Idaho Libertarian Times

Alan Reynolds Assails 'Stimulus' Spending on CNN

Government Blocks Release of Documents on Secret IP Enforcement Treaty Despite Obama's Order for Openness, Americans Still Kept in the Dark About ACTA

January 29th, 2009
EFF Press release

Washington, D.C. - The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is withholding hundreds of documents about a secret intellectual property enforcement treaty currently under negotiation between the U.S. and more than a dozen other countries.

In a pending federal lawsuit, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge are demanding that background documents on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) be released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). But the USTR has claimed that more than 1300 pages should be withheld because they implicate national security or expose the USTR's deliberative processes. The USTR has released only 159 pages for public viewing.

ACTA raises serious concerns about citizens' civil liberties and privacy rights. The contents and text of ACTA remain secret, but a document leaked to the public last year shows that ACTA could include stronger criminal measures, increased customs border search powers, and requirements for Internet service providers to cooperate with copyright holders. Some public suggestions from content companies have included requiring ISPs to engage in filtering of their customers' Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material, mandatory disclosure of personal information about alleged copyright infringers, and adoption of "Three Strikes" policies requiring ISPs to automatically terminate customers' Internet access upon a repeat allegation of copyright infringement.

"ACTA could lead to new invasive monitoring of Internet communications by your ISP and raises serious potential due process concerns for Internet users," said EFF International Policy Director Gwen Hinze. "Because ACTA is to be adopted as an Executive Agreement, it will bypass normal processes of Congressional oversight. Therefore, it is crucial that citizens have access to information about its contents in a timely manner. The USTR's decision to withhold documents that citizens are entitled to see as a matter of law prevents citizens from evaluating ACTA's impact on their lives and expressing their opinions to their political leaders before it's a fait accompli."

Despite the vast amount of relevant information that was withheld, the documents that were released disclosed some interesting information about ACTA, including records revealing U.S. government policy that ACTA documents should only be shown to government officials or others who work closely with a country's consultation process. The records also show that the U.S. government intends to "hold ACTA documents in confidence for a fixed period after negotiations conclude." But not everyone has been kept in the dark about ACTA. Officials from the USTR met privately with the major U.S. proponents of the treaty: the Global Leadership Group of the International Chamber of Commerce's Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy and the Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy at least three times in 2008.

EFF and Public Knowledge first made their FOIA request of the USTR in June of 2008. After the agency dragged its feet in responding, EFF and Public Knowledge filed suit in federal court in Washington, DC, in September of 2008. EFF plans to ask the court to stay further action in the case pending the release of new guidelines by the Attorney General implementing President Obama's January 21 memorandum stating that all agencies "should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government."

"We are disappointed with the USTR's response so far," said Public Knowledge Staff Attorney Sherwin Siy. "With the guidance of this new policy, we hope that the USTR will reassess its less-than-forthcoming compliance with our FOIA request and provide the public with the much-needed transparency and accountability about this important global agreement."

For the significant documents released under FOIA:
http://www.eff.org/fn/directory/6661/328

For more on this case:
http://www.eff.org/cases/eff-and-public-knowledge-v-ustr

For more on ACTA:
http://www.eff.org/issues/acta/

Contacts:

Gwen Hinze
International Policy Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
gwen@eff.org

Eddan Katz
International Affairs Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
eddan@eff.org

Art Brodsky
Communications Director
Public Knowledge
abrodsky@publicknowledge.org

Related Issues: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, FOIA Litigation for Accountable Government, International

Related Cases: EFF and Public Knowledge v. USTR

Departure puts end to Reagan era

BY CARLOS ALBERTO MONTANER
www.firmaspress.com

George W. Bush leaves office with a high level of popular disapproval. Americans think that he's basically a good man but a failed president. They might be right in both assessments.

Of the three basic responsibilities a president assumes in liberal democracies -- to protect citizens' lives, liberty and property -- the third one was a noisy failure for Bush. During his term, public spending shot up irresponsibly, capped by the greatest destruction of capital since the 1929 Crash.

While none of that would have happened without the complicity of a mostly Democratic Congress (at least in recent time), the so-called ''judgment of history'' is passed on the president, not on the legislative apparatus.

In his brief farewell speech, Bush clung to his greatest success: preventing another terrorist attack like the one on Sept. 11, 2001. Actually, that's no small feat. It seems that the U.S. security forces discovered and dismantled several serious attempts at sabotage and terrorist acts plotted by al Qaeda, but even those police triumphs were costly, in terms of civil rights. The government even was forced to defend its claimed right to wring confessions from detainees through water-boarding torture.

Traditionally, the water torture -- perfected and regulated by the Spanish Inquisition -- consisted of immobilizing the prisoner face up on a wooden board, inserting a cloth in his mouth and pouring water on his face incessantly, thus provoking a continuing and panicking sensation of asphyxia. Usually, the accused confessed to anything, so long as the torture ceased.

