CIA, Dept of Defense, Homeland Security, State Dept, et al.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVg2jiaBA1jwVfCdsisXI0FbZD0AD965BKCG0

This is about section 899A (3), developing home grown terrorists in our own land (civil defense).

Nearly three years after it was formed, the immense Department of Homeland Security remains hampered by severe management and financial problems that contributed to the flawed response to Hurricane Katrina, according to an independent audit released yesterday.

The report by Homeland Security Inspector General Richard L. Skinner aimed some of its most pointed criticism at one of DHS's major entities, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Katrina and a subsequent storm, Rita, increased the load on FEMA's already overburdened resources and infrastructure, the report said.

In addition, the report found, the circumstances created by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita provide an unprecedented opportunity for fraud, waste and abuse, primarily because FEMA's grant and contract programs are still not being managed properly.

While DHS is taking several steps to manage and control spending under Katrina, the sheer size of the response and recovery efforts will create an unprecedented need for oversight, the report concludes.

The audit is the latest in a series of tough assessments of the beleaguered department, which has been widely criticized since it was formed in March 2003 by combining 22 disparate agencies. In a final report card issued earlier this month, for example, the former members of the Sept. 11 commission gave the DHS low or failing grades in many key areas, including airline passenger screening and border control.

Earlier this week, a group of House Democrats issued a report alleging that the department had failed to follow through on 33 promised improvements to border security, infrastructure protection and other programs.

In an 11-page response to the inspector general's findings, homeland security officials acknowledged problems but disputed some of the criticisms and offered explanations for others. For example, the department said it has created a special procurement office to oversee hurricane contracts and is using consultants to monitor the process.

Department spokesman William R. Russ Knocke said that retooling FEMA is one of our greatest and most urgent priorities.

We continue to make programs more efficient, effective and results-oriented, Knocke said, adding that the department is making substantial progress in implementing several core management initiatives, including improvements in personnel policies and financial accountability.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who took over the department this year, is in the midst of implementing a broad reorganization of the 180,000-employee department and has announced initiatives in border security and other areas.

But the department's bumbling after Katrina prompted widespread criticism -- along with the resignation of FEMA's director -- and many lawmakers have since questioned whether DHS is capable of handling recovery efforts along the Gulf Coast. White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend is reviewing the hurricane response by DHS and other agencies.

Congress has approved more than $63 billion in disaster relief funding, and some estimate that the total federal recovery costs for New Orleans and other storm-ravaged areas could exceed $200 billion. As of last week, officials said, more than $4 billion in Katrina-related contracts had been awarded by the department.

Skinner's audit deals not only with the department's response to Katrina but also with an array of broader management challenges that have troubled DHS. The department brought together immigration and customs agencies, the Secret Service, the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration, among others. Although there has been progress, integrating its many separate components in a single, effective and economical department remains one of DHS' biggest challenges, the audit said.

The report found, among other things, that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has failed to maintain proper financial records; that much of the department's technology infrastructure remains fractured and ineffective; and that DHS faces formidable challenges in securing the nation's borders.

Skinner also reiterated complaints about poor coordination between the border patrol and immigration investigators. Chertoff has rejected Skinner's recommendation that the agencies responsible for these employees be merged.

The audit followed a report Tuesday by 13 Democratic members of the House Homeland Security Committee, who alleged that the administration has failed to fulfill promises for improvements in areas such as border security and intelligence sharing. The report also noted that the department has missed deadlines to create a comprehensive database of critical infrastructure targets that face a high risk of terrorist attack.

The findings of the report are significant because they uncover a number of unnecessary vulnerabilities to our homeland security that the American people deserve to know about, the committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.), said in a statement with the report.

Knocke disputed many of the Democratic criticisms, arguing that they ignore many specific changes that are underway and do not take into account significant progress in homeland security since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Virtually each of these claims fall short of reflecting the substantial work that has been done in securing America since 9/11, Knocke said.

