A flight with members of Texas’ U.S. Congressional delegation aboard, including former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, “took a major nosedive” and was forced to make an emergency landing on Tuesday afternoon, according to a Houston TV station.

KHOU reports that a Continental Airlines flight carrying seven U.S. lawmakers suddenly lost cabin pressure on its way from Houston to Washington, D.C.’s Reagan National Airport.

The flight recovered, was diverted and landed safely in New Orleans, according to one lawmaker’s spokesperson.

Aboard the flight among 117 other people with Rep. Paul were Reps. John Carter (R), Henry Cuellar (D), Nick Lampson (D), Solomon Ortiz (D), Ted Poe (R), and Ciro Rodriguez (D), all representing Texas in the U.S. House.

The airline confirmed that no one was hurt, the report said.

This video is from CNN’s Situation Room, broadcast July 22, 2008.

Download video

ShareThis

The private military contractor Blackwater Worldwide has frequently been embroiled in controversy for its activities in Iraq and elsewhere. Last fall, the Iraqi government attempted to revoke Blackwater’s license to work in that country after contractors opened fire at a Baghdad intersection, killing eight civilians.

In an interview with the Associated Press on Monday, Blackwater’s president, Gary Jackson, announced that the firm has already reduced its security contracting and expects to get out of that business almost entirely.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has also raised questions about the use of private contractors to provide training for US forces, asking, “are we comfortable with this practice, and do we fully understand the implications in terms of quality, responsiveness and sustainability?”

However Blackwater founder and CEO Eric Prince doesn’t believe the US government can do without him. In a drive around Blackwater’s training center in Moyock, NC, Prince acknowledged that “we take a lot of grief for the work we’ve done,” but he also boasted to the Associated Press about his firm’s operations, including “the guys that fly into rough, unimproved strips to do tactical airlift support.”

“You know, we did 11,000 missions last year in Afghanistan,” Prince said. “Our total invoice … was less than the air force is spending on one C-27 aircraft. … It’s a benefit to the US government to go to the outside to do that mission.”

Prince does recognize that his firm’s focus will have to change. “The security business is what it is,” he opined. “I don’t see that growing a lot. I mean, Iraq is getting progressively better. … The experience we’ve had would certainly be a disincentive to any other companies that want to step in and put their entire business at risk.”

However, Prince foresees that “whoever takes over in January, whatever party, the US government is still going to need a lot of this kind of work done. Companies like us are going to be necessary to do the work.” He also noted that “at our core, we’ve always been trainers, and that will continue.”

This video is from The Associated Press, broadcast July 21, 2008.

ShareThis

“There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current 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.”

Should those who ordered war crimes be held to account? With the conclusion of the Bush regime approaching, many people are dubious, even those horrified by Administration actions. They fear a long, divisive ordeal that could tear the country apart. They note that such division could make it far harder for the country to address the many other crises it is facing. They see the upcoming elections as a better way to set the country on a new path.

Many Democrats in particular are proposing to let bygones be bygones and move on to confront the problems of the future, rather than dwelling on the past. The Democratic leadership sees rising gas prices, foreclosures, and health care costs, as well as widespread dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, as playing in their favor. Why risk it all by playing the war crimes blame game? Perhaps some Democratic leaders are also concerned that their own role in enabling or even encouraging war crimes might be exposed.

Meanwhile, the evidence confirming not only a deliberate policy of torture, but of conspiring in an illegal war of aggression and conducting a criminal occupation, continues to pile ever higher. Bush’s own press secretary Scott McClelland has revealed in his book, What Happened, how deliberately the public was misled to foment the attack on Iraq. Philippe Sands’ new book, Torture Team, has shown how the top legal and political leadership fought for a policy of torture–circumventing and misleading top military officials to do so. Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side, reveals that a secret report by the Red Cross–given to the CIA and shared with President Bush and Condoleezza Rice–found that US interrogation methods are “categorically” torture and that the “abuse constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the US government in jeopardy of being prosecuted.”

Despite the reluctance to open what many see as a can of worms, there are fresh moves on many fronts to hold top US officials accountable for war crimes.

Courts: US courts have issued a barrage of decisions against the Administration’s claim that they can do anything and still be within the law. The Supreme Court ruled June 12 that the Administration cannot deny habeas corpus rights to Guantánamo detainees. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals on June 30 overturned the Pentagon’s enemy combatant designation of a Chinese Muslim held in Guantánamo for the last six years. A Maine jury in April acquitted the Bangor Six of criminal trespass charges stemming from protesters’ claim that the “Constitution was being violated by the Bush Administration’s involvement in Iraq.”

Congressional investigation: Rep. John Conyers has recently brought top policy-makers, including former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff David Addington, and this week former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and former Attorney General John Ashcroft before a House Judiciary subcommittee and grilled them on their role crafting the Administration’s torture policy.

Senate hearings in June revealed that treatment of Guantánamo captives was modeled on techniques allegedly used by Communist China to force false confessions from US soldiers.

Impeachment: Despite Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s instruction to keep impeachment “off the table,” Rep. Dennis Kucinich for the first time brought an impeachment resolution to the House floor that incorporated a devastating, thirty-five article indictment spelling out Bush Administration war crimes and crimes against the Constitution. Now Rep. Conyers has announced that the Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the charges July 25. Even after the Bush Administration leaves office, the judges it appointed who appear complicit in war crimes–notably torture policy architect Judge Jay S. Bybee–could still be impeached.

Truth commission: In response to General Taguba’s accusations, New York Times Op-Ed columnist Nicholas D. Kristof has just called for the establishment of a truth commission–like that of post-Apartheid South Africa–with subpoena power to investigate the abuses in the aftermath of 9/11 and “lead a process of soul searching and national cleansing.”

International: In May, Vanity Fair magazine published an article by British human rights attorney Philippe Sands, in which he described the reasons Administration lawyers face a real risk of criminal investigations if they stray beyond US borders. The British parliament is about to launch an investigation of Washington’s lying to the British government about its use of its facilities for “extraordinary rendition.” Constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley recently said, “I think it might in fact be time for the United States to be held internationally to a tribunal. I never thought in my lifetime I would say that.” Colin Powell’s former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson publicly advised Feith, Addington, And Albert Gonzales “never to travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel.”

Prosecution: According to a recent Mellman Group survey commissioned by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans of all political stripes overwhelmingly support the appointment of an independent prosecutor to investigate both the destruction of the CIA’s interrogation tapes and the possible use of torture by the agency. Every segment of the electorate–including majorities of Democrats (82 percent), independents (62 percent), and Republicans (51 percent) — want to hold this administration accountable for its role in the destruction of the torture tapes.

Vincent Bugliosi, the former Los Angeles County Prosecutor who has won twenty-one convictions in murder trials, including Charles Manson’s, has just published The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, which argues that there is overwhelming evidence President Bush took the nation to war in Iraq under false pretenses and must be prosecuted for the consequent deaths of over 4,000 US soldiers.

Dean Lawrence Velvel of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover is planning a September conference to map out war crimes prosecutions against President Bush and other administration officials. Velvel says that “plans will be laid and necessary organizational structures set up, to pursue the guilty as long as necessary and, if need be, to the ends of the Earth.” Reps. John Conyers, Jerrold Nadler, and Bill Delahunt have called on Attorney General Michael Mukasey to appoint a special counsel to investigate the rendition of Canadian citizen Maher Arar to Syria.

Citizen action: Voters in Brattleboro and Marlboro, Vermont this spring approved a measure that instructs police to arrest President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for “crimes against our Constitution,” should they venture into those precincts.

All these developments suggest approaches that might be used to hold Bush Administration war criminals accountable. Establishing accountability for US war crimes in the Iraq war era is the sine qua non for initiating a new era on different principles. Here are nine reasons why we must not let bygones be bygones:

1. World peace cannot be achieved without human rights and accountability.

According to Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunals, “The ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law.” Moving in that direction will be impossible unless such responsibility applies to the statesmen of the world’s most powerful countries, and above all the world’s sole superpower. US support for the war crimes charges like those just brought by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir will represent little more than hypocrisy if US Presidents are not held to the same standard.

2. The rule of law is central to our democracy.

Most Americans believe that even the highest officials are bound by law. If we send mentally-disabled juveniles to prison as adults, but let government officials who authorize torture and launch illegal wars go scot-free, we destroy the very basis of the rule of law.

3. We must not allow precedents to be set that promote war crimes.

Executive action unchallenged by Congress changes the way our law is interpreted. According to Robert Borosage, writing for Huffington Post, “If Bush’s extreme assertions of power are not challenged by the Congress, they end up not simply creating new law, they could end up rewriting the Constitution itself.”

4. We must restore the principles of democracy to our government.

The claim that the President, as commander-in-chief, can exercise the unlimited powers of a king or dictator strikes at the very heart of our democracy. As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson put it, we, as citizens, would “submit ourselves to rules only if under rules.” Countries like Chile can attest that the restoration of democracy and the rule of law requires more than voting a new party into office–it requires a rejection of impunity for the criminal acts of government officials.

5. We must forestall an imperialist resurgence.

When they are out of office, the advocates of imperial expansion and global domination have proven brilliant at lying in wait to undermine and destroy their opponents.

They did it to destroy the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. They’ll do it again to an Obama Administration unless their machinations are exposed and discredited first.

6. We must have national consensus on the real reasons for the Bush Administration’s failures.

Republicans are preparing to dominate future decades of American politics by blaming the failure of the Iraq war on those who “sent a signal” that the US would not “stay the course” whatever the cost. Establishing the real reasons for the failure of the US in Iraq–the criminal and anti-democratic character of the war–is the necessary condition for defeating that effort.

7. We must restore America’s damaged reputation abroad.

The world has watched as the United States–the self-proclaimed steward of democracy–has systematically broken the letter and spirit of its Constitution, violated international treaties, and ignored basic moral tenets of humanity. As former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora recently pointed out to the Senate Armed Services Committee, our nation’s “policy of cruelty” has violated our “overarching foreign policy interests and our national security.” To establish international legitimacy, we must demonstrate that we are capable of holding our leaders to account.

8. We must lay the basis for major change in US foreign policy.

Real security in the era of global warming and nuclear proliferation must be based on international cooperation. But genuine cooperation requires that the US entirely repudiate the course of the past eight years. The American people must understand why international cooperation rather than pursuit of global domination is necessary to their own security. And other countries must be convinced that we really mean it.

9. We must deter future US war crimes.

The specter of more war crimes haunts our future. Rumors continue to circulate about an American or American-backed Israeli attack on Iran. A recently introduced House resolution promoted by AIPAC “demands” that the President initiate what is effectively a blockade against Iran–an act seen by some as tantamount to a declaration of war. Nothing could provide a greater deterrent to such future war crimes than establishing accountability for those of the past.

Holding war criminals accountable will require placing the long-term well-being of our country and the world ahead of short-term political advantage. As Rep. Wexler put it, “We owe it to the American people and history to pursue the wrongdoing of this Administration whether or not it helps us politically or in the next election. Our actions will properly define the Bush Administration in the eyes of history and that is the true test.”

ShareThis

ShareThis

In response to mounting media questions about the failure of the Barack Obama presidential campaign to produce the presumptive Democratic nominee’s birth certificate, an official spokesman of the campaign has endorsed as genuine the image of a document purporting to be his “birth certificate.” But some who have examined that image in high resolution claim inconsistencies and irregularities which suggest that the purported document is a forgery. Its high profile use by the campaign, they claim, suggests an attempt to conceal the truth of Obama’s birth circumstances and citizenship qualifications from the American people.

The campaign has posted only a low-resolution image of that document, which it claims is his “birth certificate,” on its “Fight the Smears” website, along with purported proof of why the claim that Obama may not qualify as a “natural born citizen” is false:

—
Lie:
Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen

Truth:
Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside….”
—

Contrary to the campaign’s claims, the issue of when Hawaii became a state and the wording of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, are not at issue.

Rather it is Article Two, Section One of the Constitution which requires that the President be a “natural born citizen” and not simply a naturalized citizen. The issue is whether there is proof that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, the legal status of his mother at the time, and what exactly is written on the original birth certificate — if it in fact such a certificate exists.

Some bloggers have claimed that the purported official State of Hawaii document, originally published by the radical left Daily Kos blog, is a fake, and a poorly executed one at that.

Examination of the higher resolution of the image indicates irregularities which suggest to some that the purported “certificate” may be a forgery produced or modified by Photoshop or another image-editing software, and not a genuine item.

“I can confirm that that is Sen. Obama’s birth certificate.” Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, to the Los Angeles Times.

The evidence, presented in greatest detail by the blogger Polarik at TownHall, includes:

1. Use of a second generation reproduction of the seal of the State of Hawaii at the top
2. Blacking out of the Certificate number in an attempt to prevent it from being traced
3. Absence of any official signature or seal which typically appear on such documents
4. Crudely arranged borders inconsistent with a professionally produced official document
5. Crude overlay of the textual items on top of the patterned background, indicating that the background was produced first and then the textual images laid on top of it by a graphical program rather than being scanned from the original.
6. Failure to use the double-S symbol before the listing the relevant statute (HRS 338-13b) as appears in official uses of the State of Hawaii.
7. The appearance of the backward facing text “Jun 6, 2007″ that appears to come from a stamp in the lower right hand portion of the document.
8. The description of his father’s race as African, when the term Negro was reportedly used at the time of birth.
9. The use of an identical typeface for all text items on the page.

Even if one or two of the above irregularities may have an explanation, they claim, the aggregate points to an amateurish attempt to manufacture an official-looking document that may not exist in the official records of the state of Hawaii.

On its face, this document does not even presume to be a copy of the original birth certificate — contrary to the claims of the Obama campaign — but rather a secondary Certification of Live Birth, which may be used when the original birth certificate can’t be located, and can be produced after the fact with just the affadavits of a family member, or even the child himself.

The Obama campaign, however, has not even produced a paper version of this document, and indeed it does not even publish the high resolution version that appeared on the Daily Kos. It has not fulfilled the media’s persistent requests to produce the original Birth Certificate, or to respond to media questions about the birth certificate controversy.

What could be the Obama campaign’s motive for withholding the original birth certificate and passing off instead a crudely forged facsimile of a “Certification of Live Birth”?

Speculation in the blogosphere and mainstream media is rampant that the concealment is for one or more of the following reasons:

1. There is no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.
2. The father listed on the birth certificate is not Barack Hussein Obama.
3. The father’s race is listed as something other than African, perhaps Muslim or Arab.
4. The mother was no longer at that time an American citizen.
5. The child’s name is not listed as Barack Hussein Obama II.

Jim Geraghty, reporting on the Campaign Spot blog of the National Review and one of the original writers on the controversy, cited the “rumor” that Obama was born not within the United States, but elsewhere, possibly Kenya.

Geraghty stated that “If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen — because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for ‘10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.’”

He then points out that Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, was 18 when Obama was born “so she wouldn’t have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16.”

According to FindLaw.com, cited by Geraghty, the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama’s birth, state, “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.”

Geraghty said the Obama campaign could “debunk” the rumors about his birth simply by releasing a copy of his birth certificate, but the campaign has so far chosen not to do that.

The seriousness of this latest controversy cannot be underestimated. Unlike the scandals related to Obama’s various associations with unsavory characters, or claims about his Muslim upbringing, the issue here relates to his citizenship and legal qualification to run for President of the United States.

One would have thought that the most basic documentary proof of the location and date of his birth should be a basic and non-controversial requirement for any presidential candidate, and part of the public record, much more so than one’s tax return or annual checkup. It is almost incomprehensible that they would withhold this information — unless there is something to hide.

Ironically, a similar controversy surrounded Obama’s likely opponent in the Presidential race, John McCain. McCain was born to two American parents, one of whom was serving in a US military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone.

This Washington Post column on “Citizen McCain’s Panama Problem?” examines the issue:

“McCain was indeed born in the Canal Zone, and Article II of the Constitution plainly states that ‘no person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President.’

“Some might define the term ‘natural-born citizen’ as one who was born on United States soil. But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, ‘The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.’ That would seem to include McCain, whose parents were both citizens and whose father was a Navy officer stationed at the U.S. naval base in Panama at the time of John’s birth in 1936.”

But the issue is not legally closed, and therefore this year, as reported in the legal column of the Wall Street Journal a non-binding resolution was introduced and passed affirming that McCain qualifies as a “natural born Citizen,” as specified in the Constitution and is therefore eligible for the highest office in the land. Ironically, the resolution was co-sponsored by Barack Obama.

About McCain, of course, there is no question about the facts surrounding his birth, but over their legal significance. He is not denying that he was born in Panama, or posting certificates that claim he was born in Florida. Obama’s campaign, on the other hand, seems intent on evading the need to produce and submit to public scrutiny the official document that could prove that his qualification to run for President according to the Constitution.

The cloud of controversy, of course, could be dispelled with ease, of course, if Obama would release the real documentation of his birth, or even the original printed version of the online document the campaign claims as genuine. And yet the campaign is sticking by its guns, despite the evidence from the blogosphere pointing to the forgery and inadequacy of the proffered image of the non-birth certificate. Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, told the LA Times: “I can confirm that that is Sen. Obama’s birth certificate.”

Validation for the authenticity of the image is provided by a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times, who reportedly emailed the image and got a confirmation from an official in the Hawaiian Department of Health. “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo is quoted as telling the reporter.

ShareThis

CHICAGO — As Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Wednesday signed a new law that will put in place tougher penalties for selling guns to minors, he also announced he’s got a new idea to help combat the violence that Chicago is experiencing: he’s talking to the Illinois State Police and the National Guard to see if they could help.

The Chicago Sun-Times depicted Blagojevich as the “new sheriff in town” Thursday morning in its coverage of the governor’s plan to form an “elite tactical team” to help the city fight crime.”Violent crime in the city of Chicago is out of control,” Blagojevich said at the bill signing ceremony. “I’m offering resources of the state to the city to work in a constructive way with Mayor Daley to do everything we can possibly do to help stop this violence,” said the governor.The summer of 2008 will be remembered as especially violent. Blagojevich said there’s been a child shot nearly every day since June 26, with 29 Chicago Public School students shot since last fall.

“Twenty-eight of those kids are African-American and Latino. Hard to imagine that that would be acceptable if that were, in fact, the case in other parts of the city or in a middle-class suburb somewhere,” he said. “Something is wrong, and this violence has to stop.”Bringing in state troopers — even National Guard helicopters to high-crime areas — is still very much in the planning stages.”It might be able to free up some resources that the Chicago police uses for capital needs, to be able, to maybe to, hire more police officers, or possibly ask some to come out of retirement, to put them into these violent zones, hot zones, where, clearly, I think, part of the challenge is that gangbangers outnumber police officers five to one,” Blagojevich said.The governor said Chicago Mayor Richard Daley hasn’t asked for help, but Blagojevich said he’ll call the mayor once he has some concrete suggestions about what help he can provide. He didn’t have many specifics, but he said it’s more likely that state police will be brought in than the National Guard.In fact, Daley’s office said the mayor did not know anything about Blagojevich’s comments and did not know he was going to make them.”The mayor welcomes partnerships, not just on this issue but on a variety of issues,” said spokeswoman Jody Kawada. “Beyond that, it is difficult to comment because we don’t have any facts.”And police department spokeswoman Monique Bond said they learned of the comments after Blagojevich made them as well, and said it was too soon to comment.But Bond took issue with the governor’s contention that crime is “out of control” in Chicago, pointing out that if the current murder rate holds in the city, 2008 may end with fewer than 500 homicides and that it is expected to be one of the least deadly years in the city in the last 40 years.On Wednesday, Superintendent Jody Weis was grilled by members of a city council committee, who complained both about rising crime and statistics that suggested to them that the police department wasn’t doing enough to stop it.They also come as the governor tries to find support for a massive statewide construction program that would be funded by expanded casino gambling. So far, Daley has refused to go along because he objects to the amount Blagojevich wants to charge Chicago to run a downtown casino.Blagojevich raised that issue as he discussed the possibility of state aid with Chicago’s crime problem.”We need help in that legislative process and the mayor could be a big help in this in getting the House Democratic leadership to pass that big capital program or versions of it,” the governor said.Blagojevich’s offer, whether or not it comes to anything, also puts him in the position of trying to help on an issue dominating the news in Chicago.Blagojevich said it is far more likely that state troopers would be used than guardsmen. In fact, his office moved quickly after the governor’s comments to stress in a news release that Blagojevich was not considering bringing in National Guard troops to the city.”The only way the National Guard would be involved, if they are involved, is with the use of tactical helicopters that are currently used in narcotics operations,” spokesman Lucio Guerrero said in a prepared statement.Blagojevich had few details, but suggested that one possibility would be to assign state troopers to areas of the city with lower crime rates, freeing Chicago police officers for areas where there is more crime.”Maybe we can play a role in providing more manpower so that the mayor doesn’t have to make that choice between taking a police from, let’s say the North Side, and putting that police officer on the street on the South Side,” he said.He also suggested that retired Chicago police officers and state troopers could be hired on a temporary basis to help out during the summer months when the violent crime rate typically climbs.

Blagojevich Signs Tougher Gun Bill

The bill signed Wednesday puts the adult who provides a gun to a minor in the same legal hot water as the minor who uses it to commit a crime.The bill signed Wednesday means that adults who sell or give guns to minors are eligible for the same sentence as minors convicted of violent crimes — including murder — in which they used the weapon.Before the law was signed, the maximum sentence an adult could get for providing a gun to a minor — whether it’s used in a crime or not — was seven years.Senator Kwame Raoul sponsored the bill after a spate of shooting deaths of Chicago school children.Supporters of the bill said they hope the possibility of a stiffer sentence will make adults think twice about handing over guns to minors.

ShareThis

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Think you’re feeling pain at the gas pump? Consider the residents of Lime Village, Alaska, an isolated Denaina Athabascan Indian community where gasoline prices have hit $8.55 a gallon.

The price is severely curtailing movement around the interior Alaska village, where four-wheelers are sitting idle, said Ursula Graham, administrator for the Lime Village Traditional Council.

“Nobody’s going on joy rides, that’s for sure,” Graham said.

Alaska, despite its status as a major crude oil producer, has the highest average gasoline prices of all U.S. states, according to the American Automobile Association. Alaska prices averaged $4.65 a gallon for regular gasoline on Friday, compared with a national average of $4.10, according to AAA.

Neal Fried, an economist with the Alaska department of labor, said the ironic situation reflects the hard reality that the state’s small population hinders economies of scale and market competition.

“Even if you take all of Alaska into account, it’s a pretty small marketplace,” he said.

High oil prices have helped the state government, which relies on oil taxes, royalties and fees for at least 80 percent of its general operating revenue. Alaska reaped more than $10 billion in oil revenue in the just-completed fiscal year, double the oil revenue of the previous fiscal year.

Fried noted that North Slope oil development is bustling, which would not be the case if oil were $30 a barrel.

“There are more people working on the Slope than we’ve ever counted before,” he said.

But high fuel prices pinch individual Alaskans, especially in rural areas with no outside road access, where shipments of petroleum products require extraordinary and costly efforts.

DOG SLEDS

Fuel that goes to Lime Village is sent 1,800 miles by barge from Anchorage to the southwestern Alaska hub of Bethel, transferred to another barge for a trip up then Kuskokwim River and then flown by small plane to its final destination. Of a representative sample of Alaska communities, Lime Village had the highest fuel prices, according to a recent University of Alaska Anchorage study.

Gov. Sarah Palin has proposed using some of Alaska’s fat budget surplus to send one-time $1,200 energy-relief checks to all state residents, to suspend the state’s 8 cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and other measures for immediate assistance.

The legislature is considering her request in an ongoing special session.

Meanwhile, in Lime Village, boat trips on the Stony River are fewer and more carefully planned. Villagers combine tasks such as checking fish nets and collecting firewood, Graham said.

One man even moved his fish camp, smokehouse and all, from an outer area to the midst of the village so that he could avoid the boat trip entirely.

Residents like the idea of a $1,200 payment from the state, Graham said. But long-term solutions remain elusive.

“Going back to dog teams is an option,” she said. “It’s kind of a joke, but not a joke.”

(Reporting by Yereth Rosen; Editing by David Gregorio)

ShareThis

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who has figured prominently in recent political news for his attempts to begin impeachment hearings against President George W. Bush, today announced that the congressional subcommittee he chairs will look into reports of peace groups being surveilled by police and private investigators.

“[M]ost people would be upset to know that police were spying on lawful citizens and infiltrating peaceful organizations, rather than chasing down real criminals,” said Kucinich in a press release delivered to RAW STORY. “At a minimum, such police spying is clearly a waste of taxpayer dollars and a diversion from the mission of protecting and serving the people.

“I want the subcommittee to determine how widespread these activities are and who ordered them,” the Ohio Democrat and former presidential candidate said.

Kucinich chairs the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The press release referred to reports that Maryland state police officers infiltrated peace and anti-death penalty groups and that private investigators working on behalf of “several large corporations” had surveilled environmental groups.

Such surveillance is apparently not limited to law enforcement and private investigators. In January 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a report showing “widespread Pentagon surveillance of peace activists.”

ShareThis

Among the seemingly innumerable scandal-worthy stories which have so marked the war in Iraq is one growing tragedy which has been largely ignored: shoddy electrical work by U.S. contractors at military bases leading to numerous electrical fires, troops receiving painful shocks, and even death by electrocution.

In January 2008, Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, a 24-year-old weapons expert, was electrocuted while showering in Baghdad’s green zone. According to a criminal investigation by the Army, an electrical water pump on the building’s roof shorted out from not being properly grounded when installed. On March 19 his parents sued the contractor, KBR Inc., for Sgt. Maseth’s death.

According to the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette:

“The Defense Contract Management Agency, we believe, authorized [the contractor] to the tune of millions of dollars to make the repairs. And they never made the repairs,” Mr. Cavanaugh said. “And we don’t know why. A simple repair — just ground the building — and Ryan would be alive today.”

On July 1, New York Times Investigative Reporter James Risen, author of the 2006 book “State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration,” took up the subject. According to Risen, General David Petraeus stated to Congress that 13 Americans had been electrocuted since the invasion of Iraq: 12 soldiers and one contractor.

As recently as July 11, KBR Inc. electricians told a Senate panel tasked to investigate the deaths that their employer used inexperienced, non-English speaking workers to install electrical systems. Many experienced contractors, they claimed, were dismissed after raising cautions over the work.

According to the Associated Press:

“Time and again we heard, `This is not the states, OSHA doesn’t apply here. If you don’t like it you can go home,’” said Debbie Crawford, a journeyman electrician with 30 years experience.

Army Times reports that the shoddy wiring and electrical risks have brought about the deaths of 11 service members and two U.S. civilians.

However, a follow-up report by James Risen in the New York Times on July 18 states that the problem is far worse than General Petraeus stated, and the military has known about the systemic problems since 2004.

Since the invasion, over 283 electrical fires on US bases have been reported, along with two deaths in 2006 at a base in Tikrit, the death of Sgt. Maseth, and innumerable painful shocks dealt to Americans.

A log of complaints compiled early in 2008 found soldiers living in just one Baghdad building complex were complaining of painful electrical shocks ‘on an almost daily basis.’

In public statements, Pentagon officials have not addressed the scope of the hazards, instead mostly focusing on the circumstances surrounding the death of Sergeant Maseth, who lived near Pittsburgh.

But the internal documents, including dozens of memos, e-mail messages and reports from the Army, the Defense Contract Management Agency and other agencies, show that electrical problems were widely recognized as a major safety threat among Pentagon contracting experts. It is impossible to determine the exact number of the resulting deaths and injuries because no single document tallies them up. (The records were compiled for Congressional and Pentagon investigators and obtained independently by The Times.)

The 2007 safety survey was ordered by the top official in Iraq for the Defense Contract Management Agency, which oversees contractors, after the October 2006 electrical fire that killed two soldiers near Tikrit. Paul Dickinson, a Pentagon safety specialist who wrote the report, confirmed its findings, but did not elaborate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/world/middleeast/18contractors.html

ShareThis

House Republicans gave Treasury chief Henry Paulson an earful Wednesday about the administration’s rescue package for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The two companies will have a chance to make it up to their congressional detractors during a housing industry reception at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota in September.

Fannie and Freddie are sponsoring a reception at the Graves Hotel in Minneapolis on Sept. 2, along with the Independent Community Bankers of America, the National Association of Home Builders and the National Association of Realtors, according to a copy of the invitation.

But while House Republicans can expect to consume their fill of shrimp cocktail and chardonnay at Fannie and Freddie’s expense, don’t expect to see any Republican senators at the shindig. In fact, under the 2007 ethics and lobbying law, senators are prohibited from attending lobbyist sponsored bashes at conventions. The House decided to keep that loophole in place so their members can enjoy the major parties that have been a staple of presidential conventions over the years. This difference between House and Senate ethics has not gone unnoticed by government watchdog groups.

The title of the reception is “Building Stable Communities for America’s Future,” and invitations went to some of the most outspoken opponents of the administration’s plan to temporarily extend credit to Fannie and Freddie and potentially purchase an equity stake in the two private companies.

This could be the most entertaining event of the entire week if the cocktail party is anything like the closed-door session Wednesday between Paulson and his Republican colleagues in the House. It might give loyal conventioneers another chance to watch their Treasury secretary arguing with the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee about who called whom and when over the weekend …

ShareThis