|
Plumbers
are notorious for excessive bills. But none has come even remotely close to matching an extravagant claim by a South Carolina firm: almost $1m (£500,000) for two metal washers worth 19c each. Charlene The most expensive washers in history were part |
Powered by ScribeFire.
By: John Amato @ 12:01 PM – PDT
First Wikipedia and now this….Slashdot has some info…Drew Curtis believes FOX hacked him…
The first rule of hacking, after all, is “Don’t get caught.” And Fox newsman Darrell Phillipsmay have broken that rule, says Drew Curtis. Curtis, left, is the founder of Fark.com, a thoroughly juvenile, and entertaining, social news site where users pick the headlines. Phillips, to his right, is the new media manager at WHBQ Fox13, a News Corp.-owned TV station in Memphis, Tenn. And Curtis claims to have assembled all-but-conclusive electronic evidence that Phillips has tried to hack into Fark’s servers, potentially breaking several laws…read on
The Anonymous Liberal……GETTING IT DONE
Was the DOJ Kept in the Dark About Key Aspects of the NSA Program?
In response to a request from Congress, FBI Director Robert Mueller has turned over
his personal notes from the days leading up to and following the
showdown in John Ashcroft’s hospital room in 2004. Think Progress has a
copy.
Despite
the many redactions, there are still a few noteworthy items. First,
Mueller repeatedly refers simply to “the program,” without any
additional adjectives or modifiers. For example, on the night of the
hospital showdown, he writes:
Called by DAG while at
restaurant with wife and daughter. He is at AG’s hospital with
Goldsmith and Philbin. Tells me Card and J. Gonzales are on the way to
hospital to see the AG, but that AG is in no condition to see them,
much less make decision to authorize continuation of the program.
Mueller’s
use of the phrase “the program” (particularly considered alongside his
testimony and statements by others in the know) strongly suggests that
there was only one NSA program and that the dissent within the DOJ was
about that program. In other words, Mueller’s notes are further
evidence that Alberto Gonzales lied to Congress in his testimony.
MORE AT The Anonymous Liberal
Powered by ScribeFire.
US President George W Bush has warned Iran to stop supporting the militants fighting against the US in Iraq.In a speech to US war veterans in Reno, Nevada, Mr Bush renewed charges that Tehran has provided training and weapons for extremists in Iraq.
“The Iranian regime must halt these actions,” he said.
…
In his speech to the American Legion, Mr Bush hit back, accusing Iran’s Revolutionary Guards of funding and arming insurgents in Iraq.
And he said Iran’s leaders could not avoid some responsibility for attacks on coalition troops and Iraqi civilians.
“I have authorised our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities,” he said.
The BBC’s Justin Webb, in Washington, says this looks like a conscious effort by the White House to elevate the tension between Washington and Tehran to a new level.
Such an effort might be designed to avoid the need for armed conflict or might equally be an effort to bring that conflict about, our correspondent says.
Shortly after Mr Bush made his address, Iranian officials reported that seven Iranians working for the country’s electricity ministry had been arrested in Baghdad by US forces.
Not that the Democrats will do a damned thing to stop it since they’re fully on board. And no one else will try to stop it, either.
Just thought you’d want to know.
“Diebold
Election Systems” are three words synonymous with the aggressive
pursuit of failure. Not only did the company badly implement a dubious
concept — unverifiable electronic touch-screen voting machines — but
it did so with determined flourish, letting its code and internal
communication leak out onto the Web;
employing as a chief executive a man who declared he was “committed to
helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year”; abusing copyright law in an attempt to quell its critics; and, among many other caught-red-handed indiscretions, deleting criticism of itself from Wikipedia.
No wonder, then, that Diebold Election Systems has decided to steal
a page from the playbook of that paragon of corporate responsibility Philip Morris (aka the Altria Group): Diebold will erase its sorry history with a simple name change!
Henceforth, when reaching for an example of mind-boggling
incompetence, please say “Premier” rather than “Diebold,” because
Diebold Election Systems is now Premier Election Systems.
The name change, the company says in a press release,
“signals a new beginning” and a “fresh identity” — though in the same
release the firm concedes that it will still be making and pushing the
same sorry voting machines (machines that, as Princeton computer
scientist Edward Felten and his colleagues showed last year, are actually vulnerable to a virus-based attack).
Why the name change? Well, Diebold’s got a lot of other businesses
— it makes ATMs and security systems for health firms and for the
government, and the election subsidiary has always been something of a
sideline. Lately it became an embarrassing sideline, dragging down
Diebold’s good name. That’s why, a couple of years ago, Diebold moved
to sell the unit. Shockingly, it found no takers.
Now, along with the name change, the parent company (which will
remain Diebold) is creating an autonomous corporate structure for
Premier, further distancing itself from ineptitude. David Byrd, who
headed Diebold Election Systems, will run Premier.
The company also drastically lowered its earnings expectations for
the year. Previously Diebold expected to make more than $185 million on
elections in 2007; now, due to the “rapidly changing political
environment” surrounding voting technology (read: politicians across
the land realizing that running elections on such systems is
maddeningly stupid), Diebold says sales will drop by about $120 million.
[Flickr photo by joebeone.]
Wired News’ John Borland had quite a fun story yesterday about a new tool to track down folks who are anonymously editing articles in Wikipedia.
A CalTech grad student named Virgil Griffith developed the tool, called Wikipedia Scanner, after hearing about congressional aides who were fixing their bosses’ WP entries. The service is a database of all anonymous edits to Wikipedia organized according to the Internet addresses of well-known groups: Want to know what people with Democratic National Committee IP addresses were doing on Wikipedia? Go here. (Among other things, such folks were calling Rush Limbaugh a “racist” and a “jerkoff.”) Or check out the Republican Party’s record, including this alteration of the U.S. “occupying” Iraq to our “liberating” it. [Note: Direct links to Wikipedia Scanner don’t seem to be working right now; that’s likely because everyone online is checking it out.]
Among the many other organizations whose edits you can track are Diebold, the faulty voting-machine company; Wal-Mart; ExxonMobil; Fox News; The New York Times; and Al Jazeera.
Wired’s Threat Level blog is running a search for the most shameful self-promoting Wikipedia edits uncovered by the new tool. The leading contender, now, is Diebold’s deletions of criticisms of its voting technology — but if you unearth any yourself, be sure to let me (and Threat Level) know.
Correction: I originally called Griffith an MIT grad student; he is actually a student at Cal Tech.
Following last Sunday’s Democratic presidential debate on ABC News’ This Week
with George Stephanopoulos, Dennis Kucinich’s campaign asked ABC News
to address issues it had with treatment Rep. Kucinich (D-Ohio) received
both
during the debate and afterward in ABC’s online coverage. In an email
sent out
to supporters on Wednesday, the campaign said it “submitted objections
and
inquiries to ABC News representatives on
Monday and Tuesday. ABC News representatives have failed to respond –
or even acknowledge – those objections and inquiries.” I confirmed with
the Kucinich campaign yesterday that it has subsequently been forwarded
the same response ABC News Executive Director Andrea Jones sent to The
Washington Post and Time magazine.
ABC News representatives felt it necessary to answer the Kucinich campaign’s objections when Time magazine’s National Political Correspondent Karen Tumulty queried them. Writing on the Time
blog Swampland, Tumulty initially says of the Kucinich team’s issues
with ABC’s treatment (which included Kucinich not having a chance to
speak until 28 minutes into the debate), “These all seemed like fair
complaints to me, so I asked ABC News to respond.” Then Tumulty says,
“In an e-mail, Executive Director Andrea Jones answered him [Kucinich]
point by point.”