Homeland Security opening private mail
Retired professor confused, angered when letter from abroad is opened

WASHINGTON - In the 50 years that Grant Goodman has known and corresponded with a colleague in the Philippines he never had any reason to suspect that their friendship was anything but spectacularly ordinary.

But now he believes that the relationship has somehow sparked the interest of the Department of Homeland Security and led the agency to place him under surveillance.

Last month Goodman, an 81-year-old retired University of Kansas history professor, received a letter from his friend in the Philippines that had been opened and resealed with a strip of dark green tape bearing the words �by Border Protection� and carrying the official Homeland Security seal.

�I had no idea (Homeland Security) would open personal letters,� Goodman told MSNBC.com in a phone interview. �That�s why I alerted the media. I thought it should be known publicly that this is going on,� he said. Goodman originally showed the letter to his own local newspaper, the Kansas-based Lawrence Journal-World.

�I was shocked and there was a certain degree of disbelief in the beginning,� Goodman said when he noticed the letter had been tampered with, adding that he felt his privacy had been invaded. �I think I must be under some kind of surveillance.�

Goodman is no stranger to mail snooping; as an officer during World War II he was responsible for reading all outgoing mail of the men in his command and censoring any passages that might provide clues as to his unit�s position. �But we didn�t do it as clumsily as they�ve done it, I can tell you that,� Goodman noted, with no small amount of irony in his voice. �Isn�t it funny that this doesn�t appear to be any kind of surreptitious effort here,� he said.

The letter comes from a retired Filipino history professor; Goodman declined to identify her. And although the Philippines is on the U.S. government�s radar screen as a potential spawning ground for Muslim-related terrorism, Goodman said his friend is a devout Catholic and not given to supporting such causes.

A spokesman for the Customs and Border Protection division said he couldn�t speak directly to Goodman�s case but acknowledged that the agency can, will and does open mail coming to U.S. citizens that originates from a foreign country whenever it�s deemed necessary.

�All mail originating outside the United States Customs territory that is to be delivered inside the U.S. Customs territory is subject to Customs examination,� says the CBP Web site. That includes personal correspondence. �All mail means �all mail,�� said John Mohan, a CBP spokesman, emphasizing the point.

�This process isn�t something we�re trying to hide,� Mohan said, noting the wording on the agency�s Web site. �We�ve had this authority since before the Department of Homeland Security was created,� Mohan said.

However, Mohan declined to outline what criteria are used to determine when a piece of personal correspondence should be opened, but said, �obviously it�s a security-related criteria.�

Mohan also declined to say how often or in what volume CBP might be opening mail. �All I can really say is that Customs and Border Protection does undertake [opening mail] when it is determined to be necessary,� he said.

Many people were confined against their will just because someone wanted them "out of the way." These were normal people with no mental illness - that is why it is so difficult - don't blame the liberals. Blame your state.

CONFINING THE MENTALLY ILL

In the legal space between what a society should and should not do, taking action to restrict the liberty of people who are mentally ill sits in the grayest of gray areas.

Our notions about civil and constitutional rights flow from an assumption of "normalcy." Step beyond the boundaries and arrest and prison may legally follow. Short of that, government's ability to hold people against their will is severely and properly limited. Unusual behavior on the part of someone who is mentally ill is not illegal behavior. Freedom can't be snatched away on a whim, or on the thought that a person is hard to look at, hard to hear, hard to smell.

It was only a few decades ago that the promise of new medications and a change in attitude opened the doors of the mental hospitals and sent many patients into society. There, they would somehow "normalize" and join everyone else, supported by networks of out-patient facilities, job training, special living arrangements and regular, appropriate medication. But the transition has been imperfect, long and difficult.

In some parts of urban America there is little professional support for those with mental health problems. A new generation of drug and alcohol-fueled mental illness has come on the scene. People frequently end up on the street, un-medicated and exhibiting a full range of behaviors that are discomforting at the very least and threatening at their worst.

Lawmakers are demanding to know why the president's proposed 2010 defense budget cuts missile defense by $1.2 billion and does not provide any funds for the European missile defense shield as Iran and North Korea defy the international community with missile testing.....

At Fort Greeley in Alaska, the missile defense silos can defend the U.S. from both North Korea and Iran, but the Obama budget would cuts the number of interceptor missiles based there from 44 to 30. And that has both Republicans and Democrats asking, why now?

"The numbers don't add up to me," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., "I think it's just a question of somewhere somebody has decided to cut missile defense substantially, and you're doing the best you can under a difficult circumstance."

Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska said: "With North Korea, it seems since we've made this announcement, as I've said, 40 percent of their testing has occurred, plus an underground nuclear test. I mean, I don't know. That seems risky to me."......

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/16/lawmakers-question-obamas-missile-defense-cuts/

Written last Thanksgiving: "Some would argue that two different nations actually celebrated: upright, moral, traditional red America and the dissolute, liberal blue states clustered on the periphery of the heartland. The truth, however, is much more complicated and interesting than that.

Take two iconic states: Texas and Massachusetts. In some ways, they were the two states competing in the last election. In the world's imagination, you couldn't have two starker opposites. One is the homeplace of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes, and social permissiveness. The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional, and gun-toting. Massachusetts voted for Kerry over Bush 62 to 37 percent; Texas voted for Bush over Kerry 61 to 38 percent.

So ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in actual fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas - which until recently made private gay sex a criminal offence - has a divorce rate of 4.1. A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. And the states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Every single one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate, in fact, is roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.

Some of this discrepancy can be accounted for by the fact that couples tend to marry younger in the Bible Belt - and many clearly don't have the maturity to know what they're getting into. There's some correlation too between rates of college education and stable marriages, with the Bible Belt lagging a highly educated state like Massachusetts. But the irony still holds. Those parts of America that most fiercely uphold what they believe are traditional values are not those parts where traditional values are healthiest. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. A more insightful explanation is that these socially troubled communities cling onto absolutes in the abstract because they cannot live up to them in practice.

But doesn't being born again help bring down divorce rates? Jesus, after all, was mum on the subject of homosexuality, but was very clear about divorce, declaring it a sin unless adultery was involved. A recent study, however, found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are "born again" and those who are not. 29 percent of Baptists have been divorced, compared to 21 percent of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23 percent of married born-agains have been divorced twice or more. Teen births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state like Texas, where the religious right is extremely strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, the teen births as a percentage of all births is 16.1 percent. In liberal, secular, gay-friendly Massachusetts, it's 7.4, almost half. Marriage itself is less popular in Texas than in Massachusetts. In Texas, the percent of people unmarried is 32.4 percent; in Massachusetts, it's 26.8 percent. So even with a higher marriage rate, Massachusetts manages a divorce rate almost half of its "conservative" rival.

Or take abortion. America is one of the few Western countries where the legality of abortion is still ferociously disputed. It's a country where the religious right is arguably the strongest single voting bloc, and in which abortion is a constant feature of cultural politics. Compare it to a country like Holland, perhaps the epitome of socially liberal, relativist liberalism. So which country has the highest rate of abortion? It's not even close. America has an abortion rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?

Even a cursory look at the leading members of the forces of social conservatism in America reveals the same pattern. The top conservative talk-radio host, Rush Limbaugh, has had three divorces and an addiction to pain-killers. The most popular conservative television personality, Bill O'Reilly, just settled a sex harassment suit that indicated a highly active adulterous sex life. Bill Bennett, the guru of the social right, was for many years a gambling addict. Karl Rove's chief outreach manager to conservative Catholics for the last four years, Deal Hudson, also turned out to be a man with a history of sexual harassment. Bob Barr, the conservative Georgian congressman who wrote the "Defense of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far. The states which register the highest ratings for the hot new television show, "Desperate Housewives," are all Bush-states.

The complicated truth is that America truly is a divided and conflicted country. But it's a grotesque exaggeration to say that the split is geographical, or correlated with blue and red states. Many of America's biggest "sinners" are those most intent on upholding virtue. In fact, it may be partly because they know sin so close-up that they want to prevent its occurrence among others. And some of those states which have the most liberal legal climate - the Northeast and parts of the upper MidWest - are also, in practice, among the most socially conservative. To ascribe all this to "hypocrisy" seems to me too crude an explanation. America is simply a far more complicated and diverse place than crude red and blue divisions can explain.

they are adding police and only in the big cities do they have paid firemen. The rest are volunteers.

I look at it this way: If a state can't stay in the black, then they have to cut spending some place that wouldn't jeopardize the safety of the citizens. Threats of cutting essential services like Barney Fife stated today are unjustified. Cut the non-essential services first.

Our governor talks about cutting back on services, laying off government workers, which I think is a good idea because government is too big anyway, but then he turns around and spends more money on non-essential items. Doesn't make sense.

Are you saying that a United States Senator, now internationally known because of his historic run for United States President, who is constantly surrounded by Secret Service people, is unable to pass a SECURITY check?

Yes, I applied in April of 2008. Was denied. Filed Request for Reconsideration. Was denied. Am now awaiting a hearing, which might take another year. Since my initial application, I've developed a few more diseases, and I'm hoping to talk with my lawyer today to see if we can send a "Dire Need Letter," since the situation is now dire.

As far as quarters, I have plenty of them and was even told when I applied how much I could expect to receive each month.

I never, EVER thought I would be in a position like this. If anything, I've softened my attitude about "those people" who are forced to take advantage of government assistance. You just never know when it might happen to you.

No drug laws? I thought libertarians only objected to posession of marijuana as a crime. I didn't know you actually objected to all drug laws. So then, you believe all drugs should be legalized?

You don't believe in a standing military. I am not sure I remember that right. It's hard to remember that very long list without it in front of me. So is your plan then that we should all live in a drug-haze, leave all other countries to their own devices and we won't need a military because we won't be bothering anyone and who will care anyway because, of course, we will all be stoned? I can't say that I see any cogent thought behind this list. It's a morally relative list of Doctor Feel Good. I thought libertarians had more sense. What a bummer dude.

McCain Lobbyist Scandal Continues: Government Warned Senator That Campaign Manager Was Undermining National Interests

The lobbying firm of McCain campaign manager Rick Davis acted in direct opposition to American foreign interests, which prompted a warning to McCain's Senate office from the United States government, according to a recent New York Times article.

Much has been reported about Rick Davis, top McCain adviser and lobbyist whose company, Davis Manafort, made its fortune in part by accepting jobs that didn't require employees to register as lobbyists. Davis has been in particular hot water for his company's work with pro-Russian Ukranian political candidates; Davis arranged for one of Putin's allies to meet with McCain during the time.

However, the New York Times has managed to take that already embarrassing story and make it even worse:

Mr. McCain may have first become aware of Davis Manafort's activities in Ukraine as far back as 2005. At that time, a staff member at the National Security Council called Mr. McCain's Senate office to complain that Mr. Davis's lobbying firm was undercutting American foreign policy in Ukraine, said a person with direct knowledge of the phone call who spoke on condition of anonymity.

A campaign spokesman, when asked whether such a call had occurred, referred a reporter to Mr. McCain's office. The spokesman there, Robert Fischer, did not respond to repeated inquiries.

Such a call might mean that Mr. McCain has been long aware of Mr. Davis's foreign clients. Mr. Davis took a leave from his firm at the end of 2006.

This isn't the only time when Davis' business interests have appeared counter to those of the United States: Davis' Ukranian contacts shared several business ties with Iran.

McCain suffered from a perception problem last month when the extent of his lobbying connection caused his campaign to fire several key staffers, as well as institute a new conflict-of-interest policy. The McCain camp has said that Davis is unaffected by the policy, as its implementation is not retroactive. Davis is no longer registered as a lobbyist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/12/mccain-lobbyist-scandal-c_n_106832.html