United States Among Worst Offenders in Surveilling Citizens
WITH PRIVACY PROTECTIONS IN WORLDWIDE RETREAT, NATION FINDS ITSELF RANKED BESIDE CHINA AND RUSSIA
Privacy International, the oldest privacy advocacy group in the world, each year issues a comprehensive report on the state of surveillance and privacy protection in some 70 countries around the globe. The results are more than a bit disturbing and provide another painful example of the erosion of civil liberties in the post 9/11 America.
Accompanying the report is a color coded map of the world, which highlights the hostility with which a given country regards privacy protection. Teal colored countries - the highest rating - are those that consistently uphold human rights standards, while dark green offers significant protections and safeguards. There was not a country in the world that earned either of the top two ratings. The 3rd highest ranking, shown in a lighter shade of green, suggests a country has adequate protections against abuse. Only 1 country enjoyed this adequate rating - Greece.
Most disturbing about the report is the worldwide trend towards diminishing protection. In the previous year 5 countries - Germany, Canada, Greece, Belgium, and Austria - were rated either adequate or above. All but Greece have seen an erosion in privacy protections.
There is a array of disquieting information in the report, but one item stood out as being the most unsettling. The color black is reserved for the most endemic surveillance societies. Most of the countries that list are the usual collection of human rights rogues: China, Thailand, Russia, Singapore, and Taiwan. No major surprises there, but hold on to your hat for this next one - The United States. Despite the shifting political situation in the US Congress, surveillance initiatives in the United States are expanding at a fierce rate against foreigners and citizens alike. In terms of statutory protections and privacy protections, the US ranked dead last among democratic nations. Britain was also listed as a black nation - the only such European nation with the ugly designation, but scored higher than the US among individual privacy metrics, albeit modestly.
Granted, there are many mega-trends in place that are responsible for the rise in governmental surveillance, including the rise of private security firms, enhanced technologies such as GPS, internet, database linkages, and enhanced law enforcement systems. This would help explain the overall worldwide trend, but this dastardly environment in the US is tied no doubt to an administration that is openly hostile to anything that impedes it’s power, civil liberties and privacy be damned.
While it certainly doesn’t appear that the global trend will be reversing itself anytime soon, any US citizen the least bit concerned about preserving their rights needs to ask themself whether an Obama administration or McCain administration is more likely to arrest the trend. Their records and positions on these issues are quite clear. It was Barack Obama who voted to protect our rights under the Foreign Inteligence Surveliance Act, not John McCain.
Sphere: Related ContentDispelling the Obama Rumors
With all the disinformation floating around about Barack Obama, rumors that otherwise fairminded people have bought into, it seemed time to set the record straight. Watch this for the truth:
Sphere: Related ContentElectoral Predictions for General Election
By every reasonable metric the Democrats should enjoy overwhelming success this November. With the economy, war, and demographic trends on their side, coupled with the Obama Campaign’s efforts to rewrite the traditional Democratic map, states that had traditionally been ceded to the Republican’s will now be in play.
Building on John Kerry’s results in 2004 and factoring in Obama’s aggressive voter registration campaigns, demographics shifts, primary polling, I’ve put together the following map as to how I see this November playing out. You’ll notice that key battleground states of Florida and Ohio are assumed to go to McCain, yet Barack Obama still emerges victorious. Such a result hinges on the Democrat successfully plucking Colorado, Montana, and North Carolina from the Republican column.
An Alternate Take on Operation Chaos
The conventional wisdom suggests that Operation Chaos - the Rush Limbaugh call for Republicans to cross party lines and vote in Democratic primaries for Hillary - was being employed because Republican’s viewed Hillary as the weaker opponent come the general election. Let me suggest an alternative theory: Conservative talk radio, led by Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Hannity might actually clamor for a Hillary Clinton presidency, seeing it as a steady diet of red meat for their rabid following. It’s the mirror image of the theory that Jeremiah Wright wants Obama defeated to keep himself powerful and perpetuate the arguement of black suppression.
Sphere: Related ContentWhy Indiana Matters
With the demographics of North Carolina heavily favoring Barack Obama, a win there is a near certainty for the Democratic frontrunner. More telling on the Senators prospects and the ultimate resolution of this endless Democratic primary will be the outcome of Indiana.
Where the Obama campaign has failed thus far is cutting into Clinton’s base—woman, seniors, blue-collar males—in the big states. The just completed Pennsylvania primary reinforced this worrisome trend, a trend that saw Obama unable to break out of the high 30% range in these key Democratic constituencies.   The Democrats cannot afford to put states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania in play in the general. In fact, no Democrat in the last 50 years has ever won the white house without winning Pennsylvania, a fact Hillary’s campaign has been repeatedly reminding the super delegates of.
Obama’s inability to win over these former Reagan Democrats has given Clinton a rationale for forging on. Obama needs to find a way to connect with these groups, for they make up a sizable chunk of the Indiana electorate. Doing so will put to rest much of the questions regarding his electability and likely put an end to Clinton’s white house bid, a development that would allow the Illinois senator to move to the center and better position himself against John McCain.
Sphere: Related ContentObama asks What’s the matter with Pennsylvania?
You would think a low income worker would be more impacted by the loss of his job than he would by gays in the military. You’d think that the rising cost of gasoline, bread, and milk would have a greater bearing on his life than would creationism being taught in school. You would think that not having health insurance during a medical crisis would be more painful than reinstating the inheritance tax - a tax they are unlikely to ever pay. What then explains the cognitive dissonance of so many on the lower rungs of the economic ladder consistently voting in support of a party that is hostile to their interests? Why do so many states in America’s heartland vote Republican?
Kansas used to be a hotbed of leftist activism, but is today so conservative that the partisan line in that state resides between the hard and moderate right with the left out of the equation altogether. The issue of economy has been extricated from the political debate replaced by a culture war that is so puzzling that it leads one to raise the question what is the matter with Kansas? That was in fact the title of Thomas Frank’s seminal work where this grand mystery of America was explored.
Barack Obama touched on this question at a fundraiser this week in remarks that were nothing but honest if not nuanced. Obama touched off a firestorm with Republicans and Democratic foes branding him as elitist and “out of touch”. Nothing Obama said deviated from reality.
The Republican reaction is not only predictable, but what is needed to keep this culture war rolling in perpetuity. Just look at the attack line, with words of elitism and hints of racism. It plays to our worst fears and tendencies at the expense of an honest and open discussion. But that’s what you do to keep the red states voting red.
Sphere: Related ContentContext is a funny thing…
The mainstream media have been playing Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 comments endlessly, but what they are showing you is a misleading excerpt, lacking context. I am convinced that if the video was not improperly edited and shown as it was delivered (below) that there would have been no controversy at all. But then how would they get John McCain elected?
Sphere: Related ContentObama’s historic speech strikes the perfect chord
 
In the 2001 World Series, New York Yankee 2nd baseman Alfonso Soriano hit a game and series tying home run in extra innings that seemed to turn the momentum of the series. I remember thinking at the time tht if the Yankees went on to win the series that the homer would go down as one of the great moments in Yankee lore. Well, the Yankees lost the series to Arizona and that Soriano homerun is barely a footnote to what was a historic series. I had similar thoughts today when watching Barack Obama deliver a historic speech on race relations in America. My thought was that if Obama goes on to secure the Democratic nomination and then defeats John McCain for the presidency that this speech will not only prove to be the pivotal point of the Democratic campaign, but will go down in history as one of the great all-time examples of political rhetoric right along with King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.
Obama had a very difficult path to travel today in finding a way to put Reverand Wright’s inflamatory rhetoric behind while not throwing a man he has stated was a close friend and influential character in his life under the bus. At the same time, Obama had to address the issue of judgement and why he chose Wright and the Trinity Church out of all the places he could have worshipped and at the same time explain how he could sit in that pew for two decades, listening to his pastor’s provactive comments without cause for concern.  For my money the Senator struck the perfect balance and delivered on all points. The speech he gave was intelectually nuanced, passionate, and honest, though never expedient. Most impressive to me was that Obama - knowing the political cost of doing so - refused to distance himself from Wright, saying that to do so would equate to “distancing (him)self from the black community.” I have more respect for him that he would stand by his friend even with polls showing that 92% of Ameriocans disapprove of him than had he thrown the man overboard. This speaks volumes about Obama’s character.
I actually think as we move ahead from this moment that the Wright debacle will ultimately have helped Obama. On the one hand there are certainly no longer questions about Obama being a Muslim. More importantly, Obama’s speech highlighted the deep fissures that still exist in this country and the work that still needs to be done to heal the racial scars that have come from years of injustice. It’s hard to imagine that anyone who heard the speech didn’t come away thinking that there is both much work to be done on this issue and that Barack Obama is a candidate uniquely qualified to tackle this gigantic issue.
I hope and pray America sees it the same way, for I believe we would be extremely lucky to have Barack Obama as our president.
Sphere: Related ContentOlbermann’s Special Comment for the Ages
“This way madness lies.”Â
Clinton has obviously calculated that the racial overtones being floated by her surrogates are more helpful to her goal than is any potential fallout. It’s The Democratic party be damned. Polls show she isn’t getting any of the African American vote in her battle against Obama, so why not polarize the whites and position this as a race war? Sure it will kill the party in the intermediate and long term, but that’s not her problem.
Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment is particularly notable as he has always been an ardent Clinton supporter.
Sphere: Related ContentObama finally rebuts Clinton’s absurd experience claim
The Obama camp has stripped off the gloves and launched an utterly brilliant attack on the lie that is Clinton’s vast foreign policy experience. Obama foreign policy advisor Greg Craig, formerly lead counsel for the Clinton impeachment team, issued the following memo, rebutting point by point each of Clinton’s specious “experience” claims:
There is no reason to believe…that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis…
The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.†That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.
Finally they are calling Clinton to task on this absurdity. It never made a lick of sense to me why these claims were just being accepted as reality. I was a financial advisor several years back. Are you going to feel comfortable calling my wife to implement complex options strategies as a hedge against currency fluctuations? I hope the Obama camp stays relentless on this point, as it undermines the very foundation of the Clinton strategy.   Here is more:
Sphere: Related ContentWhen your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test†is simply not supported by her record.
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.
When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.
Northern Ireland:
Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.†It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.†With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.â€
News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times.” Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.â€
Bosnia:
Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.â€
Kosovo:
Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.†It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,†however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.
The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.†Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.â€
Rwanda:
Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.
At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.
Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.
China
Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.
Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.†In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.†He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,†and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.†He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.â€
If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced†men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.
Conclusion:
The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.†That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.
On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.†As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.†In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.
Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader — an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.
And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.