While I give Tumulty credit for contacting ABC News, her investigative journalism unfortunately ends there. Once
she receives the email from Jones, Tumulty slips into stenography
mode. Jones’ “point by point” response to the Kucinich campaign’s complaints does not in itself
exculpate or dispel any of ABC’s wrongdoing. Tumulty fails to assess the
accuracy and logic of Jones’ answers.
First, just so we’re all up to speed, here are the issues (an
aggregate of the thousands of complaints received during and after
ABC’s debate coverage) that the Kucinich campaign asked ABC News to
address:
* Congressman Kucinich was apparently deliberately cropped out of a “Politics Page” photo of the candidates.
* Sometime Monday afternoon, after Congressman Kucinich took a
commanding lead in ABC’s own on-line “Who won the Democratic debate”
survey, the survey was dropped from prominence on the website.* ABC News has not officially reported the results of its online survey.
* After the results of that survey showed Congressman Kucinich
winning handily, ABC News, sometime Monday afternoon, replaced the
original survey with a second survey asking “Who is winning the
Democratic debate?”* During the early voting Monday afternoon and evening, U.S. Senator
Barack Obama was in the lead. By sometime late Monday or early Tuesday
morning, Congressman Kucinich regained the lead by a wide margin in
this second survey.* Sometime Tuesday morning, ABC News apparently dropped the second survey from prominence or killed it entirely.
* AND, as every viewer of the nationally televised Sunday
Presidential forum is aware, Congressman Kucinich was not given an
opportunity to answer a question from moderator George Stephanopoulos
until 28 minutes into the program.
Now back to Tumulty commenting on Jones’ response [emphasis below is mine]:
This gist of her answer is this: She denies that Kucinich was cropped
out of any photo, noting that “there are 20 photos live on the ABC News
website, Mr. Kucinich is in a number of them and there is even one of
him and his wife. He is one of 6 candidates who got his own photo in
the slide show. As for the images, clearly nothing was cropped, the
image in question was shot by Charlie Neibergall of the AP not ABC.“
FALSE. Had Tumulty – Time
magazine’s National Political Correspondent and former member of the White House
press corps – simply located the original AP photo
(which, at most, should’ve taken a few minutes online), she would’ve
found Kucinich in it and realized the following version ABC News
prominently displayed online after the debate had, indeed, been cropped:
So Jones
either lied when she said “clearly nothing was cropped” or was
misinformed by someone on her staff. Since Tumulty seems to think her
job ends with receiving answers from an ABC News spokesperson, she
doesn’t question the veracity of Jones’ assertion, which is clearly false.
Adding to its duplicity, ABC News has now completely replaced the original
photograph in question. If you click on the link in Tumulty’s post
(which is supposed to bring you to that photo), you are now taken to a wholly different shot that includes Dennis Kucinich and is currently the default debate photo sitting on the ABC News website.
So, in case your keeping score, first ABC
disappears Kucinich from a photo by cropping him out, then denies it,
then later disappears the original cropped photo, replacing it with a
separate photo that includes Kucinich, making it appear as if nothing improper ever occurred.
Eat your heart out Fox News.
Tumulty does later post an update after she manages (she doesn’t say
how) to find her way to a page on the site Pinkraygun that shows the
original AP photo and the doctored ABC
photo side-by-side. This compels Tumulty to gingerly concede “there
does in
fact appear to have been some cropping.” First, it was either cropped
or it wasn’t. “Some cropping” gives the impression a whole
cropping didn’t occur, which it did. Second, if there was “some
cropping,” then logic follows that Jones either did some lying or some misinforming. That, in turn, means Tumulty should be doing some follow up with Jones. She does not. Third, a question for Tumulty and her editors over at Time: How
did you fail to bring this simple fact to light yourselves? You had
three main points to investigate – whether a photo was cropped, whether
a poll was manipulated and whether Kucinich was allotted a fair amount
of time. Arguably, the cropped photo was the most simple and quick of the three to
verify. Did you attempt to find this on your own? If so, what’s your
excuse for initially failing to obtain such readily available evidence? If not,
what’s your excuse for failing to pursue this evidence in the first place?
On to the poll(s):
She notes that the poll was and is live on ABC’s website. (When I checked it, Kucinich was
still winning, with Barack Obama a distant second.) She also notes the
poll’s disclaimer that it is “not a scientific survey,” which seems
like a decent reason for ABC not to treat it as a news story.
MISLEADING.
Jones’ statement circumvents the facts and the original thrust of the
Kucinich campaign’s complaint about the poll. Tumulty’s unobtrusive
reporting gives the impression the poll has always been up on ABC’s
site in clear view and at no time were changes made to it.
FACT: The original poll, prominently displayed, asked, “Who won the
Democratic debate?” Once Kucinich jumped ahead, this poll was scuttled
from its prominence on the site. As it became clear Kucinich was
trouncing his competition, ABC just happened to decide to post a new
poll asking, “Who is winning the
Democratic debate?” As the Kucinich campaign (and Tumulty) correctly cited, Barack
Obama had an early lead in this second poll; but when Kucinich pulled
ahead by a wide margin, ABC then dropped this poll from prominence,
too. (Because the Kucinich camp had difficulty finding the poll after
ABC moved it, they questioned whether ABC may have buried the poll “or
killed it entirely.” It appears ABC didn’t kill it entirely; they just
made it difficult for users work to find – which, as anyone who
knows anything about online usability, is nearly tantamount to killing
it).
Though of lesser importantance (due to the current unverifiable
nature of online polls), Tumulty still manages to mishandle Jones’
explanation of why ABC News didn’t report the poll results. This issue
is about nuance and context. Not exactly Tumulty’s and the
mainstream media’s forte.
Yes, the online poll is “not a scientific
survey”* (incidentally, it’s verboten to mention in the mainstream media that
phone surveys, many of which include leading and misleading questions,
are often far from scientific accountings as well). But since news outlets
(possibly ABC among them) have certainly noted some online polls in the
past but in context of their scientific shortcomings, and considering
ABC’s shenanigans concerning Kucinich, it seems either intellectually
dishonest or misinformed for Tumulty to give Jones the free pass “which
seems
like a decent reason for ABC not to treat it as a news story.”
Does Tumulty honestly believe it’s “a decent reason”? Or does she merely believe it’s decent enough because
the target of the question is ABC News and the questioner is the
not-so-“viable” candidate Kucinich?
I should note here that
Tumulty frames her post with the opening line: “Should the networks and
interest groups that have been sponsoring the
seemingly endless series of debates and candidate forums start limiting
their invitations to those contenders who seem, by whatever definition,
‘viable’?” She then claims to like “the idea of including candidates
from the second tier–and beyond–in these settings,” saying, “You
never know when lightning may strike, and how is an underfinanced
long-shot going to get a breakout moment otherwise?” and that
“candidates such as Dennis Kucinich often are the only ones giving
voice
to ideas–like single-payer health care and a quick withdrawal from
Iraq–that have not been embraced by the leading candidates, despite
having significant support among the party rank and file.” Yet Tumulty
seems incapable of embracing such basic tenets of a democratic
political process; instead, she reverts to entrenched media establishment dogma
to round out her post’s frame: “Still, having decided to include them, should
they be given the same amount of time and attention as the leaders in
the race?”
This is the journalist we’re going to trust to get to the bottom of
whether ABC News treated Dennis Kucinich fairly?
Finally, there’s ABC’s defense of Kucinich
receiving so little airtime during the debate
and, once again, Tumulty’s stenographic framing and conclusions [emphasis below is mine]:
As for Kucinich’s complaint that he was not given a question in the
first 28 minutes of the debate, Jones notes: “He may not have been
addressed in the first 28 minutes, but he was the only candidate
questioned in his own segment on This Week with George Stephanopoulos,
two weeks in a row, that appearance is posted online
as well. Also. Mr. Kucinich was the only candidate to address
healthcare in Sunday’s debate, and that response was immediately
clipped and posted on the ABC News website.” Her bottom line: “After
back to back appearances on ABC News’ This Week with George
Stephanopoulos, clearly their claim is not substantiated by the facts
nor by the extensive coverage of his candidacy on the ABCNews.com
website.”
First,
Jones’ “bottom line” skirts the issue at hand: she concedes ABC’s
debate moderators failed to address Kucinich in the first 28 minutes
of the forum (though she frames her concession with the words “he may
not have been addressed” rather than “he wasn’t addressed,”
incorporating shades of doubt, as if this were somehow open to
interpretation), but claims that ABC News has provided Kucinich much
airtime overall.
Yet here’s the real bottom line: In any equitable debate, no
candidate should have to remain
silent for the first 28 minutes. Period. This is not only unfair to
Congressman Kucinich, but to all American citizens
for whom news outlets such as ABC are supposed to be informing their
decision-making process instead of acting to unduly manipulate
it.
What’s more, Jones’ claim that Kucinich “was the only candidate
questioned in his own segment on This Week with George Stephanopoulos,
two weeks in a row” and that he had “back to back appearances” on this
program is blatantly misleading. (I must admit this one initially
slipped by me until, while fact-checking another element of this story,
I stumbled across the truth in a conversation I had yesterday with
Kucinich campaign spokesman Andy Juniewicz. More on that below).
FACT: Kucinich has made one appearance on This Week with
George Stephanopoulos. Jones has the audacity to count Kucinich’s
appearance at this ABC debate as his second appearance on the show in
which – breathing even new life into the word “truthiness” – he’s
received “his own segment.” Can Jones explain how a candidate receives
his own segment during a debate? What in the world is she talking
about?
Moreover, in a statistical analysis
of the debate performed by USA
Election Polls, Kucinich was given less time to speak than any
candidate with the
exception of former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel. Yet it gets worse: in
the critical first half of the debate (the time when viewers tend to be
most engaged), Kucinich received just 3.4% of airtime, the least of all
the candidates. To put
that in context, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama
combined to chew up 60.4% of airtime during the first half of the
debate.
USA Election Polls also points out:
In fact, even Chris Dodd got more air time than Kucinich which is
ridiculous because Kucinich is beating Dodd in the majority of state
polls. So if the emphasis was on giving the most time to the leaders in
the polls, then what was Dodd doing speaking more than Kucinich?
Nevertheless, Tumulty and Time
magazine show no interest in such further incontrovertible proof of the
unfair treatment to which ABC News subjected Congressman Kucinich.
Instead, Tumulty
follows up Jones’ “bottom line” by closing her post with these thoughts:
I honestly don’t know what the right balance is here when you are
dealing with such a large field of candidates, most of whom don’t have
a prayer of winning. What do you think? Was Kucinich treated unfairly?
Or should he be included at all?*
*Not a scientific survey.
Cute. But parting shot at the Kucinich campaign aside, shouldn’t Tumulty and Time
magazine provide the facts in a piece titled “Dennis Kucinich vs. ABC
News”? Instead, we’re presented with a slanted, inaccurate, misleading and
ill-researched breakdown of events that ends with Tumulty floating the question of
whether Kucinich should be allowed to attend these debates in the first
place.
And sadly, thanks to The Washington Post, that wasn’t the worst coverage of the Kucinich-ABC incident by a major news outlet.
In a post titled “Kucinich Mad at
ABC” over at The Washington Post blog
The Sleuth (oh the irony), journalist Mary Ann Akers (a former reporter for The Washington Times as well as NPR)
doesn’t try to hide her contempt for Kucinich while barreling ahead
without concern for facts or fact-checking.
She opens her post:
Don’t expect to see too many more appearances by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on ABC News.
An apparently irate Kucinich sent out a letter to supporters
Wednesday accusing the network of ignoring him in the Democratic
presidential debate on Sunday’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”
So
since Kucinich – along with, and spurred on by, thousands of other
American citizens – objected to ABC’s handling of the debate, should
we expect, and accept, that ABC has a right to actively work to further
marginalize him?
