Reality-Based Engineering: 2005/12

Thursday, December 29, 2005

UK-Uzbek Torture Memos

Some damning stuff. I am putting my link here so as not to clutter my front page too too much. But holy moley take a read at some of it:

9. I understand that the meeting decided to continue to obtain the Uzbek torture material. I understand that the principal argument deployed was that the intelligence material disguises the precise source, ie it does not ordinarily reveal the name of the individual who is tortured. Indeed this is true – the material is marked with a euphemism such as "From detainee debriefing." The argument runs that if the individual is not named, we cannot prove that he was tortured.

10. I will not attempt to hide my utter contempt for such casuistry, nor my shame that I work in and organisation where colleagues would resort to it to justify torture. I have dealt with hundreds of individual cases of political or religious prisoners in Uzbekistan, and I have met with very few where torture, as defined in the UN convention, was not employed. When my then DHM raised the question with the CIA head of station 15 months ago, he readily acknowledged torture was deployed in obtaining intelligence. I do not think there is any doubt as to the fact

11. The torture record of the Uzbek security services could hardly be more widely known. Plainly there are, at the very least, reasonable grounds for believing the material is obtained under torture. There is helpful guidance at Article 3 of the UN Convention; "The competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the state concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights." While this article forbids extradition or deportation to Uzbekistan, it is the right test for the present question also.

12. On the usefulness of the material obtained, this is irrelevant. Article 2 of the Convention, to which we are a party, could not be plainer: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

13. Nonetheless, I repeat that this material is useless – we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful. It is designed to give the message the Uzbeks want the West to hear. It exaggerates the role, size, organisation and activity of the IMU and its links with Al Qaida. The aim is to convince the West that the Uzbeks are a vital cog against a common foe, that they should keep the assistance, especially military assistance, coming, and that they should mute the international criticism on human rights and economic reform.

WaPo's W Poll Out Of Line With the Rest; W Plateaus

WaPo's approval rating bump to 47% approval is a big time outlier when compared to
the rest of the polls in this post from mysterypollster:

And, here's the graph showing the best-fit lines and when data was taken (post-Katrina, post-Fitzmas I, post-Veterans Day). His numbers rebounded, but plateaued significantly. I cannot wait to see what the FISA bypass issue will do:

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

I Agree With Bob Barr??

Apparently so...he's been all over the NSA FISA-bypass scandal that Bushie started:

Two of the most powerful moments of political déjà vu I have ever experienced took place recently in the context of the Bush administration's defense of presidentially ordered electronic spying on American citizens.

First, in the best tradition of former President Bill Clinton's classic, "it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is" defense, President Bush responded to a question at a White House news conference about what now appears to be a clear violation of federal electronic monitoring laws by trying to argue that he had not ordered the National Security Agency to "monitor" phone and e-mail communications of American citizens without court order; he had merely ordered them to "detect" improper communications.

This example of presidential phrase parsing was followed quickly by the president's press secretary, Scott McLellan, dead-panning to reporters that when Bush said a couple of years ago that he would never allow the NSA to monitor Americans without a court order, what he really meant was something different than what he actually said. If McLellan's last name had been McCurry, and the topic an illicit relationship with a White House intern rather than illegal spying on American citizens, I could have easily been listening to a White House news conference at the height of the Clinton impeachment scandal.

Saturday, December 24, 2005

Barron's Calls for W Impeachment Over FISA Bypass

[Update - Christmas Day] More Commentary from DailyKos.

From Barron's via Patridiots.com:

Certainly, there was an emergency need after the Sept. 11 attacks to sweep up as much information as possible about the chances of another terrorist attack. But a 72-hour emergency or a 15-day emergency doesn't last four years . . .

Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

More here from Atrios and here from MyDD.com and more here from Armando over at dailykos..

+++++++++++++++++++++++

And, to throw fuel on the fire, here's a post from extreme righty (but libertarian-leaning) redstate.org regarding the searches of Muslims without consent - basically scanning for radiation. While the blinded-by-the-light Bushie apologists will say who cares, here's what Scalia noted in a ruling that is a perfact parallel (using infrared scanners to do searches without warrant) to this issue of searches from afar:

Case background:

Does monitoring radiation levels constitute a "search"? In 2001, as the article points out, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of thermal imaging to detect heat lamps in a residence was a "search" under the 4th amendment and a warrant was needed. The case was U.S. v. Kyllo, and the opinion was written by Justice Scalia.

Scalia's majority opinion:

Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

Nuff' said. Clear violation of 4th Amendment.

Friday, December 23, 2005

Dems Win Battles At the End of 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Republican-controlled Congress is staggering home for the holidays. Democrats, demoralized after last year's election losses, have a spring in their step after outmaneuvering President Bush and GOP congressional leaders in a series of session-ending clashes.
``This has been the saddest day of my life,'' Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens lamented at one point, mourning the demise of legislation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

[Bumped] Diebold CEO resigns

[update - Dec 23] - dailykos collects some more Diebold stuff from the recent elections:

You guys want some good news? Hotline on Call has some for you:

Within the past few weeks:
*The election supervisor for the county encompassing Tallahassee, FL saw voting
results hacked before his eyes. He decertified Diebold. Jeb Bush noticed and
wants a full review of Florida's voting machines.
*Diebold chief Wally O'Dell -- the of "deliver the election" to Bush fame -- resigns.
*CA refuses to certify Deibold yet, reversing a reversal.
*St. Louis Co., MO decertifies Diebold machines.
*North Carolina is apparently about to do the same.

