Tag Archives: senate

Obama Just Vetoed the GOP’s Keystone Bill

Mother Jones

We knew this was coming: About a month after the Senate narrowly passed a bill to force President Barack Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, the president vetoed the bill Tuesday afternoon, hours after the White House said he would do so “without drama or fanfare or delay.”

From the AP:

The contentious legislation arrived at the White House on Tuesday morning from Capitol Hill, where Republicans pushed the bill quickly through both chambers in their first burst of activity since taking full control of Congress….

The move sends the politically charged issue back to Congress, where Republicans have yet to show they can muster the two-thirds majority in both chambers needed to override Obama’s veto. Sen. John Hoeven, the bill’s chief GOP sponsor, said Republicans are about four votes short in the Senate and need about 11 more in the House.

The veto, which the White House has long promised on this or any other Keystone-approval bill, is the first one in the last five years. It essentially blocks what Republican leaders like Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.) have called a top priority of this congressional session.

Obama’s beef with the bill isn’t necessarily with the pipeline itself. Instead, the president wants the approval process to go through the State Department, which normally has jurisdiction over international infrastructure projects.

In his memo to the Senate, the president said: “Because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest—including our security, safety, and environment—it has earned my veto.”

The administration still hasn’t indicated whether it will approve the pipeline, even though there aren’t any more bureaucratic hurdles to clear. Early this month, the window for government agencies to weigh in closed. The most significant comment came from the Environmental Protection Agency, which said that if oil prices go much lower than they are, moving oil from Canada by truck or train could become too expensive. So a green-light for the pipeline would lead to greater greenhouse gas emissions than if it were not approved.

The final question now is whether the president agrees.

This post has been updated.

Originally posted here – 

Obama Just Vetoed the GOP’s Keystone Bill

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Green Light, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Just Vetoed the GOP’s Keystone Bill

Democrats Blast Obama’s Plan to Allow Oil Drilling Off the East Coast

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This article originally appeared in the Huffington Post and is republished here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

A group of Senate Democrats from the Northeast is pushing back on the Obama administration’s proposal to open new areas of the Atlantic Ocean to oil and gas drilling.

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker called the move “absolutely unacceptable” in a press conference Tuesday afternoon. Joining in the press conference were fellow Democrats Ed Markey (Mass.), Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Ben Cardin (Md.).

“If drilling is allowed off the east coast of the United States, it puts our beaches, our fisherman, and our environment in the crosshairs for an oil spill that could devastate our shores,” said Markey. “We’re going to make it clear we’re very unhappy with this plan…You’re looking at the beginning of an alliance to put pressure on this administration to withdraw this proposal.”

The Obama administration on Tuesday released a draft of its five-year plan to open up drilling, including sales in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The plan, which would not begin until 2017, can still be revised.

The Democrats said they would seek to get the administration to change the proposal before it issues its final plan, asking for the removal of all areas on the east coast.

While there are no proposed sales off Maryland, New Jersey or Massachusetts included in the plan, the legislators said a potential spill to the south could imperial their coasts as the oil circulates. They cited billion-dollar coastal industries like tourism and fishing as potentially at risk in the event of a spill. “All of the risk is put on the backs of our shore communities, and all the reward goes to big oil,” said Menendez.

The group also criticized Congress for failing to put in place tougher regulations on offshore drilling in the wake of the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. While changes were proposed after that spill, they never passed the Senate, even though Democrats were in the majority at that time.

Cardin said that the reserves off the Atlantic Coast “are minimal compared to the risk.” The Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) estimated last year that there are 4.72 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 37.51 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf off the entire east coast. The Gulf of Mexico, in contrast, contains an estimated 48.4 billion barrels.

The senators cited a recent report from the environmental group Oceana, which found that offshore wind development has the potential to create twice as many jobs and energy as oil and gas development on the Atlantic coast.

Booker also criticized the plan from a climate change standpoint, arguing that further development of oil and gas would contribute more planet-warming emissions.

“Scientists are clearly telling us we need to leave more than 50 percent of the already known fossil fuel reserves in the ground,” said Booker. “To purse this strategy not only threatens New Jersey…but it also flies in the face of the urgent need for us to have a more comprehensive vision for an energy policy that will make sure we don’t cross that line.”

