On May 10th, the Associated Press news agency received an email from the US Department of Justice saying that records of more than 20 phone lines assigned to its reporters had been secretly seized as part of an investigation into a government leak.
The government claimed it was a matter of national security, while the AP called it an unprecedented intrusion into its newsgathering operations. But should the journalistic community be so surprised? With the Obama White House’s track record on whistleblowers and WikiLeaks, the move to spy on AP seems consistent with an administration more committed to secrecy than ever before.
Is the United States still the land of the free for journalists and their sources? In this week's News Divide we speak to Laura Malone, legal counsel for the Associated Press; Jeremy Scahill, author of Dirty Wars; The World is a Battlefield; the investigative reporter Dana Priest of the Washington Post; and Ben Wizner from the American Civil Liberties Union.
This week’s Newsbytes: After two years in hiding, a prominent Bahraini blogger reappears in the UK; Globovision, a leading opposition outlet in Venezuela, is sold to businessmen allegedly friendly with the government; and Islamabad is missing one of the most prominent Western journalists based there - the New York Times' Declan Walsh was ordered to leave the country before the election.
One of the lesser-known consequences of the US-led 'war on terror' has been a wave of anti-terrorism legislation in other countries. One of them is Ethiopia. It is not a country known for its freedom of the press and, with ongoing internal conflicts with separatist groups, and the powers that be keeping a wary eye on the nearby Arab Spring, the government in Addis Ababa has been cracking down on the media.
It is doing so with an anti-terror law passed in 2009, which has led to the sentencing of 11 journalists, sent dozens of reporters into exile and has forced countless others to practice self-censorship. The Listening Post’s Nic Muirhead reports on the law that blurs the line between journalism and terrorism.
This week has been pretty scandal-ridden by Washington standards. In all, four different stories are taking up all the oxygen on cable TV. Here's a quick rundown for those who perhaps think it is more important to know what is going on in Syria, Iraq or anywhere where lives, rather than just political capital, are on the line.
First, the Internal Revenue Service, the US tax collecting agency was targeting conservative political groups. No-one is asking why political groups should be tax exempt, but everyone involved is saying it was a very bad thing for the IRS to specifically target right-wing groups. The next so-called scandal has to do with "the Benghazi talking points". The White House released 100 pages of emails, showing that the State Department, not the White House, pushed to not reveal the fact that they had received intelligence warnings about the security situation in the Libyan city of Benghazi before the attack that killed four US citizens on September 11 last year. Mention of this was left off the final version, along with any mention of al-Qaeda. The US media is now focusing on the fact that the change did not come from the White House, instead of asking why officials did not want to admit that they knew about a threat in advance. In fact, the now-released emails clearly say that the information could "be abused by Members [of Congress] to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that…?" The fact that it was a political consideration is not the scandal: the back and forth political finger-pointing is.
The third issue is that is taking up the US media's time and attention has to do with umbrellas. Specifically, Barack Obama, the US President, had Marines hold umbrellas for him and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan when it started raining during a joint press conference. That is the complaint by some Republicans. and it has forced liberal media outlets to order their researchers to look for any and all pictures of former leaders having their umbrellas held.
The fourth controversy is the one getting the least amount of attention: in the course of investigating a national security leak, the US Justice Department subpoenaed two months of phone records from 100 Associated Press journalists. They didn't tell the AP until after they had done it, meaning the respected news organisation could not ask a judge to intervene. The Attorney General says his department's internal regulations allow them to do that. That, in fact, is all he'll say. Other than, "It wasn't me." I'm paraphrasing, but any attempt to ask him questions has been met with the response that he recused himself from the case so he knows nothing. And no-one else is talking.
These are the "scandals" occupying everyone's time these days. So the president is going to talk about something this week that has been less controversial: the use of drones in targeted killings overseas. He apparently is going to lay out more details on the internal process, to make Americans understand what he is doing to "keep them safe". So before he talks, I thought I should lay out what else we know about what his administration practices.
Drones have killed Americans overseas: The government's unmanned aerial vehicles have actually killed thousands of people in several different countries that the US is not at war with. Those killings are not really controversial here in the US. The killing of American citizens, however, has gotten some attention. The US government says Anwar al-Awlaki, a citizen, was plotting against the US; they cite as proof his anti-American videos on YouTube. Awlaki was killed along with Samir Khan in a drone strike in Yemen. His 16-year-old son Abdulrahman was killed the same way, allegedly while sitting at an open air café in Yemen. All three were US citizens, supposedly afforded the extra protection that bestows. The president is expected to try to explain the legal rationale behind the killings. We know a little bit about what they are thinking from leaked memos, which say that the executive branch acting on its own, without oversight, can kill an American if he/she "presents an imminent threat". It goes on to say that this "does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future". So, the president might try to explain how imminent doesn't really mean imminent.