In Guantánamo and other detention centers, interrogators probably used a simpler but equally sinister procedure. They aimed a constant stream of water at the nostrils, or pushed the prisoner's head into a pail full of water. Fortunately, Obama's government has stated that it will put an end to that atrocious method of questioning detainees.

What is the legacy of the Bush administration? In my judgment, something that never went through his head when he assumed the presidency: he leaves the country psychologically prepared to adopt the model of a European state, with increasing quotas of state intervention, which will be inevitably reflected in greater fiscal pressure and a loss of dynamism.

More and more Americans desire to enjoy a public and universal system of healthcare, even if it is mediocre. And more Americans prefer to count exclusively on retirement funds managed by the state rather than submit themselves to the market's vagaries.

Somehow, and at least for now, Bush's departure marks the end of the Ronald Reagan era and the discourse of a reduced government and the supremacy of civilian society. Suddenly, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, agree to try to palliate the economic crisis through the injection of a torrent of money and a boundless increase in public spending.

From the ''supply-side economics'' postulated by the theoreticians of Reaganism and sustained during Clinton's two terms, we have returned to the ''demand economics'' and the Keynesian idea (a profoundly pernicious one) that the state's budget is the right instrument to prevent recessive cycles and stimulate employment.

Few if any voices are heard in defense of savings, of balanced budgets and the state's neutrality in the face of economic competence. Almost everyone applauds when money is taken from taxpayers to save enterprises that the consumers reject -- as happened in the United States with the great automotive industry -- and the available resources are arbitrarily reassigned, thus harming other productive sectors. And nobody is shocked when the printing presses work overtime to churn out bills, because they assume that some of those bills will drift their way.

Bush never imagined that his legacy was the transformation of The American Dream. With Obama, The European Dream begins on this side of the Atlantic.

Obama Sides With Bush In Spy Case

http://slashdot.org/

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on 12:59 Friday 23 January 2009
from the disappointment-for-civil-liberties dept.
[ Government ] [ Privacy ]
palegray.net is one of many who writes "President Obama has publicly sided with the Bush administration on the question of whether the President should be allowed to establish warrant less wiretapping programs designed to monitor US citizens. The President has asked a federal judge to stay a ruling that would allow key evidence into the domestic spying case against the government. 'Thursday's filing by the Obama administration marked the first time it officially lodged a court document in the lawsuit asking the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the Bush administration's warrant less-eavesdropping program.'" jamie points out that Obama's views and opinions were made clear through his Senate vote and numerous public statements, but many others see this as a disappointing start to an administration promising transparency and openness.

Ok he has charisma,exceptional elocution & A good tailor & apparently he is the chosen one! However, he has shown his true colors those of statist, for a man who's whole campaign was based on Change this is a total non-change, a continuation of the past presidency with no change so far, oh there is the predictable political cow-towing one would expect the funding of a bucolic expansion of the federal government, this I really expected. I didn't think he was so disconnected that he would allow this one to get by him, especially with as many on the judiciary holding up a huge series stop signs all say no detours from the 4th amendment are allowed.

WARRANTS REQUIRED!?
What this really does is point to the lack of change in the present administration. After all if change truly was this administrations mission I wouldn't expect to see the President select to follow such a demonstrably illegal line of activity as the warrant less wiretaps of the previous administration. The problem isn't the wire taps in & of themselves, its the information is only actionable in the field, it'll never get into a court, & every time warrant less taps have gone to a federal judiciary for review they've been summarily tossed on the grounds of violating the 4th amendment. This is where the real threat lies, if we have a real threat in custody aka a real terrorist & usually we do, what happens if crucial evidence for a conviction is excluded from trial because it wasn't gathered with a warrant. A warrant that takes 15 minutes on the phone to get. My nightmare is the terrorist walks, then slips his surveillance & strikes again, hard to do yes, but it could happen. Then what happens if he strikes a target because we didn't follow evidence procedure and just get a warrant?
well? What!

"Give me Liberty, or Else!" -Frankenstein

"Give me Liberty, or Else!" -Frankenstein
From: Michael Abraham McMahon's Notes
Yesterday at 9:04pm

Ok, I'm finally going to say it. I am SICK of Ron Paul.

I am sick of the stickers, the signs, the buttons, the shirts and the chants. I am sick of the videos, the notes, the posts, the app invites, the group invites, the fan page invites and the meetup groups. I am sick of the Campaign for Liberty, the press releases, and the endorsements. I am sick of the Paul-tards, the rEVOLutionaries, and all the other do-nothing whiners behind him. I am sick of his cult. And above all, I am SICK of looking at his fucking ears.

Ron Paul WAS the best thing to happen to the Freedom cause in ages. But he's over now. Do you hear me? OVER. Ever since he gave up on the Republican nomination he has been a liability.

Yes, he gave up. He gave up before it was even over. Ron Paul created a political machine - no, Ron Paul created a MONSTER. He took the spare parts of America's politics, the freedom loving hands and hearts and the mindless masses needed to hold them together, the feet needed to take it to the streets, and he set upon them an idea and reveled as it shouted "RON PAUL!!!!" and railed at the walls of the establishment. Oh, sure this terrorism worked in a way. It scared the media so bad they wouldn't even show his face, except as a late-night freak show on Jay Leno. It flooded polls, it filled entire message boards with its cry, so loud and prolific were they that no person could get a contrary opinion in edgewise. Yes, Ron Pauls monster was so powerful it took the internet hostage and for a while there were more posts of "RON PAUL!!!" than pornographic pictures. And this monster began to pervade the physical world. Everywhere you looked, there they were, holding signs, hanging banners, sticking stickers and shouting, always shouting. And you could believe that with this monster pulling a bandwagon behind him of this size, there was no way he could lose.

But he gave up. The monster came to the Republican National Convention and sat, quietly and gloomily, as their signs and shirts and stickers and buttons and tricorn hats were confiscated, as they denied entry, as they ignored votes and the Secret Service loomed over it, threatening violence. There, at the most critical of times, he demonstrated that yes, HE had created a monster, and yes, HE could hold its leash. But why there? What better time to hear its mighty cry, what better time to watch it thrash and rail and rampage as we knew it could, than when they could not turn it off? Why, as they shook in their patent leather shoes and rivulets of sweat stained their button down shirts and every blue pinstripe in the place was crooked with fear, did Ron Paul urge such meekness? Ron Paul said "Stop", and it stopped, and after it was over, after they gave McCain his lifetime achievement award, he said "Go", and it continued railing, though the damage was done.

And what have we seen since then? The monster starves. In its aftermath, its once-mighty cry still echoing draws laughter from those it seeks to absorb. It struggles as Ron Paul continues to bleed it and enhance his stature, but his statements are empty and vapid, his vigor diminished, his very name soon to be a corrollary of Godwins Law. Ron Paul has taken what could have been the greatest victory for liberty and squandered it. He has taken his monster and caged it, holding it as a bargaining chip. It doesn't know any better, it follows who it is told to, lays waste to others or simply ignores them.

If we truly desire freedom, we must first free ourselves from Ron Paul and his tyranousaur. I am sick of hearing his name in meetings, people talking of reaching out to Ron Paul as though there is no other source of dedicated freedom workers - the monster already wears a harness, and its head has no interest in relinquishing control. I am sick of people holding him in the same light in which the Democrats hold Obama - we have no need for God-Kings, even benevolent ones. And I am sick of the idea that freedom comes from without, in the form of some charismatic figure, instead of the revolution in ones head - we are ALL Americans and we will be free if we so desire it.

OBAMA ENTERS THE GREAT GAME

Stratfor
---------------------------

By George Friedman

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama will be sworn in on Tuesday as president of the United States. Candidate Obama said much about what he would do as president; now we will see what President Obama actually does. The most important issue Obama will face will be the economy, something he did not anticipate through most of his campaign. The first hundred days of his presidency thus will revolve around getting a stimulus package passed. But Obama also is now in the great game of global competition -- and in that game, presidents rarely get to set the agenda.

The major challenge he faces is not Gaza; the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is not one any U.S. president intervenes in unless he wants to experience pain. As we have explained, that is an intractable conflict to which there is no real solution. Certainly, Obama will fight being drawn into mediating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during his first hundred days in office. He undoubtedly will send the obligatory Middle East envoy, who will spend time with all the parties, make suitable speeches and extract meaningless concessions from all sides. This envoy will establish some sort of process to which everyone will cynically commit, knowing it will go nowhere. Such a mission is not involvement -- it is the alternative to involvement, and the reason presidents appoint Middle East envoys. Obama can avoid the Gaza crisis, and he will do so.

Obama's Two Unavoidable Crises

The two crises that cannot be avoided are Afghanistan and Russia. First, the situation in Afghanistan is tenuous for a number of reasons, and it is not a crisis that Obama can avoid decisions on. Obama has said publicly that he will decrease his commitments in Iraq and increase them in Afghanistan. He thus will have more troops fighting in Afghanistan. The second crisis emerged from a decision by Russia to cut off natural gas to Ukraine, and the resulting decline in natural gas deliveries to Europe. This one obviously does not affect the United States directly, but even after flows are restored, it affects the Europeans greatly. Obama therefore comes into office with three interlocking issues: Afghanistan, Russia and Europe. In one sense, this is a single issue -- and it is not one that will wait.

Obama clearly intends to follow Gen. David Petraeus' lead in Afghanistan. The intention is to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, thereby intensifying pressure on the Taliban and opening the door for negotiations with the militant group or one of its factions. Ultimately, this would see the inclusion of the Taliban or Taliban elements in a coalition government. Petraeus pursued this strategy in Iraq with Sunni insurgents, and it is the likely strategy in Afghanistan.

But the situation in Afghanistan has been complicated by the situation in Pakistan. Roughly three-quarters of U.S. and NATO supplies bound for Afghanistan are delivered to the Pakistani port of Karachi and trucked over the border to Afghanistan. Most fuel used by Western forces in Afghanistan is refined in Pakistan and delivered via the same route. There are two crossing points, one near Afghanistan's Kandahar province at Chaman, Pakistan, and the other through the Khyber Pass. The Taliban have attacked Western supply depots and convoys, and Pakistan itself closed the routes for several days, citing government operations against radical Islamist forces.

Meanwhile, the situation in Pakistan has been complicated by tensions with India. The Indians have said that the individuals who carried out the Nov. 26 Mumbai attack were Pakistanis supported by elements in the Pakistani government. After Mumbai, India made demands of the Pakistanis. While the situation appears to have calmed, the future of Indo-Pakistani relations remains far from clear; anything from a change of policy in New Delhi to new terrorist attacks could see the situation escalate. The Pakistanis have made it clear that a heightened threat from India requires them to shift troops away from the Afghan border and toward the east; a small number of troops already has been shifted.

Apart from the direct impact this kind of Pakistani troop withdrawal would have on cross-border operations by the Taliban, such a move also would dramatically increase the vulnerability of NATO supply lines through Pakistan. Some supplies could be shipped in by aircraft, but the vast bulk of supplies -- petroleum, ammunition, etc. -- must come in via surface transit, either by truck, rail or ship. Western operations in Afghanistan simply cannot be supplied from the air alone. A cutoff of the supply lines across Pakistan would thus leave U.S. troops in Afghanistan in crisis. Because Washington can't predict or control the future actions of Pakistan, of India or of terrorists, the United States must find an alternative to the routes through Pakistan.

When we look at a map, the two routes through Pakistan from Karachi are clearly the most logical to use. If those were closed -- or even meaningfully degraded -- the only other viable routes would be through the former Soviet Union.

One route, along which a light load of fuel is currently transported, crosses the Caspian Sea. Fuel refined in Armenia is ferried across the Caspian to Turkmenistan (where a small amount of fuel is also refined), then shipped across Turkmenistan directly to Afghanistan and through a small spit of land in Uzbekistan. This route could be expanded to reach either the Black Sea through Georgia or the Mediterranean through Georgia and Turkey (though the additional use of Turkey would require a rail gauge switch). It is also not clear that transports native to the Caspian have sufficient capacity for this.

Another route sidesteps the issues of both transport across the Caspian and the sensitivity of Georgia by crossing Russian territory above the Caspian. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan (and likely at least a small corner of Turkmenistan) would connect the route to Afghanistan. There are options of connecting to the Black Sea or transiting to Europe through either Ukraine or Belarus.

Iran could provide a potential alternative, but relations between Tehran and Washington would have to improve dramatically before such discussions could even begin -- and time is short.

Many of the details still need to be worked out. But they are largely variations on the two main themes of either crossing the Caspian or transiting Russian territory above it.

Though the first route is already partially established for fuel, it is not clear how much additional capacity exists. To complicate matters further, Turkmen acquiescence is unlikely without Russian authorization, and Armenia remains strongly loyal to Moscow as well. While the current Georgian government might leap at the chance, the issue is obviously an extremely sensitive one for Moscow. (And with Russian forces positioned in Azerbaijan and the Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Moscow has troops looming over both sides of the vulnerable route across Georgia.) The second option would require crossing Russian territory itself, with a number of options -- from connecting to the Black Sea to transiting either Ukraine or Belarus to Europe, or connecting to the Baltic states.

(click image to enlarge)

Both routes involve countries of importance to Russia where Moscow has influence, regardless of whether those countries are friendly to it. This would give Russia ample opportunity to scuttle any such supply line at multiple points for reasons wholly unrelated to Afghanistan.

If the West were to opt for the first route, the Russians almost certainly would pressure Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan not to cooperate, and Turkey would find itself in a position it doesn't want to be in -- namely, caught between the United States and Russia. The diplomatic complexities of developing these routes not only involve the individual countries included, they also inevitably lead to the question of U.S.-Russian relations.

Even without crossing Russia, both of these two main options require Russian cooperation. The United States must develop the option of an alternative supply route to Pakistan, and in doing so, it must define its relationship with Russia. Seeking to work without Russian approval of a route crossing its "near abroad" will represent a challenge to Russia. But getting Russian approval will require a U.S. accommodation with the country.

The Russian Natural Gas Connection

One of Obama's core arguments against the Bush administration was that it acted unilaterally rather than with allies. Specifically, Obama meant that the Bush administration alienated the Europeans, therefore failing to build a sustainable coalition for the war. By this logic, it follows that one of Obama's first steps should be to reach out to Europe to help influence or pressure the Russians, given that NATO has troops in Afghanistan and Obama has said he intends to ask the Europeans for more help there.

