On Thursday's Morning Edition, NPR's touted the Obama administration's “more aggressive legal approach” towards pro-life demonstrators with the stepped-up prosecution of alleged violations of the controversial FACE Act. Correspondent Carrie Johnson highlighted the prosecution of an elderly pro-lifer, and let an abortion lobbyist denigrate pro-lifers as possible terrorists. Host Steve Inskeep introduced Johnson's report with slanted language about how “the fight over abortion rights continues in courtrooms and state houses all over this country. But a smaller-scale version of that conflict is on display almost every day between protesters and escorts at abortion clinics. And some of those tensions are on the rise, as the Obama administration takes a more aggressive legal approach against people who block access to clinics.” The correspondent then introduced Dick Retta, a pro-lifer who is a regular presence outside a Planned Parenthood office in Washington, DC, just blocks from the White House. Johnson noted that Retta had “a civil lawsuit…filed against him in July [by the Justice Department]. Authorities claim Retta violated a law called the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE. The law is supposed to protect women and their doctors, by letting the government set up buffer zones against people who block patients from entering clinics. The clinic in D.C. says Retta blocked a patient this year, following her for 35 feet and standing in front of the door.” I should disclose that I personally know Mr. Retta. I met him several years ago as part of the regular 40 Days for Life campaign, and I sometimes see him at my church. While the NPR correspondent noted that he carries ” rosary beads and a packet of brochures filled with information about pregnancy and fetuses ” and that he ” has seven children and 11 grandkids ,” they didn't reveal that he is 79-years-old. The Obama DOJ has seen fit to pursue a senior citizen for supposedly being “among the most vocal and aggressive anti-abortion protestors [sic] outside of the Clinic,” as the civil complaint alleges . One might recall that the same Justice Department dismissed a case against he New Black Panther Party for their violent antics outside a Philadelphia voting precinct in 2008. As the National Review's Hans A. von Spakovsky put it recently, “Somehow the behavior and speech of a 79-year-old sidewalk counselor violates federal law against intimidation, but the speech and behavior of the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia in 2008 was just fine, according to the skewed perspective of the liberals who inhabit the Civil Rights Division these days.” After playing sound bites from a Planned Parenthood director and the leader of a pro-life group, Johnson cited how ” the National Abortion Federation, which tracks violent incidents , says major violence is down since the murder, two years ago, of abortion doctor George Tiller….But Sharon Levin of the Abortion Federation says there are still some signs of trouble- two incidents this summer involving Molotov cocktails, and the arrest in Wisconsin of a man who told police he wanted to shoot abortion doctors. Levin attributes the relatively low level of violence to the Justice Department's more aggressive enforcement .” She then played a clip from Levin, who smeared all pro-lifers as potential violent offenders: SHARON LEVIN, NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION: One of the dangers we have seen is that the people who commit the major violent acts often started with minor violent acts, and they were never arrested. And so, their activities escalated. What the NPR correspondent didn't mention is that the National Abortion Federation not only apparently “tracks violent incidents,” but also serves as the ” professional association of abortion providers in North America ,” as their own website states , and their members perform half of all the abortions on the continent. Though they helped the NAF hype apparent violence against abortion clinics, the media outlet completely ignored covering on-ar the 2009 murder of Jim Pouillon, who was targeted for holding a pro-life sign outside a school . It should be pointed out that the National Abortion Federation made their feelings about the NPR report quite clear on their Facebook page : ” Listen to a great segment on NPR's Morning Edition featuring NAF Vice President and General Counsel Sharon Levin about the U.S. Justice Department's enforcement of the FACE Act against abortion clinic protesters .” This isn't the first time this year that Johnson has carried the water for liberal interests. Back in March 2011 , she highlighted critiques of the Obama White House from the left on their promise to be “the most transparent administration in history,” but downplayed questions over the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Unit's use of non-disclosure agreements with companies under investigation. The transcript of Carrie Johnson's report from Thursday's Morning Edition: STEVE INSKEEP: The fight over abortion rights continues in courtrooms and state houses all over this country. But a smaller-scale version of that conflict is on display almost every day between protesters and escorts at abortion clinics. And some of those tensions are on the rise, as the Obama administration takes a more aggressive legal approach against people who block access to clinics. NPR's Carrie Johnson has the story. CARRIE JOHNSON: A few blocks from the White House, outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Washington, D.C., Dick Retta has reported for duty in a blue windbreaker, khaki pants belted high, and brown shoes with thick soles. He's carrying rosary beads and a packet of brochures filled with information about pregnancy and fetuses. DICK RETTA: Please don't let them take your child's life. You don't have to. We can and will help you, please. Don't let them take your child's life. Let us help you. (audio of door shutting) JOHNSON: That was the clinic's front door, shutting right in Retta's face. But he says he's not deterred by that, or by a civil lawsuit the Justice Department filed against him in July. Authorities claim Retta violated a law called the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE. The law is supposed to protect women and their doctors, by letting the government set up buffer zones against people who block patients from entering clinics. The clinic in D.C. says Retta blocked a patient this year, following her for 35 feet and standing in front of the door. Retta disagrees. RETTA: We don't block women from coming in. That's not our policy. I teach it. I teach what I'm doing. I teach that, and I say one thing: never block the women from going in- never. JOHNSON: Retta, who has seven children and 11 grandkids, says he's moved by his Catholic faith to do what he calls sidewalk counseling. The Justice Department civil lawsuit against him is one of eight authorities have filed since the start of the Obama administration, a big increase over the George W. Bush years, when only one case was filed. Ellen Gertzog is director of security for Planned Parenthood. ELLEN GERTZOG, PLANNED PARENTHOOD: There's been a substantial difference between this administration and the one immediately prior. From where we sit, there's currently much greater willingness to carefully assess incidents as they occur, and to proceed with legal action when appropriate. TROY NEWMAN, OPERATION RESCUE: This is a ridiculous overstepping of the federal government's bounds and- with the intent of restricting our freedom, our liberties, and our speech. JOHNSON: That's Troy Newman. He leads Operation Rescue, a group that protests at abortion clinics across the country. He describes the Justice Department's approach to the FACE Act this way. NEWMAN: It's really a political tool to shut them up, shut them down, and make them go away. JOHNSON: The National Abortion Federation, which tracks violent incidents, says major violence is down since the murder, two years ago, of abortion doctor George Tiller. The man who killed Tiller has been convicted. A federal grand jury is investigating his alleged accomplices. But Sharon Levin of the Abortion Federation says there are still some signs of trouble- two incidents this summer involving Molotov cocktails, and the arrest in Wisconsin of a man who told police he wanted to shoot abortion doctors. Levin attributes the relatively low level of violence to the Justice Department's more aggressive enforcement. SHARON LEVIN, NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION: One of the dangers we have seen is that the people who commit the major violent acts often started with minor violent acts, and they were never arrested. And so, their activities escalated. JOHNSON: Back at the Planned Parenthood in Washington D.C., what's escalating is the tension between Dick Retta and volunteer escorts who help women enter the clinic. RETTA: I get pushed. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 1: Well, you're putting yourself- RETTA: And you're not allowed- UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 1: You're putting yourself next to the patients. RETTA: She pushed me. You know that? (unidentified woman 1 laughs) UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 2: You're not supposed to be pushing either. JOHNSON: Troy Newman of Operation Rescue says he relies on a simple rule, to tell if he's crossing a line. NEWMAN: My rights and your rights end at where our nose begins, okay?