Virginia’s Democratic Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine have both supported drilling off the coast of their state. In a joint statement Tuesday, they expressed support for the proposal’s goals, but said they want Virginia to be able to share in the revenue the drilling generates. The legislators said they intend to introduce legislation to that effect.

North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia each have two Republican senators who support offshore drilling.

Visit site:  

Democrats Blast Obama’s Plan to Allow Oil Drilling Off the East Coast

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, The Atlantic, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Democrats Blast Obama’s Plan to Allow Oil Drilling Off the East Coast

Ted Cruz Says the GOP Lost in 2012 Because of Two Words: "47 Percent"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Sunday night, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) appeared with Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, his Senate colleagues and fellow presidential hopefuls, at the Koch brothers’ winter donor retreat, and he offered a two-word post-mortem for the GOP’s drubbing in the 2012 elections: 47 percent.

Cruz was referring, of course, to Mitt Romney’s infamous remarks, secretly caught on tape during a private campaign fundraiser, in which he dismissed 47 percent of Americans (“who will vote for this president no matter what”) as freeloaders “who are dependent on government” and who refuse to take responsibility for their lives.

According to Cruz, who was one of four presidential aspirants to appear before some 300 well-heeled donors at this weekend’s Koch retreat (Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was the fourth, though he did not join Sunday’s panel), the GOP’s 47-percent problem is bigger than Romney’s comments. It’s a party-wide problem. But Cruz noted that he had a fix in time for the 2016 election.

Here’s what Cruz told panel moderator Jonathan Karl of ABC News:

Of course we have a problem with income inequality. And I have to say I chuckle every time I hear Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton talk about income inequality. Because it’s increased dramatically under their policies.

Now, if you look at the last election, I think in 2012 the reason Republicans lost can be summed up in two words: 47 percent. And I don’t just mean Mitt Romney’s comment that was caught on tape—that the 47 percent of Americans who are not currently paying taxes, who are in some ways dependent on government, we don’t have to worry about them. I don’t just mean that comment. I think Mitt is a good and decent and honorable man; I think he ran a very hard campaign.

But the central narrative of the last election, what the voters heard, was we don’t have to worry about the 47 percent. And I think Republicans are and should be the party of the 47 percent.

That is, the GOP should be the party of the bottom half.

Cruz did not go into great detail about how the Republicans could assist and appeal to the 47 percent. But he did accuse Obama administration officials of using their clout to get “fat and happy,” slamming Washington as rife with crony capitalism and claiming its denizens are fixated on self-enrichment at the expense of everyone else. “I think we need to move back to a dynamic where you have Schumpeter’s creative destruction, where you have small businesses that are creating opportunities,” he said. Cruz’s reference to Joseph Schumpeter, the Austrian economist beloved by libertarians and conservatives, was sure to delight at least one audience member: Charles Koch, a longtime fan of Schumpeter’s. Cruz added, “We should be fighting for the little guy who has dreams and hopes and desires.”

Link: 

Ted Cruz Says the GOP Lost in 2012 Because of Two Words: "47 Percent"

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ted Cruz Says the GOP Lost in 2012 Because of Two Words: "47 Percent"