The problem with this is that the Europeans are passing through a serious crisis with Russia, and that Germany in particular is involved in trying to manage that crisis. This problem relates to natural gas. Ukraine is dependent on Russia for about two-thirds of the natural gas it uses. The Russians traditionally have provided natural gas at a deep discount to former Soviet republics, primarily those countries Russia sees as allies, such as Belarus or Armenia. Ukraine had received discounted natural gas, too, until the 2004 Orange Revolution, when a pro-Western government came to power in Kiev. At that point, the Russians began demanding full payment. Given the subsequent rises in global energy prices, that left Ukraine in a terrible situation -- which of course is exactly where Moscow wanted it.

The Russians cut off natural gas to Ukraine for a short period in January 2006, and for three weeks in 2009. Apart from leaving Ukraine desperate, the cutoff immediately affected the rest of Europe, because the natural gas that goes to Europe flows through Ukraine. This put the rest of Europe in a dangerous position, particularly in the face of bitterly cold weather in 2008-2009.

The Russians achieved several goals with this. First, they pressured Ukraine directly. Second, they forced many European states to deal with Moscow directly rather than through the European Union. Third, they created a situation in which European countries had to choose between supporting Ukraine and heating their own homes. And last, they drew Berlin in particular -- since Germany is the most dependent of the major European states on Russian natural gas -- into the position of working with the Russians to get Ukraine to agree to their terms. (Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin visited Germany last week to discuss this directly with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.)

The Germans already have made clear their opposition to expanding NATO to Ukraine and Georgia. Given their dependency on the Russians, the Germans are not going to be supporting the United States if Washington decides to challenge Russia over the supply route issue. In fact, the Germans -- and many of the Europeans -- are in no position to challenge Russia on anything, least of all on Afghanistan. Overall, the Europeans see themselves as having limited interests in the Afghan war, and many already are planning to reduce or withdraw troops for budgetary reasons.

It is therefore very difficult to see Obama recruiting the Europeans in any useful manner for a confrontation with Russia over access for American supplies to Afghanistan. Yet this is an issue he will have to address immediately.

The Price of Russian Cooperation

The Russians are prepared to help the Americans, however -- and it is clear what they will want in return.

At minimum, Moscow will want a declaration that Washington will not press for the expansion of NATO to Georgia or Ukraine, or for the deployment of military forces in non-NATO states on the Russian periphery -- specifically, Ukraine and Georgia. At this point, such a declaration would be symbolic, since Germany and other European countries would block expansion anyway.

The Russians might also demand some sort of guarantee that NATO and the United States not place any large military formations or build any major military facilities in the former Soviet republics (now NATO member states) of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. (A small rotating squadron of NATO fighters already patrols the skies over the Baltic states.) Given that there were intense anti-government riots in Latvia and Lithuania last week, the stability of these countries is in question. The Russians would certainly want to topple the pro-Western Baltic governments. And anything approaching a formal agreement between Russia and the United States on the matter could quickly destabilize the Baltics, in addition to very much weakening the NATO alliance.

Another demand the Russians probably will make -- because they have in the past -- is that the United States guarantee eventual withdrawal from any bases in Central Asia in return for Russian support for using those bases for the current Afghan campaign. (At present, the United States runs air logistics operations out of Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan.) The Russians do not want to see Central Asia become a U.S. sphere of influence as the result of an American military presence.

Other demands might relate to the proposed U.S. ballistic missile defense installations in the Czech Republic and Poland.

We expect the Russians to make variations on all these demands in exchange for cooperation in creating a supply line to Afghanistan. Simply put, the Russians will demand that the United States acknowledge a Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. The Americans will not want to concede this -- or at least will want to make it implicit rather than explicit. But the Russians will want this explicit, because an explicit guarantee will create a crisis of confidence over U.S. guarantees in the countries that emerged from the Soviet Union, serving as a lever to draw these countries into the Russian orbit. U.S. acquiescence on the point potentially would have ripple effects in the rest of Europe, too.

Therefore, regardless of the global financial crisis, Obama has an immediate problem on his hands in Afghanistan. He has troops fighting there, and they must be supplied. The Pakistani supply line is no longer a sure thing. The only other options either directly challenge Russia (and ineffectively at that) or require Russian help. Russia's price will be high, particularly because Washington's European allies will not back a challenge to Russia in Georgia, and all options require Russian cooperation anyway. Obama's plan to recruit the Europeans on behalf of American initiatives won't work in this case. Obama does not want to start his administration with making a massive concession to Russia, but he cannot afford to leave U.S. forces in Afghanistan without supplies. He can hope that nothing happens in Pakistan, but that is up to the Taliban and other Islamist groups more than anyone else -- and betting on their goodwill is not a good idea.

Whatever Obama is planning to do, he will have to deal with this problem fast, before Afghanistan becomes a crisis. And there are no good solutions. But unlike with the Israelis and Palestinians, Obama can't solve this by sending a special envoy who appears to be doing something. He will have to make a very tough decision. Between the economy and this crisis, we will find out what kind of president Obama is.

And we will find out very soon.

This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com.

Copyright 2009 Stratfor.

Ending the Mexican Civil War

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|

Quote of the Day: "All great truths began as blasphemies." -- George
Bernard Shaw, Annajanska, 1919

Subject: Mexican Civil War could spill over into U.S.

You're not hearing about it yet, but a civil war is raging in Mexico
-- between drug lords and the government. The Mexican government
deployed 36,000 troops to fight this war in 2006, but the problem is
getting worse. Here are the disconcerting results . . .

* There have been more kidnappings in Mexico than Iraq! 1,000 have
been officially reported, but human rights groups estimate the real
number at 3,000.

* Despite high-profile arrests but the bloodshed has doubled from
2007 to 2008, with between 5,300 and 5,700 dead in the past year from
attacks related to the drug trade.

* The city of Ciudad Juárez ended the year with 1,600 of those
deaths

Now this violence is threatening to spill across our border!

* The violence is so bad in Ciudad Juárez that the mayor and other
elected officials have moved to El Paso, Texas, and commute to work
from there.

* In October, Hidalgo County, Texas officials issued fully automatic
weapons to deputies patrolling the river in the Rio Grande Valley.
Sheriff Lupe Trevino has authorized his deputies to return fire
across the border if smugglers or other criminals take aim at them.

* According to the Dallas Morning News, "A U.S. intelligence official
based along the Texas border (has) warned that U.S. officials,
American businessmen and journalists will 'become targets.'"

* Mexican gangs have begun to expand their operations into several
states, including some in the northern tier, such as Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota.

* Outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has ordered
plans for a "surge" of civilian and perhaps even military law
enforcement. Even Chertoff concedes that his plan could cause the
bloodshed to spill over into our country.

Why is this happening, and how can we stop it?

The politicians have their typical answer, which is to do more of
what hasn't worked. They want to spend more of your tax money trying
to keep drugs out of the U.S. We've been doing this for nearly half a
century, and it hasn't worked. Even people inside the government admit
this.

On top of that, a government plan called the Mérida Initiative is
sending $400 million to help the Mexican government fight this war.
The details of this plan are still incomplete, but the total
projected cost over the next 3 - 6 years is $1.4 billion. This is yet
another foreign war, on top of Iraq and Afghanistan, at a time of
severe economic stress.

The U.S. intelligence official quoted above by the Dallas Morning
News provides the key to solving this problem when he says, ". . .
you can't really do that (stop the fighting) until you weaken (the)
drug traffickers . . ."

How do you weaken the drug traffickers? You take away their obscene
black-market profits.

Al Capone and the mafia got rich running alcohol during Prohibition.
When Prohibition ended the violence ended too. Jim Beam distributors
don't do drive-by shootings on outlets that sell Jack Daniels. And
neither Jim Beam nor Jack Daniels are killing politicians, policemen,
journalists, and private citizens.

Black-market drug profits fund criminal enterprises that threaten
your safety, not only at home and in Mexico, but around the world.
Taliban warlords in Afghanistan and Pakistan fund much of their
operations through the illicit drug trade.

The solution to the coming spillover of the Mexican Drug War is
simple: Stop doing the same failed thing over and over again. Do
something different. End drug prohibition in the United States, and
thereby defuse the Mexican Civil War and defund the terrorists in
Afghanistan.

TAKE ACTION using our Educate the Powerful System. Please send your
Representative and Senator a message telling them to defund the
Mexican drug lords by ending the war on drugs.

Use the points made in this message to personalize your letter.

And once you've done that, help us spread the word by "Digging"
(Digg.com) this message, from our blog, at DownsizeDC.org.

The more Diggs this blog receives, the more people will see
DownsizeDC.org for the first time. Last week, we had a Dispatch that
received 167 "Diggs." Can you help us break that record?

Jim Babka

President

DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

P.S. Jim Babka is a guest on Gary Nolan's talk show this evening.
Details are available at the Downsize DC blog.

P.P.S. Not all new office holders have Internet contact pages yet.
We're updating our system as the new contact pages come on line. Your
message will go through to any of your representatives that remain the
same, or for which we've received new information. Don't let this
transition slow you down. Your message will get through to someone.
It will make a difference. Take action!

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
http://www.DownsizeDC.org
&
Downsize DC Foundation
http://www.DownsizeDC.com

CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project at
http://www.downsizedc.org/contribute.shtml

http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a
non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual
liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.

You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business
associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein
as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription
instructions above are included.

Inauguration Day, What Does It Mean for Us? To members of Iraq Veterans Against the War and their supporters - University of Kansas

By William Stewart-Starks of Kansas

As the Inauguration day sets I wanted to get in touch with you all and touch base on some concerns and even optimism I see on the horizon. To be honest to all of you, I participated in a boycott of the actual ceremony yesterday and instead decided that I would actively canvas the University to get them to understand that they hold the keys to our future and not one particular person.

It is easy to get swept away by the message and be optimistic looking forward after such a dismal period of time that we have faced politically in this country. The thing that troubles me most about the last 8 years was not necessarily the reign of Bush alone, but the collective mindset that we as the people of this country, have no say in our government and its policy that it endorses on our behalf. Indeed, Obama is different as he brings a refreshing charisma and popularity to the office, which has brought the U.S. renewed interest and political capital abroad. For all of his charm though, this does not give us just cause to become complacent or to overlook statements and voting records. We must get involved in this process.

We will shape the next generation and the politicians will be the servants to get us to where we want to be. We cannot be content with being pedestrians to the way our lives are planned and regimented. If we want to end the war abroad now we must be the force that holds President Obama's feet to the fire. There is simply no way around it. I am confident in our ability to do so but we must believe in the power that together we wield.

So how do we act? Iraq Veterans Against the War and their Supporters have done great things in the last week. There was a beautiful ad seen by millions on inauguration day:

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=118404280563&h=UrkwJ&u=FWCZd

Today our organization now has taken a stance against the occupation in Afghanistan as it has done with the war in Iraq. This of course has put us in direct opposition to the new Presidents policy in the region. Our commitment to the removal of troops in the region now requires us to constantly remind our Representatives that we do not support these conflicts and want an immediate recall of all forces now. This means that 16 months to a year is too long to wait for action. We must respect the peoples wishes in Iraq as we respect the democratic wishes of those who voted for Obama at home. No remnant of our presence should remain, including private contracted personnel or a billion dollar embassy.

We must hold our leaders accountable by letting them know when they do something wrong and thanking them when they do things right. Your voice and your vote are wonderful tools as well. Organizing is also key. We will be hosting several film screenings in the months to come including an event at the Lawrence Public Library on Jan. 28th, 7:30PM and an event on the anniversary of "shock and awe" in March. This will mark six long years. KU IVAW will still require your participation and assistance in making all of these endeavors a success. We can have success in the coming year but YOU will need to be a part of it.

William Stewart-Starks
President
Iraq Veterans Against the War and Their Supporters

The Things I'll remember about Bush & will continue to have to put up with Obama

• The Patriot Act

• Warrantless Wiretaps

• Warrantless wire taps

>

>

•  (oh look here's yer change!)

• Hey! didn't he vote for the fisa bill in 2008 after saying he wouldn't, so much for change?

the Real ID

• The problem isn't the technology in it, it's incompetent employment of this, the installation of the RFID technology with all your personal data on it. All with no encryption to deter or stop identity theft is a ludicrous act of denial of the obvious the way around the Real Id is to simply remotely scan these cards at a distance. & for those who say you have to be 18 inches away from the card to read it, let me remind you other people said there was no way an rfid chip could be read at 69 feet either, yet one was successfully read at the Black hat hackers convention in 2006 in Las Vegas, so much for 18 inches

Bail out Or what!

After reading several reports this week on the Bail out I was struck by the wholesale lack of oversight in this mess. The problem in an economic climate like this isn't that doing nothing is wrong but many times when the heat is on like it is now, with the economy in a greed induced lurch like it is now the last thing we need to do is

do things first the ask questions later. Much like we've done with all these bailouts. Sadly we've Paved a yellow brick road to no where all built on the best of intentions & paid for by our grand children's future at the expense of our posterity.

What this report shows is tantamount to no oversight at Treasury and what some would say points to borderline criminal behavior on both sides of the bail outs.

Below is a summary I put together that covers the oversight issues brought forth last month. its rather nauseating.

In its first report to Congress on December 10, 2008, the Congressional Oversight Body asked ten questions – in essence asking for an account of the U.S. Department of Treasury’s about the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

the Congressional Oversight Body’s questions, in turn, included a number of subordinate questions, which sought additional details from the Treasury. In total, the Congressional Oversight Body wanted responses to 45 separate questions about the execution of the authority granted to Treasury under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act & the $350 billion in taxpayer funds that has been alloted under the program. On December 30, 2008, Treasury responded to the Congressional Oversight Body with a 13-page letter. While the letter provided responses to some of the Congressional Oversight Body’s questions & shed light on Treasury’s decision-making process, it did not provide complete answers to several of the questions & failed to address a number of the questions at all. To gain a more complete understanding of what Treasury is doing & why, the Congressional Oversight Body is asking the Treasury to provide additional information clarifying its earlier responses.

In order to utilize its legally-mandated supervision role, the Congressional Oversight Body has created a series of fact-finding endeavors & independent investigations that will be the subject of future reports. But the Congressional Oversight Body’s independent work doesn't eliminate the need for Treasury to respond to the Congressional Oversight Body’s questions. Some of these questions can be answered only by Treasury as in Treasury’s strategic plans & other members seek to clarify substantial cracks in Treasury’s over sight on the use of taxpayer money & asking financial establishments to account for what they have done with taxpayer funds.

To alleviate the encumbrance on Treasury & to make it well-defined what questions persist to be unanswered, the Congressional Oversight Body constructed a grid with its original questions & Treasury’s responses.

Though many questions stay conspicuous, the Congressional Oversight Body details 4 fields that need specialized attention:

• Bank Responsibility. the Congressional Oversight Body still doesn't know what the banks are doing with taxpayer cash. Treasury puts substantial emphasis in its December 30 letter on the value of restoring security in the market. So long as investors & customers are uncertain about how taxpayer funds are being used, they question both the health & the sound administration of all financial establishments. The late denial of specific private financial establishments to render any accountancy of this questionable use of taxpayer money undermines  taxpayer trust.

• For Treasury to front funds to organizations with out requiring more clarity undermines the very assurance Treasury seeks to restore. Ultimately, the new loans given by Treasury to the auto industry, with their elaborated conditions touching every feature of the administration of those commercial enterprises, highlights the lack of such terms in the bulk of TARP dealings. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act doesn't require recipients of TARP funds to make reports on the use of funds. Nevertheless, it is inside Treasury’s control to make receipt of such information a stipulation to receive funding, to lay down criterion for TARP recipient conduct, or to have official procedures for reporting by TARP recipient role establishments or guidelines on the use of funds. The espousal of any of these alternatives would foster the building & restoring of taxpayers, investors, & policy makers confidence.

• Transparency & Asset Evaluation. The need for clearness is closely related to the issue of responsibility. The confidence that Treasury looks for, can be restored only when data is completely crystal clear & trustworthy. Presently, Treasury’s plan of action appears to involve allocating the majority of the $700 billion to “healthy banks,” banks that have been assessed by their regulators as viable without federal assistance. Of course, whether a bank is “healthy” depends critically on the valuation of the bank’s assets. If the banks have not yet recognized losses associated with over-valued assets, then their balance sheets – & Treasury’s assessment of their health – may be suspect.

• Many understood the purpose of Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to be providing aid to financial establishments that were “sick” & at risk of collapse. Such establishments were at risk, the public was told, due to so-called toxic assets that were impairing their balance sheets. Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was designed to provide a device to remove or otherwise provide clear value to those assets. The case of Citigroup exemplify this difficulty. Treasury rendered to Citigroup a $25 billion cash infusion as part of the “healthy banks” program whereby Treasury made nine initial investments in major banks. 2 months later, Treasury provided Citigroup with $20 billion in additional equity financing, to avoid systemic failure, but it did not categorize that finance as part of the Systemically Significant Failing Institution program (SSFI program). These cases indicate the marketplace measures the possessions of some banks easily under Treasury’s appraisal. To date no such device to furnish a more crystal clear asset valuation has been formulated, meaning that the danger posed by those toxic assets remains unaddressable. The house of cards that induced the economic situation has its base in toxic home mortgages. Until asset value is fully transparent & the market is positive the banks have written down bad loans & priced their assets accurately, attempts to regenerate order & assurance in the financial system will fail.

• Foreclosures. The crisis in the housing sector proceeds to impact efforts at recuperation. In enacting Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, Congress called upon Treasury to implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners & use the authority of the Secretary to encourage the servicer's of the underlying mortgages, considering net present value to the taxpayer, to take advantage of the HOPE for Homeowners Program under section 257 of the National Housing Act & other available programs to minimize foreclosures. In add-on, the Treasury could use loan guarantees & credit improvements to facilitate loan modifications to prevent foreclosures.

  Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-343, at §109(a).

When Congress commissioned the Congressional Oversight Body, it particularly asked that the Congressional Oversight Body judge “the effectiveness of foreclosure mitigation efforts.” While the statute considers that foreclosure mitigation would be settled through the acquisition of mortgage-related assets, it's believed that Treasury has clear authority to use a portion of the $700 billion to address mortgage foreclosures in other ways. For Treasury to take no steps to use any of this money to alleviate the foreclosure situation, gives tongue to questions of whether Treasury has complied with Congress’s intention that Treasury create a plan to maximize assistance for homeowners. Id., at § 125(b)(1)(A)(iv). Id., at § 109 (a).

• Strategy. the Congressional Oversight Body’s initial vexations about TARP only have become exacerbated by shifting accounts of its goals & tools used by Treasury. It isn't adequate to say the goal is the stabilization of American financial markets & the all-embracing economy. That destination is accepted. The question is how billions of dollars to an insurance multinational or a credit card company boosts both the goal of financial stability & the well-being of taxpayers, including home owners vulnerable to foreclosure. It would be positive for Treasury to clearly identify the types of organizations it feels fall subordinate to the reach of Emergency Economic Stabilization Act & which do not & the proper uses of TARP funds. The need for Treasury to address these rudimentary issues of strategy has only continued to raise more questions than answers.