BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION Concerns about deployment of military on U.S. soil growing Naomi Wolf

[seemslikeadream]

Concerns about deployment of military on U.S. soil growing -- while mainstream media buries its head in the sand: Naomi Wolf

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 9:40am. Guest Contribution

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Naomi Wolf

The following is the spin of military spokespeople in response to questions about the deployment of the First Brigade on US soil for the first time in over 200 years.


The Army Times initially reported that the First Brigade would handle domestic crowd control and subduing 'unruly individuals' and that they had 'lethal and nonlethal technologies' to do so. Then it issued a correction declaring that the 'nonlethal' package was not for domestic crowd control. Then after a hue and cry was raised by many citizens, Northern Command (NorthCom) offered a wholesale revision of their mission – and the mainstream media is eating it up. Here is an excerpt from the articled linked to in the previous sentence:


Despite conspiracy theories that this could be a first step toward martial law in the U.S., there won't be tanks on Main Street or active-duty troops putting down demonstrations. That is barred by federal law banning the military from being used on U.S. soil for domestic law enforcement.


Instead, the soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Ga., have been training to back up civilian authorities in providing medical care and dealing with chemical, biological, high explosive or nuclear attack.


Not only does this entirely contradict the first Army Times reports, it also egregiously misrepresents to readers the status of US law in regards to this deployment. Yes, there are laws against military policing on US streets -- they are part of both the 1807 Insurrection Act and 1879's Posse Comitatus Act -- but the Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gutted them.


Congress restored some limitations on the President's ability to deploy troops to engage in military policing in 2008 -- but President Bush issued a signing statement declaring he did not feel bound by those limitations. He also can direct these troops -- and the National Guard, and Blackwater -- to engage in military policing of civilian populations simply by verbally and unilaterally declaring a national emergency of whatever kind he wishes.


Unfortunately, the US Army spokespeople are parsing their words and misleading us. And, whatever the stated mission is today, the fact remains that military up the chain of command report to the Commander in Chief -- not to Congress or to you and me, and not to the Governors as most of the National Guard do.


Why do I insist on raising an alarm about this deployment in spite of a great deal of opposition and criticism? (Though I am grateful, too, for a great deal of support.) I insist on raising an alarm because I am aware of world events and not just blinded by American recent history.

In Zimbabwe, a nominal democracy, President Mugabe sent troops to harass, arrest and even kill voters during a closely contested election. Mugabe's challenger called off his own supporters, telling them they should not risk being killed just in order to vote.


In Sierra Leone, a nation I visited shortly after elections, during a fragile democratic voting process troops and militias were both deployed by the contesting political parties to intimidate, beat and arrest voters. In Azerbaijan, troops were sent to intimidate the opposition during the elections -- and now there is no meaningful opposition. Don't trust me -- ask Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. Troops are sent by leaders in power, even in weakening democracies, to intimidate voters, arrest and harass opposition leaders in tightly fought elections, all over the damn world.

[seemslikeadream]

1. Why Wont The Bail Out Work?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/business/economy/23rating.html?hp


WASHINGTON — Conflicts of interest were largely responsible for the disastrous performance of credit rating agencies in assessing the risks of mortgage-backed securities, two former high-ranking officials at Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s said Wednesday in Congressional testimony.

The securities issuers pay the agencies to issue ratings, and the agencies’ interests can eclipse those of investors, Jerome S. Fons, who was the managing director for credit policy at Moody’s until 2007, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

“While the methods used to rate structured securities have rightly come under fire, in my opinion the business model prevented analysts from putting investor interests first,” he said.

And Frank L. Raiter, who was the head of mortgage ratings at Standard & Poor’s for 10 years, characterized the failures at that company by saying simply: “Profits were running the show.”

The hearings on the role played by the rating agencies in the financial crisis were convened by Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, who is chairman of the committee. It was the panel’s third hearing on the crisis. Others focused on the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the bailout of the American International Group.

“The story of the credit rating agencies is a story of colossal failure,” Mr. Waxman said. “The credit rating agencies occupy a special place in our financial markets. Millions of investors rely on them for independent, objective assessments. The rating agencies broke this bond of trust, and federal regulators ignored the warning signs and did nothing to protect the public.”



http://www.cspan.org/
Hearing on Credit Rating Agencies



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9-tBGxVU6o

[seemslikeadream]

2. Lawmakers Blame Execs for Meltdown

Congress Grilled Credit Rating Executives on Capitol Hill Today

By JUSTIN ROOD and TOM SHINE
October 22, 2008


Angry lawmakers from both parties assailed the top dogs of the big three credit rating companies Wednesday morning, assigning severe blame for the financial crisis on their firms' failure to assess the risk of trillions in subprime-mortgage related investments.

Fitch Ratings President and CEO Stephen Joynt, left, and Moody's Chairman and CEO Raymond W. McDaniel take the oath on Capitol Hill in Washington, today prior to testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
(Lawrence Jackson/AP Photo )
"You're the gatekeepers, you're the guys," chided a visibly frustrated Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. "You're the ones who make all the money. That's why you're there. Now we face a situation where we've got a house of cards that has fallen, and here we are trying to resurrect it."


"The story of the credit rating agencies is a story of colossal failure," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee told the men who appeared before his committee this morning. "The result is that our entire financial system is now at risk."




"It's clear greed led to not just, 'see no evil, hear no evil,' but 'report no evil,'" charged Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind. "I believe there is possible legal culpability."


Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, agreed, calling the situation "criminal."



Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., charged the firms, which took fees from the investment banks which were packaging and selling the mortgage-backed securities they were rating so highly, had "sold their independence to the highest bidder."


Confidential documents obtained by Waxman's investigators show that the firms' executives anticipated much of what has happened, and were aware that their ratings were quite possibly shaky, according to the chairman.


"It could be structured by cows and we would rate it," one Standard & Poor's employee wrote in a company email cited by Waxman. "Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters," wrote another in an email obtained by Waxman's committee.



House Oversight Cmte. Hearing on the Credit Rating Agencies
http://www.cspan.org/Recent/Default.aspx