If
that’s Akers’ frame, you can guess where this is going.
Also, because she
fails to cite any source, we must assume her characterization of
Kucinich as “apparently irate” hinges not on fact but projection. And as it turns out, that is exactly the case.
Yesterday, when I contacted Kucinich campaign spokesman Andy Juniewicz, he addressed Akers unfounded assertion:
“Congressman Kucinich was not irate. Nothing in the email
communication expressed anger,” said the soft-spoken Juniewicz. “It was
just a delineation of what we were
hearing from thousands of people who contacted us, many of whom weren’t
even Kucinich supporters. We asked ABC to respond to the questions they
raised.” When I asked if Akers or someone else at The Washington Post
had spoken with anyone in his campaign about this purported
demonstration of anger, Mr. Juniewicz said, “No. No one.”
Note to Akers and The Washington Post: Before the Internets, there
was the telephone. Some news outlets, though fewer and fewer these
days, still find it handy for checking facts.
Moving right along, Akers then runs through roughly the same terrain on which Tumulty
trodded, but her condescension and bias is profligate and shameless.
Among Kucinich’s charges: he was “deliberately cropped out” of photos;
after he took a “commanding lead” in ABC’s online survey, the survey
was mysteriously “dropped from prominence on the web site”; and “as
every viewer of the nationally televised Sunday presidential forum is
aware” Kucinich was not asked a question until 28 minutes into the
program. (Everyone clocked that at 28 minutes, right?)
“Among
Kucinich’s charges” blunts the fact they’ve all been proven to be true
(something Akers apparently has no interest in uncovering or
presenting). Use of the word “mysteriously” not only mocks the
assertion that the poll was buried but conjures the mainstream media’s
favorite attack on uncomfortable truths: it must be the work of those
crazy conspiracy theorists (Akers also disregards the full story –
previously addressed above in this post – behind ABC’s bizarre and
devious manipulation of the debate’s polls). “Everyone
clocked that at 28
minutes, right?” is not only disparaging but gives the ludicrous
impression the Kucinich campaign
is contending everyone noticed the precise number of minutes
Kucinich had been shut out of the debate; rather, the campaign was
noting a simple fact: everyone watching certainly saw that Kucinich
didn’t get a chance to speak for an usually long duration of time.
We deserve more than such absurd manufactured nitpicking from
Akers and The Washington Post. Rather than chasing their tail to
portray Kucinich in a poor light, think of how much easier it would’ve
been to just present the facts. And to search them out.
But hey, according to Akers, “ABC News Executive Director Andrea Jones
addressed every charge Kucinich made.” Incredibly, Akers not only
embraces Jones’ answers without question, but also unwittingly contradicts
Jones’ claim that the photo in question was never cropped by providing
the ABC debate photo below her post. In other words, the AP photo that
ABC undeniably cropped is sitting below Akers’ post in which she
contends no cropping occurred. Again, all one needs to do is locate the original AP photo. And presto! Cropping mystery solved.
Again, too, Jones is either lying or misinformed, and Akers and The
Washington Post (along with Tumulty and Time magazine) are complicit in perpetuating this falsehood.
Escaping Akers’ notice or range of journalistic concern as well is
ABC’s wholesale swapping out of its cropped photo with an altogether
new one in which Kucinich appears alongside the rest of the Democratic
candidates. ABC News, in effect, has worked diligently to cover up this
despicable act, one worthy of Fox News and Orwell’s vision
of totalitarian media manipulation.
In their coverage of the Kucinich-ABC incident, Time
magazine’s Tumulty and The Washington Post’s Akers wind up
crystallizing the extent to which big media rigs the game against a
candidate like Congressman Kucinich. In defense of sound and equitable
journalism, it is incumbent upon both Time
magazine and The Washington Post to correct the record on ABC’s
actions, and the rest of the news media to hold ABC News accountable
for this disgraceful performance.
