearson were ever filed.

Jennifer Boatwright is a white woman from Texas, but on April 26, 2007 she was driving down Highway 59 near Tenaha with Ronald Henderson, a black African American. They were stopped and detained by Deputy Washington, then questioned by Washington and D.A. Investigator Green.

“Green threatened to bring money laundering charges against Plaintiffs Boatwright and Henderson, and to take their children and put them in foster care if Plaintiffs would not sign papers prepared by Defendant Green to authorize the seizure,” says the lawsuit. “Under coercion, Plaintiffs Boatwright and Henderson complied.” They handed over $6,000 in cash. No charges were ever filed against them.

“Now, under Texas law, if you are pulled over and accused of a real crime, police are permitted to take money and other valuables that you might have used in your crime, or received from your crime,” explains CNN correspondent Gary Tuchman in a May, 2009 blog post at AC360.

As Tuchman explains, the forfeiture law is intended to take bad money and put it to good use, but after an extensive public information request, the CNN team discovered that District Attorney Lynda K. Russell has collected an estimated $3 million in forfeiture funds to purchase such things as $195 for Tootsie Pops, Dum Dums, and Dubble Bubble that she contributed to a poultry festival, $524 for a popcorn machine and popcorn, $400 for barbecue catering, and at least two checks totaling $6,000 to a local Baptist church.

“But this one, this check, really stands out,” reports Tuchman in an archived transcript of the story. “This is the check the DA wrote for $10,000 and paid directly to police officer Barry Washington for what are described as investigative costs.”

With camera rolling, Tuchman asks Russell and Washington for comments, but they both refuse on account of pending litigation. In federal court documents the defendants deny the charges, claim to have no knowledge of alleged facts, claim immunity as officials, and ask that the case be dismissed.

Republican D.A. Russell was elected by 53 percent of the vote against a Democrat opponent in 2000, according to official numbers posted by the Texas Secretary of State. In 2004 she increased her general election share to 59 percent against her predecessor, Democrat Karen S. Price, who tried to stage a comeback after a failed effort to get elected in 2000 as a Republican District Judge. In 2008, D.A. Russell ran unopposed. No one that year could have made a campaign issue of the federal suit that was filed after the spring primary but before the fall general election.

During the summer of 2009, lawyers battled over discovery motions. Plaintiffs are trying to certify a class action lawsuit and therefore want volumes of video and documentation well beyond the eight named cases. On August 20, Federal District Judge T. John Ward largely granted ACLU requests for more materials and clarified the legal path to possible class action certification.

On the defense side, attorneys argued that they should be allowed to discover “travel itineraries, calendars, journals, or other documents reflecting schedule and/or any travel; all credit card bills/receipts; all receipts for hotel, gas, meals, rental cars; and photographs from any trips and of any items seized.” Judge Ward agreed, but only if the records were “readily available.”

Lawyers for the police and D.A.'s office also wanted plaintiffs to turn over bank records, income tax returns, and employment records; in an apparent attempt to revisit the “money laundering” charges that were never filed in the first place. It was a scary request supported by scary argumentation:

“In other words,” argued lawyers for the Shelby County law enforcement establishment in their federal filings, “even if the initial traffic stop lacked probable cause, the forfeiture action could proceed and the State could still meet its civil case burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence and the property could still be forfeited.”

The authority the cops were seeking was chilling. They could stop people for no reason, take their cash, spend it, meanwhile filing no charges of wrongdoing. All the while, the authorities of East Texas or wherever could count on a federal court order that would allow them to go after the banking, tax, and employment records of their innocent victims if they tried to get their money back. Judge Ward denied those parts of discovery.

The discovery motions also revealed that collection accounts were not always well kept. One front-line collector argued that he kept bulk numbers only and could not provide evidence of how much money was taken on any single occasion. To get your money back from these actors, they may demand that you prove it's not contraband and then prove how much they took.

But these East Texas law enforcers are not finished grasping at bizarre license to ply their trade as the cash cops of Highway 59. D.A. Russell now seeks to use the forfeiture funds to pay for her defense. In early October the ACLU filed a brief with the Texas Attorney General's Office to prevent the forfeiture funds from being spent to defend alleged abuse of forfeiture powers.

“Even if it were determined that, under other circumstances, the District Attorney should be permitted to use forfeited assets to pay for legal representation, such an action in this case should be prohibited because it would give the appearance of impropriety,” argues the ACLU brief.

“The Plaintiffs claim the funds were taken illegally. To permit the District Attorney to use them would suggest that law-breakers may profit from ill-gotten gains, the very problem that the asset forfeiture law was created to prevent.”

Cash is a lucrative temptation. Empowering officials to take cash money from passing motorists and give it to attorneys who can help them keep it is a plain recipe for placing law enforcement powers in the hands of highway forfeiture gangs.

[Greg Moses is editor of the Texas Civil Rights Review, author of Revolution of Conscience: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Philosophy of Nonviolence, and a card carrying member of the ACLU. He can be reached at gmosesx@gmail.com.]

Also see Police in Texas : Property Seizure called 'Highway Piracy' by Thorne Dreyer / February 11, 2009

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

14 June 2009

The War on Drugs: Framing Suspects They're Convinced Are Guilty Anyway

I have to ask, "How many times a week does this happen?" We watched a parade of trumped up terrorism charges fail in court in the years of hysteria following 9/11. Is there also a racist foundation to the hysteria of the war on drugs? It wouldn't surprise me one bit. Being a proponent of calling a permanent peace treaty to the war on drugs, it is high time we paid closer attention to these stories of false arrest and held police maniacs and zealots accountable across the nation.

Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog

The Story: Undercover police arrested two brothers for dealing cocaine at a New York night club. The officers claimed Maximo Colon, left, and his brother Jose sold two bags of cocaine to them. - The Truth: The brothers proved their innocence -- and laid the groundwork for a multimillion dollar lawsuit -- with a video from the club's security cameras. Photo: Henny Ray Abrams/AP.

Brothers Prove Cops Wrong With Video
By Tom Hays and Colleen Long / June 13, 2009

NEW YORK -- When undercover detectives busted Jose and Maximo Colon last year for selling cocaine at a seedy club in Queens, there was a glaring problem: The brothers hadn't done anything wrong.

But proclaiming innocence wasn't going to be good enough. The Dominican immigrants needed proof.

"I sat in the jail and thought. . . how could I prove this? What could I do?" Jose, 24, recalled in Spanish during a recent interview.

As he glanced around a holding cell, the answer came to him: Security cameras. Since then, a vindicating video from the club's cameras has spared the brothers a possible prison term, resulted in two officers' arrest and become the basis for a multimillion-dollar lawsuit.