--------------------------------------------------

Good riddance:

Now what might those reports exactly tell us?

edit: Yes, this is the same guy who promised to be "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" - The guy is called Walden "Wally" O'Dell, (ex-) Chief executive officer and chairman of the board of Diebold.

edit II: He obviously resigned over insider trading.

"The board of directors and Wally mutually agreed that his decision to resign at this time for personal reasons was in the best interest of all parties," the company's new chairman said in a statement.

O'Dell's resignation comes just days after reports from BradBlog.com that the company was facing imminent securities fraud litigation surrounding charges of insider trading. It also comes on the heels of a RAW STORY interview with a Diebold insider, who raised new allegations of technical woes inside the company, as well concern that Diebold may have mishandled elections in Georgia and Ohio.
Let's hope that there are some implications regarding the issues of election fraud. Oh and check out Brad's Blog - more there...

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Cheney Has To Break Tie in Senate

This should not have to happen in an GOP-dominated Senate. I think that the GOP coalition is really starting to show its stress fractures. Not renewing the PayToilet Act provisions is also a direct result of the overall strains. And with even the likes of Linsey Graham (R-SC) coming out against the "Bushie Bypass" of the FISA law to directly spy upon Americans, we're going to be in for a battle royale in 2006 I think.

Those GoOPers that want to retain their seats will have to turn on Bushie in order to survive in blue and purple states. Even those red states that are more libertarian-leaning will have troubles.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

From Left In Lowell: Toll Lanes On The Internets?

Say it ain't so, but the big broadband providers could force other portal providers (the Yahoo's, google's and MSNs of the world) to pay for some sort of preferred status...

The Internet has always been a model of freedom. Today the Web is flourishing because anyone can click to any site or download any service they want on an open network. But now the phone and cable companies that operate broadband networks have a different vision. If they get their way, today’s Information Highway could be laden with tollgates, express lanes, and traffic tie-ups — all designed to make money for the network companies.
…
INTERNET FIEFDOMS? Most phone and cable companies are no longer content just to sell Web access to consumers. After investing in high-speed pipes, they also want to peddle more lucrative products, such as Internet-delivered TV programs, movies, and phone calls. “Building these networks is expensive,” says Link Hoewing, vice-president for Internet policy at Verizon Communications (VZ). “If I can find new ways to pay for this network, it’s gravy for everyone.”

But selling those extras puts the phone and cable companies in competition with Web services big and small. The network operators could block consumers from popular sites such as Google, Amazon, or Yahoo! (YHOO) in favor of their own. Or they could degrade delivery of Web pages whose providers don’t pay extra. Google’s home page, for instance, might load at a creep, while a search engine backed by the network company would zip along.

“This new view of the world will break apart the Internet and turn it into small fiefdoms” divided between the network providers’ friends and foes, says Vonage Chief Executive Jeffrey Citron.

LOBBYING HEFT. That’s just crying wolf, retort the Bell and cable operators. The Web companies’ push for rules requiring “network neutrality is a solution in search of a problem,” says Daniel Brenner, senior vice-president for regulatory policy at the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn.

But recent court and regulatory rulings have given the carriers more room to discriminate. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that cable broadband services were almost free of regulation. Two months later, the FCC granted the same liberty to the Bells’ broadband services. The FCC made two newly merged megaphone companies — created from AT&T (T) and SBC Communications and Verizon and MCI (MCIP) — vow to keep their Internet lines open to all for the next two years. But FCC Chairman Kevin Martin favors a light regulatory touch until he sees widespread abuse by the networks.

Lawmakers updating the telecom laws are more likely to act. The House Commerce Committee will probably vote early next year on whether to require Net neutrality. And while Google and its Internet brethren are the darlings of Wall Street and a Web-wild public, these New Economy powerhouses could find themselves outgunned in Washington. After decades as regulated carriers, the Old Tech phone and cable companies employ legions of lobbyists and funnel hefty checks into Congress’s campaign coffers. Google, by contrast, just hired Davidson, its first lobbyist, in June.
…
WINNERS AND LOSERS? But express lanes for certain bits could give network providers a chance to shunt other services into the slow lane, unless they pay up. A phone company could tell Google or another independent Web service that it must pay extra to ensure speedy, reliable service.

That could result in an Internet of haves, who can afford to pay the network operators more to ensure smooth service, and have-nots. Trouble is, those have-nots may include the Next Big Thing — whether it be mom-and-pop podcasting or video blogging. The fewer innovative services on the Net, the less reason Web users have to want broadband. Both the network operators and the Internet could lose out in the end.