Friday, October 28, 2011
Temple prof blasts Times
over weak 9/11 reporting
The New York Times came under fire from a scientist who has doggedly criticized mainstream media over their reporting of events surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
Joshua Mitteldorf, a statistics professor at Temple University, complained in a letter to the New York Times public editor, Arthur Brisbane, about the poverty of Times investigative reporting concerning 9/11, contrasting it with mountains of evidence implying coverup amassed by "thousands" of professors, scientists and others. Mitteldorf has expertise in physics and evolutionary biology.
Joshua Mitteldorf, a statistics professor at Temple University, complained in a letter to the New York Times public editor, Arthur Brisbane, about the poverty of Times investigative reporting concerning 9/11, contrasting it with mountains of evidence implying coverup amassed by "thousands" of professors, scientists and others. Mitteldorf has expertise in physics and evolutionary biology.
Mitteldorf's letter:
Dear Mr Brisbane-
I find it particularly ironic that the Times is writing about the challenge presented by covering the anniversary of 9/11, with no mention of the glaring absence of investigative reporting on the issue. Thousands of college professors, scientists and amateur journalists have discovered and publicized anomalies in the official account of the day, and the two authors of the Kean-Hamilton report have disavowed their own findings on the op-ed page of the Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html. And yet, the Times itself has provided readers with no critical assessment of the Bush Administration's story, or even a glimpse into the world of 9/11 scholarship that has grown in the vacuum created by mainstream media.
Dear Mr Brisbane-
I find it particularly ironic that the Times is writing about the challenge presented by covering the anniversary of 9/11, with no mention of the glaring absence of investigative reporting on the issue. Thousands of college professors, scientists and amateur journalists have discovered and publicized anomalies in the official account of the day, and the two authors of the Kean-Hamilton report have disavowed their own findings on the op-ed page of the Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html. And yet, the Times itself has provided readers with no critical assessment of the Bush Administration's story, or even a glimpse into the world of 9/11 scholarship that has grown in the vacuum created by mainstream media.
--Josh Mitteldorf, PhD
Dept of Statistics
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA
Dept of Statistics
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Private inventions sent to limbo
as U.S. steps up secrecy cloaks
Secrecy News
During fiscal year 2011, there were 143 new "secrecy orders" imposed on
patent applications under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office reported this week. This represents an
increase of 66% over the year before, and it is the highest number of new
secrecy orders in a single year since 1998.
The Invention Secrecy Act authorizes the government to block the disclosure
of a patent application if it contains information that might be
"detrimental to the national security." Remarkably, this secrecy authority
extends even to privately generated inventions that the government does not
own or control.
According to federal Patent and Trademark Office statistics obtained by the Federation of American
Scientists under the Freedom of Information Act, a total of 5,241 patent
secrecy orders were in effect at the end of FY 2011, including both new
secrecy orders and those from previous years that had been renewed. This
is the highest annual total since 1995.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/stats.html
An explanation for the increase in secrecy orders was not reported. Nor
do the statistics themselves include anything like a "figure of merit" that
would confirm their validity or their legitimacy.
The use of secrecy orders has sometimes been questioned, particularly when
they extend to inventions that are not clearly limited to military or other
national security applications. Forty years ago, government agencies
directed that advanced renewable energy technologies should be reviewed for
possible restriction under the Invention Secrecy Act. These included
photovoltaics that were more than 20% efficient and energy conversion
systems with efficiencies "in excess of 70-80%." ("Invention Secrecy Still
Going Strong," Secrecy News, October 21, 2010)
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/10/invention_secrecy_2010.html
To be "detrimental to national security" -- which is the threshold for a
secrecy order under the Invention Secrecy Act -- is a lower standard than
to cause "damage to national security," which is the criterion for national
security classification.
Government reviewers may recommend imposing a secrecy order on a patent
application in which the government has a "property interest" (i.e. the
government owns or supported the development of the invention) whenever
disclosure of the application "might be detrimental to national security,"
according to a 2010 directive from the Department of Defense. However, if
the government does not have a property interest in the invention, then
reviewers can only impose a secrecy order if disclosure "would be
detrimental to national security," a more demanding standard. But the
term "detrimental" was not further defined and the precise scope of the
review process is not publicly known.
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/d5535_02.pdf
as U.S. steps up secrecy cloaks
Secrecy News
During fiscal year 2011, there were 143 new "secrecy orders" imposed on
patent applications under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office reported this week. This represents an
increase of 66% over the year before, and it is the highest number of new
secrecy orders in a single year since 1998.
