UNITED STATES NEWS DIGEST
Former NSA Head Calls for Breakup of FBI
General William Odom (USA-ret.), the former head of the National Security Agency, penned a scathing attack on the FBI in the June 12 Wall Street Journal, calling for the Bureau to be broken up because it is beyond repair, and culturally and structurally incapable of doing effective counter-terrorist and counter-espionage work. Odom called for the FBI to be split in half, with all the counter-terror and counter-espionage functions to be turned over to a new National Counterintelligence Service, to be devoted solely to that work. Odom dismissed those who call for the FBI to return to the "good old days," rejecting the idea that there ever was a good old day of FBI competence, and tracing a string of Bureau failures to catch spies all the way back to World War II.
Odom argued that the techniques the FBI can use to catch criminals do not work in catching spies and terrorists, who are far more sophisticated than even the most organized criminals. "The FBI's main weapons, tapping telephones, using informers, and heavy-handed interrogations, can be effective against many criminals. Such techniques do not work against spies, however, and more recently against terrorists."
Odom concluded by taking a direct hit at Attorney General John Ashcroft. "Those who fear that such an agency [National Counterintelligence Service] could threaten American civil liberties have a point, but their concerns can be met with proper judicial and congressional oversight. Given today's realities, prudence dictates going ahead with an NCS but also building safeguards. A bigger danger is Attorney General John Ashcroft returning powers to the FBI that were taken away in the 1970s because it had abused them. It couldn't catch spies when it had these powers before. Why should we believe that the FBI can use them to catch spies and terrorists today?"
Vice President Cheney Underlines Policy of 'Preemptive Strike'
Vice President Dick Cheney underlined the new U.S. policy of "preemptive strike" enunciated by President Bush at West Point; Cheney made his remarks during his June 10 speech to the International Democratic Union conference, meeting at the White House. (The IDU is made up of conservative parties from all over the world.
Cheney's "preemptive strike" policy has Iraq as his first test case. "In this new century, old doctrines of security will not always apply," Cheney said. "During the Cold War, we were able to manage the threat with summit meetings, arms control treaties, and by a policy of deterrence, through which an act of aggression would put the aggressor's own nation at risk. In the terrorists, however, we have enemies with nothing to defend. A group like al-Qaeda cannot be deterred or placated or reasoned with at a conference table. For that reason, this struggle will not end in a treaty or in accommodation with terrorists; it can only end in their complete and utter destruction.
"Nor can we always rely on the doctrine of containment; as the President said last week, 'Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to their terrorist allies. Grave threats are accumulating against us, and inaction will only bring them closer. We will not wait until it is too late.' For our part, the government of the United States understands what must be done. We have a responsibility to protect ourselves against future attack, to prepare our military for all future threats, to maintain the global coalition we have built to defeat global terror, and to take preemptive action, when necessary," said Cheney.
Kucinich Challenges Bush on ABM Treaty Decision
On June 6, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) offered a "privileged resolution" calling on President George Bush to seek Congress' approval of his December decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Under House rules, a privileged resolution deals with matters "affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings," or "affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of the members ... in their representative capacity only."
Since only the Senate deals with treaties, House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill) made a point of order against Kucinich's resolution, arguing that it did not constitute a question of House privilege. Hyde said that in 1979, the Supreme Court rejected the claim made by then-Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz), that President Jimmy Carter had no right to abrogate the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan. Hyde concluded that when President Bush decided to abrogate the ABM Treaty, he "was fully within his rights to act as he did," and that the Goldwater precedent would legally obtain.
Kucinich replied that the debate is "about the role that this institution has in a democracy." He said that because, under the Constitution, treaties are the law of the land, the President has no unilateral authority to repeal them, any more than he has the authority to repeal a law passed by Congress. "We must assert our role in this treaty withdrawal," he said, "in order to prevent further erosion of Constitutional authority." What is at issue, "is whether this House of Representatives, this Congress, will stand up to an imperial Presidency," one that "does not respect the Constitutionally protected role of this Congress in the governance of our nation."