Airpocalypse Now: Beijing’s Toxic Smog Measures “Beyond Index” Levels

Again. No matter what desperate steps the Chinese government takes—banning coal burning plants within the city limits, shuttering more than 300 factories, wiping out old vehicles and boilers, forcing heavy trucking to go nocturnal—this just keeps happening: Beijing’s smog has yet again soared off the charts. On Thursday local time, Beijing measured “beyond index” levels of the dangerous airborne particulate matter known as PM2.5—considered hazardous to human health because the tiny particles can embed deep in a person’s respiratory system. Those sky-high levels have been measured several times since the US began measuring the city’s air using a device installed atop its embassy in Beijing in 2008, most notably during a “crazy bad” incident in 2010, and 2013′s “airpocalypse”. Thursday’s levels indicated the concentration of PM2.5 exceeded 500 on an “Air Quality Index” (AQI) measured from the embassy. The Beijing municipal government maintains its own index, always notably lower than the US readings, which reported an AQI of 430—still hazardous. (Anything above 150 is considered unhealthy for the general population). Today’s levels are generally regarded as more than 20 times the limit recommended by the World Health Organization. There you have it. We are now “Beyond Index” in terms of Beijing air pollution pic.twitter.com/lJgQR5X7hR — Peter Schloss (@peterschloss) January 15, 2015 Another sunny day in #Beijing. #AQI over 600, i.e., “beyond index”. Well beyond. pic.twitter.com/fCb04H9rvY — Nicholas P Manganaro (@NicholasXPM) January 15, 2015 Air in Beijing is “beyond index.” Off the charts & beyond hazardous. CCTV Tower invisible from NYT office. pic.twitter.com/8fpDahRE1E — Edward Wong (@comradewong) January 15, 2015 Beijing pollution off the charts today pic.twitter.com/ng3TLe3MSi — ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) January 15, 2015 Despite the frigid mass of putrid air, this week’s levels don’t come close to records set in 2013, when the AQI surged to over 755. Then, expats gave it a nickname: “airpocalypse.” It covered 1 million square miles (2.7 million square kilometers) of the country with a pall of smog that impacted more than 600 million people. I made this chart then to show what exactly was in Beijing’s air, a lethal combination of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and ozone. It also gives you a sense of how the Air Quality Index works: One reason it’s so hard to control the air quality in Beijing is that the smog problem sweeps in from neighboring provinces, known as the “black triangle”—Shanxi, Shaanxi and Inner Mongolia. Prevailing wind patterns in that area of China pick up the pollution from at least 38 coal-fired power plants and send it straight into Beijing, which is landlocked and tends to trap the smog. Click map to see how prevailing winds sweep pollution into Beijing from neighboring provinces. As I’ve reported previously, the smog is the main thing driving so much of China’s push to tackle climate change (reducing CO2 emissions will also cut pollution) and its exploration of natural gas through a major fracking push in the southwestern province of Sichuan. It’s worth noting that China continues to be the world’s biggest investor in clean energy technologies. But so long as smog continues to blanket cities like Beijing, home to 21 million people, the government will continue to face mounting political pressure amongst an uneasy population that was promised, along with economic prosperity and greater freedoms associated with opening up to the rest of the world, a better quality of life. View original article –  Airpocalypse Now: Beijing’s Toxic Smog Measures “Beyond Index” Levels ; ; ;

Link to original: 

Airpocalypse Now: Beijing’s Toxic Smog Measures “Beyond Index” Levels

Posted in alo, FF, GE, OXO, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Airpocalypse Now: Beijing’s Toxic Smog Measures “Beyond Index” Levels

The House Is Set to Pass a GOP Bill Wiping Out Wall Street Reforms

Mother Jones

The Republican-dominated House is poised to approve legislation this week that would obliterate a slew of important Wall Street reforms. The legislation arrives just weeks after Congress and the Obama administration gave Wall Street two big handouts, and serves as an opening salvo in what will be a sustained Republican assault on financial reform over the next two years.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), is called the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act, but its name obscures what it would actually do. The legislation is a compilation of deregulatory bills that failed to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate in the last Congress. It would alter nearly a dozen provisions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law, loosening regulation of Wall Street banks. Here’s a look at the details of what the bill would do.

Delay the Volcker rule. The Volcker rule—one of the most important bits of Dodd-Frank—generally forbids the high-risk trading by commercial banks that helped cause the financial crisis. One high-risk product banks are supposed to stop trading are collateralized loan obligations, which are bundles of loans that are broken into pieces and sold to investors. In December, the Federal Reserve extended banks’ deadline to stop trading CLOs from 2015 to 2017. The Fitzpatrick bill would extend that deadline to 2019.

Water down rules on private equity firms. Private equity firms are required to register as brokers with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) if they get paid for providing investment banking services such as merger advice. Brokers are subject to additional rules and more regulatory oversight. The bill would exempt some private equity firms from having to register as brokers.