The officers, who are due back in court June 26, have pleaded not guilty, and New York Police Department officials have downplayed their case.

But the drug corruption case isn't alone.

On May 13, another NYPD officer was arrested for plotting to invade a Manhattan apartment where he hoped to steal $900,000 in drug money. In another pending case, prosecutors in Brooklyn say officers were caught in a 2007 sting using seized drugs to reward a snitch for information. And in the Bronx, prosecutors have charged a detective with lying about a drug bust captured on a surveillance tape that contradicts her story.

Elsewhere, Philadelphia prosecutors dismissed more than a dozen drug and gun charges against a man last month when a narcotics officer was accused of making up information on search warrants.

The revelations in New York have triggered internal affairs inquiries, transfers of commanders and reviews of dozens of other arrests involving the accused officers.
Many drug defendants' cases have been tossed out. Others have won favorable plea deals.

The misconduct "strikes at the very heart of our system of justice and erodes public confidence in our courts," said Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson.

Despite the fallout, authorities describe the corruption allegations as aberrations in a city where officers daily make hundreds of drugs arrests that routinely hold up in court. They also note none of the cases involved accusations of organized crews of officers using their badges to steal or extort drugs or money for personal gain -- the story line of full-blown corruption scandals from bygone eras.

Peter Moskos, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, agrees the majority of narcotics officers probably are clean. But he also believes the city's unending war on drugs will always invite corruption by some who don't think twice about framing suspects they're convinced are guilty anyway.

"Drugs are a dirty game," Moskos said. "Once you realize it's a game, then you start playing with the rules to win the game."

Just ask the Colon brothers.
* * * * *


The brothers' evening started much like any other.

Max's friend worked at a bodega down the street from Delicias de Mi Tierra, where they'd sometimes drink and play pool in the evenings. This night, the pool table was closed. They instead sat at the bar. Security cameras ended up filming their every move.

The brothers barely moved from the same spot for about 90 minutes as the undercovers entered the bar and mixed with the crowd. Moments after the officers left, a backup team barged in and grabbed six men, including the brothers.

Paperwork signed by "UC 13200" -- Officer Henry Tavarez -- claimed that he told a patron he wanted to buy cocaine. By his account, that man responded by approaching the 28-year-old Max, who then went over to the undercover and demanded to pat him down to make sure he wasn't wearing a wire.

Max collected $100 from Tavarez, the report said. The officer claimed to see two bags of cocaine pass through the hands of three men, including Jose, before they were given to him.

Jose was released after a court appearance. His brother was shipped off to Riker's Island until he could make bail.

"I was scared," Max said of his time at Rikers. "I don't get into trouble, and here I am with real criminals."
* * * * *


The moment Jose walked out of the holding cell, he made a beeline for Delicias and asked for a copy of the security tapes from the night they were arrested, Jan. 4, 2008.

"I knew it would be the only way to defend myself, because I knew the police would not believe me," he said.

The owner of Delicias queued up the tapes and the two waded through an entire day's worth of surveillance -- until they found the two hours the men spent in the club that night -- supposedly selling drugs.

Jose quickly got the tape to defense attorney Rochelle Berliner, a former narcotics prosecutor. She couldn't believe what she was seeing.

"I almost threw up," she said. "Because I must've prosecuted 1,500, 2,000 drug cases. . . and all felonies. And I think back, Oh my God, I believed everything everyone told me. Maybe a handful of times did something not sound right to me. I don't mean to sound overly dramatic but I was like, sick."

What the tape doesn't show is striking: At no point did the brothers interact with the undercovers, nor did the brothers appear to be involved in a drug deal with anyone else. Adding insult to injury, an outside camera taped the undercovers literally dancing down the street.

Berliner handed the tape over to the District Attorney's integrity unit. It reviewed the images more than 100 times to make sure it wasn't doctored by the defense before deciding to drop all charges against the brothers in June.

Six months later, Officer Tavarez and Detective Stephen Anderson pleaded not guilty to drug dealing and multiple other charges that their lawyers say were overblown.

Anderson's attorney has described him as a seasoned investigator who had no reason to make a false arrest. Tavarez, his attorney said, was a novice undercover merely along for the ride.
* * * * *


Life quickly deteriorated for Max and Jose after their arrest.

They owned a successful convenience store in Jackson Heights, but lost their license to sell tobacco, alcohol and lottery tickets. The store closed a week before their case was dismissed.

"My life changed completely," Jose said. "I had a life before, and I have a different existence now. . . Now, I'm not able to afford to live in my own house or care for my children."

Jose has found construction work, while Max commutes two hours to Philadelphia to work at a relative's bodega. They stay away from the old neighborhood, where they say ugly rumors about them persist.

The brothers have filed a $10 million false arrest lawsuit against the police department, the officers involved and the city.

"I'm angry because, why'd it happen to me? I know a lot of people ... they don't go the right way and they can get away with it," Max said. "I'm young and I try to go the right way and boom, this happened to me. So I'm angry with life, too."

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

Source / America On Line

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

12 April 2009

Wall Street and the Pentagon : Greed and its Delusions

Greed and its requisite delusions. Art by Tom Payne / Eyeball Press.
At the heart of both scams is the deliberate corruption of information on such a vast scale that it overwhelms the mind of the educated layman to make sense out of it.
By Chuck Spinney / The Rag Blog / April 12, 2009

MARMARIS, Turkey -- Bill Moyers conducted a fantastic interview with Professor Bill Black, a specialist in securities fraud, on April 3 (Listen to the podcast here and read Moyers' analysis of this interview in Counterpunch.) I found the interview fascinating, because the scam in the banking industry is so similar to the scam in the Pentagon, only the scale of the fraud perpetrated by the bankers made the milcrats in the Pentagon look like pikers.

At the heart of both scams is the deliberate corruption of information on such a vast scale that it overwhelms the mind of the educated layman to make sense out of it. This of course is no accident. Overloading other people's minds results in enormous leverage to the faction doing the overloading -- whether that faction is made up of the power hungry Apparatchiks in Versailles on the Potomac or the greedy Oligarchs in Versailles on Hudson.

Moreover, the very process of constructing the Potemkin village of misinformation creates a world view that captures the imagination and thinking of its builders. Note how Black hints that some of the scam artists become true believers. Alan Greenspan's pathetic revelation that his "model" was wrong proves the power of this effect.

Greenspan's self delusion is very familiar to old line reformers in the Pentagon. We called it incestuous amplification -- or the process by which a decision maker's orientation, or his interior model of how the world operates, distorts his observations of external events to such a extent that he sees and act on what he wants to see, rather than the external world as it is.

When this happens, the whole decision cycle insensibly becomes disconnected from the external environment it purports to cope with, and the inevitable result is confusion, chaos, and in the presence of menace, it can even devolve into panic, which is now clearly evident in the irrational gyrations of the stock market. Add in the insidious effects of criminal greed (among the relatively few rotten apples) and of self interest (which affects everyone), and incestuous amplification becomes a recipe for a catastrophe on a humongous scale -- whether it takes the form of a failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a meltdown of the Pentagon's modernization program, a Wall Street meltdown, or even a national meltdown.

The really scary thing about this kind of behavior is the self-organizing character of the evolving catastrophe, or what I call the anatomy of decline. It evolves more from the bottom up via a process of trial and error than from a top-down conspiratorial design. The morally bankrupt oligarchs on Wall Street did not design their corrupt financial structure from the git go; they evolved it over time through little corruptions or adaptations in an interplay of chance and necessity -- lobbying here, creating an instrument there, cleaning out a regulator, constructing new bonus formulae, and so on.

Consequently undoing the intricate web of relations, like those now shaping the collective behavior in the Pentagon or on Wall Street, is the real challenge of reform. Boyd's work on the OODA loop is really insightful with regard to understanding and attacking this problem (but I must acknowledge that in the end, the reformers led by Boyd failed to reform the Pentagon).

By the way, Bill Black's interview also highlights the central flaw in the theory (really the ideology) of free market capitalism -- namely the necessary assumption that information about the market is freely available to all decision makers. This assumption also implies people have no memories, but conveniently for the theorists, the assumption makes the mechanistic "model" of economic equilibrium possible. Of course, in the real world, information is not free. If information were free, there would be no "experts." Fraud would be impossible. Indeed, the very existence of the information industry proves that information is not free.

Moreover, if information were free, the information industry would not be a two-edged sword, where the increasing power to manipulate vast amounts of "information" with computers (and increase the complexity of information to mind-numbing levels) also makes fraud, self-delusion, and disequilibrium easier, not harder. I found this systematic corruption of information to be central to the chaos and corruption in the Pentagon, and although I do not know him, I think Bill Black would agree that it is also the case on Wall Street.

Thanks to Thomas Cleaver / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

12 December 2008

Constitutional Conventions: The Power to Reform Government to Eliminate Corruption


Illinois Citizens Deserve Corrupt Government
By Joel Hirschhorn / December 12, 2008

Public Corruption Runs Rampant Because Americans Do Not Seek Genuine Political Reforms

The current Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich, recently charged with crimes by the federal government, just follows in the footsteps of previous convicted Illinois governors and a huge number of other Illinois officials convicted of crimes. What is remarkable is that in the 2008 election Illinois voters had the opportunity to recognize that they needed to use their constitutional convention opportunity to reform state government. They voted not to use it.

Which raises the question: How stupid or brainwashed are most Illinois citizens?

Here is the story behind the headlines. According to the Illinois state constitution, voters must be given the opportunity every twenty years to vote for or against having a state constitutional convention that can be used to amend the constitution or rewrite it altogether. Considering an incredibly long history of public corruption you would think that Illinois voters would be inclined to give serious thought to how they could improve their government by means of a state constitutional convention. Many prominent people and groups worked hard to educate citizens why they should vote in favor of a constitutional convention.

In November, two-thirds voted against having a convention. Twenty years earlier they also voted against one. But even with twenty more years of public corruption, Illinois citizens could not be convinced to pursue a path to political reform free from the chains of their corrupt state government. The last convention was in 1970.

Those advocating passage of the convention measure included: Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn, the Chicago Tribune, the Springfield State Journal Register, state representatives Mike Boland and Jack Franks, former state treasurer Judy Baar Topinka, political journalists Rich Miller and Scott Reeder, and several groups with websites.

Back in January 2008 this is what John Bambenek, who wrote a book supporting the convention, had the good sense to say: "Gov. Rod Blagojevich has done something remarkable in Illinois. He has managed to unite people across the political spectrum to create consensus that he absolutely stinks as a governor. Illinois deserves better than Rod Blagojevich. Because of his low approval in both parties and the budget fiasco of last year, legislators (even those in his own party) are talking about amending the constitution to allow recall votes of sitting politicians. The timing for such talk is opportune because on the November ballot this year there will be a question on whether to have a constitutional convention for Illinois to rewrite or amend the state constitution." Like other pro-convention advocates, Bambenek wanted to return power to Illinois citizens. Most of them did not listen.

A key argument in favor of convention was that the cost of a no-frills convention (around $23 million) would surely be repaid by the savings to taxpayers of constitutional amendments that could get the state out of the lobbyist-run budget crisis it was in. Not to mention the possibility of an amendment that could make it easier to get rid of corrupt governors and other officials by, for example, recall by citizens. How sensible, considering that even before the charges against the current governor three previous Illinois governors had been convicted of crimes.

Otto Kerner (D) governor 1961-1968 was convicted on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury, and related charges. He was sentenced to three years in federal prison and fined $50,000. Daniel Walker (D) governor 1973-1977 was convicted of improprieties related to a savings and loan association. He reportedly received over a million dollars in fraudulent loans for his business and repairs on his yacht. He pleaded out to three felonies and was freed after 17 months in prison because he was supposedly frail and chronically ill, but is still living 20 years later and living near the ocean in Mexico. And George Ryan (R) governor 1999-2003 was convicted on 20 federal counts that included racketeering, bribery, and extortion

And consider this amazing statistic: From 1995 to 2004, 469 politicians from the federal district of Northern Illinois were found guilty of corruption.

And then there was the famous case of Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D) who was indicted in 1994 on 17 felony charges, including the embezzlement of $695,000 in taxpayer and campaign funds. The longtime powerful House ways and means committee chairman plea-bargained his way down to just two counts of mail fraud and served only 17 months in a minimum-security prison.

So what did the opponents to the convention use to sway voters? And why did they oppose a convention? They lied a whole lot and tried to instill fear, and succeeded. But what they feared was losing political power that they had used for so long to corrupt state government. Opponents included most of the state's influential lobbying organizations: American Insurance Association, Associated Fire Fighters of Illinois, Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, Chicago Urban League, Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, Citizen Action/Illinois, Illinois Association of Convenience Stores, Illinois Association of School Administrators, Illinois Business Round Table, Illinois Civil Justice League, Illinois Education Association, Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois Federation of Teachers, Illinois Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Illinois Manufacturers Association, Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association, Illinois Retail Merchants Association, Illinois Retired Teachers Association, Illinois State AFL-CIO, Illinois State Chamber of Commerce, Illinois State Black Chamber of Commerce, Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, League of Women Voters of Illinois, Lincoln Park Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Businesses/Illinois, Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce, Police Benevolent and Protective Association of Illinois, SEIU Illinois, State University Annuitants Association, Taxpayers' Federation of Illinois, Tooling and Manufacturing Association, Union League Club of Chicago, Illinois Rifle Association. The convention was also opposed by House Speaker Michael Madigan (D) and former governor Jim Edgar (R) who both represented the corrupt status quo political establishment.