Continue reading …
Sir Jack Harvie, the Scottish Tories’ most influential fundraiser, has condemned Murdo Fraser’s plans to form a new party The Scottish Conservative party is facing civil war after its most influential fundraiser condemned proposals to dissolve the Tories and form a new party . Sir Jack Harvie , a Scottish businessman who has raised millions for the Tories, said he would not work with the new centre-right party proposed by Murdo Fraser, the Scottish Tories’ deputy leader. Fraser, favourite to be the next leader, was accused by Harvie of planning to set up a “separatist” and “breakaway” party not sanctioned by members. The row developed as party sources spoke of a power struggle among its most senior backers for control of funding streams. Harvie said he would continue funding the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party (Scup) if its members rejected Fraser’s new party. He also hinted that he believed Fraser’s proposals were not backed by David Cameron or senior UK officials – a view disputed by Fraser’s allies. Harvie said Fraser and his backers, including the former presiding officer of the Scottish parliament, Alex Fergusson, its education spokeswoman Liz Smith and MEP Struan Stevenson, would have to leave the party if he lost the election. “Having scandalised Scup by word and deed they would surely have no place within Scup in the future,” he said. “And, for that matter, given his intention to form a breakaway party, why would Mr Fraser choose to stand for the leadership of a party he does not support or recognise?” Fraser, the favourite to succeed Annabel Goldie as Scottish Tory leader, believes dissolving Scup and replacing it with a new, wholly independent party is the only way for centre-right politics in Scotland to recover from decades of decline. From winning 22 Scottish seats under Margaret Thatcher in 1979, it was totally wiped out in 1997 and has since had only one Scottish MP at Westminster. It lost two seats at the last Scottish elections, its numbers cut to 15 out of 129 seats. “There is no future for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party in its current form,” Fraser said. “It is, without exaggeration, adapt or die. It’s time to try something different, a bold new direction … [We] will build a new movement to bring back the thousands of people who have left us over the years.” Harvie’s warning carries significant weight. He is a vital part of the Focus on Scotland donors group which raises £1m a year for the party through dinners for wealthy supporters. His threats were echoed by one of Fraser’s rivals for the leadership, Ruth Davidson. But Fraser said a vision for a “new unionism” with a distinctively Scottish outlook and identity was the party’s only hope of successfully opposing first minister Alex Salmond’s proposals for independence. A poll published on Friday by TNS-BMRB (pdf) put support for independence marginally ahead for the first time recently, at 39% to 38% against. In a further move away from the current Tory position on devolution, Fraser indicated he wanted greater decentralisation of powers from London, with the Scottish parliament given new financial powers short of the full financial autonomy Salmond wants. Fraser rejected talk of a second centre-right party, and said he would scrap the existing party and relaunch it only if members agreed. It would be wholly independent of the UK party being led by Cameron but would take the Conservative party whip at Westminster, except on policies it did not support, such as retaining the EU’s common fisheries policy. “There’s no room for two centre-right parties in Scotland,” he said. “We will stay together. We will jump together or not jump at all.” Several sources dismissed the significance of Harvie’s threat to withhold funding. They said many senior donors to Focus on Scotland were interested in backing Fraser and named two wealthy businessmen who have pledged to fund a new Scottish party. One, Robert Gibbons, a retired corporate lawyer who was founding chairman for the bottled water firm Highland Spring, told the Guardian he had pledges from potential donors worth £500,000. A second, Robert Kilgour, who runs an investment firm, said he would transfer his “five figure” donations from the UK party in London to Fraser’s new Scottish organisation. Fraser can so far count prominent Tories such as Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former foreign secretary and Scottish secretary, as supporters, while Michael Gove, the UK education secretary and a Scot, appears to be in favour. His opponents, however, include Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and Lord Forsyth, a former Scottish secretary who is immensely popular among party activists. Only Forsyth lives in Scotland. The Scottish Tories have suffered a series of extremely poor elections since their peak in 1979 when Thatcher first became prime minister. Its fortunes declined under Thatcher and John Major, her successor. In 1997 it lost every Westminster seat, and has managed to win just one in each general election since despite the “bounce” in support for the Tories in England under Cameron. At the last Scottish elections, in May, the Tories won just 15 out of 129 seats, leading to Goldie’s resignation as leader. Scottish politics Conservatives Scotland Severin Carrell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
enlarge Credit: Getty/Margaret Bourke-White Yep. At least a thousand words. The full story of that iconic image is here .
Continue reading …‘Lifelong Catholic’ Michael Moore Bashes Pro-Lifers as ‘Really, Really Weird…Uterus Police’
September 5, 2011 No Comment
When the Washington Post promoted snippets from Michael Moore's forthcoming book on Sunday, they portrayed Moore as a “lifelong Catholic” — which is a bit of a strange label when a paragraph later, the Post was bashing the “uterus police” who oppose abortion as “really, really weird.” But then, the “Catholic” blurb the Post picked let Moore imagine himself as a playwright composing an “avant-garde” version of Jesus dying on the cross, where he lectured like a liberal about how nobody else had compassion for the poor, the sick, and the downtrodden: On Jesus : A lifelong Catholic, Moore penned a play — “a little avant-garde number about Jesus’s crucifixion” — while struggling through his first and only term as the lone hippie on his home town’s school board. “ ‘This is where you people want me?’ Jesus shouted to the audience,” Moore writes. “ ‘Just nailed to a cross? So you don’t have to listen to me anymore about caring for the poor or the sick or the downtrodden?’ ” The school board held a special election to recall Moore, but he prevailed. On abortion: In 1971, while still in high school, Moore cared for a friend who was almost killed by a botched illegal abortion. “Human life begins when the fetus can survive outside the womb,” he writes in a footnote. “Some people, I guess, just like to be the uterus police, the bossypants of other women’s reproductive parts. And that has always struck me as really, really weird.” Apparently, neither writer Justin Moyer nor anyone else at the Post can imagine that Jesus might be heartbroken at a woman killing her unborn child, that he might have lamented that kind of savagery from the Cross. Somehow, the unborn child is never the “downtrodden.” But they can imagine a “lifelong Catholic” who thinks his Pope and bishops and priests are all serious weirdos.
Continue reading …
The justice secretary, writing in the Guardian , says there is an urgent need to stop reoffending among a ‘feral underclass’ The justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, has blamed the riots that swept across England last month on a “broken penal system” that has failed to rehabilitate a group of hardcore offenders he describes as the “criminal classes”. Revealing for the first time that almost 75% of those aged over 18 charged with offences committed during the riots had prior convictions, Clarke said the civil unrest had laid bare an urgent need for penal reform to stop reoffending among “a feral underclass, cut off from the mainstream in everything but its materialism”. Writing in the Guardian, Clarke dismisses criticism of the severity of sentences handed down to rioters and said judges had been “getting it about right”. However, he adds that punishment alone was “not enough”. “It’s not yet been widely recognised, but the hardcore of the rioters were in fact known criminals. Close to three quarters of those aged 18 or over charged with riot offences already had a prior conviction. That is the legacy of a broken penal system – one whose record in preventing reoffending has been straightforwardly dreadful.” He says: “In my view, the riots can be seen in part as an outburst of outrageous behaviour by the criminal classes – individuals and families familiar with the justice system, who haven’t been changed by their past punishments.” Clarke uses his intervention to call for the coalition government to adopt a “renewed mission” in response to the riots that addressed an “appalling social deficit”. His comments will reignite the debate on the causes of the disturbances, which the prime minister, David Cameron, has said “were not about poverty”. The first attempt at an empirical study of the causes and consequences of the riots was announced by the Guardian and the London School of Economics on Monday. The study – Reading the Riots – will involve researchers interviewing hundreds of people involved in the disturbances. The research, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Open Society Foundations, will also include interviews with residents, police and the judiciary, and an advanced analysis of more than 2.5m riot-related Twitter messages. The project is based on a groundbreaking survey conducted in the aftermath of the Detroit riots in 1967 by the Detroit Free Press newspaper and Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. The professor who led the Detroit study, Phil Meyer, is advising on the research into the disturbances in England. The LSE’s involvement will be led by Professor Tim Newburn, head of the university’s social policy department. There is little agreement in Westminster about the causes of the worst civil unrest in England in a generation. The government has resisted calls for a public inquiry. A “victims’ panel” announced by the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, will take evidence from residents in areas where there was rioting and report preliminary findings in November. The four-person panel will be chaired by Darra Singh, chief executive of JobCentre Plus. A parliamentary hearing into the riots will on Tuesday hear evidence from the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, and the acting commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Tim Godwin. The home secretary, Theresa May, will speak to the home affairs select committee about the unrest on Thursday. “There is an urgent need for some rigorous social research which will look, without prejudice, at the causes and the consequences of the recent riots,” Newburn said. “Crucially, it is vital that we speak with those involved in the disturbances and those affected by them to try to understand any lessons for public policy.” Executives at Twitter’s headquarters in California authorised the collation of 2.5m tweets, pooled from hashtags relating to the riots and their aftermath, so they could form part of the study. A spokesman for the company said: “Twitter provided publicly available information that is accessible to researchers and others.” The project will also interrogate a second database, compiled by the Guardian, containing 1,100 defendants who have appeared in court charged with riot-related offences. The data, covering more than 70% of the defendants processed through English courts for offences linked to the disorder, indicates that sentencing by crown court judges has replicated the punitive response of magistrates in response to the riots. An initial analysis of the crown court cases suggests the three most severe sentences relating to the riots were handed to individuals who did not directly participate in the disorder, but were convicted of inciting riots via Facebook. They include Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan and Jordan Blackshaw, who received four years for inciting riots in their home towns of Warrington and Northwich. None of the messages posted by either individual led to a riot and both men are appealing against their sentences, which were condemned by some quarters. However, Clarke warns against criticism of the judiciary. “The judiciary in this country is independent and we should trust judges and magistrates to base decisions on individual circumstances,” he writes. “Injustices can occur in any system: but that’s precisely why we enjoy the services of the court of appeal.” The tone of the justice secretary’s article – his first public response to the disorder – contrasts with that of the prime minister, who has taken a more hardline approach and denied that the riots were connected to poverty. David Cameron has described the riots as “criminality pure and simple” and blamed the “the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations”. Clarke writes: “The general recipe for a productive member of society is no secret. It has not changed since I was inner-cities minister 25 years ago. It’s about having a job, a strong family, a decent education and beneath it all, an attitude that shares in the values of mainstream society. What is different now is that a growing minority of people in our nation lack all of those things and indeed, have substituted an inflated sense of expectations for a commitment to hard graft.” UK riots Crime Kenneth Clarke UK criminal justice Paul Lewis Matthew Taylor James Ball guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The justice secretary, writing in the Guardian , says there is an urgent need to stop reoffending among a ‘feral underclass’ The justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, has blamed the riots that swept across England last month on a “broken penal system” that has failed to rehabilitate a group of hardcore offenders he describes as the “criminal classes”. Revealing for the first time that almost 75% of those aged over 18 charged with offences committed during the riots had prior convictions, Clarke said the civil unrest had laid bare an urgent need for penal reform to stop reoffending among “a feral underclass, cut off from the mainstream in everything but its materialism”. Writing in the Guardian, Clarke dismisses criticism of the severity of sentences handed down to rioters and said judges had been “getting it about right”. However, he adds that punishment alone was “not enough”. “It’s not yet been widely recognised, but the hardcore of the rioters were in fact known criminals. Close to three quarters of those aged 18 or over charged with riot offences already had a prior conviction. That is the legacy of a broken penal system – one whose record in preventing reoffending has been straightforwardly dreadful.” He says: “In my view, the riots can be seen in part as an outburst of outrageous behaviour by the criminal classes – individuals and families familiar with the justice system, who haven’t been changed by their past punishments.” Clarke uses his intervention to call for the coalition government to adopt a “renewed mission” in response to the riots that addressed an “appalling social deficit”. His comments will reignite the debate on the causes of the disturbances, which the prime minister, David Cameron, has said “were not about poverty”. The first attempt at an empirical study of the causes and consequences of the riots was announced by the Guardian and the London School of Economics on Monday. The study – Reading the Riots – will involve researchers interviewing hundreds of people involved in the disturbances. The research, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Open Society Foundations, will also include interviews with residents, police and the judiciary, and an advanced analysis of more than 2.5m riot-related Twitter messages. The project is based on a groundbreaking survey conducted in the aftermath of the Detroit riots in 1967 by the Detroit Free Press newspaper and Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. The professor who led the Detroit study, Phil Meyer, is advising on the research into the disturbances in England. The LSE’s involvement will be led by Professor Tim Newburn, head of the university’s social policy department. There is little agreement in Westminster about the causes of the worst civil unrest in England in a generation. The government has resisted calls for a public inquiry. A “victims’ panel” announced by the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, will take evidence from residents in areas where there was rioting and report preliminary findings in November. The four-person panel will be chaired by Darra Singh, chief executive of JobCentre Plus. A parliamentary hearing into the riots will on Tuesday hear evidence from the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, and the acting commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Tim Godwin. The home secretary, Theresa May, will speak to the home affairs select committee about the unrest on Thursday. “There is an urgent need for some rigorous social research which will look, without prejudice, at the causes and the consequences of the recent riots,” Newburn said. “Crucially, it is vital that we speak with those involved in the disturbances and those affected by them to try to understand any lessons for public policy.” Executives at Twitter’s headquarters in California authorised the collation of 2.5m tweets, pooled from hashtags relating to the riots and their aftermath, so they could form part of the study. A spokesman for the company said: “Twitter provided publicly available information that is accessible to researchers and others.” The project will also interrogate a second database, compiled by the Guardian, containing 1,100 defendants who have appeared in court charged with riot-related offences. The data, covering more than 70% of the defendants processed through English courts for offences linked to the disorder, indicates that sentencing by crown court judges has replicated the punitive response of magistrates in response to the riots. An initial analysis of the crown court cases suggests the three most severe sentences relating to the riots were handed to individuals who did not directly participate in the disorder, but were convicted of inciting riots via Facebook. They include Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan and Jordan Blackshaw, who received four years for inciting riots in their home towns of Warrington and Northwich. None of the messages posted by either individual led to a riot and both men are appealing against their sentences, which were condemned by some quarters. However, Clarke warns against criticism of the judiciary. “The judiciary in this country is independent and we should trust judges and magistrates to base decisions on individual circumstances,” he writes. “Injustices can occur in any system: but that’s precisely why we enjoy the services of the court of appeal.” The tone of the justice secretary’s article – his first public response to the disorder – contrasts with that of the prime minister, who has taken a more hardline approach and denied that the riots were connected to poverty. David Cameron has described the riots as “criminality pure and simple” and blamed the “the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations”. Clarke writes: “The general recipe for a productive member of society is no secret. It has not changed since I was inner-cities minister 25 years ago. It’s about having a job, a strong family, a decent education and beneath it all, an attitude that shares in the values of mainstream society. What is different now is that a growing minority of people in our nation lack all of those things and indeed, have substituted an inflated sense of expectations for a commitment to hard graft.” UK riots Crime Kenneth Clarke UK criminal justice Paul Lewis Matthew Taylor James Ball guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Toxicologist Riki Ott Says Oil Spills Are Far More Toxic To Humans Than Previously Admitted
September 5, 2011 No CommentSome people just like to complain. Complain, complain, complain! What’s a little discomfort when it comes to helping the oil companies continue their great American success story? This toxicologist is just trying to stir up trouble: Nicholas Forte has spent the last year with an array of health issues. Headaches. Migraines. Nausea. Breathing problems so severe they would land him in the hospital. “We have no idea what it is,” the 22-year-old Battle Creek resident told Michigan Messenger. “Then it escalated to seizures.” And while the seizures landed him in the hospital — at one point stopping his heart and his breathing — doctors are at a loss to understand why. Tests indicate none of the expected patterns for epilepsy. Finding out why the formerly healthy young man had suddenly fallen ill drove him and his family to listen to Riki Ott, an environmental toxicologist who has been tracking the health impacts of oil spills on human beings since her home was impacted by the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska. Ott was in Battle Creek Wednesday night at the invitation of local activists. And when Forte asked Ott about his symptoms, she nodded an affirmative. “We see that in 16-year olds in the Gulf,” she said. And Forte was not the only person she may have given much needed answers to. Nearly 50 people gathered to talk about headaches, nausea, burning eyes, memory loss and rashes. There were young and old, African-Americans and whites, rural residents and city dwellers, all with one thing in common — they live by the Kalamazoo River and were exposed to last year’s Enbridge Energy Partners Lakehead Pipeline 6B. For Ott, it was a litany list of symptoms and voices of frustration she has heard from Alaska to South Korea to the Gulf Coast and now in Calhoun county. A nd Calhoun, she says, represents exposures to both tar sands and lighter oils, each with its own chemical make ups and attendant toxins. “You’ve got the worst of two worlds. You’re getting a fully double whammy,” she says of the Cold Lake Crude Oil. “Peoples’ health problems (from the Enbridge spill) are identical to the Gulf.” Ott says that studies about health impacts conducted by health officials since last summer are based on 40-year old science. “We used to be able to use a thermometer and say, ‘yep, you’ve got a fever,’ but we didn’t have an understanding of how that worked on a cellular level,” she said. “Now, we have the tools and the ability to see how these chemicals impact us on a cellular level.” Ott noted that just this July a peer-reviewed study of oil spill exposure found the same set of symptoms in each location. They are the identical to the ones being seen in Calhoun county. She also noted that the studies have begun to identify toxicity to DNA, as well as reproductive health impacts. She says many of the chemicals of concern to occupational and environmental health officials have been shown to impact fetuses in the first trimester.
Continue reading …Obama criticised for continuing civil rights ‘violations’ introduced by Bush
September 5, 2011 No Comment
Campaigners say US president became weak-kneed over closure of Guantánamo bay and that spying restrictions are gone The Obama administration has disappointed civil rights campaigners who had expected him to reverse most of the post-9/11 restrictions introduced by the Bush administration. On becoming president in January 2009, Obama promised to close Guantánamo Bay within a year. He did order an end to waterboarding but Guantánamo remains open and almost all the rest of the Bush era anti-terrorism apparatus, from the Patriot Act through to increased surveillance is still in place. Measures once considered only for emergency use are being consolidated. “I did not like it when the violations of rights were temporary but now, because of Obama going along with the changes, they are becoming a permanent fixture of our legal landscape,” said Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which has been battling since the civil rights campaigns of the 1960s. Ratner, who was among the first, small group of lawyers to fight on behalf of the Guantánamo detainees, said Obama had the chance to close Guantánamo but became weak-kneed about it. “Indefinite detention, restrictions on habeas corpus, rendition, all these continue under Obama. We still have military commissions under Obama.” He added: “All the restrictions on government surveillance and spying that we fought for and won in the 1970s, are gone. We are back to square one. There are no restrictions on the FBI. None. They are targeting Muslims in particular. One’s religion has become a key criteria for surveillance.” Michelle Richardson, a lawyer specialising in national security at the American Civil Liberties Union, echoed some of Ratner’s points. “We definitely think there has been quite a significant shift and there is much more government snooping. It started with the Patriot Act, which made it easier to spy on people who aren’t suspected of doing anything wrong.” There were fewer than 1,000 people being wiretapped before 9/11 for intelligence purposes and “now we don’t know how many”, she added. Richardson said the public is split between those who think the government is over-reacting and those who think the measures are justified. “The government has done a good job of keeping people in a state of emergency,” she said, adding that it was too soon to say whether the balance will change. The scales might tip if people begin to be denied benefits or jobs because they are on terrorist lists, she said. But Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow in public law at the Brookings Institution, is less convinced that America is any less free today than it was before 9/11. Wittes said: “I am not convinced we are less free. If you talk to someone walking on the street – other than in Washington, where we feel more of the brunt because we are more of a target – I would be surprised if they felt less free.” He suggested three categories of freedom. The first affects large numbers of people; the only post-9/11 example of such is airport security; this, Wittes said, is not a constraint on freedom as it allows people to fly. The second category is people who are non-Americans and has zero affect on Americans walking round the streets. Guantánamo is in this category. The third category is surveillance. “There is no doubt there has been an increase in wiretapping. It is a substantial increase, not dramatic. It is not awesome. Most of it is public. The wild card in this is the National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping and we do not know the volume of this.” What about waterboarding? “I agree that countries that engage in torture are less free than those who do it. If you accept it was torture, the question is still more complicated,” Wittes said. It is still a country that in a moment of crisis involved a small number of dangerous people and then stopped. Is that country less free? I think that is extravagant. I am more sympathetic to the CIA than most people.” The bottom line, for Wittes, is that waterboarding has stopped. Obama administration United States US politics Guantánamo Bay FBI September 11 2001 Human rights Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Obama criticised for continuing civil rights ‘violations’ introduced by Bush
September 5, 2011 No CommentCampaigners say US president became weak-kneed over closure of Guantánamo bay and that spying restrictions are gone The Obama administration has disappointed civil rights campaigners who had expected him to reverse most of the post-9/11 restrictions introduced by the Bush administration. On becoming president in January 2009, Obama promised to close Guantánamo Bay within a year. He did order an end to waterboarding but Guantánamo remains open and almost all the rest of the Bush era anti-terrorism apparatus, from the Patriot Act through to increased surveillance is still in place. Measures once considered only for emergency use are being consolidated. “I did not like it when the violations of rights were temporary but now, because of Obama going along with the changes, they are becoming a permanent fixture of our legal landscape,” said Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which has been battling since the civil rights campaigns of the 1960s. Ratner, who was among the first, small group of lawyers to fight on behalf of the Guantánamo detainees, said Obama had the chance to close Guantánamo but became weak-kneed about it. “Indefinite detention, restrictions on habeas corpus, rendition, all these continue under Obama. We still have military commissions under Obama.” He added: “All the restrictions on government surveillance and spying that we fought for and won in the 1970s, are gone. We are back to square one. There are no restrictions on the FBI. None. They are targeting Muslims in particular. One’s religion has become a key criteria for surveillance.” Michelle Richardson, a lawyer specialising in national security at the American Civil Liberties Union, echoed some of Ratner’s points. “We definitely think there has been quite a significant shift and there is much more government snooping. It started with the Patriot Act, which made it easier to spy on people who aren’t suspected of doing anything wrong.” There were fewer than 1,000 people being wiretapped before 9/11 for intelligence purposes and “now we don’t know how many”, she added. Richardson said the public is split between those who think the government is over-reacting and those who think the measures are justified. “The government has done a good job of keeping people in a state of emergency,” she said, adding that it was too soon to say whether the balance will change. The scales might tip if people begin to be denied benefits or jobs because they are on terrorist lists, she said. But Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow in public law at the Brookings Institution, is less convinced that America is any less free today than it was before 9/11. Wittes said: “I am not convinced we are less free. If you talk to someone walking on the street – other than in Washington, where we feel more of the brunt because we are more of a target – I would be surprised if they felt less free.” He suggested three categories of freedom. The first affects large numbers of people; the only post-9/11 example of such is airport security; this, Wittes said, is not a constraint on freedom as it allows people to fly. The second category is people who are non-Americans and has zero affect on Americans walking round the streets. Guantánamo is in this category. The third category is surveillance. “There is no doubt there has been an increase in wiretapping. It is a substantial increase, not dramatic. It is not awesome. Most of it is public. The wild card in this is the National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping and we do not know the volume of this.” What about waterboarding? “I agree that countries that engage in torture are less free than those who do it. If you accept it was torture, the question is still more complicated,” Wittes said. It is still a country that in a moment of crisis involved a small number of dangerous people and then stopped. Is that country less free? I think that is extravagant. I am more sympathetic to the CIA than most people.” The bottom line, for Wittes, is that waterboarding has stopped. Obama administration United States US politics Guantánamo Bay FBI September 11 2001 Human rights Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …