Seed Newsvine
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
This Baucus guy is bought. And he's blocking single-payer, too. AARGH
Study Follows the Money on Cram-Down Vote
Wednesday 10 June 2009
by: Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t | Report
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana).
Baucus was one of 12 Democrats to vote against cram-down provisions. (Photo: AP)
A new analysis from a government watchdog group shows senators who killed off a consumer-friendly change in law aimed at addressing the foreclosure crisis received more money in campaign contributions from the industries their vote aided.
Senators who voted against the consumer-friendly amendment received $3.98 million from the financial industry during the 2008 election cycle, while proponents of the bill received $2.65 million.
The amendment in question would have allowed bankruptcy judges to adjust or "cram down" the amount of money borrowers owed their lenders on their primary home in order to avoid foreclosure.
Banking and finance special interests fought hard against the provision, arguing that the ability to adjust these mortgages would make mortgage lending much more risky and expensive, increasing the difficulty of getting a loan in the first place, and increasing the cost to borrowers.
Consumer advocate groups who have long favored this reform pointed out that this type of mortgage adjustment is already available for vacation homes, yachts and almost every other type of loan.
Legislation allowing judges to adjust first mortgages would have saved up to 1.7 million homes from foreclosure, according to the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), a nonprofit consumer-protection organization. An estimate by CRL predicts an astounding 2.9 million foreclosure starts in 2009, and an estimated 9 million foreclosures by 2012. Foreclosures breed more foreclosures by decreasing the property values of entire neighborhoods. The total devaluation caused by this foreclosure spiral could total $1.9 trillion, according to the CRL projections.
An analysis by the citizen advocacy group Common Cause shows that the Republican and Democratic senators who voted against the amendment had received more money in campaign contributions from the banking industry than those who voted in favor of the amendment.
"Until we change the way we pay for Congressional campaigns, average homeowners will be helpless when up against the power of the banking industry and its millions of dollars spent on campaign contributions and lobbying," said Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause.
The amendment was opposed by every Republican in the Senate except for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) who did not vote. According to the Common Cause analysis, these members received an average of $77,150 from mortgage bankers and brokers, commercial banks, and finance and credit companies during the 2008 election cycle.
But these 39 Republicans needed Democratic help to kill the bill. And they got it.
The 12 Democratic senators who crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans were Max Baucus (Montana), Michael Bennet (Colorado), Robert Byrd (West Virginia), Thomas Carper (Delaware), Byron Dorgan (North Dakota), Tim Johnson (South Dakota), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania) and Jon Tester (Montana).
These Democrats received more money from the financial industry than their Republican counterparts did, averaging $81,256 during the 2008 election cycle.
Democrats who voted in favor of the amendment received an average of $58,894 in the same time period.
These averages leave out some notable figures who received large contributions.
An opponent of the amendment, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana), received $207,430 in 2008 from these financial industry sources. As the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus remains a key player in legislation targeted at the financial industry. As chairman, he holds sway over the consideration of bills aimed at reregulating the financial sector in the wake of the financial collapse. Senator Baucus has come under fire from progressive forces for his recent attempts to prevent consideration of a public health care plan.
12:03 Posted in Blog | Permalink | Comments (1) | Email this | Tags: lobbyist, campaign finance reform, baucus, dodd
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Up to his old tricks. Why doesn't he put a lid on it.
Cheney Intervened in CIA Inspector General's Torture Probe
Friday 22 May 2009
by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report
Former Vice President Dick Cheney intervened in a CIA inspector general's torture investigation. (Photo: Reuters)
Former Vice President Dick Cheney intervened in CIA Inspector General John Helgerson's investigation into the agency's use of torture against "high-value" detainees, but the watchdog was still able to prepare a report that concluded the interrogation program violated some provisions of the International Convention Against Torture.
The report, which the Obama administration may soon declassify, was completed in May 2004 and implicated CIA interrogators in at least three detainee deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq and referred eight criminal cases of alleged homicide, abuse and misconduct to the Justice Department for further investigation, reporter Jane Mayer wrote in her book, "The Dark Side," and in an investigative report published in The New Yorker in November 2005.
In "The Dark Side," Mayer described the report as being "as thick as two Manhattan phone books" and contained information, according to an unnamed source, "that was simply sickening."
"The behavior it described, another knowledgeable source said, raised concerns not just about the detainees but also about the Americans who had inflicted the abuse, one of whom seemed to have become frighteningly dehumanized," Mayer wrote. "The source said, 'You couldn't read the documents without wondering, "Why didn't someone say, 'Stop!'""