Speaker Pro Tempore Ray LaHood (R-Ill) ruled that Kucinich's resolution, because it invoked a Constitutional authority of the Congress as a whole rather than just the House, was not in order. LaHood's ruling was upheld on Kucinich's appeal by a vote of 254 to 169.
Desperate Dems Campaign as 'Bush Dems' for Fall Elections
Democratic Congressmen and Senators who are facing tough re-election campaigns are wrapping themselves in the mantle of President George W. Bush, to try to increase their chances of getting re-elected.
Democratic candidates can thank Joe Lieberman and his DLC for the mess they're in; these creeps are destroying the Democratic Party, but fast.
According to an article in the June 13 Washington Post by political/White House reporter Dana Millbank, a number of desperate Dems have been using the image and/or voice of President Bush in TV and radio ads, to show how close to the President they are snuggling.
*Liberal Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa is using Bush's name and voice in an ad, along with a message that Harkin, who supports the farm bill Bush recently signed, is closer to the President on that issue than is Harkin's Republican opponent, Iowa Congressman Greg Ganske.
*Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus is airing TV and radio ads that invoke Bush and use his voiceand, in the case of the TV ads, show Baucus standing next to the President.
*North Dakota Democratic Congressman Earl Pomeroy is airing a TV ad showing himself standing with Bush in the Oval Office. Apparently, Pomeroy has gone so far as to cite his ties to House GOP leaders Dick Armey and Tom DeLay.
*Ultra-liberal Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota is showing a picture of himself and Bush on his campaign website.
*Texas Democrat Tony Sanchez, running for Governor, has been using a TV ad citing the way in which Bush, as Texas Governor, collaborated with Democrats; Sanchez says in the commercial, "That's my model."
*South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson (whose South Dakota Senate colleague is Majority Leader Tom Daschle), has used a clip of Bush embracing Daschle shortly after Sept. 11.
Bush Team Pushes for Terrorism Insurance
On June 10, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill sent a letter, signed by Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mitch Daniels, Director of the National Economic Council Lawrence Lindsey, and Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers R. Glenn Hubbard, to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss), calling for action on a terrorism insurance bill.
O'Neill warned that the absence of such legislation is "having a palpable and severe effect on our economy." He said the lack of terrorism coverage "makes it more difficult to operate, acquire, or refinance property, leading to diminished bank lending for new construction projects and lower asset values for existing properties.... Without such insurance, the economic impact of another terrorist attack would be much larger, including major bankruptcies, layoffs, and loan defaults."
Last December, the House passed a terrorism insurance bill that was based on a bipartisan agreement among the White House, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Paul Sarbanes (D-Md), and Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn), Phil Gramm (R-Texas), and Mike Enzi (R-Ore). However, the bill has been stalled in the Senate ever since. On June 4, Majority Whip Harry Reid (D-Nev) said that Republicans have blocked every attempt to move the bill. He said the desire to move it quickly requires a unanimous consent agreement, and the agreement the Democrats are proposing would allow for amendments.
Reid said that part of the problem is that some Senators wish to use the bill as a vehicle for tort reform. "This is not about tort reform," he said. "It is about maintaining the stability of our economic infrastructure."
U.S. Offers Grain to Africa, But Blasts Zimbabwe in Process
The U.S. has offered to supply one-third of the 1.2 million tons of grain needed to stem starvation in Southern Africa, but blasted Zimbabwe in the process.
Andrew Natsios, the head of USAID, said the U.S. would give an extra 275,000 tons of wheat to the UN emergency relief fund for the six Southern African nations hit by famine, making the U.S. total grain donation 400,000 tons. However, he said that the problem in Zimbabwe, home to half the estimated 12.8 people threatened with starvation, has no food shortage, but only a distribution problem (!), since President Robert Mugabe is refusing food to members of the political opposition. Natsios claimed that he did not oppose the land reform policies in Zimbabwe, but only the way they were being implemented, which he blames for "collapsing agricultural production in areas where there was rainfall," while, he claimed, the land went to Mugabe's "cronies" rather than the poor.
It remains to be seen whether the food is delivered, or used as a weapon. The UN World Food Programme has also claimed that the Zimbabwean land seizures were to blame for aspects of the famine.
New Group, 'Unanswered Questions.Org,' Leaves Questions Unanswered
A new groupUnanswered Questions.Orgwhich is seeking to coordinate grass-roots questions about the events of Sept. 11, and is launching a website, held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington June 10. The audience of about 100 was a mixed bag of leftists, independent journalists, families of victims, etc. Some of the founders and speakers of the group are supporters of, and well known to the LaRouche movement, yet no one from EIR was invited to speak.
Politically, the group supports an "independent commission" to investigate Sept. 11, and generally the speakers promoted anti-Bush conspiracy theories. One panel was composed of relatives of victims of 9/11, and their legal representatives, who are filing suit against the government and the airline industry for negligence. They were to join Senators such as Democrats Lieberman and Torricelli on Capitol Hill, to demonstrate in favor of the "independent commission" (i.e., the Joe Lieberman Probe).
The second panel included a number of people who are well-versed in Lyndon LaRouche's analysis of Sept. 11 as a coup attempt from within the U.S. against the Bush Administration, but didn't display it in their presentations, speaking on the Patriots Act, the lack of military response to the attack on the Pentagon, laxness in immigration laws, anthrax, and Bush family connections to oil and drugs in Southeast Asia as a motive for the attacks. Not surprisingly, one of the speakers, Tom Flocco, who is apparently the major funder of the enterprise, is tied to the Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch, Rees-Mogg, Arnaud de Borchgrave circles.
Former Enron Employees To Receive Increased Severance Pay
Enron employees who lost their jobs when the company imploded last year, will receive at least $29 million in additional severance payments, based on what industry and labor experts describe as an unusual agreement reached June 11 among the employees, labor, and civil rights activists, and the company and its creditors. The agreement gives the workers, some of whom have been jobless for the past six months, up to $6,900 per person, depending on their length of service with Enron, and their salary at the time they lost their jobs. (The AFL-CIO is reporting over its website that the amount is up to $13,500 per worker, and that "up to $80 million of the huge bonuses given to executives can be taken back and used to help laid-off workers.")
This amount, which is being described as a victory for ex-employees, is small potatoes, especially when compared to the huge take of many in senior Enron management, who sold shares in the company for millions of dollars before the firm went under, while forcing employees to hold onto the same stock.
After the firm filed for bankruptcy protection from creditors in December, laid-off workers each were initially given $4,500, with an additional $1,100 later. The company had argued it couldn't pay the full severance amounts because it had to pay its creditors first.
Under Federal bankruptcy law, Enron and its creditors had no legal obligation to offer additional funds to former employees, but chose to do so, to permit much larger claims brought by creditors, estimated at $60-$100 billion, to be put forward with fewer delays, according to bankruptcy experts and the participants.
Bankruptcy experts said the agreement was unusual because workers usually find themselves with few legal protections in a Chapter 11 reorganization, in which secured creditors, such as banks, go to the head of the line. "It knocks me over," said Elizabeth Warren, a law professor at Harvard Law School specializing in bankruptcy procedures. She said she could not recall anything similar happening before in bankruptcy actions involving non-unionized workers. She said the company and its creditors probably decided to pay the workers because they had become "an angry and powerful group who could derail Enron's reorganization." "These employees didn't just take it, as employees usually do," she said. "Workers are seizing power for themselves."
Retirees Bused to Canada To Buy Prescription Drugs
A busload of retirees from Mercer, Pennsylvania and the surrounding area will go by bus to Hamilton, Ontario to buy prescription drugs, according to the Youngstown Ohio Vindicator. The bus trip is an action sponsored by the Alliance of Retired Americans, the seniors' organization of the AFL-CIO, to dramatize the plight of seniors unable to afford the cost of needed medicines in the United States.
School Districts Cut Back School Week To Save Money
Many U.S. school districts are cutting back to a four-day school week to try to save money in this period of gigantic budget deficits, reports the June 9 New York Times.
So far, 15 states have been affected. For example, a small school district in South Dakota, which had to cut one-sixth of its budget, went to a four-day week. In Colorado, 36 of 180 districts have gone to a four days; in Wyoming, the number has been 20 of 48 districts. Many working parents have been forced to put their children in day-care centers on Fridays, where school is no longer open that day.
|