Loosen regs on derivatives. Derivatives are financial instruments with values based on underlying numbers, such as crop prices or interest rates. The Fitzpatrick bill would allow Wall Street firms that own commercial businesses such as oil or gas operations to trade derivatives privately instead of in central clearinghouses, which are subject to more oversight. The bill would also forbid regulators from requiring that banks take collateral from companies that buy derivatives. Collateral can help offset losses if one of the parties involved in the transaction defaults.

Weaken transparency rules. The bill exempts about 60 percent of publicly traded companies from certain rules regarding how those companies must file financial statements with the SEC. The measure would also allow certain smaller companies to omit historical financial data in their financial statements. “This allows firms to choose a convenient history as they promote their securities,” the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen noted last week.

Last week, House Republicans tried to force Fitzpatrick’s bill through the House using a procedure typically used for uncontroversial bills or technical fixes. This process, known as fast-tracking, requires the bill to receive a yes vote from two-thirds of the chamber, or at least 290 members. But on Friday, just 276 of the 435 members of the House voted for the measure—well short of the two-thirds majority required. Now GOP leaders have resurrected the bill, and will push it through under the normal rules, which require just a simple majority. The bill is expected to pass the House easily, although it’s unclear whether the Senate would approve it. President Barack Obama would likely veto it. But GOPers could force the legislation into law by attaching bits of it to must-pass bills—such as spending legislation—later this year.

Fitzpatrick is a member of the House financial services committee. Between 2013 and 2014, he received more than $310,000 in donations from the finance and banking sector, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Fitzpatrick legislation signals the beginning of a sustained assault on Dodd-Frank by the new GOP Congress. Up next: the consumer protection bureau that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) helped create. (More about that here.) “We’re going to see repeated attempts to go in with seemingly technical changes that intimidate regulators and keep them from putting teeth in regulations,” Marcus Stanley, policy director at the advocacy group Americans for Financial Reform told the New York Times this weekend. “If we return to the pre-crisis business as usual, where it’s routine for people to accommodate Wall Street on these technical changes, they’re just going to unravel the post-crisis regulation piece by piece. Then, we’ll be right back where we started.”

This article – 

The House Is Set to Pass a GOP Bill Wiping Out Wall Street Reforms

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The House Is Set to Pass a GOP Bill Wiping Out Wall Street Reforms

Jim Webb Wants to Be President. Too Bad He’s Awful on Climate Change.

Mother Jones

Hillary Clinton may be dominating every poll of potential Democratic hopefuls for the White House, but some progressives are desperate to find a candidate who will challenge her from the left. Groups have sprung up to encourage Elizabeth Warren to take a stab at the nomination, but with the Massachusetts senator repeatedly saying she isn’t running, liberal activists will likely have to turn elsewhere—perhaps to socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) or Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley—if they aren’t satisfied with Clinton. But so far, the only Democratic alternative officially in the race is former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who launched an exploratory committee in November.

A former Secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan, Webb is being touted by some on the left as an Appalachian populist who could champion causes Clinton would rather ignore. The Nation‘s William Greider, for example, lauded Webb’s presidential ambitions in a column headlined “Why Jim Webb Could be Hillary Clinton’s Worst Nightmare.” Greider praised Webb’s non-interventionist tendencies in foreign policy (Webb was a vocal opponent of the Iraq War). “I think of him as a vanguard politician—that rare type who is way out ahead of conventional wisdom and free to express big ideas the media herd regards as taboo,” Greider wrote, while acknowledging that Webb was unlikely to win.

There’s at least one key issue, however, on which Webb’s record is far from progressive: global warming. That’s a big deal. Unlike Obamacare and financial reform, much of the progress President Barack Obama has made on climate change rests on executive actions that his successor could undo. At first glance, Webb might look like a typical Democrat when it comes to environmental policy. The League of Conservation Voters gives him a lifetime score of 81 percent—on par with Hillary Clinton’s 82 percent rating, though far below Sanders at 95 percent. And unlike most of the Republican presidential hopefuls, he acknowledges that humans are causing climate change. He even supports solving the problem—at least in theory.

But when it came to actual legislation, Webb used his six years in the US Senate to stand in the way of Democratic efforts to combat climate change. Virginia, after all, is a coal state, and Webb regularly stood up for the coal industry, earning the ire of environmentalists. As Grist‘s Ben Adler succinctly summed it up, “Jim Webb sucks on climate change.”

Perhaps Webb’s biggest break with the standard Democratic position on climate is his vocal opposition to the use of EPA rules under the Clean Air Act to limit carbon emissions from coal power plants. Earlier this year, the Obama administration proposed regulations that could cut existing coal plant emissions by as much as 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Those new rules became a key factor in the historic climate deal Obama recently reached with China, and they will almost certainly figure prominently in next year’s Paris climate negotiations. But back in 2011, Webb went to the floor of the Senate to denounce the idea that the federal government has the power to regulate carbon emissions under existing law. “I am not convinced the Clean Air Act was ever intended to regulate or classify as a dangerous pollutant something as basic and ubiquitous in our atmosphere as carbon dioxide,” he said.

Webb also supported legislation from fellow coal-state Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) that would have delayed the EPA’s authority to add new rules governing coal plant emissions. “This regulatory framework is so broad and potentially far reaching that it could eventually touch nearly every facet of this nation’s economy, putting unnecessary burdens on our industries and driving many businesses overseas through policies that have been implemented purely at the discretion of the executive branch and absent the clearly stated intent of the Congress,” he said in a release.

But Webb’s opposition to major climate initiatives wasn’t limited to executive action. In 2008, Democrats (and a few Republicans) in Congress tried to pass a cap-and-trade bill that was intended to slow global warming by putting a price on carbon emissions. The bill would have likely been vetoed by then-President George W. Bush, but it never got that far. Webb was part of a cohort of Senate Democrats who blocked the measure. “We need to be able to address a national energy strategy and then try to work on environmental efficiencies as part of that plan,” Webb told Politico at the time. “We can’t just start with things like emission standards at a time when we’re at a crisis with the entire national energy policy.”

When cap and trade came up again in 2009—this time with Barack Obama in the Oval Office—Webb again played a major role in preventing the bill from passing the Senate. “It’s an enormously complex thing to implement,” Webb said of the 2009 bill. “There are a lot of people in the middle between the ‘cap’ and the ‘trade’ that are going to make a lot of money.” Webb also voted to prevent Senate Democrats from using budget reconciliation procedures to pass a cap and trade bill with simple majority, essentially dooming any hope for serious climate legislation during the first years of Obama’s presidency.

That same year, Obama attended a United Nations summit in Copenhagen in a failed bid to hammer out an international climate accord. Obama sought a limited, nonbinding agreement in which the US and other countries would pledge to reduce their CO2 output. Webb wasn’t having it. Before Obama went abroad, Webb sent the president a letter asserting that he lacked the “unilateral power” to make such a deal.

Coal wasn’t the only polluting industry that found an ally in Webb. After the BP oil spill in 2010, the Obama administration put a hold on new offshore oil drilling, which provoked Webb. “In placing such a broad moratorium on offshore drilling, the Obama Administration has over-reacted to the circumstances surrounding the Deepwater Horizon disaster,” Webb said in a press release. At other times, Webb championed drilling projects off Virginia’s coasts and voted regularly for bills that would expand the territory in which oil companies could plant rigs offshore. “Unbelievable,” the Sierra Club once remarked of Webb’s support for offshore drilling. In 2012, Webb was one of just four Democrats in the Senate who voted to keep tax loopholes for oil companies.

But it’s Webb’s support for coal that most concerns environmentalists. “Jim Webb is an apologist for the coal industry,” says Brad Johnson, a climate activist who runs the website Hill Heat. “Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to realize that greenhouse pollution is the greatest threat we face to economic justice in this nation.”

View article:  

Jim Webb Wants to Be President. Too Bad He’s Awful on Climate Change.

Posted in Anchor, Energy, Inc., FF, GE, Hagen, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jim Webb Wants to Be President. Too Bad He’s Awful on Climate Change.

How Will We Look Back on Drone Strikes in 2019?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.

It was December 6, 2019, three years into a sagging Clinton presidency and a bitterly divided Congress. That day, the 500-page executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s long fought-over, much-delayed, heavily redacted report on the secret CIA drone wars and other American air campaigns in the 18-year-long war on terror was finally released. That day, committee chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) took to the Senate floor, amid the warnings of his Republican colleagues that its release might “inflame” America’s enemies leading to violence across the Greater Middle East, and said:

“Over the past couple of weeks, I have gone through a great deal of introspection about whether to delay the release of this report to a later time. We are clearly in a period of turmoil and instability in many parts of the world. Unfortunately, that’s going to continue for the foreseeable future, whether this report is released or not. There may never be the ‘right’ time to release it. The instability we see today will not be resolved in months or years. But this report is too important to shelve indefinitely. The simple fact is that the drone and air campaigns we have launched and pursued these last 18 years have proven to be a stain on our values and on our history.”

Though it was a Friday afternoon, normally a dead zone for media attention, the response was instant and stunning. As had happened five years earlier with the committee’s similarly fought-over report on torture, it became a 24/7 media event. The “revelations” from the report poured out to a stunned nation. There were the CIA’s own figures on the hundreds of children in the backlands of Pakistan and Yemen killed by drone strikes against “terrorists” and “militants.” There were the “double-tap strikes” in which drones returned after initial attacks to go after rescuers of those buried in rubble or to take out the funerals of those previously slain. There were the CIA’s own statistics on the stunning numbers of unknown villagers killed for every significant and known figure targeted and finally taken out (1,147 dead in Pakistan for 41 men specifically targeted). There were the unexpected internal Agency discussions of the imprecision of the robotic weapons always publicly hailed as “surgically precise” (and also of the weakness of much of the intelligence that led them to their targets). There was the joking and commonplace use of dehumanizing language (“bug splat” for those killed) by the teams directing the drones. There were the “signature strikes,” or the targeting of groups of young men of military age about whom nothing specifically was known, and of course there was the raging argument that ensued in the media over the “effectiveness” of it all (including various emails from CIA officials admitting that drone campaigns in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen had proven to be mechanisms not so much for destroying terrorists as for creating new ones).

Continue Reading »

Continued:  

How Will We Look Back on Drone Strikes in 2019?

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, Green Light, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Will We Look Back on Drone Strikes in 2019?

The very first thing the new Republican Senate will do is try to push through Keystone

The very first thing the new Republican Senate will do is try to push through Keystone

By on 17 Dec 2014commentsShare

Once Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) becomes Senate majority leader next month, his first order of business will be to hold a vote on authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline, he said on Tuesday. If it passes, that would force President Obama to either approve or veto the bill, and thus the pipeline, before he is ready to. From CNN:

The President has said he wants the decision left in the hands of the State Department, which is six years into a review of the project and currently holds final authority because the pipeline would cross international borders. …

The House has repeatedly approved a bill that would take the Keystone decision out of the Obama administration’s hands, end the review and give the project the green light.

For months, the Senate’s Democratic leaders ignored that House bill, but then last month they suddenly changed course and allowed a vote on it in a doomed bid to help Senate Energy Chair Mary Landrieu win her runoff election in oil-friendly Louisiana. Approval for Keystone came up one vote short, and Landrieu lost by 12 points.

Next year, when McConnell is in control of the Senate, newly elected Republican senators will give him the votes he needs to pass the Keystone bill. But if the president vetoes the legislation, McConnell probably won’t have enough votes to override him. Republicans will have 54 seats, and a number of Democrats could be expected to vote with them, but it would be a stretch to get to the 67 needed to overturn a veto.

Climate activists reacted to McConnell’s statement exactly the way you’d expect them to.

“This is just the climate denial agenda that the fossil fuel industry paid for,” Sara Shor, tar-sands campaign manager for 350.org, said in a statement. The group is planning more anti-Keystone protests for January. “The fossil fuel industry has all the money, but we’ve got the people. When it comes to politics, intensity often carries the day. We’re going to bring the heat.”

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Credit: 

The very first thing the new Republican Senate will do is try to push through Keystone

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, Green Light, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The very first thing the new Republican Senate will do is try to push through Keystone

Untrained CIA Agents Were Just Making Up Torture Methods As They Went Along

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Tuesday morning, the Senate intelligence committee released an executive summary of its five-year investigation into the CIA’s interrogation and detention program. (Read the executive summary here.)

Among the report’s most striking revelations is that CIA interrogators were often untrained and in some instances made up torturous techniques as they went along.

More coverage of the CIA torture report.


“Rectal Feeding,” Threats to Children, and More: 16 Awful Abuses From the CIA Torture Report


No, Bin Laden Was Not Found Because of CIA Torture


How the CIA Spent the Last 6 Years Fighting the Release of the Torture Report


Read the Full Torture Report Here


5 Telling Dick Cheney Appearances in the CIA Torture Report


Am I a Torturer?

The CIA was “unprepared” to begin the enhanced interrogation program, the Senate report concluded. The agency sent untrained, inexperienced people into the field to interrogate Abu Zubaydah, the first important Al Qaeda suspect the US captured.

Within weeks of Zubaydah’s arrival, while he was still in the hospital recovering from a gunshot wound, CIA headquarters was planning to throw him in all-white room with no natural lighting, blast rock music 24/7, strip him of his clothes, and keep him awake all day. They did. Extreme interrogations like these, identified as “enhanced interrogation techniques,” went on for more than three months before CIA officers received any sort of training in the new techniques from anyone.

Page 10 of the executive summary of the Senate intelligence committee report

As the overall detention and interrogation program proceeded, many untrained CIA personnel continued to do whatever they wanted, without authorization or supervision. At one facility in 2002, code-named COBALT, “untrained CIA officers…conducted frequent, unauthorized, and unsupervised interrogations of detainees using harsh physical interrogation techniques that were not—and never became—part of the CIA’s formal ‘enhanced’ interrogation program,” the report found. COBALT is reportedly a prison in Afghanistan the agency nicknamed “the Salt Pit.” In one example identified by the report, an interrogator left a COBALT detainee chained naked to the concrete floor. The detainee later died of suspected hypothermia.

The CIA also put a junior official with absolutely no relevant experience in charge of this entire facility. Later, when the CIA’s inspector general investigated COBALT, the CIA said it knew little about what happened there. Several interrogators at the site became uncomfortable with their coworkers’ methods, not sure that they were safe or effective. According to John Helgeron, the CIA inspector general who conducted a formal review of the agency’s detention and interrogation program, CIA interrogators at COBALT had zero training guidelines before December 2002. The report claims, quoting Helgeron: “Interrogators, some with little or no training, were ‘left to their own devices in working with detainees.'”

In 2004, the CIA chief at another detention site, code-named BLACK, penned a long email about his disillusionment with the program, especially deficiencies in training:

Page 144 of the executive summary of the Senate intelligence committee’s report

And in one particularly heinous example, the CIA headquarters sent an untrained interrogator to question Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a man the CIA claimed was an Al Qaeda “terrorist operations planner” involved in several bombings. One senior CIA official had reservations about sending the untrained interrogator, noting that he heard the man was “too confident, had a temper, and had some security issues.” But the man got sent anyway.

While there, the interrogator allegedly forced Nashiri to stand with his hands over his head for two and a half days, blindfolded him, pushed a pistol up against his head, and revved up a cordless drill close to his body. When this produced no new information, the interrogator slapped the detainee repeatedly on the back of the head, told him he’d sexually assault his mother in front of him, blew cigar smoke in his face, and made him sit in such stressful positions that a medical officer was concerned the detainee’s shoulders would be dislocated.

The CIA base chief let this happen because he thought this interrogator was sent to “fix” the problem of an uncooperative detainee and had permission from headquarters to take such extreme steps. Both men were later reprimanded, according to the report.

The problem of untrained amateurs questioning and torturing of detainees wasn’t unique to the CIA. In 2008, Mother Jones explored the world of untrained interrogators with testimony from Ben Allbright—a soldier who recalls using harsh interrogation techniques while serving as a military guard at a small Iraqi prison called Tiger in Western Iraq:

Ben was not a “bad apple,” and he didn’t make up these treatments. He was following standard operating procedure as ordered by military-intelligence officers. The MI guys didn’t make up the techniques either; they have a long international history as effective torture methods. Though generally referred to by circumlocutions such as “harsh techniques,” “softening up,” and “enhanced interrogation,” they have been medically shown to have the same effects as other forms of torture. Forced standing, for example, causes ankles to swell to twice their size within 24 hours, making walking excruciating and potentially causing kidney failure.

The Senate intelligence committee did not address allegations of torture or abuse by the US military. In fact, when members of the US military stopped by COBALT, they decided it was too risky for them to be involved at all.

In July 2002, CIA headquarters recommended that a group of interrogators, “none of whom had been trained in the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques,” try to “break” a detainee named Ridha al-Najjar, who was arrested in Pakistan and identified as a former bodyguard for Osama bin Laden.

When officers from the US military arrived for a debriefing, the military’s legal adviser took note of the extreme techniques being used. The interrogators left Najjar hanging handcuffed to an overhead bar for 22-hour periods. He was left in total darkness and cold temperatures, hooded and shackled. They forced him to wear a diaper and didn’t provide a bathroom. And on top of that, the US military officer claimed that the warden in charge “had little to no experience with interrogating or handling prisoners.”

At the end of the visit, the legal adviser concluded that the treatment of the prisoner and the concealment of the facility were too big a liability for the military to get involved. But even then, Najjar’s treatment became a “model” for future interrogations, according to the report.

Link: 

Untrained CIA Agents Were Just Making Up Torture Methods As They Went Along

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, Natural Light, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Untrained CIA Agents Were Just Making Up Torture Methods As They Went Along

5 Telling Dick Cheney Appearances in the CIA Torture Report

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

It may come as little surprise that former Vice President Dick Cheney’s name crops up 41 times in the Senate report on the CIA’s use of “enhanced interrogation.” Here are some of his noteworthy appearances:

1. Cheney personally worked to quash press coverage of the CIA’s secret prison network.

Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda suspect captured by the United States in 2002, was subjected to years of detention and torture by the CIA. According to the Senate report, Cheney tried to prevent a newspaper from reporting Zubaydah’s whereabouts at a CIA black site dubbed “DETENTION SITE GREEN,” which the Washington Post reports was located in Thailand.

dc.embed.loadNote(‘//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1376759-senate-torture-report/annotations/192411.js’);

2. Cheney attended a CIA briefing focused on justifying torture techniques.

On July 29, 2003, Cheney attended a CIA briefing with Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, and others, seeking “policy reaffirmation” of the CIA’s “coercive interrogation program,” including waterboarding. The CIA warned that “termination of this program will result in loss of life, possibly extensive,” and claimed “major attacks” were averted thanks to detainee torture.

dc.embed.loadNote(‘//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1376759-senate-torture-report/annotations/192554.js’);

3. Cheney reportedly did not know the specific location of a CIA black site.

Cheney was reportedly lined up to help lobby the government of an unnamed country, but as with President Bush, the CIA aimed to keep Cheney in the dark so that he couldn’t refer to the location of “a more permanent and unilateral CIA detention facility” in that country.

dc.embed.loadNote(‘//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1376759-senate-torture-report/annotations/192556.js’);

4. After leaving office, Cheney declassified a CIA report arguing that torture worked.

The CIA assessment argued that torture “saved lives” and “enabled the CIA to disrupt terrorist plots, capture additional terrorists, and collect a high volume of critical intelligence on al-Qa’ida.” The Senate report indicates that Bush’s Department of Justice used this specific assessment to defend the legality of torture. Cheney declassified the report in 2009, just after President Obama took office.

dc.embed.loadNote(‘//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1376759-senate-torture-report/annotations/192470.js’);

5. Cheney blew off Senate leaders investigating the CIA interrogation program as early as 2005.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)—a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time—called for a formal investigation of torture, but Cheney clearly wasn’t interested.

dc.embed.loadNote(‘//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1376759-senate-torture-report/annotations/192509.js’);

Link: 

5 Telling Dick Cheney Appearances in the CIA Torture Report

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Pines, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 5 Telling Dick Cheney Appearances in the CIA Torture Report