Saturday 29 October 2011

When the Government Lies


The Department of Justice has proposed federal regulations that would authorize the United States government to lie to the American people. This sounds bad, but in truth it's a big step forward. In the past, the government would simply have lied, without announcing its intention to do so. This was certainly true, for example, during the administrations of Lyndon Johnson (Gulf of Tonkin), Richard Nixon (Watergate) and Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra). The Obama administration, reflecting an admirable commitment to transparency, wants everyone to know it will lie.
This is not as crazy as it seems. The issue concerns the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which requires the government to reveal certain information to the public upon request. The government does not have to reveal all information, however. FOIA permits the government to refuse to reveal certain types of confidential information. For example, §522(c) provides that the government need not disclose information if its disclosure would jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation, reveal the identity of a confidential informant, or divulge classified information pertaining to foreign intelligence, counterintelligence or international terrorism.
When someone files a FOIA request for such information, the government is authorized under existing regulations to refuse the request by explaining that such information is exempt from disclosure. Recently, however, the Department of Justice concluded that this response does not adequately protect the government. The government's concern is that this response implies that the government has the information requested, a disclosure that might in itself cause some harm to the government.
To address this concern, the Department of Justice has proposed to amend the FOIA regulations to provide that, in such circumstances, the government will respond to such requests by saying that it has no such records, even if it does. In other words, it will lie.

For example, suppose a reporter wants to know whether the FBI is investigating a mayor for corruption. The reporter files a FOIA request asking for any records involving such an investigation. The government's concern is that if it responds by saying that such information is exempt from disclosure, the reporter will naturally infer that the government is in fact investigating the mayor, because otherwise the government would have said (honestly) that it has no record of any such investigation. By claiming the exemption, the government is tacitly admitting that it does have records of such an investigation. It's easy to understand why the government might legitimately not want the reporter (and thus the public and the mayor) to know about the ongoing investigation. If the government has to lie in order to prevent the investigation from being exposed, it's easy to see why the government might want to do so.
Of course, as a general proposition it is not good for the government to lie to its citizens. Must it do so in this situation in order to achieve its legitimate ends? Critics of the proposed rule change argue that it is unnecessary for the government to lie, because it can instead craft a response that elides the issue. In opposing the proposed authorization to lie, the American Civil Liberties Union, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government and OpenTheGovernment.org have suggested that the government can serve its legitimate interests simply by responding to such requests by saying, honestly, "you have requested records which, even if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA." They argue that this response fully serves the government's interest because it not even implicitly admit that such records exist.
Let's see if this works. Suppose that, in the investigation of the mayor example, the reporter files a FOIA request seeking any FBI records relating to the mayor. The government responds, "you have requested records which, even if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA." Ooops. There is a problem here. Recall that the government is authorized to withhold information in this situation only if the disclosure of the information "would jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation." By invoking the exemption, even in the form suggested by the critics of the rule change, the government is necessarily admitting that there is "an ongoing criminal investigation," which is precisely what it doesn't want to disclose. The critics' solution doesn't work in this situation.
The Department of Justice's proposed amendment would allow the government in this situation to respond to the FOIA request by stating falsely that there are no records involving the mayor. Does this solve the government's problem? The theory is that this response will persuade people that there is no investigation of the mayor. This might work if people believed the government's response. But once the government says explicitly in its own regulations that it will lie about whether it has the requested records, the statement that it does not have the records has absolutely no credibility. In effect, then, the government gains little, if anything by honestly lying. Its mistake is not to lie, but to proclaim that it will lie, for its very honesty undermines the value of its deceit.
It would be best for the Department of Justice to go back to the drawing boards.

Tuesday 25 October 2011

The Man Who Knew Too Much


Libyans may be celebrating the killing of Muammar al-Qaddafi, but you'd better believe that Western governments are breathing a sigh of relief themselves.

BY DAVID RIEFF | OCTOBER 24, 2011

Whether the NATO countries -- who had only a few years ago welcomed Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi back into the international fold in exchange for his renouncing his chemical and nuclear weapons programs and allowing U.S. and British experts to come and help dismantle them -- played any role in what certainly appeared in first reports from the scene to have been the summary execution of the Libyan dictator will probably never be known. What the video evidence does prove is that the Libyan revolutionary forces did not find him already dead or killed by a NATO airstrike; nor does the initial claim that he was killed in "crossfire" between insurgent forces and diehard regime loyalists stand up to even the most minimal scrutiny.
NATO does acknowledge that its planes bombarded the convoy in which Qaddafi was fleeing the city of Sirte shortly before it was intercepted on the ground by the insurgents, but it has denied it even knew he was there. If that is true, and the French, British, and Americans did not try to make their own luck, then they certainly were very lucky indeed.
Qaddafi was, quite simply, a man who knew too much. Taken alive, he would have almost certainly have been handed over to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which had indicted him -- along with his son, Saif al-Islam, and brother-in-law and military intelligence chief Abdullah Senussi (whereabouts unknown) -- for crimes against humanity in late June. Imagine the stir he would have made in The Hague. There, along with any number of fantasies and false accusations, he would almost certainly have revealed the extent of his intimate relations with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the details of his government's collaboration with Western intelligence services in counterterrorism, with the European Union in limiting migration from Libyan shores, and in the granting of major contracts to big Western oil and construction firms.
He would have had much to tell, for this cooperation was extensive. In the war against the jihadis -- a war to which Qaddafi regularly claimed to be as committed to prosecuting as Washington, Paris, or London -- links between Libyan intelligence and the CIA were particularly strong, as an archive of secret documents unearthed by Human Rights Watch researchers has revealed. If anything, the CIA's British counterpart, MI6, was even more involved with the Qaddafi family. As the Guardianreported in early September, it was Sir Mark Allen, then the director of the counterterrorism section of MI6, the British overseas spying agency, who was the key figure on the Western side in the secret negotiations to get Qaddafi to give up his WMD programs. The Guardian story further laid out how, after failing to become director of MI6 in 2004, Allen went into the private sector, becoming a senior advisor to the Monitor Group, a consulting firm that was paid huge fees by Qaddafi to burnish his image around the world, and, while they were at it, helped Saif (who had been his father's initial envoy to MI6) research his PhD thesis for the London School of Economics (LSE). Allen was also an advisor to BP, helping the oil giant secure major contracts in Libya from the Qaddafi regime.
The idea that Allen was the only senior Western official to establish such close ties with the Libyan dictator and his family is ludicrous. To the contrary, both the British and French governments were soon falling all over themselves to curry favor with a newly "respectable" Qaddafi. The Daily Mailreproduced a facsimile of the letter that, while prime minister, Tony Blair wrote to Saif Qaddafi to help him with his research for his LSE doctorate. Both during Blair's premiership and that of his successor, Gordon Brown, Britain aggressively pursued sales of military equipment, up to and including warships, to the Libyan regime, and sent members of the elite Special Air Service (SAS, the equivalent of the U.S. Delta Force) to help train Qaddafi's forces in counterterrorism tactics. Not to be outdone, Sarkozy, to the consternation even of many members of his own cabinet, invited Qaddafi to Paris in Dec. 2007, for an official state visit, the upshot of which was billions of dollars in contracts from Libya won by French firms.
To be sure, when the Libyan uprising began, it was Sarkozy who was the driving force behind the NATO intervention that -- though it was ostensibly carrying out United Nations Security Council resolutions to protect Libyan civilians from Qaddafi and his forces under the new doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) -- soon far exceeded its mandate. The Libya intervention revealed itself to be based on the premise that, in Libya at least, R2P and regime change could be one and the same. Moreover, from the beginning of the air campaign, NATO warplanes repeatedly targeted Qaddafi, his sons, and their families. As early as May, General Sir David Richards, the chief of the British defense staff (that is, the equivalent of our head of the Joint Chiefs), told the Daily Telegraph that while NATO was not targeting Qaddafi directly, "If it happened that he was in a command and control center that was hit by NATO and he was killed, then that is within the rules."
Many outside observers were convinced even at the time that NATO was in fact desperately hoping to kill Qaddafi since it was clear by then -- especially during a period when the tide seemed to shift back and forth between Qaddafi's forces and the rebels -- that he would not relinquish power, no matter what offers were made to him in exchange for doing so. Their suspicions were confirmed when a member of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Mike Turner (R-Ohio), revealed that he had been told by Admiral Samuel Locklear, the U.S. officer commanding NATO's Joint Operations Command in Naples, Italy, that NATO forces actually were actively targetingQaddafi.
Qaddafi's death in such a strike would have offered a neat ending then for the West and for the Libyan insurgency, many of whose leaders, it should be remembered, served Qaddafi long and faithfully, enjoying his favors for much of their careers. Qaddafi certainly knew enough about their sins to make the prospect of what he might say during a trial before the ICC a cause for anxiety. His death, coming as it seems to have done, at the hands of Libyans rather than NATO,  makes an even neater ending now.
Qaddafi is dead, the Arab Spring has one more jewel in its crown, and the doctrine of humanitarian military intervention, whose reputation has rather faded of late, seems to have acquired a whole new bloom. The Arab masses thirsting for democracy, the Western powers using their power in support of this morally irreproachable goal -- what could be more edifying?
And so, ever since it became clear that Qaddafi's reign was over, the great and the good have been indulging themselves in an orgy of self-congratulation. Qaddafi alive would have been the ghost at that particular banquet, threatening at any moment to spoil the fun. Dead, he poses no such threat. It is unlikely that even the thorough investigation into the circumstances of his death that has been called for by Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and seconded by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, will change this fundamental equation. And even if Qaddafi was not targeted and, as Omran al-Oweib, the electrical engineer-turned-rebel leader who commanded the forces that finally caught up with Qaddafi in a tunnel just outside Sirte, continues to insist, really was killed in a crossfire, leaders like Sarkozy, Blair, Brown, and the Bush State Department must surely be sleeping better these last few nights. Whether they deserve to is another question entirely.