There is an important lesson from what happened in Illinois and several other states, as well as why the US Congress has refused to obey Article V of the federal constitution that prescribes a convention of state delegates to propose constitutional amendments when two-thirds of states ask for one, which has happened long ago. It is this: those with political power fear constitutional conventions that can truly reform our corrupt political system. What Americans need to constantly remember is that "we the people" must use constitutional conventions to improve our government and political system. All constitutions are meant to be revisited and amended if necessary.

We must not depend on electing individuals to public office to truly reform the system. We have a corrupt two-party plutocracy. It is time to stop believing the lies of both Democrats and Republicans. We can keep putting many of them in prison, but all that happens is that more corrupt and dishonest politicians get elected. Just as it has happened for the Illinois governorship.

Finally, you might ask whether Illinois Senator Barack Obama supported the 2008 convention proposal. What do you think? Obama's key advisor, David Axelrod, who crafted his "change" message, shared a multimillion dollar contract provided by opponents to the convention who feared change.

Source / Associated Content

Thanks to Joel Hirschhorn / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

10 October 2008

Cholera in Iraq: A Result of Government Corruption

Children fill water containers in a former Baghdad army base, now a slum. Cholera has infected many supplies. Photo: AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Corruption blamed as cholera rips through Iraq
By Patrick Cockburn / October 10, 2008

BAGHDAD -- A deadly outbreak of cholera in Iraq is being blamed on a scandal involving corrupt officials who failed to sterilise the local drinking water because they were bribed to buy chlorine from Iran that was long past its expiration date.

The centre of the epidemic is in Babil province, south of Baghdad, in the marshy lands east of the Euphrates river, not far from the ruins of ancient Babylon. In Baghdad, where half the six million population has no access to clean drinking water, people are now drinking only bottled or boiled water.

The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has appointed a commission of inquiry to find out why ineffective chlorine was being used. He is also refusing to release three officials under arrest despite demands from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) to which they are linked. In the town of al-Madhatiya, in southern Babil, a councillor involved in buying the chlorine was reportedly released after militiamen connected to ISCI intimidated police into freeing him.

The scandal over the contract is becoming a test case of the Maliki government's willingness to tackle the pervasive corruption in Iraq where officials see their jobs primarily as a way of enriching themselves through bribes. It is also a test of his ability to exercise central control over ISCI and parties which have been hitherto dominant outside Baghdad.

Cholera is endemic in Iraq but last year there was an epidemic in northern Iraq which was far more serious than anything seen for years. Some 4,700 people, mostly in Sulaimaniyah province, were struck.

This year, the government hoped to stop another outbreak of the disease by repairing shattered water and sanitation stations and putting chlorine in the water supply. An Iraqi government official, who did not want his name published, said the Health Ministry bought $11m (£6.4m) worth of chlorine from Iran for use in the provinces of Babil, Diwaniyah and Kerbala, all on the Euphrates river south of Baghdad.

In the latter two provinces, officials noticed that the chlorine was old and the time during which it could be employed effectively had expired, and refused to use it. But in Babil the chlorine was put in the fresh water supply stations at al-Madhatiyah, al-Hashimiyah and al-Qasim, south-east of the provincial capital, al-Hillah. Soon 222 people were confirmed as having cholera in Babil, in a total of 420 cases of whom seven have died.

The scandal is a reflection of the the way Iraqi politics works. The ruling parties monopolise jobs and contracts. It is impossible to find work at any level in most ministries without a letter of commendation from one of the parties in the government. The enormous Iraqi government apparatus, employing some two million people, is a patronage machine. There are now more state officials than under Saddam, but it is unable to supply electricity, food rations and clean water, despite Iraq's $80bn in accumulated oil revenues.

The power base of ISCI, the most powerful Shia religious party, is the Shia provinces of southern Iraq between Baghdad and Basra. Political parties are expected to protect their members from arrest. This explains what happened next. The officials arrested in Babil belonged to the Badr Organisation, the militia wing of ISCI. Leaders of the party demanded their release but Mr Maliki refused. Badr militants then turned up at a police station in al-Madhatiya and forced the police to release a councillor apparently involved in purchasing the chlorine.

But the grand Shia coalition which won more than half the seats in the Iraqi parliament in the last election in December 2005 has broken up. Mr Maliki is trying to build up his own Dawa party, using the resources of the state.

He has deepening differences with ISCI which won most of the southern Iraqi provinces. They accuse him of trying to create a power base in what was previously their territory by paying the tribes who belong to government-sponsored "support councils" in southern Iraq. His aim is to get his own candidates elected in the provincial and parliamentary elections next year. "These will be crucial in deciding who will hold power in Iraq in future," said one senior Iraqi official.

Control of oil revenues gives Mr Maliki a crucial card. Iraq has 50 to 60 per cent unemployment and most jobs are with the state. Salaries of state employees have risen sharply. But the government remains largely dysfunctional aside from its growing military strength. Iraqi journalists are encouraged and paid to write "good news" stories. In Baghdad, people notice there is little mention of the cholera in the media. This provokes fear that the epidemic may be worse than the government admits.

After the invasion: Services in Iraq

* Before the war, Baghdad had electricity between 16 and 24 hours a day. This has dropped to just under 12.

* There was no national mobile phone network, now there are at least 12 million subscribers.

* In April 2007 there were 261,000 internet subscribers. Before the war this number was estimated as 4,500.

* Of the 34,000 doctors registered in pre-war Iraq, 20,000 fled, 2,000 have been killed and 250 kidnapped.

* Registered cars more than doubled, to 3.1 million by October 2005.

Source: The Brookings Institution

Source / The Independent

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

31 July 2008

Don Siegelman : Contempt for Rove

Don Siegelman.

'By ignoring a Congressional subpoena, Karl Rove has spit in the face of Congress and the American people'
By Don Siegelman / July 31, 2008

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Karl Rove in contempt of Congress, moving us one step closer to the truth, one step closer to restoring justice, and one step closer to preserving our democracy. It's a huge step forward, and I'm so thankful that the committee voted for contempt.

But now is not the time to celebrate -- now is the time to take action. The House Judiciary Committee is on the record, but now we need the full House of Representatives to vote to hold Karl Rove in contempt as well.