The Invention Secrecy Act authorizes the government to block the disclosure
of a patent application if it contains information that might be
"detrimental to the national security." Remarkably, this secrecy authority
extends even to privately generated inventions that the government does not
own or control.
According to federal Patent and Trademark Office statistics obtained by the Federation of American
Scientists under the Freedom of Information Act, a total of 5,241 patent
secrecy orders were in effect at the end of FY 2011, including both new
secrecy orders and those from previous years that had been renewed. This
is the highest annual total since 1995.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/stats.html
An explanation for the increase in secrecy orders was not reported. Nor
do the statistics themselves include anything like a "figure of merit" that
would confirm their validity or their legitimacy.
The use of secrecy orders has sometimes been questioned, particularly when
they extend to inventions that are not clearly limited to military or other
national security applications. Forty years ago, government agencies
directed that advanced renewable energy technologies should be reviewed for
possible restriction under the Invention Secrecy Act. These included
photovoltaics that were more than 20% efficient and energy conversion
systems with efficiencies "in excess of 70-80%." ("Invention Secrecy Still
Going Strong," Secrecy News, October 21, 2010)
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/10/invention_secrecy_2010.html
To be "detrimental to national security" -- which is the threshold for a
secrecy order under the Invention Secrecy Act -- is a lower standard than
to cause "damage to national security," which is the criterion for national
security classification.
Government reviewers may recommend imposing a secrecy order on a patent
application in which the government has a "property interest" (i.e. the
government owns or supported the development of the invention) whenever
disclosure of the application "might be detrimental to national security,"
according to a 2010 directive from the Department of Defense. However, if
the government does not have a property interest in the invention, then
reviewers can only impose a secrecy order if disclosure "would be
detrimental to national security," a more demanding standard. But the
term "detrimental" was not further defined and the precise scope of the
review process is not publicly known.
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/d5535_02.pdf
Friday, October 21, 2011
U.S. fights to force reporter
to disclose his CIA source
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Federal prosecutors are appealing a federal district judge's decision to limit the scope of a New York Times reporter's testimony in the trial of a former CIA officer accused of leaking classified information.
The prosecution's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. (4th Cir.), further delays the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, which was scheduled to start Monday.
Prosecutors are challenging U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema's July decision to deny the government's motion for reconsideration and the order excluding certain testimony from Times reporter James Risen. The second part of the appeal involves an order excluding the testimony of two other witnesses who have not been named.
On July 29, Brinkema ruled that Risen would not have to reveal his confidential source in the criminal case against Sterling, who is charged with 10 federal crimes ranging from disclosure of national defense information to mail fraud. Brinkema's order restricted Risen's testimony to matters of his authorship and the accuracy of his 2006 book, "State of War," which detailed the United States' failed plan to derail Iran's nuclear program.
Since the disputed material was not published in The Times, the newspaper is not directly involved in Risen's defense. However, Times assistant general counsel George Freeman said, "We certainly hope that the trial judge's opinion doesn't get reversed." Freeman said there was not a "great need" for Risen's testimony.
Risen could face jail time and/or fines if the Fourth Circuit rules that he must reveal his source and he continues to refuse. Federal prosecutors relied on the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision Branzburg v. Hayes to argue in favor of Risen revealing his source. In Branzburg v. Hayes, the Court ruled that reporters have no First Amendment right to refuse to answer all questions before grand juries if they actually witnessed criminal activity. However, in the years following Branzburg, federal courts nationwide interpreted the case to give rise to a qualified privilege that typically balances a reporter’s right to protect the sources against the government’s need for the information.
In the Fourth Circuit, this balancing test requires a person seeking confidential information, including the identity of a source, from a journalist who has invoked the reporter’s privilege to protect information obtained under a promise of confidentiality to show that there is a compelling interest in the information sought, and that such information is relevant to the claim and unobtainable by alternative means.
Brinkema found that Risen’s need to protect his source outweighed the government’s need to establish its case. That is, while Risen’s testimony is indeed relevant, prosecutors failed to show a compelling interest in it and an inability to obtain the information elsewhere, her opinion said.
Congress has been considering versions of a federal shield law to protect journalists from being forced to reveal their sources since 2004, but its current form includes exemptions for national security issues.