Mayer added that Cheney routinely "summoned" Inspector General Helgerson to meet with him privately about his investigation, launched in 2003, and soon thereafter the probe "was stopped in its tracks." Mayer characterized Cheney's interaction with Helgerson as highly unusual.
Cheney's "reaction to this first, carefully documented in-house study concluding that the CIA's secret program was most likely criminal was to summon the Inspector General to his office for a private chat," Mayer wrote. "The Inspector General is supposed to function as an independent overseer, free from political pressure, but Cheney summoned the CIA Inspector General more than once to his office."
"Cheney loomed over everything," the former CIA officer told Mayer. "The whole IG's office was completely politicized. They were working hand in glove with the White House."
But Mayer said Cheney's intervention in Helgerson's probe proved that as early as 2004 "the Vice President's office was fully aware that there were allegations of serious wrongdoing in the [torture] Program." Helgerson has denied that he was pressured by Cheney.
In October 2007, former CIA Director Michael Hayden ordered an investigation into Helgerson's office, focusing on internal complaints that the inspector general was on "a crusade against those who have participated in [the] controversial detention program."
News reports have suggested that when Helgerson's report is declassified it will seriously undercut claims made by Cheney in numerous interviews that the systematic torture of "high-value" detainees produced valuable intelligence, thwarted pending terrorist plots against the United States and saved "hundreds of thousands of lives."
In addition to showing the inconclusive nature of the value of intelligence gleaned through torture, the report will likely show that Helgerson warned top CIA officials that the interrogation techniques administered to detainees "might violate some provisions of the International Convention Against Torture."
A November 9, 2005, report published in The New York Times said Helgerson's report "raised concern about whether the use of the [torture] techniques could expose agency officers to legal liability."
Read more of this original t r u t h o u t article
14:45 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this | Tags: torture, cheney, war crimes
Monday, May 04, 2009
Still Awful in Iraq, In Case You Forgot
Combat Operations in Fallujah
Monday 04 May 2009
by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t | Report
Indicative of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq, on May 1 the US military reported the death of a Naval petty officer who was killed "on April 30 while conducting combat operations in Fallujah, Iraq." The Department of Defense report went on to explain that the sailor "was deployed with an East Coast based Navy SEAL team." That same day, the military announced the deaths of two marines "killed while conducting combat operations against enemy forces here April 30." The dateline for the latter press release is "AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq." Apparently, all is not well in Fallujah and al-Anbar province. The US military, having met the fiercest resistance throughout their occupation of Iraq in these areas, is once again conducting combat operations there.
The fact that the US military has largely hung the Sahwa out to dry, exposing the 100,000 strong Sunni militia to the ire of the Maliki government for ongoing assassinations and detentions, has taken the lid off the volcano that the Sahwa were keeping from erupting. Let us remember - it was the Sahwa who kept al-Qaeda in Iraq in check, not the US military or the Iraqi military. As members of the Sahwa continue to leave their security posts due to lack of pay and being targeted by the Iraqi government, they are returning to the resistance from which most of them had emerged to join the militia.
Let us also be clear about the fact that the Sahwa allied themselves with the US military so as to protect themselves from the Shia-dominated sectarian government of Prime Minister Maliki.
I asked a good friend of mine in Baghdad to interview a Sahwa leader in the Adhamiya district of Baghdad a few days ago. The leader asked to be identified as Abu Ahmed. He is 40 years old, married, has four children, and had this to say, "I would like to say that the Iraqi Government, and especially Mr. Maliki, are continuing to target us. They have been doing this from the beginning, and they continue to do this against the Sahwa. The reason is because we are Sunni and the Iraqi government are a sectarian government."
Abu Ahmed said he and his fellow Sahwa members support the immediate withdrawal of all occupation forces "and then we can change our government by ourselves and build a nationalist government to replace this current sectarian government."
He then added, succinctly, "Our purpose is to end the occupation, end al-Qaeda, and make a new Iraq that is safe."
Fate, as if to underscore his point, found rivers of blood filling the streets of Baghdad the very next day. Simultaneous bombings in largely Shiite districts of the capital city killed more than 51 people. After the bombings, residents of the areas threw shoes and stones at Iraqi soldiers who arrived at the scene, blaming the soldiers for failing to protect them. A resident, in the aftermath of the bombings, expressed his rage to a reporter while Iraqi soldiers continued shooting at innocent people, "Is that what we deserve, on top of the bombs, that they shoot at people? Is this Maliki's government? Instead of helping us evacuate the wounded, they started shooting at us. This is Maliki's government. Can you hear the shooting? They're shooting at people. People are lying underneath cars."
At the end of the day, over 70 Iraqis had died, with at least 116 wounded.
Read the rest at t r u t h o u t
08:55 Posted in Blog | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this | Tags: iraq, sectarian violence, war
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Accountability
General Taguba: Accountability for Torture Does Not Stop at White House Door
Thursday 16 April 2009
by: Andrew Kalloch | Visit article original @ Harvard Law Record
Major General Antonio Taguba, pictured here, is calling for an independent commission to investigate war crimes committed by members of the Bush administration. (Photo: Mary Ellen Mark)
Major General Antonio Taguba called for an independent commission to investigate war crimes committed by senior members of the Bush Administration in remarks in Ames Courtroom on Tuesday, April 14. The event was sponsored by Physicians for Human Rights and the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School.
Taguba, who was pressured to resign by the Bush Administration in 2007 following the 2004 leak of his report detailing abuses by U.S. armed forces in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, declared in the preface of the 2008 Physicians for Human Rights publication "Broken Laws, Broken Lives," that, "there is no longer any doubt as to whether the [Bush] administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
While the Obama Administration has "reaffirmed its commitment to valuing human rights and international law" by officially closing CIA black sites and the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Taguba insisted that "there are a lot of stories that have yet to be told."
In an effort to make those stories known, Taguba has been travelling the country seeking to foster dialogue between human rights advocates and the nation's armed forces. According to Taguba, the two groups "share a common denominator based on ethical considerations of democratic principles." Human rights advocates seek to ensure the preservation of democratic ideals and U.S. armed forces are trained to "provide services in a manner that exemplifies America's ideals" and to protect America's value system and its' way of life, not simply to secure its borders at all costs.
Taguba explained that the Army's core values-honor, integrity, courage, and selfless service-are but one part of a broader set of moral foundations upon which the Army operates. For example, Taguba declared that the Army is required to adhere to international laws, including all four Geneva conventions, as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and to demonstrate "responsibility, accountability, and discipline."
Read the rest at t r u t h o u t
19:46 Posted in Blog | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this | Tags: torture, taguba, war crimes
Friday, April 03, 2009
Hooray for my home state's upholding civil rights!
Iowa Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage
Friday 03 April 2009
by: Amy Lorentzen | Visit article original @ The Associated Press
Wedded couples rejoice after an Iowa Supreme Court ruling found banning gay marriage unconstitutional. (Photo: David Purdy / AP)
Des Moines, Iowa - Iowa's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state — and first in the nation's heartland — to allow same-sex couples to wed.
Iowa joins only Massachusetts and Connecticut in permitting same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.
The Iowa justices upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman.
The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which could take years to ratify.
"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the Supreme Court wrote.
Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."
To issue any other decision, the justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."
The Iowa attorney general's office said gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses starting April 24, once the ruling is considered final.
"Iowa is about justice, and that's what happened here today," said Laura Fefchak, who awaited the decision at a party in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale.
Her partner of 13 years, Nancy Robinson, added: "To tell the truth, I didn't think I'd see this day."
Des Moines attorney Dennis Johnson, who argued on behalf of gay and lesbian couples, said "this is a great day for civil rights in Iowa."
"We have all of you courageous plaintiffs to thank: Go get married, live happily ever after, live the American dream," he said.
In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.
The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.
The case had been working its way through the courts since 2005, when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples in Iowa.
The Supreme Court noted that any new distinction based on sexual orientation "would be equally suspect and difficult to square" with the state's constitution.
John Logan, a sociology professor at Brown University, said Iowa's status as a largely rural, Midwest state could enforce an argument that gay marriage is no longer a fringe issue.
"When it was only California and Massachusetts, it could be perceived as extremism on the coasts and not related to core American values.
"But as it extends to states like Iowa, and as attitudes toward gay marriage have evidently changed, then people will look at it as an example of broad acceptance," Logan said.
Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his office will not ask for the case to be reconsidered.
"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is, and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said.
Gay marriage opponents have no other legal options to appeal the case to the state or federal level because they were not parties to the lawsuit, and there is no federal issue raised in the case, Sarcone said.
Read the rest at t r u t h o u t
16:36 Posted in Blog | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this | Tags: iowa, gay marriage, civil rights, constitution