Saturday, March 29, 2014

OBOF TYMHM & MORE PART 14-13


WELCOME TO OPINIONS  BASED  ON FACTS (OBOF)

&

THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)

YEAR ONE

YEAR TWO

YEAR THREE

YEAR FOUR

 

OBOF YEAR FOUR INDEX
 
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-01
Jan. 02, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-02
Jan. 09, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-03
Jan. 15, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-04
Jan. 24, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-05
JAN 30, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-06
Feb. 06, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-06 EXTRA
Feb. 09, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-07
Feb. 13, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-08
Feb. 21, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-09
Feb. 27, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-10
Mar. 08, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-11
Mar. 13, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-11    EXTRA
Mar. 15, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-12
Mar.  21, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-13
Mar.  29, 2014

 

Agenda

 

1.  From Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont)

 

WHERE WE ARE TODAY

&

WHAT WE HAVE TO DO

 

From Senator Bernie Sanders

(I­­­-VERMONT)

 

Note from Floyd:

 

From time to time, we need to take a good look at where we are and were we are going, as well as what we need to do to save the Democracy we currently enjoy, but risk loosing.  I, personally, think a great deal of Bernie Sanders.  His record is one that shows he truly fights for the middle class, working poor, and poor.  The following, well states what we must keep in mind, particularly this year of mid-term elections.  Read and give it some thought.

 

Floyd,

Thank you so much for the support that, over the years,  you have given me.  As Vermont's senator and the longest serving Independent in American congressional history I am helping to lead the fight in Congress to protect the middle class and working families of our country against the greed and recklessness of Big Money interests.  In that struggle you have been with me step by step, battle after battle - and I appreciate all that you have done.

In the midst of the most severe economic and political crisis in the modern history of our country, I am once again writing to ask for your political and financial support.

The unprecedented struggle that we're engaged in now against the Billionaire Class is not just about preserving Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, or whether we create the millions of jobs our economy desperately needs.  It's not merely about whether we raise the minimum wage, make college affordable, protect women's rights or take the bold initiatives we need to reverse climate change and save our planet.  It's not just about creating a health care system which guarantees health care to all as a right, or addressing the abysmally high rate of childhood poverty.

THE STRUGGLE THAT WE'RE ENGAGED IN RIGHT NOW IS MUCH MORE THAN ALL THAT.  IT IS WHETHER WE CAN PREVENT THIS COUNTRY FROM MOVING TO AN OLIGARCHIC FORM OF SOCIETY IN WHICH VIRTUALLY ALL ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL POWER RESTS WITH A HANDFUL OF BILLIONAIRES.

I know that some of you think I am exaggerating when I say that.  I'm not.

In my view, there are now three major political forces in this country.  The Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the Koch brothers led Billionaire Party.  As a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court ruling which regards corporations as people and allows the super-rich to spend as much as they want on elections, the Billionaire Party (aligned with the Republicans) is now the major political force in the country.

Please support our efforts today to counter the unlimited resources of the Koch brothers and their right-wing allies.

The Koch brothers, worth $80 billion dollars, are the second wealthiest family in America.  Working with other billionaires like Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs are prepared to spend an UNLIMITED sum of money to create an America shaped by their right-wing views.  And I mean UNLIMITED.  Last year, according to Forbes Magazine, the Koch brothers’ fortune INCREASED by $12 billion dollars, while the fortune of Sheldon Adelson INCREASED by $11 billion.  In one year!  In other words, a handful of self-serving right-wing multi-billionaires have the capability of spending more money on the political process than everyone else combined (the Obama campaign spent one billion in 2012) and they will still be far better off financially than the preceding year.

It is also important to understand the nature of their spending.  While they are obviously putting huge sums of money into elections (much of it hidden from public scrutiny), political consultants and lobbyists, their influence goes far beyond political campaigns or congressional policy.  Incredibly, and not widely known, is the reality that they have created or supported organizations active in almost every area of public life -- the law, education, health care, economics, academia, the environment and climate change, state legislative initiatives, media and veterans’ needs.  In other words, they are spending billions not only to win elections and legislative victories today, but to aggressively shape public consciousness to bring about the extreme right-wing society they wish to see.  It is also likely that, in years to come, they will move to influence public opinion through direct media ownership.  Last year, for example, the Koch brothers gave serious thought to buying the Chicago Tribune Media Company.

What is it that the Koch Brothers and these other billionaires want?  What are their goals?

Short term, they want to repeal or eviscerate every major piece of legislation passed in the last 80 years which protects the interests of working families, the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor.  This means, among other programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, the right of workers to organize, worker safety, unemployment benefits, nutrition programs and the United States Postal Service.  Incredibly, they not only oppose raising the minimum wage, they want to abolish the CONCEPT of the minimum wage so that employers can hire workers for $3 an hour.  They also want to dismantle virtually all agencies of government which work to protect the environment and clean air, clean water and safe food.  Needless to say, they also believe in a regressive tax system in which the wealthy and large corporations pay even less than they pay today.

Long term, their economic goal is to create a right-wing extremist "free" economy in which working people have virtually no rights or protections.
  It is not only ideology that motivates them.  They want to make sure that more and more of our nation's wealth will come to rest in the hands of the richest 1/10th of 1% of Americans.  They want to make certain that they keep their billions and increase those billions, so that the rich not only stay rich but become even richer.  They want a radical redistribution of wealth away from the middle class, the elderly, children and working families -- and into the financial holdings of the Billionaire Class.

We must not let that happen!  Please contribute today to ensure we have the resources to counter the Billionaire Class and their radical agenda.

Politically, they want an electoral system in which the super-rich buy elections while, at the same time, fewer low-income and working people are able to vote.  For the Billionaire Class, "democracy" is simply an extension of their economic power.  Today, they own much of the economy.  Now, they want to own the government.  Clearly, part of their insidious agenda is to make it harder for low-income and working families to vote and participate in the political process through the establishment of restrictive voting regulations.

That is their agenda and, if the truth be told, they are making huge gains.  Ideas that used to be thought “crazy” are now echoed daily by senators, members of Congress and governors all across the country.

Given the current reality, how do we fight back effectively?  How do we create the kind of politics that we need so that government is responsive to all the people, and not just the top 1%?

How do we combat the enormous level of political discouragement and alienation that tens of millions of Americans now feel?  How do we get the millions of low-income and working people who no longer vote to stand up for their interests?

How do we disseminate information and ideas which deal with the real issues facing the collapsing middle class, rather than depend upon the insipid corporate media which looks at politics as another version of a reality game show like American Idol?

Fighting back effectively -- educating and organizing -- is not easy, but the economic, political and environmental crises we face are so huge that, from a moral perspective, we cannot turn our backs on them.  This struggle is not just for us.  It is for our kids and grandchildren.  It is for the survival of the planet.

Clearly, if we are going to be successful, we need a vision that speaks to the needs and the hopes of the vast majority of the American people.  We need to change the political dynamics of the nation and develop mechanisms for grass-roots citizen involvement.  We can no longer allow the billionaires and their think tanks or the corporate media to set the agenda.  We need to educate, organize, and mobilize the working families of our country to stand up for their rights.  Here are some of the issues that have to be discussed:

WEALTH AND INCOME INEQUALITY: A nation will not survive morally or economically when so few have so much, while so many have so little.  As millions of Americans struggle to survive economically, the wealthiest people are doing phenomenally well and corporate profits are at an all-time high.  Meanwhile, we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, and more people living in poverty than ever before.

Today, the United States has more income and wealth inequality than any other major country on earth.  It is simply not acceptable that the top 1% owns 38% of the financial wealth of the nation, while the bottom 60% owns all of 2.3%.  It is not acceptable that one family, the Waltons, own more wealth than the bottom 40% of all Americans.  Economic growth means little when, in recent years, 95% of all new income goes to the top 1%.  We need to establish a progressive tax system which asks the wealthy to start paying their fair share of taxes, and which ends the outrageous loopholes that enable one out of four corporations to pay nothing in federal income taxes.

JOBS: Real unemployment today (counting those who are under-employed or who have given up looking for work) is not 6.8%, it is almost 13%.  Youth unemployment is 20%, and most of the new jobs being created are part-time and low-wage.  We need to make significant investments in our crumbling infrastructure, in energy efficiency and sustainable energy, in early childhood education and in affordable housing.  When we do that, we not only improve the quality of life in our country, we also create millions of decent-paying new jobs.  We also need a trade policy which creates jobs in this country, not China.

WAGES: Median family income has fallen by $5,000 since 1999. We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. We should pass legislation, which will soon be voted on in Congress, to increase the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour, but that is not enough: we must raise that minimum wage even higher in the coming years.  We also need to expand our efforts at worker-ownership. Employees will not be sending their jobs to China or Vietnam when they own the places in which they work.

EDUCATION:  From childcare and pre-school education, to elementary school, high school and college, we need major reform.  There was a time, not so many years ago, when the United States was the best educated nation on earth, not today.  Now, we lag far behind many other countries in areas ranging from quality child care to the percentage of our people graduating college.  Every person in this country is entitled to high quality education, regardless of income.  In a highly competitive global economy, it is insane that we are wasting the intellectual capabilities of millions of our people.

CLIMATE CHANGE:  The debate is over.  The scientific community has been very clear: Global warming is real, it is caused by human activity, it is already causing massive problems and, if we don't significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the planet we leave to our kids and grandchildren will be less and less habitable.  The United States must lead the world in undertaking a massive effort to transform our energy system by moving away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.  When we do that, we not only begin the process of reversing climate change, but we create millions of new jobs.

RETIREMENT SECURITY: At a time when only one in five workers in the private sector have a defined benefit pension plan; half of Americans have less than $10,000 in savings; and two-thirds of seniors rely on Social Security for more than half of their income, we must protect and expand Social Security so that every American can retire with dignity.  An immediate first step is lifting the cap on taxable income, now at $117,000 that goes into the Social Security Trust Fund.  If we take that modest step, we can assure the viability of Social Security for many decades to come – and increase the benefits paid by the most successful social program in American history.

WALL STREET: During the financial crisis, huge Wall Street banks received more than $700 billion in financial aid from the Treasury Department and more than $16 trillion from the Federal Reserve because they were "too big to fail."  Yet today, the largest banks in this country are much bigger than they were before taxpayers bailed them out.  The top six banks today have over $9 trillion in assets, equivalent to 58% of the GDP of the United States.  Further, they write half of the mortgages and two-thirds of the credit cards.  From both a "too big to fail perspective" as well as the problems associated with Wall Street's dangerous economic power, it's time to break up these behemoths.  The financial industry must serve and invest in our economy. It cannot simply be an island unto itself, generating huge profits through speculation and fraudulent financial transactions.

And it's imperative that our judicial system vigorously pursue the crooks on Wall Street who have engaged in illegal activity.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: We are not living in a real democracy when large corporations and a handful of billionaire families can spend unlimited sums of money to elect or defeat candidates.  We must pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision.  Further, we must move this country to public funding of elections.  Candidates should be elected based on their ideas, not their personal wealth or their ability to raise huge sums of money.


CIVIL LIBERTIES: Frankly, the National Security Agency (NSA) and other intelligence agencies are out of control.  We cannot talk about America as a "free country" when the government is collecting information on virtually every phone call we make, when it is intercepting our emails and monitoring the websites we visit.  Clearly, we need to protect this nation from terrorism, but we must do it in a way that does not undermine our constitutional rights.

WAR AND PEACE:  With a large deficit and enormous unmet needs, it is absurd that the United States continues to spend almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. The U.S. must be a leader in the world in nuclear disarmament and efforts toward peace, not in the sale of weapons of destruction.

SOCIAL JUSTICE: While we have made progress in recent years in combating discrimination and expanding the rights of minorities, women and gays, these advances are under constant attack from the right-wing.  If the United States is to become the non-discriminatory society we want it to be, we must fight to protect the rights of all Americans.  We must also pass strong and fair immigration legislation.

Brothers and sisters: We are at a pivotal moment in American history and success is by no means guaranteed.  The challenge is simple.  Can we rally the American people around a progressive agenda which represents the needs of the vast majority of our people?  Or, will the Billionaire Class, with their unlimited resources, succeed in imposing their extreme right-wing ideology on the nation?

Please help me elect progressive candidates at the local, state and national level.


Please work with me so that, together, we can build a strong grass-roots movement.


Please contribute to Friends of Bernie Sanders.


Sincerely,
Bernie Sanders
Senator Bernie Sanders  His signature was there, but would not transfer.

~~~

If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you next week.

God Bless You All

&

God Bless the United States of America

Floyd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunday, March 23, 2014

OBOF TYMHM & MORE PART 14-12


WELCOME TO OPINIONS  BASED  ON FACTS (OBOF)

&

THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)

YEAR ONE

YEAR TWO

YEAR THREE

YEAR FOUR

 

OBOF YEAR FOUR INDEX
 
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-01
Jan. 02, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-02
Jan. 09, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-03
Jan. 15, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-04
Jan. 24, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-05
JAN 30, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-06
Feb. 06, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-06 EXTRA
Feb. 09, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-07
Feb. 13, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-08
Feb. 21, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-09
Feb. 27, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-10
Mar. 08, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-11
Mar. 13, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-11    EXTRA
Mar. 15, 2014
OBOF TYMHM PART 14-12
Mar.  21, 2014



Agenda

1. Thoughts from Floyd.

2.  Government spying on government.

 

 

 

 

 

THOUGHTS  FROM  FLOYD

 

The Post Office, is it being forced down the same road as Social Security?

 

In 2006, the United States Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA).  This bill required that the USPS prefund its future health care benefit payments to retirees for the next 75 years in an astonishing ten-year time span.

 

In my opinion, this is an approach to privatizing the postal service and has been in the works for many years.  The opportunity to get started towards privatizing came in 2006 under the Geo. W. Bush administration.  Anyone and every one knows there is no government or private operation that can turn enough money to make a profit when, at the same time, you have to adhere to the terms of the 2006 Act.

 

It is said that the Postal Service looses money and that something has to be done to stop this loss.  The government has now set up an impossible set of circumstances that preclude any possible operation in the black.  In my opinion there is, and has been, a conspiracy by the Conservative Faction in our Country to force the Postal Service into bankruptcy so that the service can be privatized, making Wall Street richer than ever to say nothing of conservative politicians.

 

There are a couple of interesting points that contribute to accomplishing this goal, that are explained by Ralph Nader.  He points out that in 2006, the United States Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA). This bill required that the USPS prefund its future health care benefit payments to retirees for the next 75 years in an astonishing ten-year time span.

Under the PAEA, USPS is required to make $103.7 billion in payments by 2016 to a fund that will pay for future health benefits of retirees of the next 75 years.  This health benefit prefunding mandate covers not only current employees that will retire in the future, but employees yet to be hired who will eventually retire.  On top of this, none of the money that the USPS contributes to this fund can be used to pay for current retiree health benefits.  So the USPS must make payments for current retirees' health benefits in addition to its required health benefit prepayments for future retirees.  This is something that no other government or private corporation is required to do and is an incredibly unreasonable burden.

In my opinion, this plan will build a nest egg for the government to take over when they force USPS into extinction.  In fact, I would bet that the money isn't even there.  This sounds the same as what has happened with the Social Security Trust Fund, which isn't there anymore. 

Furthermore, a July 2009 report2 from the U.S. Postal Service's Office of Inspector General reveals not only that the prepayments for future retiree health care benefits required by PAEA bear no relationship to the USPS's future liabilities but also that they aren't actuarially calculated.  The Office of Inspector General's report even questions the basic assumptions the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) uses to calculate the USPS's retiree health care obligations and suggests that they are likely unreasonable.  

OPM assumes health care cost inflation significantly higher than industry accepted standards.  OPM assumes health care cost inflation of 7 percent, while the standard used across government and private corporations is around 5 percent.  All of this means that the unreasonable requirements under PAEA are even more perverse in that they may result in an overpayment of nearly $13.2 billion by 2016 -- funding the future retiree health care obligations by 115 percent.

The deep hole of debt that is currently facing the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is entirely due to the burdensome prepayments for future retiree health care benefits imposed by Congress in the PAEA.  By June 2011, the USPS saw a total net deficit of $19.5 billion, $12.7 billion of which was borrowed money from Treasury (leaving just $2.3 billion left until the USPS hits its statutory borrowing limit of $15 billion).3  This $19.5 billion deficit almost exactly matches the $20.95 billion the USPS made in prepayments to the fund for future retiree health care benefits by June 2011.

If the prepayments required under PAEA were never enacted into law, the USPS would not have a net deficiency of nearly $20 billion, but instead be in the black by at least $1.5 billion.  Should the Postmaster General's predictions4 of a nearly $10 billion loss by the end of the year prove accurate, the USPS would have a net deficit of almost $24 billion.  However, it would also have been required to make a total of nearly $26.5 billion in prepayments in accordance with PAEA by that point.  Eliminating these prepayments, in this scenario, would allow the USPS to be in the black by $2.5 billion -- instead of seeing a net deficit of $24 billion.

A January 2010 report5 reveals that from 1972 to 2009, the U.S. Postal Service overpaid the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) by about $75 billion and proposes that this be paid back to the Postal Service immediately.  On top of this, an August 2010 report6 projected that the USPS had overpaid the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) by about $6.8 billion by the end of FY 2009.  Combined, these overpayments amount to about $82 billion.

It has been suggested in these reports that these overpayments to the federal pension systems be refunded and credited toward the U.S. Postal Service's retiree health benefit prepayment requirements under PAEA.  Having funded about $38 billion of their $103.7 billion obligation under PAEA, an $82 billion refund would allow the USPS to fully fund these retiree health benefit prepayments and end future payments.  It would even allow them to pay down a significant portion of their debt: leaving about $16.3 billion left over to pay any remaining obligations.

In my opinion, all the money that USPS has paid, as listed above, is gone, just like the Social Security Trust Fund money.  They are trying everything they can to get rid of SS and make it a privatized program and that is exactly what they are trying to do with the Postal Service.  

~~~

Report on CIA Black Sites and Torture May Provoke a Constitutional Crisis

 

Joshua Holland

Bill Moyers / Op-Ed/Interview

Published: Wednesday 12 March 2014

 

On Tuesday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) accused the Central Intelligence Agency of violating federal law and undermining Congress’ constitutional oversight powers.  She alleges that CIA officials monitored secure computers used by Capitol Hill staffers to prepare a report that reveals the agency’s Bush era legacy of black 00 detention sites and enhanced interrogation programs – methods many have denounced as torture.

This is the latest development in a long-standing feud between the intelligence agency and Congress.  Wrangling over the report, which runs over six thousand pages and cost the government $42 million to prepare, has led to what some are calling a “constitutional crisis.”

Three national security reporters in McClatchy Newspapers’ DC office — Jonathan Landay, Ali Watkins and Marisa Taylor — first reported the alleged snooping last week.  BillMoyers.com caught up with Landay to get some background. Below is a transcript that has been lightly edited for clarity.

Joshua Holland: What are the allegations here, and who is making them?

Jonathan Landay: We’ve talked to people who have told us that staffers of the Senate Intelligence Committee determined that the computers they were using in a special CIA facility to review reports that were going into their study of the CIA’s now-defunct detention and interrogation program — that those computers were being monitored by the agency, in violation of an agreement that they had with the agency.

Holland: This story starts with this report about the so-called enhanced interrogation program, the detention program.  What do your sources indicate is in the report that the CIA wants to keep under wraps?

Landay: That is the question at the heart of the matter, and that’s something that we have not been able to ascertain.  That report is still very much locked up by the Senate Intelligence Committee, nearly 15 months after they approved a final draft. They are in a major battle with the CIA over the report and in particular their demands for additional documents.

The Senate Intelligence Committee staff, we are told, determined that their computers were being monitored when they were confronted by the CIA over the fact that they had printed out and removed, allegedly without authorization, secret documents — documents stamped “top secret” — from an electronic reading room that they had been provided by the CIA in which to do their work and in which to review classified documents.

We don’t know exactly what’s in the report.  Only people who have been able to read the report know what’s in it.  And that’s because not even the executive summary has been released at this point.  But members of the committee have said in public, in hearings and elsewhere, that there are very disturbing findings in this report, that the report shows that the information that was gained through waterboarding and these other so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, which a lot of experts consider to be torture, had very little value at all.

The committee chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein, has said publicly — and this would be in response to the film Zero Dark Thirty — that these interrogation methods did not produce the intelligence that led the CIA to identify Osama Bin Laden’s last hiding place in Pakistan, and they objected to the film because, in their view, the film left viewers with the impression that, in fact, it was through the use of methods like waterboarding that the United States was able to glean the information that led them to Osama Bin Laden’s last hideout.

 

Holland: How did the CIA come to have the final word on releasing a report that’s critical of the agency? Doesn’t Congress have explicit authority to oversee our intelligence agencies?

Landay: I’m not sure that they have the final word. After the Intelligence Committee voted, very narrowly, to approve the final draft of the report, they also gave the CIA three months in which to respond to their findings, as well as to recommend redactions of information that perhaps, in their judgment, would compromise some aspect of national security.  We don’t know how much of the report we’re going to get to see. There’s a 300-page executive summary, but the report itself is massive. It’s 6,300 pages.  There are thousands of footnotes.  And so the committee was waiting for the CIA’s official response. They were supposed to give that to the committee within 60 days. They finally got it after six months.

But they’ve also been requesting additional documents, which they’ve not gotten.  And that’s where it appears the fight was hung up — when it became clear to the CIA that the committee was asking for documents that they shouldn’t have had.  Then the CIA went back and checked logs of the computers in this special facility — which is where the allegation that they were monitoring these computers came from — and determined that the staff had removed documents from this facility that they shouldn’t have had.

Holland: It seems like the agency essentially gave away the fact that they were monitoring the staffers when they confronted them over the removal of these documents, right?  How else would they know?

Landay: “Monitoring” has a number of connotations. Even my computer here in our newsroom keeps logs of my use of my computer to make sure that I’m not doing inappropriate things with it.  That seems to be the nature of the monitoring that the CIA was doing. And it doesn’t appear to have been real-time monitoring — there wasn’t a CIA officer who was sitting in another room watching what keystrokes the committee staffers were making.

It’s a requirement in the federal government, particularly on classified systems, to have monitoring in the form of logging computers so that they can audit the use of those computers. And the question is whether or not the CIA did this without the express permission of the congressional staff, whether the congressional staff had told the CIA, “you can’t do that,” or whether they had agreed to allow this auditing log to be compiled on the computers they were using.

Holland: Do we have any sense of what these documents the staffers removed contained — what was so important about these documents?

Landay: The documents are parts of what’s been referred to as the Panetta Review.  When the agency agreed to start providing millions of pages of classified emails and reports and other materials related to the interrogation and detention program, they had a team of agency officials and contractors review documents before they sent them to the committee for its use, and this team of reviewers would read the documents and summarize what these documents were and then send the documents, through a firewall, for use by the committee staff in their database.  What the committee staff appears to have gotten ahold of are the summaries of these documents, which may include analytical notes that were written by the reviewer.

We do know that, at least in public, several members of the committee, in particular, Senator Mark Udall from Colorado, have said that this so-called Panetta Review shows that the official response of the agency to the committee’s report was misleading.  They said there were flaws in the committee report. But his contention — and the contention of other committee members — is that the Panetta Review broadly substantiates the findings of the committee report.

Holland: What is the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and how might it apply to this whole situation?

Landay: There’s an annual threat assessment hearing that is held by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee on both sides of the Congress.  During this year’s threat assessment hearing, Senator Wyden of Oregon asked the CIA director, John Brennan, whether or not this particular act applied to the CIA, and the reply came back to Wyden that, in fact, it did.  And this law basically bars accessing of protected computers by people who don’t have the authority to access those computers or exceed their authority in accessing those computers.

Holland: You and your colleagues wrote, “The extraordinary battle has created an unprecedented breakdown in relations between the spy agency and its congressional overseers and raises significant implications for the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches.”  Can you put this in a larger context?

Landay: The question is whether the professional staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, as the legal overseers of the CIA, had the legal and constitutional power to take these classified documents and walk them out of a highly guarded CIA facility to their own very high security offices up on Capitol Hill or that they exceeded their oversight powers in doing so.  And this has been a constant theme, a constant tug of war in the history of our republic between the executive and the Congress over the powers of the Congress to oversee the executive and the ability of the Congress to obtain documents from the executive. We’ve seen this many, many times before.  For example, we’ve seen it in the case of the demands by the Senate Judiciary Committee — and other committees — for Justice Department memos or legal opinions authorizing the use of drones or other means to kill Americans involved in terrorism.

That’s what lies at the heart of this dispute, the ability or the power of congressional overseers to oversee what is supposed to be a very clandestine, secretive agency involved in espionage.

~~~

If the god Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll try to talk with you again next Wednesday of Thursday

God Bless You All

&

God Bless the United States of America

Floyd