So I've launched an online advocacy campaign at www.ContemptForRove.com where people can forward an email to their Members of Congress, urging them to take action -- and I'm asking you to join me. I need your help to speak out and urge the full House to do the right thing. Your action is critical. Timing is everything.
Please visit ContemptForRove.com right now to forward an email to your Member of Congress today.
While I served as Governor of Alabama from 1999-2003 and thereafter, Karl Rove and his right-wing political cronies targeted me through a malicious, unfounded, politically-motivated prosecution. I served 9 months in federal prison before the appeals court released me. And now, Karl Rove refuses to testify before Congress about his role in this whole nefarious scheme.

That's outrageous. By ignoring a Congressional subpoena, Karl Rove has spit in the face of Congress and the American people. As Americans, we deserve to know the truth about how our Department of Justice was used by Karl Rove and his rogue band of political operatives as a political tool to win elections. Only Congress has the power to find the truth.

If Congress lets this politicization of the Department of Justice go unchecked and unpunished, then it could well become part of America's political culture and happen again in the future. Congress needs to keep digging until they get to the truth. Our democracy and system of justice have to be restored. The American people need to have confidence that this kind of outrageous abuse of power is at least less likely to happen in the future.

That truth-finding starts by having Karl Rove under oath before the Judiciary Committee. We the People must insist that Congress do its job and hold Karl Rove in contempt for failing to obey a subpoena. The house of cards will start to fall soon thereafter.

What would happen to the unemployed steel worker, the housewife, or the taxi cab driver who ignored a subpoena? I give you one guess: They would be behind bars. Karl Rove is not above the law, and Congress needs to make that plain and clear to Karl Rove and to everybody else.

Our democracy will cease to exist as we know it if the government is allowed to use its power to prosecute their political opponents. This fight is not about me but about saving our democracy and restoring justice in America.

That's why I'm asking you to write Congress today and urge them to act. When Congress holds Rove in contempt, the truth will begin to become exposed. This ball of string will come unraveled. The truth will be known.

I am in this fight not only for my own freedom but also to ensure that Karl Rove is held accountable for his sins.

Together, we can fight to get the full truth from Karl Rove and restore integrity to our system of justice. America deserves nothing less.
Don Siegelman was the Governor of Alabama from 1999 to 2003. Siegelman is the only person in the history of Alabama to be elected to serve in all four of the top statewide elected offices: Secretary of State, Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor and Governor. He served in Alabama politics for 26 years, winning his first election for the governorship with 57% of the vote, including over 90% of the African-American electorate.
Source / The Huffington Post

Also see Could Alabama Gov. Siegelman Bring Down the House of Cards? / The Rag Blog / July 15, 2008

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

29 July 2008

BOOKS : Justice, Texas Style


Read About It While You Can
By Craig Malisow / July 28, 2008

Authorities in Smith County (Tyler) might not be happy to learn that Smith County Justice, a book alleging systemic corruption and unusually harsh sentences in the county -- that virtually disappeared after its 1985 publication -- is now available online. For free.

Since the book appeared on Wikileaks earlier this year, it’s gained quite a following. (For those who want the original hardcover, four used copies are available on Amazon – starting at $595.)

Critics have long pointed to Smith County as one of the worst examples of “Texas-style” justice. It’s the county where a jury gave a guy 16 years for stealing a candy bar. (Fortunately, that sentence was overturned and a new trial was ordered. But that kinda gives you an idea of what Smith County juries are all about.)

The folks at Wikileaks were kind enough to explain why they think this book needs to be available:

The guilty authorities in Smith County have never acknowledged the evil of their ways or expressed remorse for the lives they ruined. Instead, legal and public relations firms have been engaged to mount a campaign to watch the used book markets for any used copies that might appear. Whenever such copies are found they are usually bought at whatever price is required and destroyed. As a result, used copies today have become rare and expensive. Eventually, almost all original printed editions can be expected to disappear.

And that's where this electronic edition, published outside the US, comes into play. It is our hope that this electronic edition will continue to live on despite the efforts of certain corrupt individuals in Tyler and Smith County who want to eradicate it.
Part of Ellsworth’s book focuses on a notoriously bogus series of drug busts in the late 1970s, which eventually became the basis for a novel and the 1991 movie Rush. But Smith County seemingly continued its time-honored tradition well after Ellsworth’s book came out, perhaps best illustrated in the case of Kerry Max Cook, who was tried four times in Smith County for the 1977 rape and murder of a 21-year-old woman. Cook spent about 20 years in prison – 13 on death row – before prosecutors allowed him to plead “no contest” for a time-served sentence. (Yes, it’s extremely confusing. It is apparently the only instance in a Texas death penalty case where the defendant was allowed to maintain innocence while technically being convicted). Kerry later recounted his prison experiences, which included being forced into sexual slavery, in his book Chasing Justice.

Hopefully, there won’t be any more scandals coming down the pike – but in case there are, you might want to download the book so you can brush up on your Smith County history.

Source / Houston Press

Find Smith County Justice at Amazon.com.

Read Smith County Justice online at Wikileaks. at .

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

28 July 2008

Report : Gonzales Aides Broke Laws in Hiring

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in July, 2004. Photo by Doug Mills / The New York Times.

Politics guided decisions in systematic way
By Eric Lichtblau / July 29, 2008

Senior aides to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales broke the law by using politics to guide their hiring decisions for a wide range of important department positions, slowing the hiring process at critical times and damaging the department’s credibility and independence, an internal report concluded Monday.

The report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general and its internal ethics office, singles out for particular criticism Monica Goodling, a young lawyer from the Republican National Committee who rose quickly through the ranks of the department to become a top aide to Mr. Gonzales.

Ms. Goodling, who testified before Congress in May 2007 at the height of the scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys, introduced politics into the hiring process in a systematic way that constituted illegal misconduct, the report found.

Last month, the inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, released a separate report that found a similar pattern of politicized hiring at the Justice Department in reviewing applications from young lawyers for the honors and intern programs. The new report released Monday goes much further, however, in documenting pervasive evidence of political hiring for some of the department’s most senior career, apolitical positions, including immigration judges and assistant United States attorneys.

The inspector general’s investigation found that Ms. Goodling and a handful of other senior aides to Mr. Gonzales developed a system of using in-person interviews and Internet searches to screen out candidates who might be too liberal and to identify candidates seen as pro-Republican and supportive of President Bush.

When interviewed by the inspector general, Mr. Gonzales said he was not aware that Ms. Goodling and other aides were using political criteria in their decisions for career positions. Mr. Gonzales resigned last summer in the face of mounting accusations from congressional Democrats that politics had corrupted the department.

His successor, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, said in a statement Monday after the report’s release that he was disturbed by their findings that improper political considerations were used in hiring decisions relating to some career employees.

“I have said many times, both to members of the public and to Department employees, it is neither permissible nor acceptable to consider political affiliations in the hiring of career Department employees,” he said. “And I have acted, and will continue to act, to ensure that my words are translated into reality so that the conduct described in this report does not occur again at the Department.”

He said that over the course of the last year and a half, the Justice Department has made institutional changes to remedy the problems discussed in today’s report.

“It is crucial that the American people have confidence in the propriety of what we do and how we do it,” he said, “and I will continue my efforts to make certain they can have such confidence.”

An attorney for Ms. Goodling, John Dowd, did not return a phone message Monday.

In her position as White House liaison for the Justice Department, Ms. Goodling was involved in hiring lawyers for both political appointments and non-political, career positions. Regardless of the type of position, the report said, Ms. Goodling would run through the same batch of questions, asking candidates about their political philosophies, why they wanted to serve President Bush, and who, aside from Mr. Bush, they admired as public servants. Sometimes, Ms. Goodling would ask: “Why are you a Republican?”

Such questioning was allowed for candidates to political appointments, but was clearly banned under both civil service law and the Justice Department’s own internal policies, the inspector general said. Ms. Goodling’s questioning also generated complaints from one senior official who believed it was improper, long before the issue became a public controversy following the firings of nine United States attorneys. The inspector general concluded that Ms. Goodling knew that questioning applicants to career positions about their political beliefs was improper.

In one case, for instance, Ms. Goodling slowed the hiring of a prosecutor in the United States attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., for a vacancy because she said she was concerned that he was a “liberal Democrat.” After the United States attorney, Jeffrey Taylor, complained to her supervisors, he was allowed to hire the candidate anyway.

And in another case, colleagues said that Ms. Goodling refused to extend the appointment of a female prosecutor because she believed the lawyer was involved in a lesbian relationship with her supervisor, according to the report.

And in another case cited by the inspector general, Ms. Goodling blocked the hiring of an experienced prosecutor for a senior counter-terrorism position because his wife was active in Democratic politics. The candidate was regarded as “head and shoulders above the other candidates” in the view of officials in the executive office of United States attorneys, but they were forced to take a candidate with much less experience because he was deemed acceptable to Ms. Goodling.

In forwarding a résumé in 2006 from a lawyer who was working for the Federalist Society, Ms. Goodling sent an e-mail message to the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury, saying: “Am attaching a résumé for a young, conservative female lawyer.”

Ms. Goodling interviewed the woman herself for possible positions and wrote in her notes such phrases as “pro-God in public life,” and “pro-marriage, anti-civil union.” She was eventually hired as a career prosecutor.

Ms. Goodling also conducted extensive searches on the Internet to glean the political or ideological leanings of candidates for career positions, the report found. She and other Justice Department supervisors would look for key phrases like “abortion,” “homosexual,” “guns,” or “Florida re-count” to get information on a candidate’s political leanings.

Source / New York Times

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

25 July 2008

McCaskill Takes On Military Industrial Complex

A Governmental Accountability Office report has found that Defense Contract Audit Agency officials and major defense contractors successfully pressured Pentagon auditors to hide damaging facts about the performance and costs of weapons systems. Photo by Joseph Kaczmarek / AP.

Freshman senator files scathing report
By Matt Renner / July 25, 2008

A scathing report accusing government auditors of corruption, issued by the government's top investigative body, prompted a freshman senator to call for firings "by nightfall" on Thursday.

In her first term, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), a former prosecutor and Missouri state auditor, has taken the lead in figuring out whether the US military gets what it pays for from contractors

In an impassioned speech on the floor of the Senate, McCaskill outlined the findings of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, which found that Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) officials and major defense contractors successfully pressured Pentagon auditors to hide damaging facts about the performance and costs of weapons systems.

The DCAA has "gotten caught in what could be the biggest auditing scandal in the history of this town, and I'm not exaggerating here. I will guarantee you, as auditors around the country learn about this, they're going to have disbelief and raw anger that this agency has impugned the integrity of government auditors everywhere by these kinds of irresponsible actions," McCaskill said.

McCaskill fired off letters to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and DCAA Director April G. Stephenson, demanding accountability and a full explanation of the issues the GAO report raised. In a July 11 letter, Stephenson said that DCAA did not agree with the "totality" of the report but was addressing some of the issues raised.

The GAO, the top nonpartisan governmental investigative body in Washington, DC, looked at 14 audits performed by the 4,000-member DCAA, the internal government audit team that is supposed to oversee contracting for the Department of Defense (DoD) and other government agencies. Zero of the 14 audits met government standards.

The report, titled "DCAA Audits: Allegations That Certain Audits at Three Locations Did Not Meet Professional Standards Were Substantiated," was based on over 100 interviews with current and former auditors and a review of the 13 sets of "working papers" - the documentation auditors use to backup their conclusions.

The report found, in every case, the working papers did not support the conclusions of the auditors - a clear violation of auditing principles. In addition, the investigation revealed that supervisors at the DCAA "dropped findings and changed audit opinions," and that the DCAA did not allow auditors sufficient time to do thorough work.

According to GAO investigators, "[W]e also found that contractor officials and the DoD contracting community improperly influenced the audit scope, conclusions, and opinions of some audits - a serious independence issue." In GAO speak, this means private companies and people in the Pentagon conspired to conceal wasteful and fraudulent activity by contractors at the cost of the US taxpayer.

Among the findings of the report:
* The DCAA resident auditor made an agreement with an unnamed aerospace contractor (determined to be Boeing based on the facts contained in the report), one of the five largest government defense contractors, that "limited the scope" of the audit and would allow the contractor to correct problems that were found before the final audit opinion was issued. [Bullet]The resident auditor replaced uncooperative auditors and intimidated others into making unsubstantiated assessments that benefited contractors at the expense of the government. [bullet]Supervisors assigned complex auditing tasks to underqualified subordinates, resulting in incomplete audits.

* DCAA officials threatened staff members with retaliation for speaking with GAO investigators.

* The director of a cost-estimating system for a major defense contractor threatened the DCAA he would "escalate" the issue "to the highest level possible" in the government and within the company in question if the DCAA would not green-light the billing system it identified as problematic.

* The DCAA failed to revisit contracts that were negotiated by a corrupt (and later convicted) Air Force official.

* Mistakes, incompetence or intentional deception by the DCAA has essentially built in defective price-estimating systems that may artificially inflate contract estimates for years to come.
The GAO investigation itself was interfered with. In a letter to top members of Congress, the GAO stated: "we noted a pattern of frequent management actions that served to intimidate the auditors and create an abusive environment ... As a result, some auditors were hesitant to speak to us." Nick Schwellenbach, National Security investigator for the nonpartisan government spending watchdog group, Project on Government Oversight (POGO), said that the GAO report "demonstrates that the government's system of contractor oversight is rotten because the independent government agencies that are supposed to look out for the taxpayers are corrupted," adding "we have senior members inside the DCAA who are retaliating against their own members in favor of the private contractors."

Schwellenbach pointed out that DCAA auditors oversee contracting at a number of different government agencies including NASA, and that NASA's inspector general has previously criticized the DCAA's work. "This looks like it could go even deeper," Schwellenbach added.

"You know, the Department of Defense has been on the high risk list of this government for more than a decade. Scandal after scandal has rolled out of the Department of Defense on contracting ... I took a trip to Iraq just on contract oversight with an auditor's eye, meeting with the people that oversee the contracts in Iraq ... I think we burned up more than $150 billion in just pure contracting abuse," McCaskill said during her speech, adding, "and all this time that we have been wasting hundreds and billions of dollars, the fox was in the chicken coop."

Source / truthout

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

15 July 2008

Could Alabama Gov. Siegelman Bring Down the House of Cards?

Former Alabama govenor Don Siegelman accompanied by his wife Lorie reports to the Federal building in downtown Tuscaloosa in 2004.

Gov. Siegelman at Netroots Nation: Bush's Undoing?
By Sam Seder / July 14, 2008

As more and more corruption and law breaking at the highest reaches of our Government reveal themselves, will the scandal surrounding the use of the Department of Justice as an electoral tool be the one that finally holds the Bush administration to account? If so, there is one man who's story may seal the unraveling of this criminal regime.

Former political prisoner and former Governor of Alabama Don Siegelman will be making a court sanctioned trip out of Alabama to join me at Netroots Nation to discuss his case and what it can tell us about the unprecedented corruption that exists in our nation's chief law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice.

By now many are familiar with the case of Don Siegelman.. A very popular former Democratic Alabama Governor seen as an electoral threat to unseat Republican Bob Riley. Faced with the most popular Democrat in generations, Congressional testimony reveals that Republican operatives in Alabama and Karl Rove's dirty tricks shop in the White House used the prosecution powers of the DOJ's United States Attorneys to send Don Siegelman to jail on trumped up charges.

The dogged reporting by on-line journalists like Talking Points Memo, Larisa Alexandrovna and Scott Horton, Congressional hearings and a sixty minutes interview forced an appellate Court to reexamine the Siegelman case. Within days Siegelman was released from prison pending his appeal and the court found "that his appeal raises substantial questions of law or fact...". Reagan's Attorney General Richard Thornburgh and 54 former US Attorneys of all political stripes from across the country smell a rat. Not surprisingly, that rat smells a lot like Karl Rove, the Fox news commentator and former White House dirty trickster.

For over a year and a half now we have known of the US Attorney firings scandal that has forced the resignations of countless DOJ officials. The Siegelman case is the other side of the coin of the corruption of the Department of Justice under the Bush administration. Those US attorney firings took place because those US Attorney's would not play ball with a DOJ hell bent on using it's powers to provide Republicans an advantage at the ballot box. Some refer to this scandal as the politicization of the Department of Justice, but the Siegelman case and other such prosecutions over the past six years go well beyond a mere infraction of the Hatch act. These cases are indicative of an agenda that has literally torn at the fabric of a nation built upon the rule of law and justice for all. This is a corruption of the very foundations of how the United States of America is supposed function as a democracy. When the chief law enforcement agency has become crooked, who do you call?

Fox commentator Karl Rove, through his attorney, has claimed that simply because he once worked at the White House he need not comply with a Congressional subpoena to testify as to his involvement with this prosecution. Karl Rove may not be traveling to Washington anytime soon, but Don Siegelman will be traveling to Austin Friday at Netroots Nation to give us some insight as to just how far we have fallen as a a nation.

If you have any questions you'd like me to ask of the former Governor, feel free to head over here and offer them up.
[Catch it live. This conversation with Sam Seder and Gov. Siegelman will be streaming live exclusively at AirAmerica on Friday, July 18th 10:30 AM - 11:45 AM.]
Source. / The Huffington Post

Also go to Free Don Siegelman.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

02 July 2008

What Scott McClellan (and Jay Rockefeller) Didn't Tell Us


The Story Behind George Bush's Lies
By Richard W. Behan / July 1, 2008

Long accused of signature dishonesty, the Bush Administration now stands twice indicted, by Scott McClellan’s book and by two damning reports from Jay Rockefeller’s Senate Select Committee on Intelligence—the “Phase II” documents. These sources confirm beyond any doubt the Bush Administration, with propaganda and outright lies, deliberately misled the U.S. Congress into authorizing war.

That is the truth, but not the whole truth, and the backstory is no less appalling.

As much as seven months before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Administration was deeply involved in planning and mobilizing for the invasion and military occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan. None of the activity was remotely related to Osama bin Laden or counterterrorism of any stripe.

This is the fundamental truth, it is beyond dispute, and it is fully documented.

The incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were premeditated, hegemonic wars of conquest and territorial occupation, to gain the geostrategic control of Middle Eastern energy resources. Bald acts of unprovoked military aggression, they are direct violations of the charter of the United Nations. The wars are therefore international crimes, but they were not undertaken until the horror of September 11, 2001 provided a spectacular smokescreen. A fraudulent label--the “war on terror”—was concocted to disguise the premeditated violence, and it was quickly unleashed.

The facts

Iraq

Beginning in 1992 and spanning the two Bush Administrations, repeated written proposals to invade Iraq were prepared and issued. Four men who served in both Administrations—Richard Cheney, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and Zalmay Khalilzad—were the source of the first proposal (expressly seeking “…access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil”) and direct participants in the iterations to follow. Herein is the story of the origin and development of the Project for the New American Century and its tragic ideology of American global hegemony.

(For an excellent treatment of this history, see “Empire Builders: Neoconservatives and Their Blueprint for U.S. Power,” in the Christian Science Monitor, June, 2005.)

On January 20, 2001, 29 members of the Project for the New American Century joined the incoming Bush Administration at the highest levels—notably including Richard Cheney as Vice President, Libby as his Chief of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, and Wolfowitz as Rumsfeld’s Deputy. The PNAC triumphed when the National Security Council ten days later, on January 30, legitimized the invasion of Iraq.

(Read an account of the meeting in Ron Suskind’s book, The Price of Loyalty: the White House and the Education of Paul O’Neill.)

Four days later, on February 3, 2001 the Security Council received a top-secret memorandum from a “high level official.” The memo “…directed the NSC staff to cooperate fully with [Richard Cheney’s] Energy Task Force as it considered the ‘melding’ of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: ‘the review of operational policies toward rogue states’ such as Iraq, and ‘actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.’”

(Quoted from Jane Mayer, “Contract Sport,” in The New Yorker, February 16, 2004.)

By early March, 2001, Cheney’s Energy Task Force was studying maps of the Iraqi oil fields, refineries, pipelines, and tanker terminals, and lists of the foreign oil companies—none of which were American or British majors—negotiating with the Hussein regime for exploration and development rights.

(See the maps and the lists.)

At least a year before the invasion, the State Department was designing the deconstruction of Iraq’s nationalized oil industry.

(Source: Gregg Mutitt, Crude Designs: the Ripoff of Iraq’s Oil Wealth, The Platform Group, UK.)

Paul Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority, with the invited participation of American and British oil companies, drafted a “hydrocarbon law” for Iraq, codifying the State Department’s design.

(See Gregg Mutitt and Erik Leaver, “Slick Connections: U.S. Influence on Iraqi Oil,” in Foreign Policy in Focus, July 18, 2007.)

In January of 2007 President Bush, in announcing the troop surge, demanded as a mandatory “benchmark” the enactment of the hydrocarbon law by the Iraqi Parliament.

(See a at transcript of the speech.)

Exxon/Mobil, Conoco/Phillips, Royal Dutch/Shell, and BP/Amoco are now poised to profit immensely from 81% of Iraq’s undeveloped crude when the hydrocarbon law is passed.

(Source: Joshua Holland, “Bush’s Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq’s Oil,” published on the website of AlterNet, October 16, 2006.)

Meanwhile, the UK Independent reported on June 21, 2008 the imminent signing of three $500 million contracts with Exxon/Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, and BP/Amoco by the Iraqi Oil Ministry. These are repair and technical “service contracts” covering some of Iraq’s largest oilfields. The companies can elect to be paid in crude oil.

(See “Big Oil Returns to Iraq,” by Patrick Cockburn, the UK Independent, June 21, 2008.)

Afghanistan

Upon taking office, the Bush Administration brushed off explicit warnings about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Counterterrorism was nowhere on the new Administration’s agenda. (Read Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror.)

Instead, throughout the spring and summer of 2001 the Bush Administration, on behalf of the Unocal Corporation, was negotiating with the Taliban for pipeline rights-of-way across Afghanistan. A rich package of foreign aid was offered, but the negotiations failed.

(See Wayne Madsen, “Afghanistan, the Taliban, and the Bush Oil Team,” CounterPunch, November 1, 2004, and Paul Sperry, Crude Politics: How Bush’s Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism.)

Finally, after threatening the Taliban—“Accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs”—the Bush Administration notified Pakistan and India it would attack Afghanistan “before the end of October.” This took place five weeks prior to the events of 9/11.

(Sources: Anon., “Afghanistan: A Timeline of Oil and Violence,” , and Larry Chin, “Parts I and II: Players on a rigged chessboard: Bridas, Unocal, and the Afghanistan pipeline,” Online Journal, March, 2002.)

On October 7, 2001 the “carpet of bombs” was delivered to Afghanistan as threatened and on schedule. Mr. Hamid Karzai, a former Unocal consultant, was soon installed as President of the country. The first U.S. ambassador was John J. Maresca, a Unocal vice president. He was succeeded by Zalmay Khalilzad, another former consultant for Unocal. (See “Oil War III: the Engineering of Oil Profits Through War and Arbitrary Monetary Standards,”; and “Afghanistan: A Timeline of Oil and Violence,” cited above.)

On February 8, 2002, four months after the carpet of bombs, Presidents Hamid Karzai and Perves Musharraf sign an agreement for a pipeline across Afghanistan and Pakistan.

(See “U.S. Afghan Aid Package Fuels Pipeline Politics,” in Asia Times Online, May 29, 2002; and Crude Politics cited above.)

Within a year an oil industry trade journal reports the Bush Administration is standing ready with financing to build the pipeline and to protect it with a permanent military presence. (See Alexander’s Gas and Oil Connections, February 23, 2003.)

On June 22, 2008 the Toronto Sun reported the signing of a “major deal” by Afghanistan to build an $8 billion, 1,680km pipeline, called “TAPI.” (The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline.) Construction will begin “…once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route by U.S., Canadian, and NATO forces.” (See Eric Margolis, “These Wars Are About Oil, Not Democracy,” Toronto Sun, June 22, 2008.)

The objectives of the “war on terror,” were twofold, we were told: to apprehend Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and to effect a change of regime in Iraq.

But the trademark deceit of the Bush Administration was involved here, too. Osama bin Laden could have been brought to justice easily and without armed conflict, and regime change in Iraq could have been achieved with equal facility.

Awaiting on his desk when George Bush took office was a standing offer from the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden. (This had been negotiated by the Clinton Administration after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.) Intent on the invasion and military occupation of Afghanistan, however, the Bush Administration rejected the handover three times before 9/11 and twice thereafter. (The tragic speculation: with bin Laden in custody early in 2001, could 9/11 have been avoided?)

(Sources: Anon., “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Hand bin Laden Over,” UK Guardian Unlimited, October 14, 2001; Andrew Buncombe, “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Surrender bin Laden,” the UK Independent, October 15, 2001; Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, “How Bush Was Offered bin Laden and Blew It,” CounterPunch, November 1, 2004.).

Saddam Hussein, hoping to forestall warfare, yielded a series of increasingly attractive concessions to the Bush Administration, finally offering to leave his country for exile in Egypt. Intent as well on the invasion and military occupation of Iraq, the Administration ignored the offer.

(Sources: George Monbiot, “Dreamers and Idiots: Britain and the US did everything to avoid a peaceful solution in Iraq and Afghanistan,” The UK Guardian, November 11, 2003,; and Anon., “Llego el momento de deshacerse de Saddam,” El Pais (Spain), September 26, 2007. This is a transcript of a conversation between George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Anzar in Crawford, Texas, February 22, 2003. The President acknowledges the prospective exile, but vigorously rejects it, declaring, “We will be in Baghdad at the end of March.”)

The truth

Plainly there is a huge disconnect between the incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. But the Bush Administration knowingly and dishonestly joined them into the fraudulent conflation known as the “war on terror.”

This is not a “war on terror.” Afghanistan and Iraq today are occupied countries, administered by puppet governments and dotted with permanent military bases securing the energy assets. Not a by-product of the Bush Administration’s warmaking, this was its purpose.

The Congress is at least vaguely aware. The Defense Authorization Act of 2008 included a Section 1222, prohibiting expenditures for the “permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq,” or “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.”

President Bush nullified Section 1222 with a signing statement.

Richard W. Behan lives and writes on Lopez Island, off the northwest coast of Washington state. He has published on various websites over two dozen articles exposing and criticizing the criminal wars of the Bush Administration. The work is summarized in an electronic book, The Fraudulent War, available in PDF format

Source. / truthout

Thanks to David Hamilton / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.