No news organization – especially one charged with facilitating part
of our electoral process – should be able to so grossly transgress such
basic journalistic standards and not be held to account. This isn’t a
partisan issue. Congressman Kucinich’s chances of capturing the
Democratic nomination are irrelevant to this matter.
This speaks to the viability of our national press.
At a time when the mainstream media is struggling to retain and
rebuild both its credibility and coveted market share among Americans,
it ignores ABC’s actions at its own peril.
UPDATE: I’ll be away until after Labor Day weekend
(wedding – not mine), but I first wanted to say thanks for your
additional insights, passionate (yet substantive) comments and very
kind words. To first-time readers, welcome! To everyone, by all means,
keep the conversation going while I’m away. And if you want to do something else to keep (or turn up) the heat on ABC, request that this story does not stop here. Don’t
just contact ABC or other mainstream news outlets – contact Raw Story,
Salon, Think Progress, Media Matters, FAIR.org and Truthout, and
respectfully request they cover this story. Along with Crooks and
Liars, these major alternative news outlets get the mainstream’s
attention and greatly increase the chances of forcing the mainstream’s
hand. More than anything, ABC wants this story to drop right down the
memory hole: it’s up to you to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Powered by ScribeFire.
A military jury acquitted an
Army officer on Tuesday of charges that he failed to properly train and
supervise enlisted soldiers involved in detainee interrogations in 2003
at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where prisoners were subjected to brutal treatment.
In the court-martial at Fort Meade, Md., the jury of nine Army
colonels and a brigadier general found the officer, Lt. Col. Steven L.
Jordan, guilty of only one lesser offense, that of disobeying an order
to refrain from discussing the case.
Colonel Jordan, 51, was the only officer to stand trial on charges
related to the detainee-abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, which led to
prolonged investigations and charges against several soldiers.
Colonel Jordan’s acquittal on most charges means that no
officers have been found criminally responsible for the abuses at the
prison. Col. Thomas M. Pappas, the military intelligence officer who
ran Abu Ghraib, was punished administratively by senior Army commanders
for improperly allowing military dogs to be used during interrogations
to frighten detainees. Janis Karpinski, the brigadier general who was
the military police commander at Abu Ghraib, was reprimanded and
demoted.
During Colonel Jordan’s seven-day court-martial, Army lawyers
representing him argued that he was not responsible for training and
supervising the military police soldiers who abused detainees from
mid-September to late December 2004. Rather, his lawyers argued, he
served as a manager of sorts at the prison, focused on making living
and working conditions at Abu Ghraib, a notorious complex that Saddam Hussein’s government had used to torture its enemies, as accommodating as possible.
The jury members apparently were not convinced by the conclusions
of two generals who had investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal and found
that Colonel Jordan’s “tacit approval” of violent
techniques by the military police during an episode in November 2003
was “the causative factor that set the stage for the abuses that
followed for days afterward.”
For his conviction of disobeying an order to not discuss his case,
Colonel Jordan, currently on active duty with the Intelligence and
Security Command at Fort Belvoir, Va., faces a maximum of five years in
prison. The jury is expected to deliver a sentence on Wednesday
morning.
His lawyers, Capt. Samuel Spitzberg and Maj. Kris Poppe, declined to comment on Tuesday.
In a recent interview with The Washington Post, Colonel Jordan
expressed frustration at the charges against him and said he believed
that they were politically motivated, to allow the Army to assert that
it had tried at least one officer on criminal charges in connection
with the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
John Sifton, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch,
said the verdict was “a disappointment but not a surprise,”
given the meager case he said prosecutors presented to the jury of
senior officers. Mr. Sifton said prosecutors completely failed to
muster evidence, including military case law, to show that Colonel
Jordan, even if he did not participate in or know about abuses, was, as
a senior officer at Abu Ghraib, responsible for abuses that occurred
there.
“The prosecutors did not seem to understand the concept of
command responsibility as a legal issue,” Mr. Sifton said, adding
that other military officers, not just Colonel Jordan, should have been
brought to trial for their roles in commanding detention operations in
which detainees were abused.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Hilly Kristal, who founded
CBGB, the Bowery bar that became the cradle of punk and art-rock in New
York in the 1970s and served as the inspiration for musician-friendly
rock dives throughout the world, died in Manhattan on Tuesday. He was
75.
His son, Mark Dana Kristal, told The Associated Press that the cause was complications from lung cancer.
From its opening in late 1973, when Mr. Kristal, a lover of acoustic
music, gave the club its name, an abbreviation of the kinds of music he
originally intended to feature there — country, bluegrass and
blues — until a dispute with its landlord forced the club to
close last October, CBGB presented thousands of bands within its
eternally crumbling, flyer-encrusted walls.
Most famously, it served as the incubator for the diverse
underground scene of New York in the 1970s and early ’80s, with
acts like the Ramones, Patti Smith, Blondie, Television, Talking Heads
and Sonic Youth playing some of their earliest and most important
concerts there, at a time when there were few outlets in the city for
innovative rock music.
“There was no real venue in 1973 for people like us,”
Ms. Smith said today. “We didn’t fit into the cabarets or
the folk clubs. Hilly wanted the people that nobody else wanted. He
wanted us.”
Besides his son, Mr. Kristal is survived by a daughter, Lisa Kristal Burgman, and two grandchildren.
Powered by ScribeFire.
What 83 year-old William Sidwell of Queen
City, Missouri found in his mailbox last week scared him. It was a
letter from the Republican National Committee, but it seemed to bear
grave news: “Our records show that you registered as a member of our
Party in Schuyler County, MO,” the letter said. “But a recent audit of your Party affiliation turned up some irregularities.”
Audit? Irregularities? Was he in trouble? Were they threatening him?
Sidwell went immediately to his ask his son, Dennis, a licensed public
accountant, for advice. You can see the letter, and the accompanying
“Voter Registration Verification and Audit Form,” right here. Particularly puzzling to the both of them, Dennis told me, is that his father is a life-long Democrat.
The letter, it turns out, is just a misleading pitch for a
contribution to the RNC — one of the “irregularities” cited in the
letter is that “I cannot find a record of you taking a single action in support of the Republican Party — not locally, not nationally!” A contribution, the letter suggests, would help set the record straight.
The letter is signed by Bill Steiner, the director of the RNC’s
Office of Strategic Information, a title Steiner assumed at the end of
July. His responsibilities “include managing the RNC’s national
voter file and Voter Vault, the committee’s highly touted
micro-targeting operation,” Roll Call reported last month. And indeed, the voter “audit” requests detailed information about the voter’s voting history and current opinions on the 2008 presidential race.
It’s unclear how many similar letters (tens of thousands? millions?)
have been sent by the RNC. The RNC did not respond to our requests for
comment.
The letter “appears to be in a gray area,” David Becker, Director of
People for the American Way’s Democracy Campaign and a former voting
rights attorney at the Justice Department, told me. “It could
potentially run afoul of the law if it led an eligible voter to believe
they’re no longer eligible to vote.” The letter, Becker said, “appears
designed to give that mistaken impression.”
Rick Hasen, a professor
specializing in election law at Loyola Law School, agreed that the
letter was potentially misleading but didn’t think it raised serious
legal issues: “It is true that some elderly people or others with
limited experience might perceive the letter as some kind of official
audit, complete with its statements about ‘irregularities,'” he told
me. “But I believe most people would view this for what it is: a
ham-handed fundraising letter, of the type sent out by both political
parties to rev up the base and get contributions.”
Karen Finney, spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee,
disagreed. “We have sent requests for people to renew their support for
the party,” Finney said, but they’re “straightforward,” and don’t
include “these kind of scare tactics.” She said that the letter showed
that the RNC is “stooping to a level of desperation to try and hold on
to support and raise money.”
Powered by ScribeFire.
The New York Herald Sun 