— J.C. Derrick
to disclose his CIA source
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Federal prosecutors are appealing a federal district judge's decision to limit the scope of a New York Times reporter's testimony in the trial of a former CIA officer accused of leaking classified information.
The prosecution's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. (4th Cir.), further delays the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, which was scheduled to start Monday.
Prosecutors are challenging U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema's July decision to deny the government's motion for reconsideration and the order excluding certain testimony from Times reporter James Risen. The second part of the appeal involves an order excluding the testimony of two other witnesses who have not been named.
On July 29, Brinkema ruled that Risen would not have to reveal his confidential source in the criminal case against Sterling, who is charged with 10 federal crimes ranging from disclosure of national defense information to mail fraud. Brinkema's order restricted Risen's testimony to matters of his authorship and the accuracy of his 2006 book, "State of War," which detailed the United States' failed plan to derail Iran's nuclear program.
Since the disputed material was not published in The Times, the newspaper is not directly involved in Risen's defense. However, Times assistant general counsel George Freeman said, "We certainly hope that the trial judge's opinion doesn't get reversed." Freeman said there was not a "great need" for Risen's testimony.
Risen could face jail time and/or fines if the Fourth Circuit rules that he must reveal his source and he continues to refuse. Federal prosecutors relied on the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision Branzburg v. Hayes to argue in favor of Risen revealing his source. In Branzburg v. Hayes, the Court ruled that reporters have no First Amendment right to refuse to answer all questions before grand juries if they actually witnessed criminal activity. However, in the years following Branzburg, federal courts nationwide interpreted the case to give rise to a qualified privilege that typically balances a reporter’s right to protect the sources against the government’s need for the information.
In the Fourth Circuit, this balancing test requires a person seeking confidential information, including the identity of a source, from a journalist who has invoked the reporter’s privilege to protect information obtained under a promise of confidentiality to show that there is a compelling interest in the information sought, and that such information is relevant to the claim and unobtainable by alternative means.
Brinkema found that Risen’s need to protect his source outweighed the government’s need to establish its case. That is, while Risen’s testimony is indeed relevant, prosecutors failed to show a compelling interest in it and an inability to obtain the information elsewhere, her opinion said.
Congress has been considering versions of a federal shield law to protect journalists from being forced to reveal their sources since 2004, but its current form includes exemptions for national security issues.
— J.C. Derrick
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Notes from Cyberia
German justice officials under fire
over loosing of hobgoblin spyware
Amid ballooning public suspicion, the German justice minister tried to put a positive spin on a hacker group's expose of a police spyware program that, the group said, was so flawed that it could be captured and used by "anyone on the internet."
Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, the minister, told news magazine Focus on Sunday that Chaos Computer Club members were "not anarchists, but experts," who had brought an important debate into the public sphere.
Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger also said the assessments of the IT technicians had rarely been so important to lawmakers.
The minister added that the legal gray area surrounding use of spyware by police needed to removed, and it was time for a single legal framework for federal and state investigators to be established.
"Significant design and implementation flaws make all of the functionality available to anyone on the internet," the hackers charged.
The hacker club announced that it had "reverse engineered" and analyzed a Trojan horse malware program used by authorities to record keystrokes, activate cameras and take control of electronic communications equipment of police targets.
"The malware can not only siphon away intimate data but also offers a remote control or backdoor functionality for uploading and executing arbitrary other programs," the hacker group said.
British internet filter panned on privacy
The Electronic Frontier Foundation sharply criticized Britain's internet filter, saying it "lacks transparency," and is "vague in nature." Persons who opt out are likely to be monitored anyway, EFF said.
Working with the religious organization Mothers' Union, British Prime Minister David Cameron has decided to implement a plan with four of Britain's major ISPs—BT, TalkTalk, Virgin, and Sky—to block access to pornography, gambling, self-harm, and other blacklisted websites, EFF said in a statement. Though the filtering is not mandatory, there are extensive problems with the plan, EFF said.
The plan "lacks transparency," the group said, noting: "The blocked categories are vague in nature, and the list's origins unknown. Not only do the categories contain legal content in some cases, but there is significant room for overblocking. For example, one filtering tool used by several Middle Eastern governments categorizes Tumblr.com as pornography, because several pornographic blogs are hosted on the platform."
Also, EFF quoted Richard Clayton, a security expert at Cambridge University, as saying that customers of ISP TalkTalk who opt out are still monitored. In May, Clayton cited a series of privacy concerns relating to TalkTalk's use of the HomeSafe system, the same system the ISP intends to use for filtering, EFF said.