There are a couple of other things he might want to talk about while being as he claims "the most transparent [US] president in history".
Here is my likely incomplete list of some of the things the government is now allowed to do, essentially because they say they can.
Indefinitely detain Americans: The president said he wouldn't use this authority, but his lawyers are fighting in court to keep the ability.
'Sneak and Peek': It may sound like a child’s game, but what it means is that government agents can sneak into your house or business without your knowledge, look around take pictures, replace things and they don’t have to tell you until after you are arrested. It’s believed that these searches are happening mostly in cases that don’t involve terrorism.
Secret warrants: There is a special court that officials can go to and ask for warrants for surveillance inside the US in "terrorism" cases. No one knows who they are targeting but the court very rarely says no to any application.
'National Security letters': Tens of thousands of these letters have been sent demanding companies give the government records on their clients and the companies can’t tell anyone, they just have to give up your information.
Electronic eavesdropping: The government is reportedly trying to come up with a system that would force electronic communications companies to create a backdoor so the government can listen to internet phone calls.
These are just the things that we know about. What else is the government doing? It may be much harder now to find out. The Obama administration's intense targeting of "leakers" will likely mean sources are going to be less likely to talk about what they know. Would you call the AP with information right now, given the seizure of their phone records? So what happens next?
When it comes to drones, Congress would have to force the president to stop because according to the administration's legal memos, they believe this right is based on the law passed after September 11, 2001, authorising the use of force. That authorisation does not have an end date, and is not limited to a certain country.
The courts have, for the most part, sided with the administration on all cases involving civil liberties, but several lawsuits are pending that could force the government to curtail what it is doing - eventually.
Alternately, the people of the United States could get involved and demand that their rights be protected. It is not, however, an issue that most know about, given that it isn't a big "scandal". The media has not focused on what civil rights groups describe as shocking and illegal behavior. They're busy: it rained and the President was getting wet.
WASHINGTON -- Progressive and labor groups on Thursday renewed calls for Senate leaders to reform filibuster rules that have allowed Republicans to repeatedly stonewall presidential nominees and legislation, including gun control.
Fix the Senate Now, a coalition of more than 70 progressive and labor organizations sent a letter to Senate leaders focusing on judicial vacancies. Republicans have repeatedly used filibusters to block President Barack Obama's judicial nominees. The coalition's letter urges Senate leaders to change rules requiring 60 votes to break a filibuster.
"There are over 30 more vacancies now than when President Obama took office, dozens of which are classified as 'judicial emergencies,'" the letter reads.
The White House recently withdrew its nomination of former New York state Solicitor General Caitlin Halligan to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit, after several attempts to confirm her were filibustered by Republicans.
The letter also mentions filibusters to block nominees for leadership positions at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Interior. "The abuse of the filibuster to undermine policies that the minority cannot defeat through normal legislative channels represents a subversion of core democratic principles and Senate traditions, and should not continue," the letter states.
The coalition also launched a petition drive "to restore fairness and honor to the nomination and confirmation process for executive and judicial nominations."
The Senate cut a modest filibuster reform deal in January, which preserved the 60-vote threshold. Since then, Republicans have continued to use the filibuster to block critical nominations sought by Obama, as well as major legislation.
The president made a direct appeal to Republicans in a private meeting last month to stop filibustering his judicial nominees. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) threatened to change the rules by a simple majority vote if judicial nominees don't start moving through the Senate. Republicans also mounted unprecedented filibusters against Chuck Hagel for defense secretary, and John Brennan for CIA director. Both were later confirmed, but with drama and delay. Republicans also used the filibuster to defeat legislation that would have staved off the across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration for a period of 10 months.
Last week, a measure to expand background checks for gun purchases failed to meet the 60-vote threshold necessary to become law, despite support from 90 percent of Americans. Only four Republicans voted in its favor, leading many to bemoan the Senate's rules. An additional eight amendments related to gun violence, proposed by both Democrats and Republicans, also fell short of the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster.
Remarks of President Barack Obama Weekly Address The White House May 17, 2013
Hi, everybody. Over the past few months, I’ve laid out a series of commonsense ideas to reignite the true engine of our economic growth: a rising, thriving middle class.
The way I see it, there are three areas where we need to focus. One: making America a magnet for good jobs. Two: making sure our workers have the education and skills they need to do those jobs. And three: making sure your hard work leads to a decent living.
I’ve also been visiting cities across the country that are doing some interesting and creative things along these lines.
On Friday, I stopped by a factory in Baltimore that’s creating good jobs here at home by exporting digging equipment abroad.
I read with young kids in a pre-K program, where kids are getting a head start learning the skills they’ll need to succeed in life.
And I stopped by a program that’s helping folks in tough circumstances – especially low-income dads – get the training and guidance they need to find work and support their families.
That’s why I like getting out of the Washington echo chamber whenever I can – because too often, our politics aren’t focused on the same things you are. Working hard. Supporting your family and your community. Making sure your kids have every chance in life.
More than anything, the American people make me optimistic about where we’re headed as a nation. Especially after all we’ve been through the past several years. And that should encourage us to work even harder on the issues that matter to you.
In a little over three years, our businesses have created more than 6.5 million new jobs. And while our unemployment rate is still too high, it’s the lowest it’s been since 2008. But now we need to create even more good, middle-class jobs, and we need to do it faster.
Corporate profits have skyrocketed to all-time highs. But now we need to get middle-class wages and incomes rising too.
Our housing market is healing. But we still need to help a lot more families stay in their homes, or refinance to take advantage of historically low rates.
And our deficits are shrinking at the fastest rate in decades. But now we need to budget in a smarter way that doesn’t hurt middle-class families or harm critical investments in our future.
So in a lot of sectors, things are looking up. The American auto industry is thriving. American energy is booming. And American ingenuity in our tech sector has the potential to change the way we do almost everything.
In the coming weeks, I’m going to visit more cities like Baltimore, and Austin, Texas – where I was two weeks ago; places where Americans are coming together to strengthen their own communities and economies – and in the process, making this country better for all of us.
And I’m going to keep trying to work with both parties in Washington to make progress on your priorities. Because I know that if we come together around creating more jobs, educating more of our kids, and building new ladders of opportunity for everyone who’s willing to climb them – we’ll all prosper, together.
If you’ve been watching any commercial television lately, you are well aware that the financial services industry is very busy running expensive ads imploring us to worry about our retirement futures. Open a new account today, they say.
They are not wrong that we should be doing something: America is facing a retirement crisis. One in three Americans has no retirement savings at all. One in two reports that they can’t save enough. On top of that, we are living longer, and health care costs, as we all know, are increasing.
But, as I found when investigating the retirement planning and mutual funds industries in The Retirement Gamble, which airs tonight on FRONTLINE, those advertisements are imploring us to start saving for one simple reason. Retirement is big business — and very profitable. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the more we save into the industry’s financial products, the more money they make in fees and commissions trading our hard-earned cash. And as long as they don’t run away with our money or invest it in a Ponzi scheme, they have little in the way of accountability to us when something goes wrong. And even then it can be hard to fight back.
Big banks, brokerages, insurance companies and other financial service providers operate under something called a suitability standard — which says they don’t have to give you the best advice, just advice that isn’t too egregiously terrible.
Let’s say you sit down with an adviser at your brokerage or bank and ask for some advice on how you should allocate your retirement savings, or which funds you might want to choose for your IRA.
You’ll get lots of advice, but chances are it won’t be worth much. Eighty five percent of all financial advisers and financial planners are really just brokers or salesman. Their incentive is to sell you a product that makes them a higher commission, not necessarily a product that maximizes your chances of saving more. Only 15 percent of advisers are “fiduciaries” — advisers who by law must operate with your best interests in mind.
Last year, the Obama administration proposed a rule to mandate that all financial advisers, financial planners and other assorted financial wizards would have to adopt a fiduciary standard when it came to employee retirement accounts such as your 401(k) or IRA account. The financial services industry, which today manages something upwards of $10 trillion of our retirement nest eggs, thought this was a bad idea and pushed back hard. Scores of their protest letters poured into the U.S. Labor Department, the branch of our government responsible for regulating employee retirement accounts.
“As long as they don’t run away with our money or invest it in a Ponzi scheme, they have little in the way of accountability to us when something goes wrong. And even then it can be hard to fight back.”
Congress, too, was hit with a furious lobbying campaign. This would be way too expensive, the industry said; if we have to provide such a standard of service, we will either have to pack up and find another business line, or have to pass the increased costs on to our customers. The Obama administration pulled their proposal last fall.
How would a new fiduciary rule change things? Chances are you would be sold less expensive products, not only in your IRA accounts but inside your company 401(k) as well. It’s all about fees. While reporting on retirement plans for FRONTLINE, nothing has been more surprising to me than the corrosive effect of fees on our retirement savings.
It’s this simple: Fund fees can erode as much as half or more of your prospective gains. For the sake of dramatizing the point, John Bogle, founder of Vanguard, the world’s largest mutual fund company and pioneer of low-cost index funds, gave me a startling example while we were filming. Assume you are invested in a mutual fund, he says, with a gross return of 7 percent, but that the mutual fund charges you an annual fee of 2 percent.
Over a 50-year investing lifetime, that little 2 percent fee will erode 63 percent of what you would have had. As Bogle puts it, “the tyranny of compounding costs” is overwhelming.
In short, fees matter. So what can you do? You aren’t going to find a fund that invests your money for free, but experts say you can come close by buying index funds. Their fees can be a tenth of what the average mutual funds charges. And over time, in bull and bear markets, on average, index funds perform better than their more expensive actively managed fund cousins. This is no secret to anyone who is paying attention.
So why aren’t our trusted financial advisers and those ads telling us to buy index funds? Why do some 401(k) plans not even offer them on their menus?
It’s because even though an index fund might be a better option for you and me, a broker operating under a suitability standard has no incentive to sell it to us. He or she will make higher commissions from options that have higher fees.
Sadly, a recent AARP study reported that 70 percent of mutual fund savers were not even aware that they were paying any fees at all.
Is there hope for change? The Labor Department says they plan to reintroduce a new fiduciary rule this summer that will force the financial services industry to think of us first when it comes to retirement. We’ll see how that goes.
In the meantime, The Retirement Gamble airs tonight (check your local listings here). What I uncovered while making this documentary made me rethink my financial future. It just might do the same for you.
If I told you that government officials possessed ironclad proof that an imminent threat to this nation had the capacity to create a 9/11′s worth of injuries and deaths every year at an annual economic cost of a quarter trillion dollars, ask yourself: Would you say we should do something about it?
I’m guessing you would. Out of a basic sense of patriotism, you would probably at minimum support some new security regulations and investments in enforcing those regulations, even if that meant paying slightly higher taxes. After all, you profess to love America, and that’s the least we should do in the face of such a threat to our country, right?
Now ask yourself: Would your response to the original query change if you discovered that the threat at hand was not from a terrorist, but from unsafe workplaces — and that because of that unaddressed problem, these casualties and costs have already become a fact of life in America? Come on, admit it — your response probably would change. Yes, many who would reflexively support more regulations and enforcement in the face of a foreign terrorist threat would suddenly scoff at more regulations and enforcement in the face of unsafe workplaces. Why the double standard?
That’s the troubling question raised by the reaction — or, really, lack thereof — to last month’s catastrophic explosion in West, Texas.
Occurring in the heart of a nation whose government data documents 4,500 workplace deaths every year at a cost of $250 billion, the deadly blast originated at a fertilizer plant that had not been inspected by the chronically underfunded Occupational Safety and Health Administration since 1985.
The location of the plant is particularly significant. As the New York Times reports, Texas promotes an “antipathy toward regulations” as “the only state that does not require companies to contribute to workers’ compensation coverage” and a place where many counties “cite the lack of local fire codes as a reason for companies to move there.”
As a result, Texas is not the nation’s most populous state but nonetheless sports “the nation’s highest number of workplace fatalities.” When it comes to industrial disasters, the Times notes that Texas has only about a quarter more “high risk” sites than the state (Illinois) with the second most number of such facilities. However, it has, according to the Times, “more than three times the number of accidents, four times the number of injuries and deaths, and 300 times the property damage costs” as that state.
If all this data was about a terrorist threat, the reaction would be swift — negligent federal agencies would be roundly criticized and the specific state’s lax attitude toward security would be lambasted. Yet, after the fertilizer plant explosion, there has been no proactive reaction at all, other than Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry boasting about his state’s “comfort with the amount of oversight” that already exists.
So, again, why the discrepancy? Simply put, because this is what now passes for acceptable in a deregulated economy whose laws are written by corporate interests.
Those interests are hostile to safety regulation and enforcement because they don’t want to spend even a tiny bit more on making worksites secure for employees. So they, and the politicians whose campaigns they fund, have made an epithet out of the word “regulation” in order to guarantee that almost nobody asks whether we have to tolerate 4,500 dead American workers each year.
We don’t have to tolerate that level of workplace carnage, of course. There are many obvious and constructive things we could do, starting with adding resources to regulatory agencies and beefing up workplace enforcement. But if even a blast as big as the one in West, Texas, cannot make us realize that simple fact, then nothing will.