Thursday 13 October 2011

The $1trillion jackpot: U.S. discovers vast natural deposits of gold, iron, copper and lithium in Afghanistan


American geologists have discovered a hidden treasure trove of minerals in  Afghanistan that could transform the fortunes of the war-scarred country.
The untapped deposits - including huge veins of gold, iron, copper, cobalt and  key industrial metals like lithium - have been valued at more than £820billion.
US experts believe the find could turn Afghanistan from a bedraggled nation torn apart by generations of conflict into one of the most important mining centres in the world.
Stunning potential: Afghanistan has nearly $1trillion in untouched mineral deposits including lithium
Stunning potential: Afghanistan has nearly $1trillion in untouched mineral deposits including lithium
An internal Pentagon memo suggests Afghanistan could become the ‘Saudi Arabia of lithium,’ a vital raw material used to make batteries for computers and BlackBerry phones.
‘There is stunning potential here,’ said General David Petraeus, the top US commander in the region. ‘There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant,’ he added.
The mineral jackpot is certain to throw a new light on the US-led nine-year war in Afghanistan and President Obama’s surge to reclaim lost ground in the south of the country.
General David Petraeus
General David Petraeus, right, pictured last week in London, said there was 'stunning potential' after American geologists discovered a hidden treasure trove of minerals in Afghanistan
Some of the richest ores are said to be scattered along Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan that has been the scene of some of the most deadly combat and is thought to be the hiding place of Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.
Cynics claimed today that details of the discovery were leaked out because the US administration was desperate for some good news at a time the military offensive was achieving only limited gains against the Taliban and Afghan President Hamid Karzai appears increasingly embittered towards the White House.
It will also raise question marks over the motives behind the long and costly war launched in the wake of the 9/11attacks.
The potential value of the mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s current economy, which is based largely on American aid and illicit opium production.
‘This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,’ Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines told the New York Times.
But analysts fear that rather than provide a boon to help bring peace to the Afghans, it could end up causing a violent power struggle between the government in Kabul and provincial and tribal leaders in mineral-rich areas.
It could also cause friction between the U.S., which has made heavy investment in Afghanistan, and China and Russia, who are both eager to stake a claim for a share of the riches.
Vast mineral reservers: Spanish soldiers of NATO's International Security Assistance Force visit a coal mining camp, in Herat, Afghanistan
Vast mineral reservers: Spanish soldiers of NATO's International Security Assistance Force visit a coal mining camp, in Herat, Afghanistan. Now the task is to mine untouched mineral deposits including lithium, iron, copper, cobalt and gold
With no mining industry to build on, experts say it will probably take decades to exploit the deposits.
‘This is a country that has no mining culture. They have had some small artisanal mines, but now there could be some very, very large mines that will require more than just a gold pan,’ said Jack Medlin, of the United States Geological Survey’s international affairs programme.
‘On the ground it's very, very promising. Actually it’s pretty amazing,’ he told the Times.
The find was the result of the most comprehensive survey of Afghanistan, carried out in 2007 using an old British bomber equipped with sophisticated instruments that offered a 3-D profile of mineral deposits below the earth’s surface.
The data went largely ignored until last year when a Pentagon task force brought in U.S. mining experts to validate the survey’s conclusions.
So far, the biggest mineral deposits discovered are of iron and copper, but  finds include large deposits of niobium, a soft metal used in producing superconducting steel, as well as rare earth elements and large gold deposits in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan.

So just what DOES lithium do?

Inside the high-power battery
In its metallic form, lithium is silvery and the lightest of all metals. Most people will remember it from school chemistry lessons when it violently whizzes around on the surface after being dropped into water. The reaction is so vigorous that the metal becomes red hot. 
One of the big problems with the metal is that it is highly corrosive and can catch fire spontaneously - in the science lab it has to be stored under oil to prevent its violent oxidisation. 
The first commercial lithium-ion battery was released by Sony in 1991, a massive development that revolutionised consumer electronics. 
Lithium-ion batteries are filled with a pressurised lithium salt dissolved in an organic solvent, usually ether, with two electrodes and a separator made of non-conductive micro-perforated plastic sandwiched between them. When part of a circuit, lithium ions move from the negative electrode made from carbon (the anode) to a positive electrode (the cathode) made from lithium cobalt oxide, freeing electrons which then travel round the circuit, so creating power. 
The batteries are re-charged by applying power to the battery. This forces the ions to move back to the negative electrode and so the process can start over again. 
Lithium batteries are light, and have a low self-discharge rate at about five per cent a month. They are far more powerful than comparable batteries using other chemical mixes. 
They are available in many shapes and sizes. The battery packs used in electric cars will contain several batteries strapped together to create one unit. 
Lithium-ion batteries have a long shelf life, but eventually they stop holding their charge. They are extremely toxic and need to be recycled.

We Are the 99 Per Cent


Occupy Wall Street is a peaceful stand against the big American rip-off. Support it and regain your dignity

I have spent the last two days at the Occupy Wall Street gathering. It was a beautiful display of peaceful action: so much kindness and gentleness in the camp, so much belief in our world and democracy. And so many different kinds of people all looking for a chance at the dream that America had promised them.America has been debased and degraded by greed. This has touched 99% of America's population. The other 1% is doing just fine – with more than a third of the wealth of this nation. (photo: Paul Stein)
When people critique this movement and say spurious things about the protesters' clothes or their jobs or the general way they look, they are showing how shallow we have become as a nation. They forget that these people have taken time out of their lives to stand up for values that are purely American and in the interest of our democracy. They forget that these people are encamped in an urban park, where they are not allowed to have tents or other normal camping gear. They are living far outside their comfort zone to protect and celebrate liberty, equality and the rule of law.
It is a thing of beauty to see so many people in love with the ideal of democracy, so alive with its promise, so committed to its continuity in the face of crony capitalism and corporate rule. That should be celebrated. It should be respected and admired.
Their message is very clear and simple: get money out of the political process; strive for equality in taxation and equal rights for all regardless of race, gender, social status, sexual preference or age. We must stop poisoning our food, air and water for corporate greed. The people on Wall Street and in the banking industrial complex that destroyed our economy must be investigated and brought to justice under the law for what they have done by stealing people's homes and savings.
Jobs can and must be created. Family farms must be saved. The oil and gas industry must be divested of its political power and cheap, reliable alternative energy must be made available.
This movement transcends political affiliations. America has been debased and degraded by greed. This has touched 99% of America's population. The other 1% is doing just fine – with more than a third of the wealth of this nation. We all know people who have been hurt by the big rip-off. We all know people who have lost their jobs or their homes. We all know people who have had to go and fight wars that seem to have no objective and no end – leaving families for years on end without fathers, mothers, sons and daughters.
The 99% of us have paid a dear price so that 1% could become the wealthiest people in the world. We all pay insanely high energy prices while we see energy companies making record profits, year after year. We live with great injustices in the land of justice. We live with great lawlessness in the land of the law.
It's time to check ourselves, to see if we still have that small part that believes in the values that America promises. Do we still have a shred of our decency intact in the face of debasement? If you do, then now is the time to give that forgotten part a voice. That is what this movement is ultimately about: giving voice to decency and fairness.
I invite anyone and all to participate in this people's movement to regain your dignity and what you have worked for in this capitalist society. Each of us is of great value to the whole. Do not forget your greatness. Even when the world around you is telling you you are nothing. You have a voice. You want a better life for your children and the people you love. You live in a democracy. You belong, and you deserve a world that is fair and equal. You have a right to take your place and be heard.
Show up at an Occupy Wall Street gathering in any major city in the US. Hit your social media outlets. Tweet it. Facebook it. Talk it up. It's easy to do nothing, but your heart breaks a little more every time you do.