Clayton is quoted as saying that "the company scans all web addresses that its customers visit regardless of whether they have opted-in to the service."
And "opt-in services create privacy concerns," EFF said, arguing: "Users who choose to opt out of the 'bad' content filter are then on one list. The plan does not include privacy protections for the people who choose to opt out. The list could potentially be made public, shaming users who would prefer their Internet with its pornography, gambling, and self-harm websites intact."
The group argued that the decision by Cameron and Mother's Union is based on the Bailey Report, a British Education Department report that relied heavily on phone surveys with parents, input from religious organizations, and a Murdoch-funded Australia Institute report entitled "Youth, Sex, and the Internet."
"Time and time again, filtering based on blacklists has proven to be overbroad, blocking access to some offensive websites at the cost of many legitimate ones," the group said. "Parents have plenty of Internet filtering options which they can implement by installing software on their computers at home without having to resort to filtering at the ISP level, especially given the potential privacy risks this plan may pose for Internet users throughout the UK."
EFF noted that three months ago, the group had expressed disappointment with Australia's two largest Internet service providers (ISPs), Telstra and Optus, for agreeing to implement a filtering scheme after a filtering bill from the Australian government failed to pass.
Comment: This reporter recalls having news sites, such as the Washington Post, blocked by a filtering program used by the Nashville, Tennessee, public library. The computer screens at the time did not tell users they had an opt-out option that could be implemented by a librarian.
Times urges new review of anthrax probe
The New York Times, citing forensic skepticism about the FBI's investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks, is calling for a re-examination of the FBI case.
In an editorial today, the paper said, "Federal investigators insist that there is a vast amount of evidence supporting their conclusion" that biowar expert Dr. Bruce Ivins was the lone, deranged culprit." But, in light of disclosures by journalists and concerns of scientists, the Government Accountability Office "needs to dig deeply into classified materials to judge how well the evidence holds up."
Otherwise, the editorial said, "Congress ought to commission an independent assessment to be sure there are no culprits still at large."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/opinion/who-mailed-the-anthrax-letters.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/science/10anthrax.html?_r=2
http://www.propublica.org/article/did-ivins-give-the-fbi-a-fake-sample-of-his-own-anthrax
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/19/114467/fbi-lab-reports-on-anthrax-attacks.html
Comment: If the FBI's work on the anthrax poisonings is open to question, should not its work on the 9/11 attacks also come under increased scrutiny? After all, the anthrax case was only officially "decoupled" from the 9/11 attacks when an enterprising reporter disclosed that the lethal anthrax was of a type grown at the Pentagon's biowar defense facility at Fort Detrick, Md.
Newz from Limbo is a news site and, the hosting mechanism notwithstanding, should not be defined as a web log or as 'little more than a community forum'... Write News from Limbo at NewzfromLimbo=at=gmail=dot=com... The philosophical orientation of Newz from Limbo is best described as libertarian... For anti-censorship links: http://veilside78.blogspot.com/2010/12/anti-censorship-spectrum_23.html (If link fails, cut and paste it into the url bar)...
German justice officials under fire
over loosing of hobgoblin spyware
Amid ballooning public suspicion, the German justice minister tried to put a positive spin on a hacker group's expose of a police spyware program that, the group said, was so flawed that it could be captured and used by "anyone on the internet."
Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, the minister, told news magazine Focus on Sunday that Chaos Computer Club members were "not anarchists, but experts," who had brought an important debate into the public sphere.
Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger also said the assessments of the IT technicians had rarely been so important to lawmakers.
The minister added that the legal gray area surrounding use of spyware by police needed to removed, and it was time for a single legal framework for federal and state investigators to be established.
"Significant design and implementation flaws make all of the functionality available to anyone on the internet," the hackers charged.
The hacker club announced that it had "reverse engineered" and analyzed a Trojan horse malware program used by authorities to record keystrokes, activate cameras and take control of electronic communications equipment of police targets.
"The malware can not only siphon away intimate data but also offers a remote control or backdoor functionality for uploading and executing arbitrary other programs," the hacker group said.
British internet filter panned on privacy
The Electronic Frontier Foundation sharply criticized Britain's internet filter, saying it "lacks transparency," and is "vague in nature." Persons who opt out are likely to be monitored anyway, EFF said.
Working with the religious organization Mothers' Union, British Prime Minister David Cameron has decided to implement a plan with four of Britain's major ISPs—BT, TalkTalk, Virgin, and Sky—to block access to pornography, gambling, self-harm, and other blacklisted websites, EFF said in a statement. Though the filtering is not mandatory, there are extensive problems with the plan, EFF said.
The plan "lacks transparency," the group said, noting: "The blocked categories are vague in nature, and the list's origins unknown. Not only do the categories contain legal content in some cases, but there is significant room for overblocking. For example, one filtering tool used by several Middle Eastern governments categorizes Tumblr.com as pornography, because several pornographic blogs are hosted on the platform."
Also, EFF quoted Richard Clayton, a security expert at Cambridge University, as saying that customers of ISP TalkTalk who opt out are still monitored. In May, Clayton cited a series of privacy concerns relating to TalkTalk's use of the HomeSafe system, the same system the ISP intends to use for filtering, EFF said.
Clayton is quoted as saying that "the company scans all web addresses that its customers visit regardless of whether they have opted-in to the service."
And "opt-in services create privacy concerns," EFF said, arguing: "Users who choose to opt out of the 'bad' content filter are then on one list. The plan does not include privacy protections for the people who choose to opt out. The list could potentially be made public, shaming users who would prefer their Internet with its pornography, gambling, and self-harm websites intact."
The group argued that the decision by Cameron and Mother's Union is based on the Bailey Report, a British Education Department report that relied heavily on phone surveys with parents, input from religious organizations, and a Murdoch-funded Australia Institute report entitled "Youth, Sex, and the Internet."
"Time and time again, filtering based on blacklists has proven to be overbroad, blocking access to some offensive websites at the cost of many legitimate ones," the group said. "Parents have plenty of Internet filtering options which they can implement by installing software on their computers at home without having to resort to filtering at the ISP level, especially given the potential privacy risks this plan may pose for Internet users throughout the UK."
EFF noted that three months ago, the group had expressed disappointment with Australia's two largest Internet service providers (ISPs), Telstra and Optus, for agreeing to implement a filtering scheme after a filtering bill from the Australian government failed to pass.
Comment: This reporter recalls having news sites, such as the Washington Post, blocked by a filtering program used by the Nashville, Tennessee, public library. The computer screens at the time did not tell users they had an opt-out option that could be implemented by a librarian.
Times urges new review of anthrax probe
The New York Times, citing forensic skepticism about the FBI's investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks, is calling for a re-examination of the FBI case.
In an editorial today, the paper said, "Federal investigators insist that there is a vast amount of evidence supporting their conclusion" that biowar expert Dr. Bruce Ivins was the lone, deranged culprit." But, in light of disclosures by journalists and concerns of scientists, the Government Accountability Office "needs to dig deeply into classified materials to judge how well the evidence holds up."
Otherwise, the editorial said, "Congress ought to commission an independent assessment to be sure there are no culprits still at large."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/opinion/who-mailed-the-anthrax-letters.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/science/10anthrax.html?_r=2
http://www.propublica.org/article/did-ivins-give-the-fbi-a-fake-sample-of-his-own-anthrax
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/19/114467/fbi-lab-reports-on-anthrax-attacks.html
Comment: If the FBI's work on the anthrax poisonings is open to question, should not its work on the 9/11 attacks also come under increased scrutiny? After all, the anthrax case was only officially "decoupled" from the 9/11 attacks when an enterprising reporter disclosed that the lethal anthrax was of a type grown at the Pentagon's biowar defense facility at Fort Detrick, Md.
Newz from Limbo is a news site and, the hosting mechanism notwithstanding, should not be defined as a web log or as 'little more than a community forum'... Write News from Limbo at NewzfromLimbo=at=gmail=dot=com... The philosophical orientation of Newz from Limbo is best described as libertarian... For anti-censorship links: http://veilside78.blogspot.com/2010/12/anti-censorship-spectrum_23.html (If link fails, cut and paste it into the url bar)...
Monday, October 17, 2011
Security shroud tossed over
appeal by Gitmo detainees
The government has imposed a muzzle on the judges who ruled on an appeal by a group of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Their opinion is classified.
http://tinyurl.com/MysteryCourtOpinion
However, a slightly less censored version appears on lawfareblog
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Latif-order.pdf
where it is learned that a district court's decision had been overruled and the case handed back to that court for more proceedings.
The name of the district judge is omitted and so it is not clear whether the matter concerns a writ of habeas corpus granted last year to a captive held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison, Cuba. In July 2010, Judge Henry Kennedy Jr. granted the petition for Adnan Latif, now 34, and instructed the Obama administration to “take all necessary and appropriate diplomatic steps to facilitate Latif's release forthwith.”
Though the government web page does not indicate the classification authority, nor the statute under which the opinion is classified, in the past judges have been muzzled by the Justice Department and Pentagon.
The appeal's content, like the decision's, is censored.
The lead plaintiff, Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, then 25, was seized by Pakistan security forces in 2001 and turned over to the United States military for a $5,000 bounty.
Witnesstorture.org
http://www.witnesstorture.org/Adnan-Farhan-Abdul-Latif
gives the following account:
Latif spent the first three years of his captivity at the Guantanamo detention center in total isolation, enduring "physical and mental torture." During this period, he was interrogated hundreds of times and held without charge or hearing before a judge.
Not until 2004 did the United States conduct a “status” hearing, permitting attorney Mark Falkoff to take on Latif's case. As Falkoff writes in the journal of his meetings with Latif, "when I first saw the accusations, I thought they looked serious." But "when I looked at the government’s evidence, I was amazed. There was nothing there.”
Latif remains in custody, despite the 2004 Defense Department determination that Latif “is not known to have participated in combatant/terrorist training” and a 2007 determination that Latif should be transferred away from Guantánamo Bay “subject to the process for making appropriate diplomatic arrangements for his departure."
On Oct. 8, the Associated Press reported that a Guantanamo Bay detainee who says he was waterboarded lost a legal battle when a federal appeals court ruled that the Obama administration can keep information secret that the prisoner wanted to make public.
The decision came in the case of Djamel Ameziane, an Algerian seeking his release from the Guantanamo Bay prison, where he has been held since 2002.
In a 3-0 decision, the appeals court said U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle had failed to give substantial deference "to the government's assessment of its foreign relations and national security interests" if certain information were to be revealed. Huvelle had declared that "I don't understand how" revealing the information "will interfere in anything."
The government's argument provided a detailed and logical explanation of the impact disclosure would have, appeals Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote.
Other backround on Latif is available at
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/066/2009/en/779940e7-6c40-4f97-80d9-cbe2c6314d46/amr510662009en.html
Newz from Limbo is a news site and, the hosting mechanism notwithstanding, should not be defined as a web log or as 'little more than a community forum'... Write News from Limbo at NewzfromLimbo=at=gmail=dot=com... The philosophical orientation of Newz from Limbo is best described as libertarian... For anti-censorship links: http://veilside78.blogspot.com/2010/12/anti-censorship-spectrum_23.html (If link fails, cut and paste it into the url bar)...
appeal by Gitmo detainees
The government has imposed a muzzle on the judges who ruled on an appeal by a group of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Their opinion is classified.
http://tinyurl.com/MysteryCourtOpinion
However, a slightly less censored version appears on lawfareblog
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Latif-order.pdf
where it is learned that a district court's decision had been overruled and the case handed back to that court for more proceedings.
The name of the district judge is omitted and so it is not clear whether the matter concerns a writ of habeas corpus granted last year to a captive held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison, Cuba. In July 2010, Judge Henry Kennedy Jr. granted the petition for Adnan Latif, now 34, and instructed the Obama administration to “take all necessary and appropriate diplomatic steps to facilitate Latif's release forthwith.”
Though the government web page does not indicate the classification authority, nor the statute under which the opinion is classified, in the past judges have been muzzled by the Justice Department and Pentagon.
The appeal's content, like the decision's, is censored.
The lead plaintiff, Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, then 25, was seized by Pakistan security forces in 2001 and turned over to the United States military for a $5,000 bounty.
Witnesstorture.org
http://www.witnesstorture.org/Adnan-Farhan-Abdul-Latif
gives the following account:
Latif spent the first three years of his captivity at the Guantanamo detention center in total isolation, enduring "physical and mental torture." During this period, he was interrogated hundreds of times and held without charge or hearing before a judge.
Not until 2004 did the United States conduct a “status” hearing, permitting attorney Mark Falkoff to take on Latif's case. As Falkoff writes in the journal of his meetings with Latif, "when I first saw the accusations, I thought they looked serious." But "when I looked at the government’s evidence, I was amazed. There was nothing there.”
Latif remains in custody, despite the 2004 Defense Department determination that Latif “is not known to have participated in combatant/terrorist training” and a 2007 determination that Latif should be transferred away from Guantánamo Bay “subject to the process for making appropriate diplomatic arrangements for his departure."
On Oct. 8, the Associated Press reported that a Guantanamo Bay detainee who says he was waterboarded lost a legal battle when a federal appeals court ruled that the Obama administration can keep information secret that the prisoner wanted to make public.
The decision came in the case of Djamel Ameziane, an Algerian seeking his release from the Guantanamo Bay prison, where he has been held since 2002.
In a 3-0 decision, the appeals court said U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle had failed to give substantial deference "to the government's assessment of its foreign relations and national security interests" if certain information were to be revealed. Huvelle had declared that "I don't understand how" revealing the information "will interfere in anything."
The government's argument provided a detailed and logical explanation of the impact disclosure would have, appeals Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote.
Other backround on Latif is available at
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/066/2009/en/779940e7-6c40-4f97-80d9-cbe2c6314d46/amr510662009en.html
Newz from Limbo is a news site and, the hosting mechanism notwithstanding, should not be defined as a web log or as 'little more than a community forum'... Write News from Limbo at NewzfromLimbo=at=gmail=dot=com... The philosophical orientation of Newz from Limbo is best described as libertarian... For anti-censorship links: http://veilside78.blogspot.com/2010/12/anti-censorship-spectrum_23.html (If link fails, cut and paste it into the url bar)...
Friday, October 14, 2011
Libertarians see 'crony capitalism'
as the issue behind Occupy protests Libertarian Party
"Crony capitalism" is the problem that lies behind the Occupy Wall Street protests,
the Libertarian Party said in a statement today.
"I have been following the Occupy protesters, who call themselves the '99%', with interest," the party's chairman, Mark Hinkle, said in the statement.
"It's true that 99% of Americans do not enjoy the special benefits of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is very different from real capitalism. In crony capitalism, government hands out special favors and protections to politically well-connected businesses.
"The TARP bailouts, Solyndra, and the military-industrial complex are all facets of crony capitalism.
"Libertarians love free markets and hate crony capitalism.
"Unfortunately, hypocritical Republican politicians have taught a lot of Americans to think that 'free markets' means freedom for government and big business to engage in crony capitalism.
"That's not what free markets are. A free market is where the government leaves businesses alone, does not attempt to pick winners and losers, does not stifle competition, does not hand out corporate welfare, and does not absolve businesses of liability for their actions. Most of our economy today does not resemble a free market at all.
"It's unfortunate that so many businesses today go to the government begging for handouts and special treatment. I wish they wouldn't. But the real problem is the politicians who choose to give those favors to them, at everyone else's expense.
"I hope the Occupy protesters will start to direct their anger away from Wall Street and big businesses, and toward our government, which has done so much to destroy free markets and entrench crony capitalism."
,reports Judith Miller.
http://www.judithmiller.com/10510/iran-assassination-plot
As well they should be, considering that the blockbuster indictment puts the Justice Department's drug war in a positive light, diverting some of the bad press it was getting over the "Fast and Furious" gun-running gone awry. Doubtless Attorney General Eric Holder, who was taking quite a bit of flak, also is breathing sighs of relief.
This outcome, however, seems to mostly a side benefit of the Iranian plot bust, as Holder scrambles to contain the political damage damage over the venture by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which put guns into the hands of Mexican drug banditos.
Considering the haste with which a group of lawmakers and President Obama rushed to judgment, with pledges of relaliatory sanctions, some oberservers will wonder whether a mini "Gulf of Tonkin" was ginned up in order to justify applying more pressure against Iran's nuclear program.
A previous version of the foregoing item contained a factual error.
Notes from Cyberia
Miller warns on the terroristic implications of the great Blackberry blackout.
http://www.judithmiller.com/10511/cyber-terror-vulnerability
Bioterror potential spotlighted by listeria deaths
The latest outbreak of a food-borne pathogen, Listeria monocytogenes, exposes the vulnerability of the public to the potential of deliberate contamination, though there is no indication of such an act following the deaths of vulnerable people who ate tainted melons.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that:
"Listeriosis, a serious infection usually caused by eating food contaminated with the bacterium Listeria monocytogenes, is an important public health problem in the United States. The disease primarily affects older adults, pregnant women, newborns, and adults with weakened immune systems. However, rarely, persons without these risk factors can also be affected. The risk may be reduced by recommendations for safe food preparation, consumption, and storage."
The CDC and the Food and Drug Administration are investigating a multistate outbreak of listeriosis in coordination with state and local health departments, including the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The outbreak started in the late summer.
Collaborative investigations by local, state, and federal public health and regulatory agencies indicate the source of the outbreak is whole cantaloupe grown at Jensen Farms’ production fields in Granada, Colorado.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
'Secretly implemented' snooping
FCC pressured to probe Facebook
for tracking users after they log offElectronic Privacy and Information Center
EPIC has joined the American Civil Liberties Union, Consumer Action, the American Library Association and the Center for Digital Democracy and other activist groups to press the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Facebook's implementation of "persistent identifiers," which track Facebook users even after they have logged off the site.
The groups' letter asks the commission to investigate whether Facebook's secretly implemented technology constitutes unfair and deceptive business practices.
The coalition's letter points out that Facebook's practices violate
the terms of the site's own Privacy Policy. Although Facebook claims
to have fixed the problem, according to the letter, "the company still
places persistent identifiers on users' browsers that collect post-
log-out data and could be used to identify users."
The Sept. 29 letter also requests an investigation into new Facebook
applications, such as Timeline, which aggregates a Facebook user's data
and entire posting history, and Open Graph, which documents a user's
interaction with other web sites. Security experts have warned that
Timeline's aggregation of user data provides a tempting target for
computer criminals. The new applications also profoundly change the way
information is shared: "Under the frictionless sharing model, content
sharing is a passive experience in which a social app prompts the user
once, at the outset, to decide the level of privacy for the app . . .
then proceeds to share every bit of information obtained thereafter."
The coalition's letter also discusses Facebook's history of "failing to
protect consumer privacy." The Federal Trade Commission is currently
investigating Facebook's secret use of facial recognition technology to
build a biometric database from users' photos. Facebook's use of facial
recognition technology also violated the company's Privacy Policy, as
well as public assurances made by Facebook to users.
EPIC: Letter to Federal Trade Commission (Sept. 29, 2011)
https://epic.org/privacy/
EPIC: Facebook Facial Recognition Complaint
http://epic.org/redirect/
EPIC: Facebook Privacy
http://epic.org/privacy/
Fair use commentary
Carl Sagan: a diagnosis of paranoia
doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
'In paranoid thinking a person believes he has detected a conspiracy -- that is, a hidden (and malevolent) pattern of behavior of friends, associates or governments -- where in fact no such pattern exists. If there is such a conspiracy, the subject may be profoundly anxious, but his thinking is not necessarily paranoid. A famous case involves James Forrestal, the first U.S. Secretary of Defense. At the end of World War II, Forrestal was convinced that Israeli secret agents were following him everywhere. His physicians, equally convinced of the absurdity of this ide'e fixe, diagnosed him as paranoid and confined him to the upper story of Walter Reed Army Hospital, from which he plunged to his death [sic?], partly because of inadequate supervision by hospital personnel, overly deferential to one of his exalted rank. Later it was discovered that Forrestal was indeed being followed by Israeli agents who were worried that he might reach a secret understanding with representatives of Arab nations. Forrestal had other problems, but having his valid perception labeled paranoid did not help his condition. '*******
' An acquaintance of mine says, "In America today, if you're not a little paranoid you're out of your mind." '
From The Dragons of Eden, Speculations on the evolution of human intelligence, Random House 1977, page 181 (hard cover)
Sagan was writing in the seventies, when the public wasn't even able to absorb the extent and depth of conspiracies carried out under President Richard M. Nixon. Yet the illustrious scientist's analysis held for 1949 and holds today.
Sagan was making a point about non-paranoid "paranoia," but some of his statements are slightly out of sync with the facts as reported on 2011 web sites. For example, Forrestal seems to have fallen to his death, a sash tightly wrapped around his neck, at Bethesda Naval Hospital, not Walter Reed. Aside from concerns about Israeli operatives, Forrestal was also worried that the Soviet NKVD was shadowing him everywhere. During this period the American public was learning of Soviet spy rings that had honeycombed Washington -- and the NKVD was certainly something to worry about.
Was Forrestal tailed by Israeli operatives? Although there may not be absolute confirmation, it should be recalled that Menahem Begin's terrorist gang tried to assassinate Britain's Ernest Bevin over his anti-Zionist position. And Forrestal was likewise known for his anti-Zionist stance.
This site gives some useful background, but the reader is urged to check further:
http://www.dcdave.com/article5/060409.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment