RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | New York Times "Aided the Enemy" Like Manning Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=26125"><span class="small">Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Friday, 21 June 2013 11:48

Simpich writes: "Military law and First Amendment experts widely regard the aiding-the-enemy charge as overreach."

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is escorted into a courthouse in Fort Meade, Md. before a pretrial military hearing, 05/21/13. (photo: Patrick Semansky/AP)
Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is escorted into a courthouse in Fort Meade, Md. before a pretrial military hearing, 05/21/13. (photo: Patrick Semansky/AP)


New York Times "Aided the Enemy" Like Manning

By Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News

21 June 13

 

rsn fr splash promo

 

ere's the "aiding the enemy" statute that Manning is charged with. The military calls it Article 104; it is also known as 10 USC Section 904. The key phrases are highlighted:

Any person who: (1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or (2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

This statute has almost never been used until now.

Dusting off this old statute for today's world is an enormous issue, as addressed by Laurence Tribe himself, probably the most prominent constitutional law professor in the country and too liberal for the Supreme Court in this era. A Harvard professor who taught constitutional law to Barack Obama, Tribe told the Guardian that Manning's most serious charge of "aiding the enemy," could hold a dangerous precedent:

"Charging any individual with the extremely grave offense of 'aiding the enemy' on the basis of nothing beyond the fact that the individual posted leaked information on the web and thereby 'knowingly gave intelligence information' to whoever could gain access to it there, does indeed seem to break dangerous new ground."

So just allowing the charge to go forward is disastrous, and will mean an appeal probably to the Supreme Court if there is a conviction on this count.

Military law and First Amendment experts widely regard the aiding-the-enemy charge as overreach. "If successful, the prosecution will establish a chilling precedent: national security leaks may subject the leakers to a capital prosecution or at least life imprisonment."

This overreach has occurred because people are finally fighting back from the overclassification of the events that make up American history. We know very little about US foreign and domestic policies since World War II because events are massively overclassified. Most of the material released by Manning should never have been classified in the first place. Such overclassification amounts to treating the American people like children.

Eugene Fidell, researcher on military justice from Yale Law School, states:

The phrase "aiding the enemy" has an antique ring to it and is not usually associated with something done with a computer. And whether or not he is guilty is a legal judgment for the court.

But in terms of whether he had the intent - he certainly intended to send the material to Wikileaks. He knew they would make the material available.

Also, he confessed. So that horse has left the barn.

Although the editors could argue that the statute doesn't apply to them since they're not soldiers, the embedded reporters would not be so fortunate. Law professor Geoffrey Stone is more optimistic, saying that he doesn't believe the prosecution can win on this count.

The essential point, as stated in this article, is that The New York Times has violated the "aiding the enemy" statute just like Manning for "knowingly giving intelligence information."

The Freedom of the Press Foundation details how the "aiding the enemy" charge threatens all journalists.

In January 2013, Judge Lind ruled that Manning's defense team can provide evidence of his motivation in releasing the documents, including that Manning selected documents that would not endanger national security. This is why the Seal Team Six witness is scheduled to appear, in "light disguise," to prove that Manning's documents wound up in bin Laden's hands, and he should have known that.

What if bin Laden had a copy of The New York Times? The same logic would apply. Could the Times face indictment?

Before addressing that question, note that Osama bin Laden was also a fan of famed reporter Bob Woodward's books, going as far as to publicly recommend everyone read them. The Obama administration leaked highly classified information to Woodward about the war in Afghanistan and NSA programs. These Obama officials are clearly liable for criminal acts.

Therefore, even though Manning can testify as to his motives on the aiding-the-enemy charge, he can still easily lose on this count and face execution or life in prison. Any journalist could suffer the same fate - the only thing that spares them, to date, is "prosecutorial discretion." That could change in the future, depending on how this case goes. Julian Assange could be the first journalist facing charges. That's what the Wall Street Journal is calling for. Where does it go from there?

Manning's prosecutors have said that Manning would have been charged even if he had turned his material over to The New York Times rather than Assange. Would that have exposed The New York Times to criminal charges?

Unlike Manning, The New York Times does have a judicially-recognized defense to "aiding the enemy" - the First Amendment offers protection to journalists from being charged under this statute. However, there remains a question whether this protection is absolute. Furthermore, as we have seen over the past two weeks, the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald has been accused by a member of Congress of not acting as a "legitimate journalist" in his interactions with the leaker Edward Snowden. Thus, the journalist has "exposure" to being charged as well as the leaker.

You see where this is going. If you're powerful, leaking is freely permitted. If you effectively challenge the powerful, you can be selectively targeted with aiding the enemy.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Your Landlord Works on Wall Street Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=23501"><span class="small">Heidi Moore, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Friday, 21 June 2013 08:46

Moore writes: "The housing numbers seem encouraging, until you look a little closer and see investment firms are doing much of the buying."

 Investment firms are doing most of the home buying right now in the US. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Investment firms are doing most of the home buying right now in the US. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)


Your Landlord Works on Wall Street

By Heidi Moore, Guardian UK

21 June 13

 

The housing numbers seem encouraging, until you look a little closer and see investment firms are doing much of the buying

n finance, people like to dub the services that banks provide "products". For instance, advice on your 401k is a "retirement product". Mortgages are another product. Checking and savings accounts are also products.

But the most popular product that Wall Street sells - and the most profitable - is one you'll never actually find on any brochure. That product is confidence. Right now, confidence is the backbone of the housing recovery.

Confidence is the best product of all because it's self-replicating. It's time-consuming and expensive to find brokers to sell stocks or loan officers to sell mortgages. All you need to sell confidence, however, is evidence of previous confidence. The housing market is a perfect example of this. Today, the National Association of Realtors released its numbers on existing home sales, which are a monthly indication of the health of the housing market.

Like most housing indicators over the past year, the news looks good at first glance. The annualized home sale rate was 5.18m in May, compared to 4.97m in April. The annual rate of sales is at the highest since November 2009. Prices are up; the median price of a home or condo in the US is now $208,000, which is up one-sixth from the same time last year. For six months, housing prices have risen 10% or more.

The fastest home prices rose this much before was in October 2005, at the height of the housing bubble. Taken at face value - and that's a risky proposition - these numbers appear to tell us that enough people have the ability and desire to buy homes that they're driving up the prices.

Similarly, housing starts - ground broken on new homes - were also up this week after struggling for months. In addition, the Case-Shiller Index of home prices signaled that many troubled markets that were devastated by foreclosures, including California and Nevada, are now rebounding. Anyone who was underwater on his house - that is, who owed more on the mortgage than the house was worth - can now dig out and consider selling, as CoreLogic noted recently:

"Regaining equity creates options for those who might now consider selling their homes because they can close a transaction with enough cash to make a down payment on the next home. Higher prices also attract the interest of builders who see opportunity in increased demand. In both cases, a broader supply brings inventory more in balance with demand."

This looks like a win-win. Unfortunately, win-wins don't really exist when it comes to money. When one person wins, another loses. So it is with housing. This recovery, for some, will be a trap.

The housing recovery should be approached with caution because of the underlying factors behind the great numbers. The majority of buyers are not regular people. In fact, first-time homebuyers are a smaller part of the housing market than they have been in years.

"It's a precarious recovery because it's based on rentals, not new home owners," economist Gary Shilling said in an interview this week. Builders are breaking ground on multi-family homes - rentals - at a far faster pace than they are on single-family homes this year. Starts on such rentals are up 40% so far this year. That's confirmation that the most powerful buyers of residential homes right now are banks and private investment firms, flush with millions of dollars and eyes for a good deal, who are looking for homes to sell or rent.

"If you've signed a lease in the past year, there's a good chance your landlord wears a tailored suit and works on Wall Street," The New Republic wisely wrote in February. The Blackstone Group alone - just one of many investors, including Colony Capital, that are snapping up properties - spent $1.5bn on homes last year, according to Bloomberg News.

This keeps the housing game all in the family. Where investment firms like Blackstone are called the "buyside" of Wall Street, banks are the "sellside". That's because they do the selling: of stocks, of bonds, of mortgages, of homes. Banks, who hold the great stock of housing because of housing-bust dump of foreclosures, are limiting the supply of foreclosed homes for sale so that there isn't a glut on the market.

The recovery, however, will inevitably inspire the return of some of the corruptions and abuses of the old boom.

First the abuses: this is the time to keep a close eye on how the sausage of the recovery is made. Things are going to go wrong; people in the housing industry will be tempted towards corruption. About 18% of May home sales were foreclosures or short sales, and were sold cheaply: at about a 15% discount. Foreclosures are a big part of the recovery, and the production of foreclosures is ugly.

When foreclosed homes are desirable to sophisticated, institutional, credit-worthy buyers, it stands to reason that banks will try to scrounge up as many foreclosures as possible. Banks are one-celled capitalist organisms: if there is demand for a product, banks will do everything possible to produce more of that product. That is part of their business purpose: to watch the market, and take advantage of it.

This path to profitability is not always a process, however, that consumers can always accept as a moral one. Lo and behold, a class-action lawsuit filed this week alleges that Bank of America rewarded staff who pushed homeowners into foreclosure faster. The alleged rewards were pathetically modest: gift certificates to Bed Bath & Beyond or Target were considered enough, apparently, to permanently kick people out of their homes. Bank of America disputes the lawsuit, saying it paints a false picture of the bank's foreclosure practices.

It doesn't exactly stretch credulity, however, to recognize that banks provide bonuses to the best producers - whether they produce derivatives, mortgages or foreclosures. If the courts find that there is a bonus-backed push towards foreclosure, it is particularly sinister because there is ample evidence that banks are not acting fully in good faith as they process foreclosures.

They make plenty of mistakes: misjudging delinquencies, overcharging members of the military and seizing homes where mortgages were current, and, for good measure, some banks are literally robbing widows of their homes.

Another potential abuse comes from the sheer volume of houses that are being bought by cash-rich institutional buyers. With hundreds of thousands of houses snapped up by investors, it is dubious that the firms are painstakingly arranging each mortgage and signing their names in ink. It is instead more likely to a thinking person that many firms may, logically, depend on automatic signatures to speed up the process. This practice, when it is abused, is known as "robo-signing," and it was the subject of several lawsuits and settlements with Wall Street banks. There is no signal yet that automatic signatures are currently being abused in the housing recovery, but it is one area to watch for trouble.

Outside of the potential abuses, there are other reasons to be skeptical of the cheerleading around the housing recovery. The numbers are not what they seem. When you hear the hyperventilating around the rising stock prices of homebuilding companies, remember as one economics blogger notes that residential construction is actually at 1998 levels because it's difficult to find financing:

"Something is holding back construction. Anecdotal evidence suggests that local and regional banks who used to fund residential construction are still holding back."

The giddy rise in house prices, too, should be examined skeptically. For one thing, in a sane market, such double-digit rises for so long are not sustainable. Housing prices depend on the economy and the health of the consumer.

The economy is not improving that fast; both unemployment and income is relatively stagnant; and lending is not rising, we should be suspicious that housing - which depends on all of those - is suddenly booming. House prices are rising when the rest of the economy is languishing; that's either a sign of an overheated market or some external manipulation.

In fact, that is exactly what is happening. The biggest product in the housing market right now is not new homes or mortgages or rentals. It is confidence: people are buying because they believe other people are buying. That's a weak foundation for a real recovery.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Joe Manchin vs. the NRA Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=23996"><span class="small">Jillian Rayfield, Salon</span></a>   
Thursday, 20 June 2013 13:14

Rayfield writes: "Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., put out an ad firing back at the NRA, which has been attacking his record on gun rights since Manchin co-sponsored a gun background check measure in the Senate."

Senator Joe Manchin. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
Senator Joe Manchin. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)


Joe Manchin vs. the NRA

By Jillian Rayfield, Salon

20 June 13

 

The Democrat is fighting back against the NRA's charge that he's part of the “Obama-Bloomberg gun control agenda."

en. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., put out an ad firing back at the NRA, which has been attacking his record on gun rights since Manchin co-sponsored a gun background check measure in the Senate.

"West Virginia, you know me," Manchin says in the ad, which debuted on MSNBC. "I haven't changed, and you know I've always fought for our gun rights." He continues: "I believe that we can protect the Second Amendment and make our communities safer. I think most law-abiding gun owners agree with me."

The NRA is spending $100,000 to target Manchin, including releasing an ad that ties him to the "Obama-Bloomberg gun control agenda." In response, Manchin said that "Unfortunately, the NRA leadership in Washington has lost its way and is more concerned about political power than gun rights and gun safety."

Watch:


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | 4 Ways GOP Governors Wage Class War Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7118"><span class="small">Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Thursday, 20 June 2013 10:22

Gibson writes: "When a team's coaches, cheerleaders, and spectators start booing the players on the field, that's when the team has officially lost."

Four Republican governors are up for re-election next year. (photo: unknown)
Four Republican governors are up for re-election next year. (photo: unknown)


4 Ways GOP Governors Wage Class War

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

20 June 13

 

hen a team's coaches, cheerleaders, and spectators start booing the players on the field, that's when the team has officially lost. Even if they're up in points, the game isn't going to end in their favor. This can be said for Republican governors up for re-election next year in several states. Here are four ways that open class war is being waged in more euphemistic terms:

1. Class war masquerading as "jobs creation"

In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker's agenda of upward wealth redistribution has been proven to be a failure by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. Chamber ranked Walker's Wisconsin 44th out of 50 states in overall economic performance and dead last in short-term job growth. Ironically, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce paid Gov. Walker to speak at their "small business summit" in Washington D.C. just before harshly ranking his economy in their report. I called him out on these facts at a recent public meeting, though he didn't give me an answer. You can see the video here (skip to the 1 minute mark).

Walker ran on a promise of creating 250,000 new jobs in Wisconsin by the end of his first term in office. After roughly 3 years, Walker has met only 20% of his goal, despite Wisconsin's having one of the most conservative state legislatures in decades. With 60 Republicans, the Wisconsin State Assembly is about as far to the right as the U.S. House of Representatives, and the GOP still enjoys a 3-seat majority in the state Senate. It isn't that the legislature is obstructing Walker's jobs agenda - rather, Walker's economic agenda is obstructing progress on job growth.

2. Class war disguised as "economic recovery"

This lackadaisical economy isn't accidental. It's a product of the class war that has been waged for the last three decades, and as Warren Buffett has said, "my side is winning." Even though we often hear about the economic "recovery" in the media, it has only really happened for the top 1 percent of the country. American income inequality is already literally off the charts. Between 1970 and 2010, median income for middle-class households fell by an average of 5 percent. Meanwhile, the richest 1 percent of the population got 93 percent of all income growth as recently as 2010. The Dow Jones and the S&P 500 have rallied to historic new highs several times already this year. This is because corporate profits are only trickling down to executives who buy up company stock and make their options more valuable, rather than sharing them with the workers who sweated to make it happen.

3. Class war disguised as "business-friendly" tax policies

Even though the rich were getting richer anyway, our tax code has shifted in the last 30 years to allow the wealthiest to get exponentially richer through the addition of multiple loopholes and exemptions that apply to only the smallest fraction of the country. Governors like Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Rick Snyder in Michigan have all overseen a vast upward redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, and those states' economies have suffered as a result. In Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Corbett is presiding over a period of unemployment significantly higher than the national average. Rather than take responsibility for failed austerity-based economic policies of cutting public services to pay for corporate tax breaks, Corbett is blaming his own constituents, alleging they're all too high on drugs to get jobs.

4. Class war disguised as "fiscal prudence"

Economists have said for awhile now that while the private sector has recovered all the jobs lost since the recession, the economy is still lagging because of public sector job losses. It should be common sense to anyone that if you put thousands of public employees out of work with budget cuts, that means less money circulating in local economies and fueling demand for small businesses. Businesses don't stay open because of low tax rates, they stay open because there are enough customers with extra income to spend on buying products. As 28-year-old Thomas Herndon proved in his debunking of the entire basis for austerity economics, government debt doesn't slow economic growth - rather, measures aimed at cutting government debt slow economic growth. And it always ends up with the poor sacrificing the little they have so the rich can keep theirs and continue to acquire more.

All the numbers are out there to disprove the agendas perpetuated by Scott Walker and his ilk as economic panaceas. The cruel process of depriving state governments of necessary funds to reward the corporate elite is nothing but class war. The class warrior governors who took office in 2010 like Walker, Snyder, and Corbett are all up for re-election next year. Let's show them what unemployment feels like in November of 2014.



Carl Gibson, 26, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nationwide creative direct-action movement that mobilized tens of thousands of activists against corporate tax avoidance and budget cuts in the months leading up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary "We're Not Broke," which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. He currently lives in Madison, Wisconsin. You can contact him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and follow him on twitter at @uncutCG.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Obama, Putin Agree Never to Speak to Each Other Again Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Wednesday, 19 June 2013 11:53

Borowitz writes: "The G8 summit ended today on a constructive note, with President Obama and Russia's Vladimir Putin reaching a broad agreement never to speak to each other again."

Borowitz: 'After signing the agreement, the two men shook hands for the final time and scowled bitterly for photographers.' (photo: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)
Borowitz: 'After signing the agreement, the two men shook hands for the final time and scowled bitterly for photographers.' (photo: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)



Obama, Putin Agree Never to Speak to Each Other Again

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

19 June 13

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."

he G8 summit ended today on a constructive note, with President Obama and Russia's Vladimir Putin reaching a broad agreement never to speak to each other again.

"It's better this way," said Mr. Obama, frostily standing in the general vicinity of Mr. Putin for the last time ever. "We truly despise each other."

"I couldn't agree more," said Mr. Putin, looking as though he had just smelled something bad. "My hatred of this man knows no bounds."

According to the agreement, economic cooperation, cyber security, human rights, the war in Syria, and the New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft's missing Super Bowl ring are among thirty-seven different topics that the two men will never again discuss.

Additionally, at all future summits, if either Mr. Obama or Mr. Putin enters a room the other man will be obligated to leave immediately.

The two men reached agreement on an unprecedented number of points, including never contacting each other via telephone or e-mail and keeping a minimum of five hundred feet away from each other's residences.

After signing the agreement, the two men shook hands for the final time and scowled bitterly for photographers.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3091 3092 3093 3094 3095 3096 3097 3098 3099 3100 Next > End >>

Page 3095 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN